Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Vairamudi on 30 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 30 th DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
Smt. SANDHYA S., M.A, LL.B. (spl.)
LXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No.373/2019
Complainant State of Karnataka
By Rajagopla Nagar P S,
Bangalore.
(By Learned Public
Prosecutor )
V/s
Accused Vairamudi,
S/o Mallaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at 1st Cross,
Anchepalya,
Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru
(By Sri.K.U.Umesh and
Sri.R.Raju, Advocates)
1.Date of commission of 27.05.2017 offence 2 SC.373/2019
2. Date of report of offence 27.05.2017
3. Date of commencement of 27.10.2021 evidence:
4. Date of closing of evidence 24.03.2022
5. Name of the complainant Shahikal
6. Offence complained of U/Sec.498A,307 Indian Penal Code.
7. Opinion of the Judge Accused is Acquitted : JU DG MEN T :
This Charge Sheet is filed by the Police Inspector of Rajgopal Nagar Police Station, against accused for the offences punishable Under sections 498A,307 of Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that accused married C.W.1 Smt.Shashikala, 16 years as per Hindu rites and was staying at Rajagopalanagara P S jurisdiction. That after the marriage accused used to consume alcohol everyday and pickup quarrel and hit her and doubt fidelity of C.W.1 and was harassing her 3 SC.373/2019 mentally and physically. Such being the case, on 27.05.2017 afternoon at 2.45p.m, while C.W.1 was in the house of C.W.7, accused came with the machete and went to hit C.W.7 who escaped and later accused, with an intention to kill C.W.1 hit her with machete on the neck and at that time, C.W.1 put her hand in between and sustained injury. Accordingly complaint came to be lodged against accused and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused.
3. The committal court after taking cognizance of the charge-sheet registered in C.C.No.31336/2018 committed the case for trial under Sec. 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure, after complying the provision of Sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. As the offences charge sheeted against accused is exclusively triable by sessions court, learned Magistrate acting 4 SC.373/2019 under section 209 of Cr.P.C, has committed this case to Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru, and later Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru, has sent this case to this Court for trial and hence, the matter is taken up accordingly for further proceedings. In pursuance to the committal order, on committal of the case, present case has been made over to this Court for trial in accordance with law. Accused is on bail , his presence was secured before this Court. After hearing the prosecution and accused, this court framed the Charge on 29.01.2021, for the offences stated above.
The Charge was read over and explained to accused and he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. Out of 12 witnesses cited in the chargesheet, the Prosecution in all examined 3 witnesses as PW.1 to P.W.3, got marked 6 documents exhibited as 5 SC.373/2019 Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and One Material Object was marked as MO.1. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined u/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C and he has denied all the incriminating evidence adduced against him.
5. Heard the arguments of learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel Sri.K.U.Umesh and Sri.R.Raju, counsel for accused, who have vehemently argued on the case.
6. Perused all the oral and documentary evidence on record.
7. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:-
1.Whether the prosecution proves be-
yond all reasonable doubt that ac-
cused after the marriage used to con- sume alcohol everyday and pickup quarrel and hit C.W.1 and doubt fi-
6 SC.373/2019delity and was harassing her mentally and physically and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 498A of I.P.C ?
2.Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 27.05.2017 afternoon at 2.45p.m, while C.W.1 was in the house of C.W.7, accused came with the machete and went to hit C.W.7 who es- caped and later accused, with an in- tention to kill C.W.1 hit her with ma- chete on the neck and at that time, C.W.1 put her hand in between and sustained injury and accused caused grievous injuries and thereby commit- ted an offence punishable under sec- tion 307 of I.P.C ?
3. What order?
8. This court upon appreciation of all the available materials on record, with reference to prevailing legal aspects, gave findings to the above points as follows:-
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3: As per final order,
for the following:-
7 SC.373/2019
:R E A S O N S:
9. Points No.1 and 2: Both these points are taken up for consideration together for convenience and also for avoiding repetition of discussion on the facts of the case and also regarding point of law. As per the canon of criminal jurisprudence of our nation, prosecution has to bring home the alleged guilt of accused, with production of cogent and satisfactory evidence. As stated herein above, it is not in dispute that the complainant C.W.1, Shashikala, is the wife of accused.
10. The offence charged against accused, are punishable under section 498A, 307 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, unless the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused assaulted the complainant with an intention to kill her with a 8 SC.373/2019 machete and caused blood injuries, no case can be made out against accused, for the offence charged. In this background, the evidence forthcoming from the prosecution should be considered for proving the offences charged against accused.
11. Heard the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor, that this case is pertaining to offences under section 498A, 307 of Indian Penal Code. Further that in all, 3 witness have been examined, 6 exhibits marked and 1 material objects is marked. That the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus accused has to be convicted for the offenses charged is the argument of the Learned Public Prosecutor.
12. Heard the argument of by Sri.K.U.Umesh and Sri.R.Raju, counsel for accused, who has vehemently argued stating that deposition does not 9 SC.373/2019 bring in ambit of offence under section 498A, 307 Indian Penal Code. Hence, accused be acquitted for the said offences, is the argument of the defense counsel.
13. As stated herein above, the prosecution was set into motion against accused, on the complaint of one Shashikala, who is CW.1 examined as PW.1 she deposed that accused is her husband and she was married 21 years ago and has two children. Further deposed that accused is taking good care of her and that they had small fights in relation to the issue of children. Further deposed that accused has not tried to kill her and that she did not give any complaint. That the complaint is marked as Ex.P.1 and witness signature is as Ex.P.1(a). Further deposed that she does not know the contents of Ex.P.1 and Panchanama is at Ex.P.2 and witness signature is at 10 SC.373/2019 Ex.P.2(a). Further deposed that she signed Panchanama in the Police Station and police have not seized any articles from the spot. Further deposed that she has not taken any treatment from the hospital. This witness was termed as hostile and during the cross-examination by Learned Public Prosecutor, this witness has denied all the suggestions put to her by Learned Public Prosecutor as false.
14. Police witness in this case is PW.2, who is CW.12, one by name Sharath Kumar H.P, who is the P.I and investigating officer in this case. He deposed that he took the case file from CW.11 on 27.05.2017 and continued further investigation in the case. Further deposed that he went to the spot along with CW.2 and 3 and drew the mahazar. Further deposed that the iron Machete was seized and inserted in 11 SC.373/2019 PF.No.113A/2017. The said panchanama is at Ex.P.2 and witness signature is at Ex.P.2(b) and the machete is marked as MO.1 and witness signature is marked as MO.1(a). Further deposed that he recored the statements of CW.4 to 6 and deputed CW.8 to 9 to produced accused. The photos are marked as Ex.P.3(5) and witness signature is at Ex.P.3(a) and marriage invitation is at Ex.P.4 and signature of witness is marked as Ex.P.4(a). Further deposed that on 29.05.2017 CW.8 and 9 have produced accused before him and later accused was produced before the Learned Magistrate. Further deposed that he secured the wound certificate from the Doctors, which is at Ex.P.5 and witness signature is at Ex.P.5(a). Further deposed that he completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against accused. During the cross 12 SC.373/2019 examination of PW.2 he denied all the suggestion put to him as false by defense counsel.
15. Another Police Witness is PW.3 who is CW.11 one by name Narassaiah who is Police Officer. He deposed that on 27.05.2017 C.W.1 came to the Police station and gave written complaint which was registered in Cr.No.554/2017. That Complaint is at Ex.P.1 and witness signature at Ex.P.1(b), Further that FIR is at Ex.P.6 and witness signature at Ex.P.6(a). Further deposed that he handed over the case file to CW.12 for further investigation. During the cross examination of P.W.3 he deposed that he has not checked whether there were any earlier complaints by the complainant. This witness denied other suggestions put to him as false by the counsel for accused.
13 SC.373/2019
16. On considering the entire papers on record and the evidence adduced by all the witness, it is relevant to note that during the evidence, P.W.1 who is the complainant and wife of accused and victim in this case, in the complaint which is at Ex.P.1, she has mentioned as :
" ನನನ ಗಗಡ ಮದದವ ಆದಗನಗದಲಲ ಪ ಪತ ದನ ಕದಡದದ ಬಗದದ ಗಲಟ ಮಡದವದದ, ಹಲಡಯದವದದ, ಬಬಯದವದದ, ಅನದಮನ ಪಡದವದದ ಮಡದತತ ಬಗದರದತತರ. ಮಕಕಳಗಲ ಸಹ ಹಡದದಕಲಗಡದ ಹಲಡಯದವದದ ಮಡದತತರ. ಇದದ ಕರಣದಗದ ಈ 3 ತಗಗಳ ಹಗದ ನನದ ನನನ ತಯ ಮನಗ ಹಲದಗ ಅಲಯದ ವಸವಗರದತತದನ. ದ.27.05.2017 ರಗದದ ನಗ.08, 4 ನದ ಮಬನ, ಶಪದಗಗಧ ನಗರ, ಕ.ಟ.ಜ. ಕಲದಜ ಹತತರ, ಹಗಗನಹಳಳ, ಬಗಗಳಲರನಲರದವ ನನನ ಅಕಕನ ಮನಗ ದ ಮಧಧಹನ 2.45 ಗಗಟಯ ಸಮಯದಲ ನನದ ಹಲದಗದದ ಮನಯಲದಗ ನನನ ಗಗಡ ಮನಯ ಬಳ ಬಗದದ ಏಕಏಕ ಮಚದಚ ತಗದದಕಲಗಡದ ನನನ ಅಕಕನಗ ಹಲಡಯಲದ ಬಗದಗ ಅವರದ ತಪಪಸಕಲಗಡರದ ನಗತರ ನನಗ ಮಚಚನದ ನ ಕದತತಗ ಹಲಡದದ ಸಯಸಲದ ಬಗದಗ ನನದ ಕಬಯನದ ನ ಅಡಡ ಕಲಟಟಗ ನನನ ಎಡಗಬಗ ಮಚಚನಗದ ಹಲಡದದ ರಕತಗಯ ವಗರದತತದ."
and further during the evidence of PW.1, she deposed that , "ಮದದವ ನಗತರ ಆರಲದಪ ನನನನದ ನ ಚನನಗ ನಲದಡಕಲಳದತತ ಇದದರದ. ಮಕಕಳ ವಷಯಕಕ ಸಗಬಗಧಸದಗತ ಸಣಣ ಪಟಟ ಗಲಟ ಆಗತದತ. ಆರಲದಪ ನನಗ ಹಲಡದದ ಸಯಸಲದ ಪ ಪಯತನಸದನ ಅಗತ ನನದ ಯವದದ ದಲರದ ಕಲಟಟಲಲ.
14 SC.373/2019Further that "ನ.ಪ.1 ರಲ ಬರದ ಒಕಕಣ ನನಗ ಗಲತತಲಲ."
Further that "ಸದರ ದಖಲಗ ಸಹಯನದ ನ ನನದ ಪ.ಠಣಯಲ ಮಡರದತತದನ."
Further that "ಸಸಳ ಪಗಚನಮ ಕಲಕಕ ನನದ ಪಲದಸರಗ ನನದ ಸಸಳ ತಲದರಸದಗ ಪಲದಸರದ ಅಲಗದ ನ ಅಮನತದತ ಪಡಸಕಲಗಡಲಲ."
ಯವದದ ವಸದತಗಳನದ
Further that
"ನನದ ಆಸಪತಪಯಲ ಯವದದ ಚಕತತ
ಪಡದದಕಲಗಡಲ."
ಲ
Further during the evidence of P.W.1, she deposing that accused is taking good care of her and that they had small fights in relation to the issue of children. Further deposing that accused has not tried to kill her and that she did not give any complaint. Further deposing that she signed Panchanama in the Police Station and police have not seized any articles from the spot. Further deposing that she has not taken any treatment from the hospital and this witness 15 SC.373/2019 turning hostel raises doubt on the case of the prosecution, hence it cannot be said that the case is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
17. On going through the prosecution case, it can be seen that C.W.2 to 10 have been given up by the prosecution side. Further that P.W.1 who is the wife and victim in this case has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, raises doubt. Further no panchanama witness is examined in this case to substantiate the case of the prosecution. Further the panchanama which are at Ex.P.2 dated 27.05.2017 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further the men's rea for driving accused to commit the offence has to be established by the evidence of the material witness and corroborated, is not seen in this case and not supported by cogent evidence. Further P.W.1 has completely turned hostile and so this aspect also 16 SC.373/2019 raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further no doctor is examined in this case to substantiate the say of the prosecution.
18. Further, as per section 307 of Indian Penal Code reads thus:
" Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned."
Here in this case, the prosecution was not successful to establish the charges framed against accused. Even the P.W1 has turned hostile and not adduced in the favor of the prosecution case. The ingredients of under section 498A, 307 of Indian Penal Code, are not proved by the prosecution 17 SC.373/2019 beyond all reasonable doubt. It is the concern for today's world that offences against women has to be taken serious note of. But when the prosecution fails to raise the curtains of doubt, no reliance can be placed on the witnesses, to prove the offense against accused. Further the wound certificate issued by private hospital by name Jai Maruthi Hospital which is at Ex.P.5, no where discloses the name of accused that he has administered poison to P.W.1 and further it is mentioned that the above said injuries are simple in nature. Hence, much reliance cannot be placed on Ex.P.5. Therefore, on considering the entire evidence and papers on record, there is absolutely no material against accused, to prove that he forcefully gave her poison to drink and subjected P.W.1 and tried to kill PW.1 as per under section 498A, 307 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the question of accused, trying to kill 18 SC.373/2019 the complainant does not arise, without the support of any evidence of independent witnesses.
19. Hence, from the discussion made herein above, it is clear that the evidence of P.W.1 the complainant has not supported the prosecution case as alleged against accused, in toto. The Police witness P.W.2 and 3 have deposed about the Investigation in the case of the prosecution and thoroughly been cross-examined by the defense counsel. The evidence of public servants cannot be disbelieved that they are interested in the success of prosecution case. But the various discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant makes it doubtful to believe the version of the prosecution in toto. As deposed by the I.O., I accept the evidence of the police witnesses. But, based only on the evidence of the official witness, P.W.2 and 3, the guilt of 19 SC.373/2019 accused, cannot be concluded as proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Based only on the say of the Official witness, it cannot be taken that accused has committed the offences as charge sheeted, when the complainant P.W.1, herself has turned completely hostile and not deposed anything in favor of the prosecution. Only on the basis of evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 alone no case can be made out against accused for the offences charged. Therefore, doubt arises regarding the case as alleged against accused. It is well settled principle of law that accused is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that accused tried to kill P.W.1 by hitting her with machete and causing bleeding injuries, consequently, the prosecution has failed to 20 SC.373/2019 prove point No.1 and 2 therefore, the point No.1 and 2, are answered in the Negative.
20. Point No.3: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that accused deserves to be acquitted of the offences charged against him in this case. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
O RDE R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under section 498A, 307 Indian Penal Code.
The bail bond executed by accused and his surety bonds shall stand canceled, they are set at liberty forthwith.
M.O.1 being worthless, it is hereby ordered to be destroyed, after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 30th day of March, 2022) (Smt. SANDHYA S.) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 72).
21 SC.373/2019A N N EXU RE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Shashikala
PW.2 Sharath Kumar
PW.3 Narasaiah
II LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
-NIL-
III. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of the witness
Ex.P.2 Panchanama
Ex.P.2(a&b) Signature of the witnesses
Ex.P3 FIR
Ex.P.3(a) Witness signature.
Ex.P.4 & P.5 Notices
Ex.P.4(a) & Signature of the witnesses
P.5(a)
Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate
Ex.P6(a) Witness signature
22 SC.373/2019
IV. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON
BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
-NIL-
V. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
-NIL-
(Smt. SANDHYA S.) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 72).