Bangalore District Court
State By Kamakshipalya P. S vs Jayarama S/O Gangaguddaiah on 9 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. CMM., AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 9th day of March 2016
Present: Sri A. Somashekara, B.A.L., LL.M.,
V Addl., C.M.M Bengaluru.
CC No.20055/2004
Complainant State by Kamakshipalya P. S.,
(By Sr. APP B'lore)
V/s.
Accused 1.Jayarama S/o Gangaguddaiah, 31 Yrs.,
R/o Lakkasandra Grama, Nelamangala
Tq., Bangalore District.
2.Kantharaju S/o Gangaguddaiah, 32
Yrs.,
3.Smt. Yashodhamma C/o Kantharaju,
28 Yrs.,
Both are R/o Honnappas' House,
4th Cross, Srigandanagara, Near
Anjaneya Temple, Hegganahalli Cross,
Bangalore city.
4.Guddamma @ Galguddamma
C/o Gangaguddaiah, 80 Yrs.,
(Rep. by MP, Adv.,)
---
2 CC No.20055/2004
JUDGMENT AS PER SEC.355 Cr.P.C.,
1. Serial Number of the case : CC No.20055/2004
2. Date of the commission of the : 11.03.2001 to 27.10.2003
offence
3.The name of the complainant : Smt. Sudha
4.Name of the accused persons
and their parentage and residence: As stated above.
5.The offence complained off : U/s.498A of IPC
and proved r/w Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act
6.The plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty and denied
their examination the incriminating evidence.
7.The final order : Acquitted
8.The date of such order : 09.03.2016
---
The Inspector of Police, Kamakshipalya police station,
Bangalore City, has submitted the present charge-sheet against
the accused persons for the offences punishable U/s.498-A of the
Indian Penal Code and U/s.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
Judge sign
3 CC No.20055/2004
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
The marriage of complainant-Smt. Sudha took place with
the accused No.1 on 11.03.2001, the accused No.2 to 4 are the
relatives of accused No.1. At the time of marriage the accused
No.1 on demand received cash of Rs.50,000/-, gold chain gold
ring and wrist watch as dowry from CW.2 Thimmappa, who is the
father of complainant. After the marriage, the complainant
started to lead her matrimonial life with the accused No.1 along
with the other accused in a house belonging to one Honnappas'
situated at 2nd Main Road, Hegganahalli Cross, within the limits of
Kamakshipalya P.S., Bangalore. At that time the accused No.1 to
3 have ill-treated the complainant by stating that the dowry given
at the time of marriage is insufficient, and demanded the
complainant to bring a site at Bangalore from her father,
assaulted her, abused her and subjected the complainant physical
and mental cruelty. With all these acts of the accused persons,
she is with apprehension of her life and accordingly, out of fear
rushed to the Kamakshipa police station and lodged a written
Judge sign
4 CC No.20055/2004
complaint to the Police Inspector. The Police Inspector, on
28.10.2003 on receipt of the said written complaint has been
registered a case in Cr.No.413/2003 and sent the F.I.R to the
court. Further, investigation was proceeded and after due
completion of the investigation, the present charge-sheet has
been submitted for the aforesaid offences.
3. As could be seen from the records, during the crime
stage itself Accused No.1 was produced and other accused
voluntarily appeared. All the accused persons have got bail and
now they are on bail. After taking cognizance A-1 to 4 faced the
trial through Smt. MP, advocate. The necessary charges was
framed and read over and explained to the accused, wherein,
they were pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Afterwards,
the prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 4 witnesses
as PW.1 to PW.4 and has got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.6. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted to
close his side of evidence. The statement of the accused as
Judge sign
5 CC No.20055/2004
contemplated under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code was
recorded. The accused have denied the entire incriminating
material evidences against them, however, they did not chose to
lead any evidences on behalf of them. The defence of the
accused is that, they were not at all given any torture, on the
other hand, the complainant herself left the company of A-1.
4. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances,
the following points that are arise for my determination: -
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves that,
the accused persons demanded the
dowry and received the same as a
consideration in performing the marriage
of A-1 along with complainant and
thereby committed the offence as
alleged?
2) Does the prosecution proves that, the
accused being the husband of the
complainant and A-2 to 4 are the
relatives of A-1 subjected her into
cruelty and committed the offences as
alleged?
3) What order?
Judge sign
6 CC No.20055/2004
5. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1 - In the negative
Point No.2 - In the negative
Point No.3 - As per final order for
for the following:-
REASONS
6. POINTS No.1 and 2:- These two points are
interconnected to each other and accordingly, to avoid the
repetition of appreciation of evidences for the sake of
convenience, I have taken them in common for my discussion.
Before adverting to appreciate the evidence led by the
prosecution, it is necessary to have a glance of statutory
provisions concerning the case. Following are the ingredients of
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.
"1) Woman must be married,
2) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment;
3) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown
either by the husband of the woman or by the relative
of her husband."
Judge sign
7 CC No.20055/2004
7. P.W.1 is the only eyewitnesses for the alleged facts
and circumstances, as set out by the prosecution. P.W.2 is the
father of P.W.1 and rest of the witnesses are speaks regarding
giving of amount and some articles by P.W.2 to the accused No.1
in performing the marriage of complainant and A-1. The fact of
marriage in between complainant and A-1, as well as the
relationship between them is not in dispute. It is pertinent to
note that, the parental house of the complainant is Tumkur.
However, the residential house of the A-1 is Bangalore. Ex.P.1 is
the compliant and on the basis of the same, the criminal action
set into motion. Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar alleged to have
drawn on 29.10.2003 in the house of A-1 at Bangalore. Ex.P.3 is
the marriage invitation card and also Ex.P.4 to 6 are the marriage
certificate. P.W.1 speaks the contents of Ex.P.1. According to
the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has
proved the guilt alleged against the accused persons. However,
the learned counsel for the accused, noticed to me not only
contradictions, but, also in connectivity of the statement of P.W.1
Judge sign
8 CC No.20055/2004
with real facts of the matrimonial life of A-1 with the complainant.
In the light of the submission of both sides, I have carefully
scrutinized the question of law and question of facts.
8. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the
accused persons have subjected complainant physical and mental
cruelty. Though, P.W.1 deposed that, accused No.1 is her
husband, accused No.2 to 4 are the relatives of accused No.1 and
CWs.2 and 3 are her parents, CW.4 to 6 are her uncles, her
marriage with accused No.1 took place on 11.3.2001, one month
prior to the marriage, marriage talks were held in her house,
accused persons demanded cash of Rs.50,000/-, one gold chain
ring, watch and one site to accused No.1, and 50 grams gold
ornaments to the bride from her parents, her parents prior to the
marriage gave cash of Rs.50,000/- gold chain, gold ring watch
and a site at Gowdarapalya of Tumkur, and further gave 50
Grams gold ornaments to her. After the marriage she resided in
the house of accused persons at Hegganahalli Cross, and the
Judge sign
9 CC No.20055/2004
mother of accused No.1 and 2 resided at Lakkasandra of
Nelamangala, her husband is the car driver, they looked her very
well for about two years, after that accused No.1 to 3 demanded
her to get site at Bangalore from her parents, and accused No.1
to 3 subjected her physical and mental cruelty, as the dowry
given is insufficient, and if they failed to give a site at Bangalore,
they will perform 2nd marriage to accused No.1, she informed the
same to her parents, and they refused for the same, and sent
back to her matrimonial house, out of the wedlock with accused
No.1, she became pregnant, at that time also accused persons
failed to lookafter very well, and she gave a birth to female child
at Vanivilas Hospital, but the said child was died, as accused
persons failed to provide food, medicines and proper care of her
at the time of pregnant. PW.1 has further deposed that with the
permission of accused No.1, her parents brought her to their
house, the accused persons failed to come to see her and failed
to take her back, after the panchayat they get back her. The
accused No.1 started to ill-treat her, as he wanted to marry a girl
Judge sign
10 CC No.20055/2004
by name Anitha,. The accused No.1, the said Anitha and the
mother of the Anitha have wrote a letter to her parents and
sought permission for the said marriage, when she went to
Women Help Line, she found presence of accused No.1 and the
said Anitha, at that time accused No.1 demanded the parents of
complainant to give permission to marry him with the said Anitha
by stating that he will pay Rs.20,000/-, and attempted to assault
her parents, Therefore, she lodged Ex.P1 complaint to the
Kamakshipalya P.S., after lodging Ex.P1 complaint, police have
conducted Ex.P2 Spot Mahazar at Hegganhalli Cross, she
produced Ex.P4 to 6 to the police, and further she prayed to
proceed this case against her mother-in-law also, as she(accused
No.4) instigated accused No.1 to 3. Except the oral evidences,
there is no other documentary evidences in respect of giving and
taking of such cash and golden items. According to PW.1, she
has lived in Bangalore, i.e. her husband's house for about two
years cordially. She herself clearly deposed that, in Bangalore,
she along with A-1 to 3 are only residing. It is also come in her
Judge sign
11 CC No.20055/2004
evidence that, A-4 is residing at Lakkasandra. When the accused
No.4 is residing in a different place, it is too difficult to believe the
version of PW.1 to the effect that, the accused has given torture
to her. After lapse of two years, the accused persons forced her
to bring a site at Bangalore from her parental house. However,
she failed to depose the exact period when her husband and his
relatives are forced her to bring the site as additional dowry.
During the course of cross-examination PW.1 has admitted
that during the marriage talks the accused have informed them
that the accused No.1 is out of station 3-4 days in a week on
work, and after the marriage she resided in the house of accused
No.2 and 3, Guddamma is residing at Lakkasandra, accused No.1
to 3 are all working, they used to left the house in the morning
and return the house in the evening. PW.1 has further admiited
that during her pregnancy she suffering from epilepsy disease,
the same came to the knowledge of accused persons, the
accused have get the treatment to her for the said disease, she
had no conscious at the time of the said disease, when she
Judge sign
12 CC No.20055/2004
became 9 months pregnant, accused No.1 get treatment to her at
Nimhans, further when she suffering from the said disease,
accused No.1 admitted her to Vanivilas Hospital, she gave birth to
a dead child, the Doctors have informed her that due to the said
disease only the said child was died. For about six months she
took up rest in her parents house. Further the accused No.1 took
her to a separate house, and they started to reside separately.
The aforesaid admissions create doubt about the truth in the
testimony of P.W.1.
10. P.W.2 is the father of P.W.1. He has deposed that
complainant is his daughter, accused No.1 is the husband of his
daughter, accused No.2 to 4 are the relatives of accused No.1,
CW.3 is his wife, and the marriage of his daughter took place with
accused No.1 on 11.3.2001 at Tumkur, and after the marriage,
his daughter started to reside along with accused persons at
Hegganahalli, Bangalore. His daughter resided for about one year
in the house of accused persons, at the time of marriage he gave
Judge sign
13 CC No.20055/2004
cash of Rs.50,000/- one gold chain, gold ring and one site to
accused No.1, when his daughter resided in the house of accused
No.1 to 3, accused persons forced his daughter to bring cash,
assaulted his daughter, failed to provide food to his daughter, his
daughter informed the same, when his daughter became
pregnant accused persons admitted his daughter to Vanivilas
Hospital, in the said hospital the child of his daughter was died.
Further the accused No.1 brought his daughter to his house, left
in his house and went back, and after lapse of one month they
conducted panchayat, accused No.1 taken back her, and after 15
days by assaulting his daughter sent back to his house, he
enquired the same with accused No.1, accused No.1 told to go
police station or Court.
The testimony of PW.2 is something contrary and he
deposed a new story than the testimony of P.W.1. According to
him, the accused persons started demanding his daughter to
bring cash and his daughter resided in the house of accused
persons for about one year. As per the version of P.W.1 accused
Judge sign
14 CC No.20055/2004
persons started demanding her to bring a site at Bangalore and
she resided in the house of accused No.1 to 3 for about two
years. He clearly deposed that, he did not seen the very torture
as made out by the prosecution.
11. P.W.3 and 4 are the brothers of PW.2, who have
deposed that the marriage of complainant took place with
accused No.1 on 11.3.2001 at Tumkur, and after the marriage,
complainant started to reside along with accused persons at
Hegganahalli, Bangalore, complainant resided for about one year
in the house of accused persons, at the time of marriage his
brother gave cash of Rs.50,000/- one gold chain, gold ring and
one site to accused. When complainant resided in the house of
accused No.1 to 3 subjected the complainant physical and mental
cruelty, complainant informed the same to them, they advised the
accused persons, since last five years complainant-Sudha is
residing in their village.
Judge sign
15 CC No.20055/2004
The aforesaid evidence of PWs.3 and 4 discloses that they
are the hearsay witnesses with regard to torture given by the
accused persons, hence, their evidence is not much helpful to the
case of the prosecution.
12. It is pertinent to note here that in spite of opportunities
provided to the prosecution, prosecution failed to examine the
material witnesses and the same is fatal to the case of the
prosecution. In this case the I.O., was also not examined. The
police have filed charge sheet in the year 2004, since for the last
12 years accused persons are wandering before the Court.
13. On looking to the entire evidences of the prosecution,
none of the witnesses were deposed to believe the fact of torture
as deposed by P.W.1, the evidences of PW.1 and 2 are not at all
corroborated to each other. Admittedly A-1 is working as driver
and use to go out 3-4 days in a week from the house. In such
circumstances, the entire contents of Ex.P.1 are covering with
cloud. Though, P.W.1 deposed so many facts of post-matrimonial
Judge sign
16 CC No.20055/2004
life at Bangalore, but the same is not at all supported by any of
the witnesses. There are so many contradictions in the testimony
of the prosecution witnesses. And even none of the witnesses
deposed that, the accused persons demanded to give the dowry
in connection with the marriage. Accordingly in my opinion, the
allegation of the prosecution, in respect of the dowry is not come
within the meaning of terms "dowry" as defined in the Dowry
Prohibition Act. On looking to the entire evidence, the
circumstances do not indicate about the commission of the
offences by accused persons.
14. As per the explanation appended to the Section 498-A
Indian Penal Code, the cruelty as deposed by P.W.1 and 2 does
not revealing about any injury sustained to the PW.1 and thereby
the same does not indicate the ingredients attracted to the
explanation of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, in
my opinion the prosecution is unable to convince me in what way
its case is attracted under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and
Judge sign
17 CC No.20055/2004
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation of dowry and cruelty is
first time came on record only after the receipt of notice from the
Women's' Help Lline to the PW.1. In such a situation, the entire
evidences created serious doubt in the mind of this court and
accordingly, in my opinion, the prosecution, failed to prove the
guilt leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Hence Point No.1 to 3 are concluded in the negative.
15. POINT No.3:- In view of my findings on points No.1
and 2, I proceed to pass the following
ORDER
The accused No.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted under Sections 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 498 of IPC, and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
Their bail bond and surety bond shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer, printout taken is verified by me and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 9th day of March 2016).
(A. Somashekahara) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
Judge sign 18 CC No.20055/2004 ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION PW.1 Smt. Sudha PW.2 Thimmappa PW.3 B Ramesha PW.3 Thirumalaiah.
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P1 Complaint dt., 28.10.2003 Ex.P2 Mahazar dt., 29.10.2003 Ex.P3 to 6 Marriage Invitation Card and Photographs.
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL.
4. LIST OF THE MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
NIL.
(A. Somashekhara) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
Judge sign 19 CC No.20055/2004 09.03.2016 Case called. A1 to A4 Pt.,/Abt., State by Sr. APP Judgement pronounced in the open Court as A1 to A4 on bail under vide separate Judgement kept For Judgement in the file.
The accused No.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted under Sections 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 498 of IPC, and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
Their bail bond and surety bond shall stands cancelled.
(A. Somashekhara) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
Judge sign 20 CC No.20055/2004 Judge sign