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 5, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

State By Basavanagudi Women Ps vs Had Extra Marital Affairs on 13 April, 2022

                                   1

                                                         C.C.No.31204/2018
  IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
             MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.

                  Dated this the 13th day of April, 2022.

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

                         C.C. No.31204/2018

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

2. Accused:                    A1 Yathish N.A.,
                               Aged 35 years,
                               R/at Krishnappa layout,
                               Bhommanahalli,
                               Bangalore city.

3.Date of offence:             04­05­2017.

4. Offences complained of:     U/s. 498(A), 506 of IPC

5. Plea:                       Accused No.1 Pleaded not guilty.

6. Final Order:                Accused No.1 is Acquitted.

7. Date of Order:              13­04­2022.

                               *****

      The Police­Inspector, Basavanagudi women Police Station,

Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused for the

offences punishable U/s.498(A), 506 of IPC.
                                  2

                                                       C.C.No.31204/2018
      2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

      That Cw­1 got married to the Accused No.1 on 15­12­2007 by

loving each other at Ganesha temple, Kadugodi as per customs and

same was registered in Sub registrar's office. Later after the marriage,

CW­1 started residing with accused at No.G­4, Sree Sai Garnet

Apartment, near Vinaya film theatre, JP nagar 8 th phase Kothanoor,

Bangalore and have two female children. Later CW­1 came to know

accused had extra marital affairs, when CW­1 questioned about the

act, accused assaulted on her. On 7­8­2018 accused left the house and

CW­1 came to know accused is at BTM layout, when she visited him,

accused abused, assaulted her and criminally intimidated to take away

her life, if she complained to police thereby subjected her to cruelty

both by physically and mentally thereby accused have committed the

offences punishable under Sec. 498(A), 506 of I.P.C.

      3. The accused No.1 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) 506 of IPC. , were framed, read
                                  3

                                                       C.C.No.31204/2018
over and explained to the accused person.          The accused person

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 person, the recording of Statement of Accused persons 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.Rani is the complainant. In her examination­in­

chief, she deposed that accused No.1 is her husband. She deposed

that her marriage with accused No.1 was performed on 15­12­2007.

She further deposed that herself and accused have obtained decree of

divorce. 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
                                  4

                                                       C.C.No.31204/2018
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

that the matter is compromised between her and accused and both of

them have obtained decree of divorce. The learned Sr.APP sought to

issue process against all the remaining witnesses, and hence, CW­2 to

8 are dropped. But after going through testimony of PW­1, I do not

find any incriminating evidence against the accused with regard to
                                      5

                                                              C.C.No.31204/2018
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 are charged

with heinous offence punishable under section U/s.498(A), 506 of

IPC. 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 persons 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 No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.498(A), 506 of IPC.

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

(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer and print out taken 6 C.C.No.31204/2018 by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 13th April, 2022).

(B.MOHAN BABU) XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE. ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

PW­1 : Smt.Rani 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.31204/2018 13­04­­2022 Judgment. Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separately) ORDER Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.498(A), 506 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused shall stands cancelled.
XXXVII ACMM., B'lore. 8 C.C.No.31204/2018 9 C.C.No.31204/2018