Bangalore District Court
K.C. Lakshmamma vs Narasaraju.A.N on 20 June, 2024
KABC030390952019
Presented on : 01-06-2019
Registered on : 01-06-2019
Decided on : 20-06-2024
Duration : 5 years, 0 months, 19 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU
PRESENT
SMT.LATHA .J, B.COM, LL.B.,
XXXII Addl.C.M.M, Bengaluru
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2024
Criminal Case No.12097/2019
Complainant : The State through
Police Inspector,
Nandini Layout Police Station
( By Asst. Public Prosecutor )
--- V/s ---
Accused : NarasaRaju.A.N,
S/o.Late.Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at.No.52, 7th cross, Chowdeshwari
Nagar, Laggere, Bengaluru.
(Accused Rept.by.Sri.Devaraj.A.S...Adv.,)
Date of commencement : In between 01.01.2000 and
of offence 21.09.2018
2
C.C.12097/2019
Date of report of offence : 23.09.2018
Arrest of the Accused : ---
Name of the Informant : Lakshmamma.K.C
Date of commencement : 26.10.2021
of recording evidence.
Date of closing of : 30.10.2023
evidence
Offences complained of : U/Secs.498A, 323, 506 of
IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of
D.P.Act
Opinion of the Judge : Accused is found not guilty
Date of Judgment : 20.06.2024
XXXII Addl.C.M.M
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Nandini Layout P.S has submitted the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable Under Secs.498A, 323 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
2. The brief facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
That the accused married C.W.1 18 years back and after marriage while C.W.1 was residing with the accused at matrimonial house at a rented house at No. 3962, 7th cross, Chowdeshwari Nagar, Laggere the accused used to pick up quarrel with the C.W.1 for petty reasons and 3 C.C.12097/2019 ill-treated C.W.1 both physically and mentally by demanding her to get dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parental house and threatened to get one Manjula and will throw C.W1 out of the matrimonial home.
On 13.08.2018 the C.W.1 unable to bear the cruelty extended by the accused lodged a complaint and went to her parental house along with her daughter Navyashree and the accused threatened to kill her by setting her ablaze by pouring kerosene over her if she comes back to her matrimonial house.
Further on 21.09.2018 at about 8.00 PM when the C.W1 and her daughter came back to the house, the accused picked up quarrel with respect to one Manjula and assaulted C.W.1 with hands and thereby the accused has committed offences punishable U/Secs. 498A, 323 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
3. On the basis of the Statement of CW-1, the Nandini Layout Police have registered a case under Crime No.430/2018 for the offences punishable U/s 323, 506, 497 and 498(A) of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against the accused and submitted the FIR before the court. Thereafter the investigating officer visited the spot and drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses on completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet has been filed 4 C.C.12097/2019 against the accused for the offences punishable Under Secs.498A, 323 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. . On the receipt of the police report, this court has taken cognizance for the said offences.
4. On the appearance of the accused, the accused was enlarged on bail. The copies of prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs. 498A, 323 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and read over to him. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for evidence.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined seven witnesses as PW-1 to 7, out of the total charge sheet witnesses as CW-1 to 9 and got marked three documents as Ex.P1 to P3. Subsequently summons, NBW and proclamation was issued to C.W. 2 and 3. The proclamation issued against CW2 and 3 duly published hence this Court dropped the recording of evidence of C.W.2 and 3. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined U/S 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The evidence is read over separately to the accused. The accused denied 5 C.C.12097/2019 all such incriminating circumstances as false. Accused did not choose to explain anything during his examination. Accused did not choose to adduce defence evidence and no documents are got marked on behalf of accused.
6. I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the accused.
7. On going through the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case, the following points would arise for my consideration :
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused married C.W.1 18 years back and after marriage while C.W.1 was residing with the accused at matrimonial house at a rented house at No. 3962, 7 th cross, Chowdeshwari Nagar, Laggere the accused used to pick up quarrel with the C.W.1 for petty reasons and ill-treated C.W.1 both physically and mentally by demanding her to get dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-
from her parental house and threatened to get one Manjula and will throw C.W1 out of the 6 C.C.12097/2019 matrimonial home and thereby the accused has committed the offence of "subjecting C.W.1 to cruelty" punishable U/Sec. 498A of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 21.09.2018 at about 8.00 PM when the C.W1 and her daughter came back to the house, the accused picked up quarrel with respect to one Manjula and assaulted C.W.1 with hands and caused hurt and thereby the accused has committed the offence of "voluntarily causing hurt" punishable U/s 323 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 13.08.2018 the C.W.1 unable to bear the cruelty extended by the accused lodged a complaint and went to her parental house along with her daughter Navyashree and the accused threatened to kill her by setting her ablaze by pouring kerosene over her if she comes back to her matrimonial house and threatened her with dire consequences and thereby the accused has committed an offence of "criminal intimidation"
punishable U/s 506 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused demanded 7 C.C.12097/2019 Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry from the parents of C.W1 and thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act?
5.What Order ?
8. My findings to the above Points are as under:
Points No.1 to 4 : In the Negative.
Point No.5 : As per final order,
For the following: -
REASONS
9. Points No.1 to 4 :- As these points are inter linked with
each other and also similar evidence is led on all these points, I have taken all these points together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion.
10. It is allegation that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
11. In order to prove its case, prosecution has got examined 07 witnesses namely C.W.1/P.W.1-Lakshmamma, C.W.4/P.W.2- 8
C.C.12097/2019 Boramma, C.W.5/P.W.3-Ningaraju, C.W.6/P.W.4- Kempamma and C.W.8/P.W.5-Narsimharaju.G.N and C.W.7/P.W.6-Rangaswamy and C.W.9/P.W.7-B.N.Lohith.
12. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offences punishable U/Secs. 498A, 323 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
13. The C.W.1/P.W1 in her chief examination deposed that C.W.4 is her mother, C.W.5 is her brother, C.W.6 is her maternal aunt and she knows C.W.2 and 3. Her marriage with the accused was solemnized in the year 2000 and out of wedlock they have a daughter. After marriage they were residing at Chowdeshwari Nagara at Laggere, she was working at Garments factory and the accused was not going to work. They lead a happy marital life for a period of two years and later on the accused demanded her to get dowry from her father and was harassing her. The accused had an illicit relationship with one lady by name Manjula of KottigePalya and the accused used to call Manjula to their house, when P.W.1 had been to work. The accused used to harass her and did not send her to her parents 9 C.C.12097/2019 house, even when her father expired. The accused would assault her and did not provide her food. She unable to bear the harassment by the accused, she went to lodge complaint at the police station and the police called the accused to the police station and advised him. About three years back when she came to the house of accused, the accused threatened to set her ablaze by pouring kerosene over her. When she came out of the house, she met her friend and she went along with her friend to the police station and lodged a complaint .
14. The counsel for accused cross examined the witness at length and during cross examination this witness deposed that herself and accused are relatives and she does not know when the marriage talk was held and what was demanded at the time of marriage. At the time of marriage talks, the accused had not demanded for dowry and had told that his first wife had expired. The marriage was held in front of her house and her parents had given a ring to the accused and had given her a ring, ear stud and ear hangings at the time of marriage. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that the accused had not married anybody earlier to her marriage with him. Accused had married his neighbor. She denied the suggestion 10 C.C.12097/2019 that her parents had not given a ring to the accused at the time of marriage. The accused had given her a mangalya at time of marriage and after marriage she was residing with the accused at his native place at AnnathaHalli and the accused was working as forest guard.
P.W.1 further deposed that out of wedlock she begot a female child within one year of marriage and they came to Bengaluru and during festivals they would go to the house of accused at Annatha Halli. After she came to Bengaluru she would frequently visit Annathahalli and after the alleged incident accused does not allow her to go there and the said house is broken. The mother of accused is 85 years old and she is residing with the younger brother of accused. The counsel for accused posed the question that P.W1 came to Bengaluru as she did not want to look after the mother of accused. Whereas P.W1 denied the suggestion and deposed that the mother of accused quarreled with her and drove her out of the house.
P.W.1 deposed that the accused was working as forest guard at Hulidurga and worked for two years after their marriage. She worked in a garments and had taken a house on rent at Laggere, the accused came to Bengaluru after 3-4 months after she came to Bengaluru.
She denied the suggestion that she came to Bengaluru and was 11 C.C.12097/2019 residing alone, as the accused had not consented for the same. She denied the suggestion that she is residing at Bengaluru as she would have to look after Kalyanamma.
15. P.W1 admitted that she does not know the time of galata, but deposed that it was a Sunday and galata took place with regard to Manjula and bringing dowry from her father. She deposed that, herself witnessed about the illicit affair of accused and Manjula. There was a video about the illicit affair, but the accused deleted the video and broke the mobile. She denied the suggestion that no incident took place as alleged and she did not lodge complaint. She denied the suggestion that police did not draw mahazar as alleged and while police were conducting mahazar her neighbors Gowramma and Bhagyamma were present. She deposed that her daughter was not present at the time of drawing mahazar and she has left her daughter at her brother's house as there would be galata between her and accused. The mahazar was conducted after 6.30P.M and she does not know for how long the mahazar was held. Her daughter was 18 years at the time of galata and her daughter is residing with her and she is looking after her daughter's education, her daughter is 12 C.C.12097/2019 studying Engineering. Police recorded the statement of daughter of P.W.1. The accused was not working at the time of galata, but he was residing with her.
The accused used to work in a school wherein said Manjula also worked and since that time the accused was in illicit relationship with Manjula. She denied the suggestion that she has not lodged complaint against the accused on 13.08.2018 alleging dowry harassment and with respect to Manjula. Herself and her daughter have seen accused with Manjula together in the house. She has lodged two complaints against the accused. She denied the suggestion that the accused did not threaten to set her ablaze by pouring kerosene over her. She denied the suggestion that she has filed false complaint against accused so as to avoid him to go to his native place and look after his mother.
16. C.W.4/P.W.2-Boramma in her evidence deposed that C.W.1 is her daugter and C.W.2 and 3 are known to her. C.W.5 is her son and C.W.6 is her sister in law and the marriage of C.W.1 was solemnized with the accused. After marriage the accused and C.W1 were residing at Anthrahalli and later accused and C.W.1 shifted to 13 C.C.12097/2019 Bengaluru. The accused looked after C.W.1 well for a period of 3 years after marriage and later started to harass C.W.1 and the accused is looking after another family and she does not know the name of the woman with whom accused is living. But C.W.1 told her about the illicit relationship. After she came to know about the harassment of the accused on C.W.1, she went to the house of accused she found that the accused was assaulting her daughter. The accused harassed C.W.1 by demanding dowry as the parents of accused had not given him anything at the time of marriage.
Learned Sr.APP treated this witness as partially hostile and cross examined this witness. In the cross examination it is elicited that she has given statement before the police stating that the accused had illicit affair with one Manjula. She admitted the suggestion that the accused was assaulting her daughter/CW.1 and the accused had threatened to set C.W.1 ablaze by pouring kerosene over her.
17. The counsel for accused cross examined P.W.2 and in the cross examination P.W.2 deposed that the accused is not their relative and marriage talks took place at her house and during talks it was 14 C.C.12097/2019 decided that they had to give Rs.5,000/- cash and ring to the accused and P.W.2 had to give her daughter a ear studs and chain. She admitted that they gave accused customary gifts like clothes at the time of marriage. She deposed that she has no bills for purchase of the chain and ring. She denied the suggestion that the accused had not demanded for cash and gold at the time of his marriage. The accused and C.W.1 were residing at Annatha Halli and later shifted to Bengaluru. While the CW.1 and accused were residing at Bengaluru, the accused used to assault her daughter and she lodged complaint in this regard.
18. P.W.2 further deposed that about one and half year back her daughter i.e C.W.1 had left the accused and had to come to her house and the accused came to her house and took C.W.1 to his house. Herself, C.W.5 and 6 came to Bengaluru to see the C.W1 and accused and it was a Sunday and it was 5 P.m, at that time the accused was quarreling with C.W.1 and on seeing them the accused closed the door and assaulted C.W.1. They went back to their village. P.W.2 admitted that she had no problem to lodge complaint at that time. P.W.2 deposed that they were near the house of accused for about 15 15 C.C.12097/2019 minutes and they boarded the bus at about 6 P.M. The PW.2 admitted that the accused had brought her daughter to Bengaluru about one and half years back and was harassing her. She denied the suggestion that the accused demanded dowry and harassed C.W.1 for getting dowry. P.W2 further deposed that she does not the know the name of mother, age and address of the accused's mother and does not know who are the brothers of accused. She does not know that the mother of accused is aged 85 years and she is bed ridden due to snake bite and as she had fallen down. The accused had told them that his mother and brothers were not there at the time of marriage. She denied the suggestion that her daughter has filed false case against the accused as he insisted C.W.1 to go to his native place and look after his aged mother and her daughter/CW.1 did not like to go to the village of accused. She admitted the suggestion that she has come to the court along with C.W.1, 5 and 6 and were discussing regarding the case outside the court hall.
19. C.W.5/P.W.3-Ningaraju in his evidence deposed that C.W.1 is his sister, C.W.4 is his mother and C.W.6 is his aunt and the marriage of C.W.1 was solemnized with the accused. After marriage 16 C.C.12097/2019 the accused and C.W1 were residing at Anthrahalli and later accused and C.W.1 shifted to Laggere, Bengaluru. The accused looked after C.W.1 well for a period of 2 years after marriage and later started to harass C.W.1 by demanding dowry and when they went to lodge complaint, the police advised the accused and took an undertaking and sent them. Even after that the accused was harassing C.W.1 for petty reasons and threatened to set her ablaze.
20. The counsel for accused cross examined P.W.3 and in the cross examination P.W.3 deposed that the accused is his relative and marriage took place in the year 2000 and he was not present during marriage talks. During marriage talks it was decided that they had to give Rs.10,000/- cash and ring to the accused and they gave ear stud, ear hanging to C.W.1. The accused had given mangalya to his sister/C.W.1 and did not demand any cash or ornaments at the time of marriage. He does not know about P.W.1 taking treatment due to assault made by the accused. The accused has three brothers and he does not know how many sister/s accused had. The accused had no intention to work at his native place and since P.W.1 knew tailoring they came to Bengaluru. The accused and C.W.1 were residing at 17 C.C.12097/2019 Annatha Halli and later shifted to Bengaluru. Himself, C.W.4 and 6 came to Bengaluru to see the C.W1 and accused and it was a Sunday and it was 5 P.m, at that time the accused was quarreling with C.W.1 and on seeing them the accused closed the door and assaulted C.W.1. They went back to their village. P.W.3 admitted that they had no problem to lodge complaint at that time. He denied the suggestion that the accused demanded dowry and harassed C.W.1 for getting dowry. P.W3 further deposed that accused's mother was 80 years and he does not know that the mother of accused is bed ridden due to snake bite and as she had fallen down. He denied the suggestion that his sister has filed false case against the accused as he insisted C.W.1 to go to his native place and look after his aged mother.
21. C.W.6/P.W.4-Kempamma in her evidence deposed that C.W.4 is her sister in law, C.W. 1 is the daughter of C.W.4 and C.W.5 is the son of C.W.4 and the marriage of C.W.1 was solemnized with the accused. After marriage the accused and C.W1 were residing at Anthrahalli and later accused and C.W.1 shifted to Bengaluru. The accused looked after C.W.1 well for a period of 1 years after marriage and later started to harass C.W.1 by demanding dowry and accused was not sending 18 C.C.12097/2019 C.W.1 to her maternal home also. The accused had driven out C.W.1 out of the matrimonial home by demanding her to get money from her parents and C.W.1 had come to her maternal home and they held a panchayath and sent C.W.1 to her matrimonial home. Frequently the accused quarreled with C.W.1 and one day when they went to see the C.W.1, a galata was going on and the accused was demanding C.W.1 to get money and on seeing them the accused closed the door.
22. The counsel for accused cross examined P.W.4 and in the cross examination P.W.2 deposed that the marriage of accused and C.W.1 is an arranged marriage and she does not remember the date of marriage and she does not know about the marriage talks. The accused and C.W.1 were residing at Annatha Halli till the birth of their daughter and later shifted to Bengaluru. She does not the know the name of mother, age and address of the accused's mother. She deposed that she does not know that the mother of accused is aged 85 years and she is bed ridden due to snake bite and as she had fallen down. She denied the suggestion that C.W.1 has filed false case against the accused as he insisted C.W.1 to go to his native place and look after his aged mother and CW.1 did not like to go to the village of accused. Further P.W.4 deposed that herself, C.W.4, 5 and 6 came to 19 C.C.12097/2019 Bengaluru to see the C.W1 and accused and it was a Sunday and it was 5 P.m, at that time the accused was quarreling with C.W.1 and on seeing them the accused closed the door and assaulted C.W.1. P.W.4 admitted that she had no problem to lodge complaint at that time. She denied the suggestion that the accused did not demand dowry and harass C.W.1 for getting dowry. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing false evidence so as to help C.W.1, who has filed false case against the accused.
23. C.W.8/P.W.5- NarasimhaRaju.G.N-Retd PSI in his chief examination deposed that he was working as P.S.I at Nandini Layout P.S and on 24.09.2018 he took up the case filed from CW.7 and proceeded with the investigation.
During cross examination by the counsel for accused P.W.5 denied the suggestion that he has recorded the statement of C.W.1 so as to suit the case and they are far from the truth. The C.W.1, accused and their daughter who is aged about 18 years were residing at the house where the alleged incident took place. He admitted that there was no problem to the record the statement of daughter of C.W.1 and cite her as a charge sheet witness. He deposed the C.W.1 20 C.C.12097/2019 stayed at a rented house and he has not recorded the statement of the landlord of the said house and also not recorded the statements of the neighbors to the house of the C.W.1. He deposed that he has not recorded the statement of mother of accused and did not enquire the accused so as to his expenses and arrested the accused when he was at his house.
24. C.W.7/P.W.6- Rangaswamy- Retd ASI- in his evidence deposed that on 23.09.2018 he registered the complaint lodged by C.W.1 and sent FIR to the court and went to the place of incident and drew mahazar as per Ex.P.2.
During cross examination the counsel for accused cross examined P.W.6 and deposed that the C.W.1 had got typed the complaint which is at Ex.P.1 and she had been to the police station on 13.08.2018 for lodging a complaint against her husband. They advised the accused and sent him and no complaint was lodged at that time. He has no personal knowledge about the alleged complaint at Ex.P.1 and he came to know about it as C.W.1 told him and he has not recorded her further statement. He went to the house of C.W.1 on the next morning at about 9.00 A.M after the case was registered 21 C.C.12097/2019 and at that time C.W.1 was alone at her house and her daughter was not there. He further deposed that he has not issued notice before going to the house of C.W1 and he told C.W.1 to get the panchas. He admitted that in Ex.P.3 due to oversight the date of alleged incident is typed as 01.01.2000 instead of 23.09.2018. He deposed that he did not enquire with C.W.1 about the mother of accused and her well being. He denied the suggestion that the C.W.1 lodged a false complaint against accused, as C.W.1 did not want accused to go to his native place and look after his mother.
25. C.W.9/P.W.7-B.N.Lohith in his evidence deposed that he was working as P.I at Nandini Layout P.S. and on 21.01.2019 he filed charge sheet as the investigation was completed.
26. The accused is in total denial of the case of the prosecution. The defence taken by the accused is that the C.W.1 herself came to Bengaluru without the consent of accused, as she did not want to look after the aged mother of accused. As such she came to Bengaluru and to make the accused listen to her, she has filed false complaint against accused alleging dowry harassment. False 22 C.C.12097/2019 implication cannot be ruled out and that no incident took place as alleged and the complainant has filed this false case.
27. On careful perusal of the evidence placed on record, it is evident to note that except the interested witnesses (P.W1, 2 to 4) no other witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P.W. 5 to 7 being the official witnesses have deposed regarding the investigation carried out by them. The evidence of PW 5 to 7 is not pointing to the offences alleged against the accused or the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime. So the evidence of these witnesses is not of much use to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
28. Now the question which arises before the court is whether the evidence placed on record is sufficient to establish the case of the prosecution. PW1 to 4 are interested witnesses and their evidence is to be scrutinized carefully. Herein it is pertinent to note that the C.W.1/P.W.1 has alleged that the accused would harass her in respect of bringing dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and in view of his illicit relationship with another woman by name Manjula. P.W.1 further alleged that she lodged a complaint against accused on 21.09.2018 alleging dowry harassment and stated that unable to bear the 23 C.C.12097/2019 harassment extended by the accused, herself and her daughter went to her native place(maternal home). The P.W.2-mother of C.W.1, P.W.3- brother of C.W.1 and P.W.4-maternal aunt of C.W.1 have not at all whispered anything about the accused having illicit affair. Though P.W.2 stated about the illicit affair of accused, she has deposed that her daughter had told her about the illicit affair. But the other two witnesses have not at all deposed anything about accused harassing C.W.1 with regard to his illicit affair. If at all the accused harassed the C.W.1 with view to his illicit affair, then naturally the C.W.1 would have told her near and dear ones after the illicit affair and they would have convened a panchayath. This ommission on the part of P.W.2 to 4 with regard to deposing material fact shows that the P.W.2 to 4 have not come to the court with clean hands. Their evidence does not inspire confidence in the mind of the court so as to come to the opinion that the accused harassed the C.W.1 with regard to his illicit affair.
29. More over in every household and in every day there will be quarrels amongst the family members for petty reasons. Even in this instant case also the C.W.1 has alleged that the accused used to quarrel with her for petty reasons. She has alleged that her marriage 24 C.C.12097/2019 with the accused took place in the year 2000 and the accused would quarrel for petty reasons and out of wedlock she gave birth to a female child, who is aged 18 years in the year 2018. The C.W.1 in her complaint alleged that since 2 years ie prior to two years before lodging the complaint on 21.09.2018 the accused had a illicit affair and he demanded to get dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and threatened to do away with her life by setting her ablaze if she did not get dowry. It is very important to note that the C.W.1 has alleged that the accused had an illicit affair in the year 2016 ( two years before lodging complaint) and he demanded dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- somewhere around in the year 2016. Accused demanded dowry from C.W.1 that too after 16 years of his marriage with the C.W.1. This version of the C.W.1 creates doubt as to whether the accused really harassed the C.W.1 for dowry. After appreciating the evidence placed on record, it is clear that the evidence of PW1 to 4 is not inspiring confidence to act upon and to hold that the accused has committed the alleged offences.
30. Further this court observed that the daughter of P.W.1 who is aged 18 years is not at all made as charge sheet witness. The evidence 25 C.C.12097/2019 of daughter of C.W.1 would have been material evidence to prove the alleged guilt of the accused. The daughter of C.W.1 is not at all cited as a charge sheet. No reason is forthcoming as to why she is not made as a witness in this case.
31. Further this court observed that the PW1 to 4 are interested witnesses. Under these circumstances, in the reported decisions it is held as under:
"Where the witnesses are interested, their evidence should be scrutinized with great caution"
The law laid down in the said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
32. Further more on the issue of appreciation of evidence of interested witnesses, Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364
-1954 SCR 145, is one of the earliest cases on the point. In that case, it was held as follows:
"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness 26 C.C.12097/2019 has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.
33. Further relying on the decision reported in 1999 Crl.L.J 19 (SC) (Sanspal Singh Vs State of Delhi)
-It is evident that public witnesses were available and could have been associated to witness the recovery. It would have been a different matter altogether, had there been No public witness available or none was willing to associate here as stated above, public witnesses were available but No explanation on these lines is forthcoming. Thus it would be unsafe to maintain conviction of the appellant for the offences charged"
The above said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
34. The prosecution failed to secure any independent and public witnesses viz.. neighbors to the house where the alleged incident 27 C.C.12097/2019 took place. The C.W.1/P.W.1 admits that she is residing in a rented house and the neighbors to the house of C.W.1 could have been made as witnesses. Non examination of these independent witness can also be fatal to the case of prosecution.
35. Furthermore the decision reported in (2017)11 SCC 195- Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh and others.. At para 16 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"16. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted"
The above said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
36. Now on overall perusal of the evidence and prosecution witnesses it is evident that the evidence of C.W.1 is too vague relating to the incident. The allegation that the accused demanded dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- that too after 16 years of marriage is difficult to digest and creates a doubt in the mind of the Court. Owing to the vague 28 C.C.12097/2019 evidence adduced by C.W.1, no importance can be attached to the evidence of C.W.1/P.W.1, as chances of false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out.
37. The defence of the accused counsel is that the accused's mother is aged 80 years and she is bed ridden and the C.W.1 to evade looking after the mother of accused, came to Bengaluru and since the accused stayed there at his native place the C.W.1 lodged a false complaint alleging dowry harassment. The C.W1 in her cross examination admitted that the accused came to Bengaluru 3-4 months after she came to Bengaluru. She admitted that her daughter is studying Engineering and she is looking after her educational expenses. This aspect means that the accused did not consent to shifting to Bengaluru and due to opposition and marital dispute between the accused and C.W.1 is looking after the educational expenses of her daughter.
38. On perusal of the entire evidence and material placed on record it is evident to note that only the C.W.1/P.W.1 is examined by the prosecution and her daughter who was staying with her is not 29 C.C.12097/2019 examined or cited as a charge sheet witness to substantiate the say of the P.W.1 regarding domestic violence meted out towards the C.W.1 by the accused and the illicit affair of accused.
39. As per Sec. 498A of the IPC.
"Sec.498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: for the purpose of this section. " cruelty"
means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand".
40. Wherein in the present case C.W.1 has admitted that they 30 C.C.12097/2019 lead a happy marital life for a few years. No where in the complaint or evidence the C.W.1 has complained of harassment to an extent wherein she was driven to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property .
41. In the cross examination of P.W.1 made by the Learned Counsel for accused, it was elicited that the P.W.1 went to lodge complaint at the P.S prior to lodging Ex.P.1, but the police advised the accused and sent him.
42. Further more on the issue of appreciation of evidence of interested witnesses, Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364
-1954 SCR 145, is one of the earliest cases on the point. In that case, it was held as follows:
"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real 31 C.C.12097/2019 culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.
43. Apart from the interested witnesses (P.W1 to 4), no other independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. P.W.5 to 7 police witnesses have deposed accordingly. have Further the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations made by the complainant.
44. Further more the decision reported in (2017)11 SCC 195- Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh and others.. At para 16 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"16. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view 32 C.C.12097/2019 which is favourable to the accused should be adopted"
The above said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
45. For the reasons stated above, it is clear that number of serious doubts arises in the mind of the court as to the evidence and circumstances of the case on hand. Under these circumstances, no doubt the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence this court held that the evidence placed on record is not pointing out towards guilt of the accused only and accused as a matter of right is entitled for benefit of doubt and prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
46. Point No.5: - In view of the findings of point No.1 to 4, this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted of the offences punishable U/Secs. U/Secs.498A, 323, 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
Bail bonds of the accused and Surety 33 C.C.12097/2019 bonds shall stand canceled.
Bail bond executed U/s 437(A) of Cr.P.C.shall be continued.
(Dictated to the Stenographer online and typed by her, judgment corrected and signed by me, then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 20 th day of June 2024) (Latha. J) XXXII Addl.C.M.M, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of the Witnesses examined by the Prosecution:
PW-1 Lakshmamma C.W.1 26-10-2021 PW-2 Boramma C.W.4 13-12-2021 PW-3 Ningaraju C.W.5 13-07-2022 PW-4 Kempamma C.W.6 13-07-2022 PW-5 Narasimharaju C.W.8 01-08-2023 PW-6 Rangaswamy C.W.7 28-08-2023 PW-7 B.N. Lohith C.W.9 30-10-2023
List of the Documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a,b) : Signatures of Pw1, 6 Ex.P2 : Mahazar Ex.P2(a,b) : Signature of Pw1, 6 Ex.P.3 : FIR Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of Pw6
List of the MOs marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
--Nil--
List of the Witnesses examined for defence:
--Nil--34
C.C.12097/2019 List of the Documents exhibited for defence:
--Nil--
List of the MOs marked on behalf of Defence:
--Nil--
(Latha. J) XXXII Addl.C.M.M, Bengaluru.