Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

State By Basavanagudi Women Ps vs Did Not Take Her For Honeymoon on 7 March, 2022

                                  1

                                                        C.C.No.19998/2019
  IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
             MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.

                  Dated this the 7th day of March, 2022.

                   Present:Sri B.MOHAN BABU, B.A., L.L.B.,
                       XXXVII Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore.

                         C.C. No.19998/2019

              JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.,
1. Complainant:                State by Basavanagudi Women PS.

2. Accused:                    Santhosh V Saimath
                               Son of Vireshaih,
                               Aged 32 years,
                               R/at Marathahalli,
                               BANGALORE CITY.

3.Date of offence:             04­09­2018

4. Offences complained of:     U/s. 498(A) of IPC & Sec.
                               3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. Plea:                       Accused Pleaded not guilty.

6. Final Order:                Accused is Acquitted.

7. Date of Order:              07­03­2022.

                               *****

      The Police­Inspector, Basavanagudi Women Police Station,

Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused for the
                                 2

                                                      C.C.No.19998/2019
offences punishable U/s.498(A) of IPC & Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

      2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

      That the A­1 got married to Cw­1 on 03­02­2014 at Raichur

Hatti as per Hindu customs and thereafter the marriage CW­1 started

residing at H.No.4, ground floor, Out­house, near Anjaneya temple,

Yediyur, Jayanagar, Bangalore and demanded with CW­1 for sum of

Rs.48,000/­ to go for Honeymoon, even after receipt of the same,

accused did not take her for honeymoon, accused failed to look after

basic needs for home. The A­1 used to consume alcohol everyday and

vomiting at home, CW­1 was cleaning. The accused failed to repay the

bank loan raised by him. Later accused started residing at

Muneshwara block, Palace Guttahalli there also accused subjected her

to cruelty in demand of Rs.5 lakhs, to which, CW­1 gave Rs.30,200/­

and transferred Rs.3,50,000/­ to his account also gave Rs.3,00000/­

by pledging the jewels. During the year, 2017 the A­1 went out of

station and did not returned. On 28­7­2018 accused visited near the

house of CW­1, made galata and did not take her back tortured both

by physically and mentally in demand of dowry and thereby accused
                                       3

                                                           C.C.No.19998/2019
has committed the offences punishable under Secs. 498(A), r/w/s 34

of I.P.C., & Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

      3. The accused was enlarged on bail. On receipt of charge sheet,

this court took the cognizance of the alleged offences and furnished

copy of the prosecution papers to the accused person. Charge for the

offences P/U/S.498(A) of IPC & Sec. 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act ,

were framed, read over and explained to the accused. The accused

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

      4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined one

witness as PW­1 and got marked two documents at Ex.P1 and P2. As

there were no any incriminating circumstances appeared against the

accused, the recording of Statement of Accused person as required

U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

      5. I have heard the arguments of learned Sr.APP., for the

prosecution and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the

materials available on record.

      6. In order to prove the guilty against the accused, out of 08

witnesses, the prosecution has examined only one witness as PW­1.

The   CW­1/PW­1       Smt.Tejaswini       is   the   complainant.   In   her
                                  4

                                                       C.C.No.19998/2019
examination­in­chief, she deposed that accused is her husband. She

deposed that her marriage with accused was performed on 03­02­

2014. She further deposed that accused not subjected her to any

physical and mental cruelty. That there was only petty quarrel

between them with respect to family issues, for which she went to the

police station, there the police have took some signature on

document. She identified the first information statement as per Ex.P1

and identified her signature therein as per Ex.P1(a) and identified the

spot Panchanama as per Ex.P2 and identified her signature therein as

per Ex.P2(a), but she pleaded her ignorance about the contents of

Ex.P1 and P2. At this stage, the learned Sr.APP sought permission to

treat this witness as hostile, permission was accorded to treat this

witness as hostile. Though this PW­1 was cross examined by the

learned Sr.APP., with regard to the case of prosecution, for which, she

denied the same and nothing worth has been elicited.

     7. On going through the materials on records, it goes to show

that the PW­1 has completely turned hostile to the prosecution case

and she has not supported the case.       During the course of cross

examination, she denied the suggestion made to her and she admitted
                                  5

                                                         C.C.No.19998/2019
that the matter is compromised between her and accused. The learned

Sr.APP sought to issue process against all the remaining witnesses,

and hence, CW­2 to 7 are dropped. But after going through testimony

of PW­1, I do not find any incriminating evidence against the accused

with regard to allegations made against him. When the victim already

turned hostile, no purpose would be served even if the remaining

witnesses are examined, as such the prayer was rejected. Since there

is no incriminating evidence against the accused, hence the statement

of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., is also dispensed with. As said above

the victim herself has not supported the prosecution case so as to

prove the allegations against the accused, though the accused is

charged with heinous offence punishable under section 498(A) of IPC

& Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. For want of evidence the

accused is entitled for acquittal. For the foregoing discussion, I am of

the opinion that, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations

against the accused person for the alleged offences beyond reasonable

doubts. Consequently, I proceed to pass the following:

                                     ORDER

Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted for the offences 6 C.C.No.19998/2019 punishable U/s. 498(A) of IPC & Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The bail bond and surety bond of accused shall stands cancelled.

(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer and print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 7th March, 2022).

(B.MOHAN BABU) XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE.

ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

PW­1 : Smt.Tejaswini LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1       :      Complaint
Ex.P.1(a)    :      Signature of PW­1
Ex.P.2       :      Spot mahzar
Ex.P.2(a)    :      Signature of PW­1

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE .
NIL XXXVII ACMM., BANGALORE.
7
C.C.No.19998/2019 07­03­2022 Judgment. Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separately) ORDER Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s. 498(A) of IPC & Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused shall stands cancelled.
XXXVII ACMM., B'lore. 8 C.C.No.19998/2019 9 C.C.No.19998/2019