Bangalore District Court
Ramya vs V. Balaji on 17 January, 2025
KABC031103552017
Presented on : 08-11-2017
Registered on : 08-11-2017
Decided on : 17-01-2025
Duration : 7 years, 2 months, 9 days
IN THE COURT OF XXXII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT:
BENGALURU.
PRESENT
Sri. KESHAVA.K., B.A., LL.B.,
XXXII Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
Dated this 17th day of January, 2025
C.C.No.26448 of 2017
Complainant : State by the Police Sub Inspector,
Srirampura police station,
Bengaluru.
[By Assistant Public Prosecutor]
- Vs -
Accused No. 1. V.Balaji,
S/o.Venkateshan,
Aged about 31 years,
R/At.No.6, 7th main, 8th cross,
Gowthamnagar, Srirampura,
[
Bengaluru- 560021.
2). Venkateshan,
S/o.Late.Govindaswamy,
R/At.No.6, 7th main, 8th cross,
Gowthamnagar, Srirampura,
Bengaluru- 560021.
(Accused No.3 to 5 are left out from
charge sheet)
[By Sri.B.R.S.. Advocate]
2
C.C.26448/2017
JUDGMENT
The charge sheet has been filed in this case by the Police Sub Inspector of Srirampura police station against the accused No.1 and 2 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 493, 417 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. In briefly the case of the prosecution is as follows:-
It is the case of the prosecution that, the C.W.1 is the resident of house No.41, 7th cross, Swathanthra Nagar, Srirampura and was residing with her parents and brother ie C.W.4 to 6. Since the C.W.1 married to one Saravana in the year 2011 and the said marriage ended in divorce on 02.01.2017. Before that the C.W.1 had acquaintance with the accused No.1 from the past 10 years and the accused No.1 came to know about the divorce of the C.W.1 and he has sympathized with the C.W1 and promised to marry her by looking after her for ever and had sexual intercourse with her, by roaming around with her. Later on married C.W.1 at Banashankaramma Temple. When the parents of the accused No.1 ie accused No.2 came to know about the marriage he raised objection and the accused No.1 avoided C.W.1. The accused No.2 sent rowdies to the house of C.W1 and forced her to forget the accused No.1 and threatened to kill her, as such the C.W.1 lodged complaint before the Srirampura police on 08.12.2014, subsequently on 09.12.2014 the accused No.1 married the C.W.1 at Subramanyaswamy Temple at Bhashyam Nagar as per tradition in the presence of C.W.4 to 6 and 7.
After marriage the accused No.1 and C.W.1 lived together for 10 days at house No.41, 7th cross, Swathanthra Nagar, Srirampura, Bengaluru and thereafter the accused No.1 deserted the C.W.1 and went away. Later the accused No.1 and 2 went to the house of C.W.1 and criminally 3 C.C.26448/2017 intimidated to her life if she did not leave Bengaluru along with her family members and therefore the C.W.1 lodged the complaint against accused No.1 and 2 before the Srirampura Police seeking necessary action against them in accordance with law.
3. On the basis of the said complaint given by C.W.1, the complainant police have registered the case for the offences punishable U/Sec.420 and 506 of IPC under Crime No.175/2017 and sent FIR to this Court and to their concerned higher authorities. Thereafter, the complainant police have visited the spot and conducted the spot mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses, herein after recorded the statements of witnesses who availed in the station subsequently who availed where the said mahazars have been drawn, after completion of the investigation the IO has arived at a conclusion that there are sufficient materials as to prosecute the accused No.1 and 2, for which charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable U/s 493, 417, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
4. After filing of the charge sheet, this Court registered the case is as numbered above, before that the accused persons surrendered before court and were enlarged on bail, meanwhile copies of the charge sheet and other prosecution papers were duly supplied as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, this court found that there were sufficient reasons so as to frame charge against the accused No.1 and 2 , therefore charge has been framed and read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 in the language known to them, after understanding they denied the same and claimed to be tried, accordingly, proceeded with trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven 4 C.C.26448/2017 witnesses out of 12 charge sheeted witnesses who are said to be complainant, eye witnesses, mahazar witnesses, circumstantial witnesses as well as the investigating agency at P.W.1 to 7 and got marked documents at Ex.P-1 to P.7, during the period of prosecution evidence. After completion of entire trial, this court has found that there were incriminating materials arising out against the accused No.1 to 3, thereby statement of accused No.1 to 3 as required under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., also recorded. The accused got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to 5.
[[[
6. Heard both side arguments, in compliance of section 437-A of Cr.P.C., bail bond were obtained from the accused.
7. In view of above said facts and circumstances the following points that would arise for my consideration are as follows:-
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the C.W.1 had acquaintance with the accused No.1 from the past 10 years and the accused No.1 came to know about the divorce of the earlier marriage of C.W.1 and he has sympathized with the C.W1 and promised to marry her by looking after her for ever and had sexual intercourse with her. Later on married C.W.1 at Banashankaramma Temple.
When the parents of the accused No.1 ie accused No.2 came to know about the marriage he raised objection and the accused No.1 avoided C.W.1 and thereby the accused No.1 has committed an offence of "Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage"
punishable under section 493 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 married C.W.1 at Banashankaramma 5 C.C.26448/2017 Temple and when the parents of the accused No.1 ie accused No.2 came to know about the marriage he raised objection and the accused No.1 avoided C.W.1 and left her and again accused No.1 married C.W.1 and they lived together for 10 days at house No.41, 7 th cross, Swathanthra Nagar, Srirampura, Bengaluru and thereafter the accused No.1 deserted the C.W.1 and went away and thereby the accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable under section 417 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 sent rowdies to the house of C.W1 and forced her to forget the accused No.1 and threatened to kill her, further after accused No.1 married C.W.1 on 09.12.2014 at Subramanyaswamy Temple, the accused No.1 left the C.W1 and then accused No.1 and 2 went to the house of C.W.1 and criminally intimidated to her life if she did not leave Bengaluru along with her family members and thereby the accused have committed an offence of "criminal intimidation" punishable U/s 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
4. What Order?
8. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point Nos.1 to 3 : In the 'Negative' Point No.4 : As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 3 : These points are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid the repetation of facts.
10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined in total 07 witnesses out of 12 charge sheet witnesses. Among them C.W. 3, 9 and 10 are ordered to be dropped, C.W.11 is given up, C.W.6 is not examined 6 C.C.26448/2017 in this case. As far as documents are concerned Ex.P.1 is the complaint dated 02.08.2017, Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar dated 03.08.2017, Ex.P.3 is copy of HMOP No.156/2016, Ex.P.4 is the copy of decree pertaining to HMOP No.156/2016, Ex.P.5- is the statement of P.W.5, Ex.P.6 is the FIR, Ex.P.7 is the consent document. On the other hand during the course of cross examination of prosecution witnesses the accused persons have also got exihibited by confronting documents as Ex.D.1 to 5. As far as those documents are concerned Ex.D.1 is C.C.of complaint dated 04.03.2015 lodged by C.W.1 against the accused. Ex.D.2 and 3 - are the Crl.Misc.89/2015 and affidavits, Ex.D.4- Judgment in Crl.Misc.89/2015, Ex.D.5 -C.C.of complaint. Upon taking into consideration of contents of oral and documentary testimonials herein the prosection per se it is projected that in the 1st instance the accused No.1 has cheated to the C.W.1 by registering FIR for the alleged offences punishable U/s 420 and 506 of IPC, in the 2nd instance it is alleged that the accused no.1 had cohabitation with the C.W.1 by deceitfully inducing to marry her and he has got married the C.W.1, later on both stayed together at the house of C.W.1 for a period of 10 days thereafter the accused No.1 left the C.W.1 and hence she lodged complaint, after completion of investigation the complainant police have filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the alleged offences punishable U/s 493, 417 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
11. Before going to discuss in detail about the oral and documentary testimonials stated supra, herein it is relevant to note that during course of arguments the accused's counsel has vehemently argued and brought the point to the notice of this court is that the C.W.1 has already got married to one by name Saravana in the year 2011, 7 C.C.26448/2017 thereafter the C.W.1 and said Saravana lived together till their divorce, in between neither the accused No.1 nor the accused No.2 not all contacted one another, even then by misusing the acquaintance in between C.W.1 and accused no.1, she has with an intention to get accused No.1 as her husband without obtaining divorce from her legally wedded husband she has lodged various complaints, after investigation the police have filed B reports, not only those alleged complaints she has also filed Crl.Misc.89/2015, in which she has not got any relief against the accused No.1, under such circumstances in order to give high level degree of harassment she herself and her family members colluded with the police officials and after taking help from rowdies forcibly the accused no.1 was taken to the police station and formally exchanged garlands before the rowdies. Soon after he has undergone mental agony and went to his native place, after taking rest for some days he has lodged complaint against the police officers and C.W1 and her family members, wherein the Commissioner of Police has strictly directed to take action against these persons, even then the police officials who had already colluded with the C.W.1 and her family members insisted the accused No.1 to settle the matter with the C.W.1 and her family members, now all these persons who have spoiled the life of accused No.1 and dragged him into unwanted litigations and humiliation. All these things have been clearly admitted by the C.W.1 and her family members during the course of cross examination. In fact before the marriage of C.W.1 the accused No.1 and C.W.1 being good friends, but both had not crossed their limits, that itself is clearly admitted before the marriage of C.W.1, the accused No.1 has not made any sexual abuse on C.W.1. After marriage of the C.W1 the accused 8 C.C.26448/2017 No.1 has not committed any sexual abuse on C.W.1 and if so assumes he has done , then it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove that aspect so as to believe that the accused No.1 had decietfully cohabitation with the C.W.1. In order to believe this version the prosecution has not collected an iota of evidence and taking of photographs of C.W.1 and accused no.1 which does not gives any amount to marriage of C.W.1 with accused no.1 according to Hindu Law because the C.W.1 clearly admitted that their marriage has been finished within 5 mintues by exchanging garlands in the presence of 5- 10 people, even if it is assumed to be valid marriage, here there is no customary prevliges either in the Hindu community or in any community of Christianity or Mohammedan law as exchange of garlands is valid marriage, during the existence of earlier marriage of C.W.1. All these things clearly establishes that the prosecution has blunderly failed to establish its case as it containing divergent and dual roles and there is no any consistent plea in the prosecution papers itself. Therefore, there is lack of materials and discrepancies in between the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the investigation agency has also committed so much of ommissions to the extent wherein firstly no such medical reports have been collected about sexual abuse of accused No.1 with the C.W.1, secondly they did not verify the legal marriage of C.W.1 with one Saravana, finally the investigation itself is based upon assumptions and on fictitious reasons with an intention to help the C.W.1 and her family members for the reasons best known to them, by virtue of all these reasons the accused No.1 and 2 are going to shows their innocence and there is no relation in between the accused and C.W.1, hence they are entitled to get 9 C.C.26448/2017 acquittal on the point of principle of benefit of doubt.
12. During the course of arguments the prosecution as well as accused persons have taken below mentioned points for their convenience, same reads as below:
ಪಿ.ಡಬ್ಲೂ -1 2014 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ತಾಯಿಯ ಮನೆಯ ಹತ್ತಿ ರ ಇದ್ದಾ ಗ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ನನ್ನ ನ್ನು ನೋಡಿದ್ದು ತಾಯಿಯ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಏಕೆ ಇರುತ್ತೀಯಾ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದು ಆಗ ನಾನು ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿ ವಿಚ್ಛೇದನವಾಗಿರುತ್ತ ದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದು ನಂತರ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದು ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿ ದ್ದ ರು.
1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು 2005 ರಿಂದ 2011 ರ ವರೆಗೆ ತಾನು ನನ್ನ ನ್ನು ಪ್ರೀತಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿ ದ್ದೇನೆ ಮದುವೆಯಾಗುತ್ತಿ ದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತೀರಾ ಎಂಬ ಪ್ರ ಶ್ನೆ ಗೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ದಾರರು ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರಾಗಿದ್ದೆ ವು ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. 2005 ರಿಂದ 2011 ರ ವರೆಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಹಾಗೂ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ನಡುವೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ದೈಹಿಕ ಸಂಪರ್ಕ ನಡೆದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . 2011 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಮದುವೆಯಾದಗ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಬೇರೆ ಮದುವೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳ ಬೇಡ ನಾನು ಮದುವೆಯಾಗುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ್ಠ . ನಾನೂ ಸಹ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಆತನನ್ನು ಪ್ರೀತಿಸುತ್ತಿ ದ್ದೇನೆ ಮದುವೆಯಾಗುತ್ತಿ ದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ .
ಸದರಿ ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೂ ಮತ್ತು 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗೂ ದೈಹಿಕ
ಸಂಪರ್ಕ ಇತ್ತು ಎಂದು ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ದಾರರು ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಆದರೆ ಪೊಲೀಸಿನವರು ಬರೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ರೆ.
1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಸೋಲಿಂಗ್ ದಿಂದ ವಾಪಸ್ಸು ಬಂದು
ಗೂಂಡಾಗಳನ್ನು ಇರಿಸಿ, ಬಲವಂತವಾಗಿ ಮದುವೆ
ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಕಮಿಷನರ್ ರವರಿಗೆ ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿ ರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ದಾರರು ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿ ರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ರೆ.
ಬನಶಂಕರಮ್ಮ ದೇವಸ್ಧಾ ನದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಆರೋಪಿ
ಇಬ್ಬ ರೇ ಹೋಗಿ ಮದುವೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ.
ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದೇವಸ್ಧಾ ನದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ
10
C.C.26448/2017
ದಾಖಲಾತಿ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ .
1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ನನ್ನ ನ್ನು ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿ ಹಣೆಗೆ ಬಟ್ಟು
ಇಟ್ಟು , ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತ ದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು
ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ರೆ.
ಪಿಡಬ್ಲೂ -2
1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು 10-12 ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳ ಜೊತೆ
ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು ಅವನು ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದು
ಹೋಗುವುದು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ನೆ. 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ರಮ್ಯಾ ಳನ್ನು ದೇವಸ್ಧಾ ನದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾರ ಬದಲಿಸಿ ಫೋಟೋ ತೆಗೆದು ಅದನ್ನು ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ನೀಡಿ ಅವರ ಮದುವೆ ನಡೆದಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ದಾರರು ಪೊಲೀಸಿನವರೇ ಫೋಟೋವನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. 1 ನೇ ಅರೋಪಿ ಮತ್ತು ಚಾಸಾ-1 ರವರು ಸ್ವ ತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಪಾಳ್ಯ ದ್ರೌ ಪದಮ್ಮ ರಸ್ತೆ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಾಗಿದ್ದ ರು ಅವರು ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಾಗಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ರಸೀದಿ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ .
ಪಿಡಬ್ಲೂ -4
ದಿಃ 09.12.2014 ರಂದು ಆರೋಪಿತನು ನಮ್ಮ
ಮಗಳನ್ನು ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿದ್ದಾ ನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ಶ್ರೀರಾಮ್ ಪುರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆತನಿಂದ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಬರೆಯಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆ ಕಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳ ವಿವಾಹ ವಿಚ್ಛೇದನೆ ಆಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . ದಿಃ 02.01.2017 ರಂದು ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳ ಮತ್ತು ಆಕೆಯ ಗಂಡ ಶ್ರ ವಣ ರವರ ನಡುವೆ ವಿಚ್ಛೇದನೆ ನಡೆದಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ .
ಪಿಡಬ್ಲೂ -5 2014 ರಂದು ಚಾಸಾ-1 ರವರು ನನಗೆ ಫೋನ್ಮಾಡಿ 09.12.2014 ರಂದು 1ನೇ ಅರೋಪಿಯ ಮದುವೆ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿ ದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದ ರು. ಮದುವೆಯೂ ಸರಳವಾಗಿ 5 ನಿಮಿಷ ದೇವಸ್ಧಾ ನದಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದಿರುತ್ತ ದೆ.
13. On account of foregoing reasons, once again this court raised the point for better appreciation of the evidence is that whether the prosecution has established its case that the accused No.1 has definitely decietfully cohabitated with the C.W.1 on the assurance to marry her and secondly the prosecution has clearly established its case that the C.W.1 legally married to accused No.1 as on the date mentioned in the complaint, here strictly on focussing these points firstly on going 11 C.C.26448/2017 through the documents available on record as per Ex.P.1 on 02.08.2017 complaint has been lodged against the accused persons in which it is clearly mentioned that on 06.06.2011 she had got married to one Saravana, later within three months she has obtained divorce from him, in Ranipete court, Tamilnadu. Thereafter on 08.12.2014 the accused No.1 has got married to C.W.1. Thereafter in the year 2015 one PCR has been lodged vide No.36/2015, that apart in the Ex.P.1 it is clearly stated that the accused No.1 has lived together for 10 days in the matrimonial house, per contra on 14.03.2015 she has lodged one more complaint as per NCR 90/2015 in which it is clearly said that after marriage of accused No.1 and C.W.1 within three days he left the C.W.1. Likewise as per Ex.P.3- HMOP No.156/2016 has been disposed off by the Hon'ble Subordinate Judge, Ranipete on 02.01.2016, but here it is relevant to mention that before obtaining divorce from her legally wedded husband, it is said that she has married to accused No.1 on 08.12.2014, that itself amounts to misleading the Court. Secondly not only that aspect, after lapse of three years this instant complaint has been lodged against the accused persons, in this regard no believable and acceptable reasons have been appeared in the entire strength of the prosecution about delay. As far as Ex.P.7- consent document cannot be accepted as she being an Indian citizen, she should and she must know about the law of the land, however ignorance of law cannot be accepted.
14. As far as sexual abuse is concerned neither the investigation officer nor the prosecution did not taken any steps about the medical evidence particularly that the accused No.1 has physically abused to C.W.1. Therefore unless and until rebut that doubt by producing and 12 C.C.26448/2017 adducing reliable evidence, that doubt again will remain the same, therefore, that contention also cannot be accepted due to lack of evidence and hence now the case of the defence counsel comes into play that as per Ex.D1 to 5 that the C.W. 1 has filed false case against the accused persons for one or the other reasons, as to which in response to the complaint dated 04.03.2015 appears to be filed B report, likewise as per Ex.D.2 in Crl.Misc.89/2015 the Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate clearly opined that there was no legal and valid marriage in between the accused No.1 and C.W.1 vide order dated 17 th day of August 2016 and she has not been succeeded to get maintenance and such other consequential reliefs. Thereafter she has lodged one more complaint as per Ex.D.5 in which also the concerned police appears to have submitted B report, all these things shows that on one or the other pretext she has grown rivarly against the accused without any sufficient cause. Further this court came to know that in the first instance the FIR has been lodged for the offences punishable U/s 420 and 506 of IPC. Later on the IO has realized that the accused have committed the offences punishable U/s 493, 417 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC, in this regard he has to collect material evidence as the accused persons have been committed these alleged offences, in such scenario on looking into the oral and documentary testimonials firstly it is alleged that the accused No.1 has deceived the C.W.1 with an intention to have sexual intercourse and caused mental and physical cruelty to her, as such the IO admittedly has not collected any single piece of evidence so as to believe that the accused No.1 has committed sexual intercourse with the C.W.1. Merely on the allegation that the accused No.1 has caused physical abuse to C.W1 cannot be accepted. As far as cheating is 13 C.C.26448/2017 concerned mainly the C.W.1 is a married woman and she has to know the yardsticks and parameters as to how to behave with her friends.
15. That apart the prosecution has not brought the witnesses ie C.W.3, 9, 10, 6 before the court, this aspect also shows that for one or the other way escaping from its liability to prove its case, under such circumstances on overall consideration of these materials and mainly on the allegation by virtue of photographs there was a marriage occurred in between C.W.1 and accused No.1 cannot be accepted for the foregoing reasons unless it is rebutted because the accused No.1 has already lodged complaint against the CW.1 and her family members before the Commissioner of Police and same has been admitted by the C.W.1 also. Upon these reasons basically before lodging this complaint, the C.W.1 has not taken divorce from her husband, that apart she has also filed various cases seeking maintenance and such other assault cases, even then she has not succeeded in her efforts, that itself clearly shows that for the reasons best known to her and in order to get accused No.1 as her husband she has made several hectic efforts, those cannot constitute a criminal offence to convict the accused persons for the foregoing reasons and the prosecution has not established the ingredients of the alleged offences against the accused No.1 and 2, however herein no positive evidence is there to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2, for which this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, benefit of doubt goes to the accused No.1 and 2, for which I answer point Nos.1 to 3 in the 'Negative'.
16. Point No.4: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 to 3 and reasons 14 C.C.26448/2017 assigned therein, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are not found guilty and they are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Secs.493, 417 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond executed by the accused No.1 and 2 stands cancelled.
In compliance of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. the bail bond executed by the accused No.1 and 2 are ordered to be continued in force for six months or till issuance of notice in respect of any appeal [if preferred] against the present Judgment before the Appellate Court. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript revised, corrected and signed & then pronounced in the Open court on this the 17th day of January 2025.) (KESHAVA.K) XXXII Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
:: A N N E X U R E ::
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Ramya
P.W.2 ; Swamy Kannan
P.W.3 : Ahmed Basha
P.W.4 : Vembu
P.W.5 : Suchitha
P.W.6 : Karthik
15
C.C.26448/2017
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:
- NIL -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W.1. Ex.P.2 : Spot mahazar Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of P.W.1. Ex.P.3 : Copy of HMOP No.156/2016, Ex.P.4 : Copy of decree pertaining to HMOP No.156/2016, Ex.P.5 : Statement of P.W.5, Ex.P.6 : FIR, Ex.P.7 : Consent document DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE:- Ex.D.1 : C.C.of complaint dated 04.03.2015 lodged by C.W.1
Ex.D.2 & 3 : Crl.Misc.89/2015 and affidavits, Ex.D.4 : Judgment in Crl.Misc.89/2015, Ex.D.5 : C.C.of complaint XXXII Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.