Bangalore District Court
State By vs Chandrashekar S/O M Shamanna on 31 December, 2022
KABC010171682017
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 31st day of December 2022.
Present;
SRI. PRAKASH.V., B.A(L)., LL.B.
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No.329/2017
COMPLAINANT : STATE BY
Hennur Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : 1. Chandrashekar S/o M Shamanna,
Aged about 28 years.
2. Srinivas S/o Venkatagiriyappa,
Aged about 37 years.
3. Lakshminarayana
S/o M.B.Chandranna,
Aged about 55 years.
R/at Kumbara Pete, Ward No.2,
Maluru Town, Malur Taluk,
Kolara District.
(Rep.by Sri.A.A.B., Advocate).
1. Date of commission of offence : 19-10-2016
2. Date of report of Offence : 24-10-2016
2
Spl.C.No.329/2017
3. Name of the Complainant : Shashikala
4. Date of commencement of : 12-07-2018
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 16-01-2020
6. Offences Complained are : U/sec.420, 506 r/w 34 of
IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s),
3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities)
1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 found guilty
for the offence punishable
u/sec.420 of IPC.
Accused No.2 and 3 are
not found not guilty for
the offence punishable
u/sec.506 r/w 34 of IPC
and Section 3(1)(r)(s),
3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST(POA)
Act, 1989.
JUDGMENT
ACP, Banaswadi Sub-Division, Bengaluru has submitted Charge-sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the complainant being the M.B.A Graduate, working at 3 Spl.C.No.329/2017 Accenture Company, Mahadevapura and accused No.1 being the member of 'Kumbara' community came in contact with CW1 since 2013 and thereafter they decided to marry each other, but the parents of accused No.1 opposed the said marriage on the ground that the CW1 is belongs to Scheduled Caste community. The accused No.1 promised to CW1 to take her on marriage and the date of the marriage was also fixed at his instance to be held on 27.10.2016 at Tirupathi, Andrapradesh State and reception to be held at Sri.Kodandarama Samudaya Bhavan situated at Kacharakanahalli by distributing marriage Invitation card and also booking bus so as to go to Tirupathi, marriage hall, advancing money to the Caterers, Flower Decorators, Photo and videographers. Thereafter, the accused No.1 disappeared by switching of his mobile phone since 15.10.2013. When the CW1 went to the house of accused No.1 by searching him, the accused No.2 and 3 have intentionally insulted with filthy language by taking 4 Spl.C.No.329/2017 the name of her caste and also caused threat to take away her life and thereby the accused No.1 has cheated CW1 without keeping his promise of his marriage. Accordingly, CW1 has lodged her complaint before the SHO of Hennur Police Station. On the basis of said complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.361/2016. The Investigating officer has visited the place of incident, prepared the spot panchanama, recorded the statement of witnesses and filed charge sheet after collecting the report regarding the caste of the CW1 as well as accused.
3. During the course of investigation, the accused No.1 to 3 were approached the learned II Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Special Judge, at Bengaluru by filing Crl.Misc.Petition No.8034/2016 and they got enlarged on anticipatory bail. After filing of charge sheet, this court took the cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused No.1 to
3. On service of the same, they appeared before this Court and they got enlarged on bail. The charge 5 Spl.C.No.329/2017 sheet copies were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge. As there was sufficient materials available against the accused persons, charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-
a) of S.C/S.T(POA) Act read over and explained to the accused persons in vernacular language and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused got examined 6 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6, got exhibited 25 documents and one object as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25 and by confrontation Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 are marked. The statement of the accused under Section 313 was recorded, read over and explained to the accused persons in vernacular language and they have denied all the incriminating evidence. The accused No.1 at the first instance submits that he will lead the defence evidence but subsequently submits that he has no defence evidence.
6
Spl.C.No.329/2017
5. Heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record. The CW1 has filed her written arguments.
6. The following points would arise for the determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused with an dishonest intention to deceive the CW1 made her to believe that he is in love and subsequently refused to marry by coming to know that, she belongs to Scheduled Caste community and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.2 and 3 in furtherance of their common intention have criminally intimidated by threatening the CW1 with injury to her person with intent to cause alarm to her and thereby committed the offence Punishable under Section 506 of IPC? 7
Spl.C.No.329/2017
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.2 and 3 are not being the members of SC/ST, intentionally insulted with intent to humiliate CW1, who belongs to Scheduled Caste in a place within the public view and thereby committed offence punishable u/sec 3(1)(r) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 and 3 are not belongs to SC/ST have abused CW1, who belongs to SC by taking the name of her caste in a place within public view and thereby committed offence punishable u/sec 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 and 3 are not being the members of a Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes, knowing that complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste have 8 Spl.C.No.329/2017 committed the offence of criminal intimidation which is punishable u/sec.506 of IPC and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
6) What order?
7. My findings to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : In the Negative Point No.5 : In the Negative Point No.6 : As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 5: These points are inter-linked with one another, hence, I took up these points together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence. It is the definite case of prosecution that, the complainant being the M.B.A Graduate, working at Accenture Company, Mahadevapura and accused No.1 being the member 9 Spl.C.No.329/2017 of 'Kumbara' community came in contact with CW1 since 2013 and thereafter they decided to marry each other, but the parents of accused No.1 opposed the said marriage on the ground that the CW1 is belongs to Scheduled Caste community. The accused No.1 promised to CW1 to take her on marriage and the date of the marriage was also fixed at his instance to be held on 27.10.2016 at Tirupathi, Andrapradesh State and reception to be held at Sri.Kodandarama Samudaya Bhavan situated at Kacharakanahalli by distributing marriage Invitation card and also booking bus so as to go to Tirupathi, marriage hall, advancing money to the Caterers, Flower Decorators, Photo and videographers. Thereafter, the accused No.1 disappeared by switching of his mobile phone since 15.10.2013. When the CW1 went to the house of accused No.1 by searching him, the accused No.2 and 3 have intentionally insulted with filthy language by taking the name of her caste and also caused threat to take away her life and thereby the 10 Spl.C.No.329/2017 accused No.1 has cheated CW1 without keeping his promise of his marriage.
9. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses. PW1-Kum.Shashikala.S is said to be the victim and complainant of this case, PW2-Srinivas is the father of vicim, PW4-Venkatesh and PW3-H.K.Gangadhar are said to be the witnesses and attesting witnesses to the Spot Mahazar, PW5-T.K.Chikkarasaiah, the then PSI of Hennur Police station said to have registered the case on the basis of complaint and PW6-K.P.Ravikumar, ACP of Banaswadi Sub-Division, is the investigating officer of this case. The evidence of CW6 and CW7 are given up by the prosecution as the reports issued by them regarding the caste of the accused persons and CW1 are marked with consent. CW3 is reported to be dead.
10. On careful perusal of the materials available on record it appears to me that, the total denial is the defence of accused. On the background of above defence taken up by the accused, the burden is 11 Spl.C.No.329/2017 heavily lies on the prosecution to connect the accused for the alleged offence. Whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of accused or not is to be discussed. Hence, it is just and necessary to go through the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
11. P.W1-Kum.Shashikala.S., in her chief-examination deposed that she know the accused persons. She belongs to Scheduled Caste community and accused belongs to 'Kumbara' community. She was working in the Accenture Company, Mahadevpura since 2013 and she came in contact with accused No.1 in the year 2013. The accused No.1 used to like the messages which were uploaded by her in the Facebook. In the month of November 2013, she had sent friend request and same was accepted by the accused No.1. On 21.12.2013, on the date of her birth day, she and accused No.1 met near the Tin Factory and exchanged their phone numbers. Thereafter, the accused No.1 used to call her and also sending messages. Further they have met for 12 Spl.C.No.329/2017 2-3 times in different places. During the month of May 2014, the accused No.1 has took her to tutorial which was run by accused No.1 at Maluru and expressed his desire to get marry her and at that time, she discloses her caste as she belongs to Scheduled Caste and both are belongs to different castes. Further she discloses her age to the accused No.1. Further she informed that she is ready to marry him if her parents consented and told the accused No.1 to discuss the proposal of marriage with her parents. At that time, the accused No.1 replied that his parents will not consented for their marriage and he will inform the same after their marriage. Her parents have decided to perform her marriage with some other boy, for which she refused as the accused No.1 promised to marry her. Thereafter, she convinced her parents and they agreed for their marriage. On 19.12.2015 the accused No.1 took her to Tirupati. Thereafter, they have decided to perform their marriage on 27.10.2016 at Dodda Tirupathi and fixed the date of 13 Spl.C.No.329/2017 marriage. The accused No.1 used to came to her house for the purpose of preparation of marriage, but later he has not turned up. On 20.10.2016 she went to the house of accused No.1 at Maluru and accused No.1 was not present in the house. The sister of accused No.1 directed her to go to institute of accused No.1. She went to the said institute but it was closed. When she was waiting near the stairs of the Institution. The sister of accused No.1 came to the said place and taken the phone number of her mother. On 20.10.2016 the accused No.1 called her to come to HSR Layout. She along with her parents, sister along with her cousin went to the Reception Centre of BDA Complex. At that the the accused No.2 and 3 came to the said place and they were in taking terms. The accused No.2 and 3 abused her in filthy language and refused to perform her marriage with accused No.1. On 21.10.2016 she went to Hennur Police Station and lodged complaint. The Inspector informed the accused persons to appear before the police station for talks. Since the accused 14 Spl.C.No.329/2017 failed to appear before the police station, the police have registered the case on 24.10.2016. She identified the complaint before this Court as per Ex.P.1. She further deposed that after filing of complaint, the police have prepared spot mahazar in her house and same has been identified and marked as per Ex.P.2. She identified the marriage invitation Card as per Ex.P.3. She further deposed that they have booked Kodandarama Samudaya Bhavan by paying sum of Rs.25,000/- towards advance. Further they have paid Rs.10,000/- for caterers and also informed the fact of marriage to the flower decorators, Photographers and owner of the vehicle.
12. During the further chief-examination conducted on 19.02.2021, she has produced Railway ticket and marked as per Ex.P.10, Receipt for having paid advance to the photographer and videographers as per Ex.P.11, another Railway Ticket is marked as Ex.P.12, the receipt for having paid bill towards preparing invitation Card is marked as Ex.P.13, the 15 Spl.C.No.329/2017 bill for having paid advance towards Caterer is marked as Ex.P.14, the receipts for having paid advance towards marriage hall is marked as Ex.P.15.
13. During the further chief conducted on 22.07.2021, two photographs are produced and marked subject to objection as per Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17, the Bank account statements is marked as Ex.P.18, CD pertains to said photos is marked as Ex.P.19. During the further chief conducted on 11.08.2021, 65B Certificate and Pendrive are produced and marked as Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21.During the further chief conducted on 07.10.2021, the translations of audio clips stored in the Ex.P.21 are produced and marked as Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.25.
14. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel it was elicited from her mouth that the accused had sent friendship request and same has been accepted by her. She voluntarily submitted that in the chief-examination, it was wrongly typed. She pleads ignorance about the engagement 16 Spl.C.No.329/2017 ceremony of accused No.1 took place at Maluru on 26.06.2016. Further she pleads ignorance that the marriage of accused No.1 to be performed in the month of November 2016. It was further elicited that, the date of marriage was fixed in the month of June 2016 and said fixing of marriage is not conducted by exchanging 'Thamboola'. Further it was elicited that on 13.10.2016, the marriage invitation cards were printed and started to distribute the same on 15.10.2016. It was further elicited that, she has not given photographs to the Investigating officer to show that she and accused No.1 have gone on trip. She admits that, in the Ex.P.3 the name of the mother of accused No.1 is mentioned as Bhagyalakshmi. Witness voluntaries that the accused No.1 has informed the name of his mother as Bhagyalakshmi. She denied the suggestion that Ex.P.3 is created for the purpose of this case. She denied the suggestion that the accused No.1 is not residing in the address mentioned in the Ex.P.3/Invitation Card. It was 17 Spl.C.No.329/2017 further elicited that she got typed Ex.P.1 through one Gangadhar in the press belongs to Venkatesh. She pleads ignorance that Gangadhar is the leader of SC/ST members. Ex.D1 to Ex.D4/photographs were marked by way of confrontation. She denied the suggestion that the conversation stored in the Ex.P.21 is not belongs to accused and his sister. She admits that the name of accused No.1 is not finds place in the Ex.P.10/Railway ticket. She denied the suggestion that she had uploaded the message to the facebook of accused No.1.
15. PW2-Srinivas is the father of PW1, who in his chief-
examination deposed that he and his daughter belongs to Scheduled Caste. He do not know the caste of the accused. The accused is having knowledge of their caste. The accused no.1 is came in contact with his daughter when she was visiting Maluru Temple and thereafter they started to love. At that time, they have disclosed their caste as Scheduled Caste, for which he replied that he will not bother about caste. Since the accused No.1 18 Spl.C.No.329/2017 promised to marry his daughter, they have fixed the marriage date to be celebrated on 27.10.2016 at Tirupati and it was further decided to conduct reception programme at Kodandarama Chowltry. They have booked chowltry, Videographer, Caterer and spend a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. They have also printed invitation card and distributed to about 10 members. At that time the accused switched off his mobile phone. Thereafter, his daughter went to the house of accused by searching him and informed the fact to his sister. The accused persons have called them to BDA Complex situated at HSR Layout. Accordingly, he along with his wife and daughter went to the said place on 24.10.2016. The accused No.1, 3 and another persons were present in the said place and thereafter insulted them by referring the case.
16. During the course of cross examination of defence counsel it was elicited from his mouth that uncle by name Venkatesh and aunt by Sarojamma have participated in the marriage talks. It was further 19 Spl.C.No.329/2017 elicited that during the alleged marriage talks they have not exchanged 'Tamboola'. Further it was elicited that no photographs were taken at the time of fixing marriage date. He admits that PW4- Venkatesh is his brother in law.
17. PW4-Venkatesh in his chief-examination deposed that CW1 is the daughter of his sister. He belongs to Scheduled Caste. The accused belongs to Kumbara Caste. The accused No.1 and CW1 were in love affairs and came in contact through facebook. The accused No.1 made the CW1 to believe that he will marry her and also collected sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and also took the CW1 for trip. On 21.10.2016, he along with CW1 went to Hennur Police station to lodge complaint. The police have received the complaint but not registered the case. On the next day, they have met the accused persons in the Banaswadi Park and the accused No.1 has requested to withdraw the complaint on the promise of marriage. During the further chief-examination, he deposed that the date of marriage of accused 20 Spl.C.No.329/2017 No.1 with CW1 is fixed as 27.10.2016 at Kodandarama Swamy Temple, Invitation Cards were printed and also distributed. On 15.10.2016, the accused switched off his mobile phone. On 19.10.2016, he along with CW1 to CW3 and friends of CW1 went to the house of accused No.1, at that time the accused No.1 to 3 have abused and insulted them with filthy language by referring the caste. Further they have also caused threat to their life. He further deposed that the police have prepared spot mahazar in the house of CW1.
18. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel it was elicited from his mouth that he is working as Editor in the 'Niranthara Horata News Paper'. He do not know the boundary particulars of the house of CW1. He do not know the age of the accused. He admits that the parents of accused No.1 were not participated in the engagement. It was elicited that, 3 days back from 27.10.2016 marriage invitation cards were printed. It was 21 Spl.C.No.329/2017 further elicited that the invitation cards were distributed on 28.10.2016.
19. PW3-Gangadhar in his chief-examination deposed that CW1 and accused No.1 were fell in love and accused No.1 promised CW1 to take her on marriage. Thereafter the invitation cards were printed and same was also distributed. The accused has collected money from the CW1 on the promise of marriage. In the month of October 2016, the date of marriage was fixed but the accused No.1 was disappeared about 2 days from the date of marriage. Thereafter, they have invited the accused No.1 to 3 to the Rajkumar Park situated at Kammanahalli. He along with CW4, CW1 and parents of CW1 have also present in the said place. The accused No.1 refused to marry CW1, at that time accused No.2 and 3 have stated that they are not allow the accused No.1 to marry CW1 on the ground of caste. CW1 begged by holding feet of accused No.1 and at that time, the accused No.1 22 Spl.C.No.329/2017 has abused CW1 in filthy language and also insulted by referring the name of caste.
20. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel it was elicited from his mouth that he is the member of Dalitha Sangarsha Samiti and he is acquainted with CW1 through CW4/Venkatesh only after registration of this case.
21. PW5-T.K.Chikkarasaiah, the then Police Sub Inspector of Hennur Police Station in his chief- examination deposed about registration of the case on the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant and conducting of spot mahazar in the house of complainant. During the course of cross- examination, he admits that the ACP has not directed him to conduct spot mahazar by written order.
22. PW6-T.P.Ravikumar, the then ACP of Banaswadi Sub Division, who in his chief-examination deposed about recording statement of witnesses and filing of charge sheet after collecting the marriage invitation 23 Spl.C.No.329/2017 Card and report regarding the caste of the complainant as well as accused person. During the course of cross examination of defence counsel, the omissions appearing in the depositions of PW2 to 4 were confronted to this witness and after going through the said depositions, he stated that the PW2 to PW4 have not stated the said aspects before him while recording statement u/sec.161 of Cr.P.C.
23. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would argued that, the evidence of PW1 to PW6 available on record is sufficient to prove the commission of offence by the accused No.1 to 3 to prove the allegation of cheating, criminal intimidation and also intentional insult of CW1 by taking the name of her caste, who belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and accordingly prayed for convict the accused persons.
24. Per contra, the learned counsel for accused No.1 to 3 would submit that, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 is not corroborated with each other and there is a material contradictions in their evidence. The PW1 24 Spl.C.No.329/2017 has foisted false case against the accused persons and documents produced on record by prosecution during the course of trial cannot be considered in the proper explanation for not production of the same during the course of investigation. All the documents produced before this Court by the prosecution have taken birth during the course of trial and hence, much importance cannot be given to those documents. The evidence of PW2 to 4 is not sufficient to connect the accused No.2 and 3 for the alleged intentional insult as they are not the publics. He further argued that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses goes on improving from day to day and the investigation conducted by the investigating officer is not in accordance with law and which is against the spirit of the provisions of SC/ST Act and accordingly prayed for acquit the accused.
25. With the rival contentions urged by both sides, it is just and necessary to go through the material available on record. The prosecution has to 25 Spl.C.No.329/2017 establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 with dishonest intention of cheating started to love with PW1 and promised to marry her and subsequently he failed.
26. The materials available on record clearly discloses that, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 are available on record to consider the allegation of prosecution regarding cheating, criminal intimidation, intentional insult with intent to humiliate PW1 by taking the name of the caste. The evidence of PW1 to PW4 plays important role to prove the allegations made against the accused.
27. By taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case before proceeding further, it is just and necessary to extract the essential ingredients of Section 415 of IPC, which reads as under: -
"415-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to 26 Spl.C.No.329/2017 do anything which he would not do omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".'
28. A cursory perusal of the above provision would make it clear that there are at least three essential ingredients constituting an offence of cheating which should be made out from the materials available on record. They are as follows:-
'(1) Deception of any person;
(2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person
(i) To deliver any property to any person or;
(ii) To consent that any person shall retain any property, or and (3) Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.'
29. In the backdrop of the above provision of law, the instant case on hand is to be decided. Before going into the discussion on the other aspect of the matter, it is just and proper to go through the 27 Spl.C.No.329/2017 contents of the Ex.P.1/complaint for better appreciation of the facts of this case which reads as follows;
"ಈ ಮಮಲಕ ತಮಮ ಲ ವನನತಸಸವದದನನದರ ಶಶಕಲ ಎನಬಸವವಳದ ನನಸ ಎನ.ಬ.ಎ ಪದವದಧರಯಗದಸ ದ ಆಕಕನಚರ ಕನಪನಯ ಮಹದದವಪರ ವಭಚಚಗದಲ ನಕರಳಗ ಕಯರನವರಹಸಸತತದನ. ಕಳದ 3 ವರರಗಳನದ (2013) ಮಲಮರನ ಕಸನಬರಪದಟನವಸ ಶಶದ ಶಮಣಣನವರ ಮಗ ಚನದಶಶದಖರ ಎನಬಸವವರ ಪರಚಯವಗ ನನತರ ಮದಸವಯಗಸವ ತದರರನಕಕ ಬನದದದದವ. ಚನದಶಶದಖರ ರವರಸ ಕಸನಬರ ಜನನಗದವರಗದಸ ದ ನನಸ ಪರಶಪಪ ಜತಗ ಸದರದ ಮಹಳಯಗರಸತತದನ. ಆದರ ಚನದಶಶದಖರ ರವರ ಮನಯವರಸ ನನಸ ಪರಶಪಪ ಜತಗ ಸದರದ ಮಹಳ ಎನಬ ಒನದದ ಒನದಸ ಕರಣಕಕ ಚನದಶಶದಖರ ನಮನದಗ ಮದಸವ ರಡಲಸ ಇರಪಪಡಲಲಲ.
ಆದರಚನದಶಶದಖರ ನನನನಸ ನ ಮದಸವಯಗಲಸ ಒಪಪ ಕಮನಡದಸ ದ , ಇದದ ತನಗಳ 27.10.2016 ರನದಸ ಆನದಶಪ ಶದದಶದ ತರಸಪತಯಲ ಮಸಹಮತರವನಸ ನ ನಗದಪಡಸ , ನನತರ ಬನಗಳಮರನ ಕಚರಕನಹಳಳಯಲರಸವ ಶಶದ ಕಮನದರಮ ಸಸ ಮ ಸಮಸದಯ ಭವನದಲ ಆರತಕತಯನಸ ನ ಹಮಮಮಕಮಳಸ ಳ ವನತ ತದರರನಸ ಲಗನ ಪತಶಕ ರಡಸ ಬನಧಸ ಬಳಗದವರಸ, ಸನದಹತರಗ ಹನಚಲಗತಸತ. ಅಲಲದ ಮದಸವಗಗ ತರಸಪತಗ ತರಳಲಸ ಬಸ ಕಮಡ ಬಸಕ ಆಗದಸದ , ಬನಗಳಮರನ ಆರತಕತಗಗ ಕಲ ಲ ಣ ಮನಟಪ, ಅಡಸಗ ಭಟಪರಗ ಹಣ, ಫಲವರಡಕಮರದರನ, ಪದಟಮದ, ವಡಯಗ ಸದರದನತ ಎಲ ಲ ವಲವಸದಗಳನಸ ನ ದ ಖಸದಸ ಚನದಶಶದಖರನನತಸ ರಡರಸತತನ . ಈ ಕಸರತನತ ಚನದಶ ಶದಖರ ರವರಸ ನಮ ಮ ಮನಗ ಹಲವ ಬರಗ ಬನದಸ ಹಮದಗಸತತದದ ವಡಯ ನಮ ಮ ಕಟಪಡದಲರಸವ ಸಸಟವ ಕಲಮರದಲ ದಖಲಗದ. ನನಸ ತನಗಳಗ ರಮ 40000 ರಮ ಸನಬಳ ಗಳಸಸತತದದ ಸ, ಖಸಗ ವಹನಗಳನಸ ನ (ಕಲಬ) ನಡಸಸತತದದ ಸ ತನಗಳಗ ಸಸರರಸ 1 ಲಕ ರಮ ಸನಪದನ ರಡಸತತದನ. ಮದಸವ ಖಚರಗನದಸ ನನನ ತಯ ಒಡವಗಳನಸ ನ ಅಡವಟಸ ಪ ಚನದಶಶದಖರ ರವರಗ ರಮ.75,000 ಗಳನಸ ನ ನದಡದರಸ. ಅಲಲದ ಮದಸವ 28 Spl.C.No.329/2017 ಖಚಸರ, ಮದಸವ ಕಲ ಲ ಣದ ಮನಟಪದ ಬಡಗ ಸದರದನತತ ನನಸ ಸನಪದನ ರಡದ ಹಣದಲ ಉಳದ ಖಚಸರಗಳನಸ ನ ನಭಯಸರಸತತದನ. ಇದಸವರವಗಮ ನನಸ ಚನದಶಶದಖರರವರಗ ರಮ 6 ಲಕ ಗಳನಸ ನ ಕಮಟಪರಸತತದನ. ಅಷಪದ ಅಲಲದ ನನಸ ಅವರನಸ ನ ಪಶದತಸಸತತದದ ಸನದಭರದಲ ನನನ ಬಲನಕ ಖತಯನದ ಅವರ ಬಲನಕ ಖತಗ ಹಲವ ಬರ ಹಣ ವಗರವಣಯಗರಸತತದ.
ಮದಸವಗ ಬದಕದ ಸದರ, ರನಗಲಲವನಸ ನ ಕಮಡಸಸವದಗ ಹದಳದದರಸ. ಆದರ ಕಳದ ಅಕಮಪದಬರ 15 ರನದ ಚನದಶಶದಖರರವರಸ ಮಬಬಲಸನಪಕರವಲಲದ ಸಸಚ ಆಫ ರಡಕಮನಡಸ ಕಸನಬರ ಸನಘದ ಅಧಲಕ ಶಶದ ಲಕಮ ನರಯಣ ಎನಬಸವವರ ಮಮಲಕ ನನನ ತನದ, ತಯ ಹಗಮ ನನಗ ಧಮಕ ಹಕರಸತತರ. ಇದನಸ ನ ತಳದ ನನಸ ಚನದಶಶದಖರ ಅವರ ಸಸನತ ಊರದ ರಲಮರನಲರಸವ ಕಸನಬರಪದಟಗ ಹಸಡಸಕಕಮನಡಸ ಹಮದದಗ ಅವರಸಸಗಲಲಲ. ಆದರ ಚನದಶಶದಖರರವರ ಭವ ಶಶದನವಸರವರಸ ನನಗ ಅವಚಲ ಶಬದಗಳನದ ನನದಸ ನದನಸ ಕದಳಸಜತಯವರಸ, ನಮ ಮ ಜತಗ ಹಮನದಕಮಳಸ ಳ ವದಲಲ. ನನನನಸ ನ ಮದಸವ ರಡಕಮಳಳಲಸ ಆಗಸವದಲ ಎನದಸ ಥಳಸ ಮಸನದದರಸ. ಅಲಲದ ಲ ಮದಲಕನಡ ಲಕಮನರಯಣ ಎನಬಸವವರಸ ಈ ಮನಯ ಉಸಸತವರಯನಸ ನ ನನದ ಈ ಮನಯಲ ಎಲಲವ ನಡಯಸತತದ, ನನನ ರತನಸ ನ ಮದರ ಅವನಸ ಮದಸವಯಗಲಸ ಸಧಲವಲಲ. ನದವ ಕದಳಸ ಜತಯ ಹಮಲಯರಸ , ನಮ ಮ ಮನಗ ನಮ ಮ ನಸನ ಸದರಸಸವದಲಲ ಎನದಲ ಲ ಹದಳ ಅವಚಲ ಶಬದಗಳನಸ ನ ಬಳಸಸವದರ ಮಮಲಕ ನನನ ತನದ , ತಯ ಹಗಮ ನನನನಸ ನ ನನದಸರಸತತರ. ಅಲಲದದ ಚನದಶಶದಖರ ರವರಗ ಬದರ ಹಸಡಸಗಯನದಗ ಮದಸವ ನಶಶಯವಗದಸ ದ , ಅವಳಮನದಗ ಮದಸವ ರಡಸತತದವ ಎನದದರ, ಅವನನದ ದಮರ ಹಮದಗಬದಕಸ , ಇಲಲದದದರ ನನನನಸ ನ ಸಸಮ ಲ ಮ ನ ಬಡಸವದಲ ಎನದಸ ಬದರಕ ಹಕದರಸ. ಅಲದ ಲ ಚನದಶಶದಖರನನಸ ನ ಇವರದ ಎಲ ಮಸಚಶಟಪರಬಹಸದನಬ ಗಸರನ ಇದಸ ನಮ ದ ಮ ಮಬಬಲ ಕರಗ ಸಗದನತ ವಲವಸದತವಗ ಸನಚಸ ಹಮಡದರ.
ನನಸ ಗರವನಸತ ಕಸಟಸನಬದನದ ಬನದವಳಸ, ವದಲವನತಳಗರಸತತದನ. ಆದರ ಚನದಶಶದಖರರವರ ಮರಳಸ ರತಸಗಳನದ ನನನಲ ನನಬಕ ಹಸಟಪಸ ನನಗ ಮದಸ ರಡ ನನನ ಮಯರದಯನಸ ನ ಕಳದರಸತತರ.29
Spl.C.No.329/2017 ಇನತಹ ವನಚಕರನಸ ನ ಬನಧಸ ಮದಸದನದ ನನನನದ ಹಗಮ ನನನ ತಯಯನದ ಹಣವನಸ ನ ಪಡದರಸತತನ".
30. On combined reading of the above contents of Ex.P.1/complaint it appears to me that in para No.1, the complainant had given particulars about their love affairs since 2013 and their decision to marry. In para No.2, she had given particulars regarding fixing the date of marriage and booking marriage hall, advancing payment to caterer, flower decorators, photo and videographers. In para No.3 she had given particulars about payment of money to the accused No.1 to an extent of Rs.6,00,000/-. In para No.4 she had given particulars about disappearing of accused No.1 since October 2015 and her attempt to search and also visiting the house of accused where she was said to be intentionally insulted. In the last paragraph, the complainant has specifically stated that the accused induced her with his colourful words to believe that he will marry her and thereafter cheated. 30
Spl.C.No.329/2017
31. As I have already stated above the total denial is the defence of the accused. During the course of chief-examination, the PW1 has reiterated the averments made in the Ex.P.1/complaint. In addition to that the PW1 has also narrated the story with more clarity which are not mentioned in the Ex.P.1/complaint stating that the accused accepted her friendship in the facebook and their first meeting held in the Tin Factory on her birth day dated 21.10.2013, the exchange of mobile phone numbers, regular chatting and calls, visit of tutorial of accused No.1 in the month of May 2014, frequent visit to out station, meeting with mother and sister of accused No.1 and talks held near BDA complex Reception Centre, which are deposed for the first time before this Court and those aspects are not finds place in the charge sheet. Furthermore, the said new version stated by the PW1 is also deposed by the father of PW1 stating that their meeting near BDA Complex and distribution of marriage invitation Cards. PW3-Gangadhar in his chief-examination 31 Spl.C.No.329/2017 deposed regarding the meeting of accused and CW1 in the Rajkumar Park, Kammanahalli, the intentional insult made by accused No.1 to 3 to CW1, which is a new version. PW4-Venkatesh in his chief- examination deposed that the accused No.1 took the PW1 to various places and their meeting with the accused persons and expressing their intention to marry PW1 if they withdrawn the complaint.
32. The learned counsel for accused drawn the attention of this Court towards the above improvements in the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and contended that these omissions are goes against the version of prosecution. Hence, the version of prosecution cannot be believed to any stretch of imagination. With the above contentions raised by the learned Counsel for accused, it is necessary to go through the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record.
33. It is well established principles of Law that in order to constitute an offence of cheating the intention to deceive should be in existence at that time when 32 Spl.C.No.329/2017 the inducement was made. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating. Whether the evidence of PW1 to PW4 inspires the confidence to prove the inducement on the part of accused No.1 since the date of his promise to marry PW1. It is important to note that, PW1 in her complaint has specifically mentioned that she came in contact with the accused and developed friendship and decided to marry. The parents of accused No.1 opposed the marriage on the ground that PW1 is belongs to Scheduled Caste but the accused consented for the said marriage. Further she has specifically mentioned that as per the words of accused No.1, preparation of marriage was also started by distributing invitation Card, booking bus, booking Hall and advancing money to the Flower Decorators, Photo and videographers and caterers. These averments of the complaint has been deposed before this Court by the PW1, but the PW1 has narrated the some other facts which are taken 33 Spl.C.No.329/2017 prior to the fixing the date of marriage, which are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the allegation made against accused No.1. The evidence of PW1 regarding their love affairs and fixing of date of marriage has been specifically deposed before this Court by the PW2 to 4 and there is no inconsistency in their evidence with regard to the same. As I have already stated supra in para No.39, PW1 to PW4 have narrated the prosecution story in an exaggerated manner and said exaggeration will not take away the case of prosecution in its entirety and said exaggeration will not benefited the accused in any manner.
34. The prosecution in order to connect the accused No.1 for the alleged offence u/sec.420 has produced various documents before this Court i.e., Marriage Invitation Card as per Ex.P.3 wherein it is clearly discloses that Marriage Invitation Card was also printed in connection with marriage to be held on 27.10.2016, between PW1 and accused No.1. The receipt for having paid the printing charges of the 34 Spl.C.No.329/2017 said invitation card is also marked before this Court as Ex.P.13. The learned counsel for cross examined the PW1 with respect to contents of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.13 and nothing has been elicited from her mouth to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.1 and ExP.13. The answers elicited from the mouth of PW1 would goes to show that there is no entry in the Ex.P.13/bill for having paid the advance amount. The said answer is not in any way affect the case of prosecution for a simple reason that, the Ex.P.13 is a bill for having paid the wedding card printing charges and not the bill for having paid the advance amount. Further answers were also elicited from her mouth that with regard to contents of Ex.P.3/invitation Card stating that there was no reference in the Ex.P.3 regarding the place of marriage. The said answer also not affects the case of prosecution for a simple reason that in the Ex.P.3 the place of marriage had been specifically mentioned as Sri.Tirupathi Venkateshwara Swamy Sannidhi.35
Spl.C.No.329/2017
35. The prosecution has produced two train tickets as per Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 and the said tickets are not in any way come to the aid of prosecution to show that accused No.1 and PW1 were travelled together. The contents of Ex.P.11/Card is produced for having paid advance amount to the Sunil Digital Studio and said card not bears the signature of the owner of studio. Hence, said Card is also not in any way come to the aid of prosecution. Ex.P.14 is the Receipt issued by the V.N.Caterers for having paid the advance amount and also return of said advance. The contents of Ex.P.14 discloses that the advance amount was said to be collected on 05.10.2016 but there is no date and signature regarding return of said advance amount. Hence, much importance cannot be given to the Ex.P.14. The Ex.P.15 is the Receipt for having booked the reception hall but the said receipt not bears the name of the owner of said hall. Hence, much importance cannot be given to the Ex.P.15. Apart from that the prosecution has not cited the photographer, Caterer, Flower Decorater 36 Spl.C.No.329/2017 and owner of chowltry as witnesses and also not examined the said persons to prove the contents of those documents. Furthermore, the contents of pendrive is also not come to the aid of prosecution as the said Pendrive is not subjected to scientific verification.
36. Ex.P.16 is the photograph wherein the accused No.1 and PW1 were taken the said photograph at Jog- falls. The contents of Ex.P.16 is not seriously disputed by the accused. The contention of accused No.1 is that he along with PW1 and other friends had been to the Jog-falls on trip and during the said occasion the Ex.P.16 was taken. The learned counsel for accused cross-examined the PW1 with respect to contents of Ex.P.16 stating that the Ex.P.16 was taken intentionally by the PW1 when accused No.1 is standing near the falls by seeing some other place and said photograph was taken without notice of accused No.1, hence, same cannot be considered.37
Spl.C.No.329/2017
37. I have carefully gone through the contents of Ex.P.16/photographs wherein it is clearly discloses that the accused No.1 was standing for the purpose of taking photograph and it was not taken without his notice. The contents of Ex.P.16 corroborates the version of PW1 to prove the fact that the accused No.1 and PW1 gone on trip. It is important to note that, Ex.D2 to Ex.D4/photographs produced by the accused No.1 clearly establishes the fact that the accused No.1 and PW1 have visited Jog-falls along with friends and in the Ex.D.2 and Ex.D3/photographs the accused No.1 actively participated in photo session. The dress worn by the accused No.1 and PW1 appearing in the Ex.D2 and Ex.D3/photographs are similar to that of the dress worn by them appearing in the Ex.P16. The contents of Ex.P.16 and Ex.D2 to Ex.D4/photographs clearly establishes the fact that the accused No.1 and PW1 were friends and gone on trip.
38. Ex.P17/photograph is produced by the PW1 to prove her case and the accused has produced 38 Spl.C.No.329/2017 Ex.D.1/photograph to disprove the case of prosecution. The contention of the accused is that the Ex.P.17/photo is edited photo of Ex.D1. During the course of cross-examination, the PW1 has given explanation stating that the Ex.P.17 was sent by the accused No.1 through Whatsapp and she has taken print of the same and produced before this Court and not edited by her. The explanation one given by the PW1 can be accepted as there is no material to hold that there is a materials alteration in the photograph. The contents of Ex.P.14 photograph and Ex.D1 photograph gets strengthen the version of prosecution to prove the fact that the accused No.1 and PW1 gone on trip to many places. The contents of photograph produced by PW1 as well as accused No.1 clearly goes to show that they were moved to various places on various occasions. It is not the case of the accused No.1 that he is in habit of visiting picnic spots with his friends including girls. The accused No.1 has taken contention that the PW1 has foisted false case by using 39 Spl.C.No.329/2017 photographs and said contention cannot be accepted in the absence of materials.
39. The learned counsel for accused has produced the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras reported in 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 1652, 1999 Cri.L.J., 3534 and judgment in Criminal Petition No. 5865/2021 and argued that the promise of marriage and later withdrawing of said promise will not amount to cheating.
40. I have carefully gone through the principles laid down in the judgment reported 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 1652 (K.U.Prabhuraj Vs. State by Sub Inspector of Police, AWPS Tambaram and another) wherein it is discloses that the petitioner of said case preferred Criminal Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madrass for quashing the criminal case registered against him for the offence under Section 417 and 420 of IPC. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras quashed the case registered against the petitioner on the ground that 40 Spl.C.No.329/2017 there is no material on record to show that because of the promise made by the petitioner the victim has done anything or omitted to do something which has the tendency to cause damage or harm to the body or mind or reputation or property of daughter of the 2nd respondent.
41. In the judgment reported in 1999 Cri.L.J., 3534(Abhoy Pradhan Vs. State of West Bengal), the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta acquitted the petitioner who was charge sheeted for the offence punishable u/sec.420 and 375 of IPC on the ground that there is no material to hold that the petitioner made promise to marry with the knowledge that such promise were false and the allegation made against the petitioner not amount to any attempt to create false conception of facts in the mind of complainant.
42. In the judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.5865/2021(Sri.Venkatesh Vs. State of Karnataka through Ramamurthynagar Police 41 Spl.C.No.329/2017 Station), the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka quashed the case registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable u/sec.417 and 420 of IPC on the ground that there is no material to show that from the beginning the complainant has filed to make out case of criminal intention on the part of accused/petitioner from the beginning for cheating the complainant.
43. On careful perusal of the principles laid down in the above said judgments, it it crystal clear that in order to constitute an offence of cheating the intention to deceive should be in existence at that time when the inducement was made. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating. In the case on hand, the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution clearly goes to show that the accused No.1 not only promised the PW1 to marry her and gone with her on trip to many places and said promise of marriage was carried upto the fixing of date of marriage and printing of invitation 42 Spl.C.No.329/2017 Card and the said act of the accused No.1 clearly proves the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC and the act of inducement can be seen from the first inception till breaking of promise of marriage. The oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients has extracted supra so far as the allegation is against the accused No.1 is concerned. Hence, the judgment relied by the accused cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
44. The learned counsel for accused would submits that the investigation made by PW5 is contrary to the provisions of SC/ST Act, hence the case of the prosecution vitiates. According to me, the argument canvassed by the counsel for accused cannot be considered as this Court is not considering the case of the prosecution regarding the allegation made against the accused under the Provisions of SC/ST Act.43
Spl.C.No.329/2017
45. The allegation of intentional insult and humiliation by taking the name of caste within the public view which is made against accused No.2 and 3 is proved through the evidence of PW1 to 4 or not is to be considered. Before going into the discussion on the other aspect of the matter it is just and proper to go through the Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of the Act, which reads as follows;
"intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;"
"abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;
46. The basic ingredients of the offence u/sec.3(1)(r)(s) can be classified as intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate member of SC/ST by caste name in any place within public view. The "place in public view" had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 (Swaran 44 Spl.C.No.329/2017 Singh & Ors., Vs. State through Standing Counsel & Ors). In the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if an offence is committed outside the building, i.e in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would be an offence since it is not in public view. In the case on hand, it is not the case of PW1 that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of incident in the place of occurrence. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. PW1 who is examined before this Court has deposed regarding the intentional insult and humiliation by taking the name of her caste but the said deposition is not corroborated by any of the witnesses. As per the own version of 45 Spl.C.No.329/2017 prosecution, PW2 to 4 have not witnessed the said allegation of intentional insult. The incident said to have been occurred in the public place but there was no public view. Hence, I have no hurdles to hold that the alleged incident cannot be construed to be occurred in public view. Furthermore, the allegation of criminal intimidation on the part of accused No.2 and 3 is also not proved before this Court. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of section 506 of IPC, the allegation under Section 3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST Act has no legs to stand.
47. The prosecution successfully proved before this Court that the accused has committed the offence of cheating. Under such circumstances, the accused No.1 is liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused No.2 and 3 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 506 R/W 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 and they are entitle for 46 Spl.C.No.329/2017 acquittal. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the 'Affirmative' and Point No.2 to 5 are in the 'Negative'.
48. Point No.6 : In view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section.420 of IPC.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused No. 2 and 3 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)
(s), 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
The accused No.2 and 3 are set at liberty and their bail bonds of and their sureties stands cancelled.
To hear on sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcripted by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 31st day of December 2022.) (PRAKASH.V) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru. 47
Spl.C.No.329/2017 ORDER ON SENTENCE Learned Spl.PP submits that offence of such types are increasing day by day and the court has to sent message to the society. The accused No.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and punishment for the said offence is 7 years. On these ground learned Spl.PP submits to impose maximum punishment. Contrary to it, learned counsel for accused No.1 submits that the accused No.1 is the only son of his parents, who is the bread earner of his family. His parents are suffering from age old ailments. Further submits that, he has no bad antecedents. On these ground learned counsel for accused No.1 prays for taking lenient view at the time of awarding sentence and minimum sentence be awarded to him.
I have heard the submission of learned counsel for accused No.1 and learned Spl.PP as well. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and family background of accused No.1, I 48 Spl.C.No.329/2017 am of the view that ends of justice will be met if accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The accused No.1 is hereby
sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one
year and also shall pay fine of
Rs.25,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 420 of
IPC.
In default of payment of fine, he
shall undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
Acting under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., the entire fine amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to PW1 towards compensation after expiry of appeal period.
LXX Addl. City Civil & SJ & Special Judge, Bengaluru.
49
Spl.C.No.329/2017 ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Shashikala S P.W.2 : Srinivas P.W.3 : Gangadhar P.W.4 : Venkatesh P.W.5 : T.K.Chikkarasaiah P.W.6 : T.P.Ravikumar
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) & (b) : Signatures of PW1 & PW5
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) to (c) : Signatures of PW1, PW4, PW5
Ex.P.3 : Marriage Invitation Card
Ex.P.4 : FIR
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW5
Ex.P.5 : Report regarding the caste of CW1
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW6
Ex.P.6 : Report regarding the caste of
accused persons
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of PW6
Ex.P.7 : DCP order
Ex.P.8 : Requisition dated 25.11.2016
Ex.P.9 : Requisition dated 25.01.2017
Ex.P.10 : Train Ticket
Ex.P.11 : Studio Bill
Ex.P12 : Train Ticket
Ex.P.13 : Cash bill of wedding Card
Ex.P.14 : Cash bill of Caterer
50
Spl.C.No.329/2017
Ex.P.15 : Cash bill of Hall
Ex.P.16 & P.17 : Photos
Ex.P.18 : Bank Statement
Ex.P.19 : CD
Ex.P.20 : 65(B) Certificate
Ex.P.21 : Pendrive
Ex.P.22 to P.25 : Conversations
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D.1 to D.4 : Photos
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil
(PRAKASH.V)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.