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

The State By Srirampura Ps vs A1. Vasu on 15 March, 2022

     IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDL.ACMM,
                   BENGALURU
    Present : Sandesh Prabhu.B. BA(LAW), LL.B.
                  XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru,

                    C.C.No.25507/2012

           Dated : On this the 15th March, 2022


Complainant: The State by Srirampura PS
                Police Station, Bengaluru
                 (By Assistant Public Prosecutor).

                      V/s

Accused:       A1. Vasu,           (Abated)
               S/o Muniswami,
               r/at no.162/A, railway quarters,
               Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru

               A2. Aniyamma,
               W/o Muniswami
               r/at no.162/A, railway quarters,
               Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru

               A3.Muniswami,
               S/ Rajendra,
               r/at no.162/A, railway quarters,
               Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru

               A4. Smt Bhagya,
               W/o Venkatesh,
               r/at no.118, 4th cross,
               Saibabanagar, Srirampura,
               Bengaluru
                               2                  CC25507/2012


                A5. Smt.Shanthi.S,
                W/o Suresh,
                r/at no.17, 3rd cross,
                Saibaba nagar, Srirampura,
                Bengaluru

           (By Sri. Rudhrabhushan.C.Benakanalli
           Advocate)


Date of Report of Offence         : 10­10­2012

Name of the Complainant       : Smt.Asha.D

Date of Commencement of
recording of Evidence             : 07­03­2022

Date of Closing of evidence       : 07­03­2022

Offences complained are           :U/Secs 498(A), 3 & 4
                                      of D.P Act

Opinion of the Judge          : Accused found not
                                   guilty


                                  (Sandesh Prabhu B.)
                                     XXXIX ACMM,
                                     Bengaluru


                  ­:: JUDGEMENT ::­
       The PSI of Srirampura PS, Bengaluru has filed

charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 5 for the

offences punishable u/s 498(A) of IPC and 3 & 4 of DP

Act.
                                     3                     CC25507/2012


       2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as
follows :­
       That on 11­11­2010 the complainant married to

accused no.1 at Siddaganga kalyana mantapa and after

marriage the complainant            started to live in her

matrimonial       house    no.162/A,         railway    quarters,

Yeshwanthpura, Bangalore, at that time the accused

no.1    to   5   gave   physical    and      mental    cruelty   to

complainant by demanding dowry of Rs.5,00,000/­.

Further the accused no.2 to 5 had assaulted with hands

to complainant and demanded her to bring additional

dowry. That on 13­03­2011 the complainant was

residing with accused no.1 at house no.63, 2 nd main

road, 3rd cross, Nagappa block, at that time the accused

no.1    had      demanded     her       to    bring    dowry     of

Rs.5,00,000/­, assaulted her and gave physical and

mental cruelty to her. Therefore the complainant lodged

complaint against the accused.



       3. On the basis of complaint given by complainant

the Srirampura police have registered a case against the
                                  4                   CC25507/2012


accused no.1 to 5 in Cr.No.162/2012 for the offences

punishable u/s 498(A) of IPC and 3 & 4 of DP Act. After

completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer

has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the

above said offences.



     4. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance was

taken for the offences punishable u/s 498(A) of IPC and

3 & 4 of DP Act and after issuance of summons the

accused no.1 to 5 were appeared before the court and

later they were enlarged on bail. Thereafter the

prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused

persons      as   contemplated   U/Sec.207      of   Cr.P.C.

Thereafter heard the learned prosecution and counsel

for accused about framing of charge. Since there were

sufficient   materials   to   frame   charge   against   the

accused, charges were framed u/s 498(A) of IPC and 3

& 4 of DP Act.           The sum and substance of the

accusation was read over to the accused and their

answers to the said accusation was denial and they
                               5                CC25507/2012


claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution was given

an opportunity to establish the guilt of the accused

persons.



     5.    The prosecution in order to bring home the

guilt of the accused, it got examined only one witness

as PW­1 and got marked two documents as per Ex.P­1

& Ex.P2. Since PW­1 being the complainant has turned

hostile to the prosecution case, the prayer of the

learned APP for examining the other witnesses has been

rejected and remaining witnesses have been dropped as

no purpose would be served. When the case is

adjourned for 313 statement, the counsel for accused

files death certificate of accused no.1. Perused. Hence

case against the accused no.1 was abated. Since there

is no any incriminating evidence against the accused,

the statement of the accused no.2 to 5 as required

U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.
                                  6                   CC25507/2012


     6.   Heard the arguments of learned prosecution

and counsel for accused.



     7. The points that arise for consideration of this

Court are as under :

                       ­:: POINTS ::­
     1.

Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt on 11­11­2010, CW1 got married with the accused at Siddagannga hall and at the time of marriage, the accused had received 12 grams of gold and other articles as dowry from the parents of the CW­1 and thereby committed an offence p/u/s 3 of D.P Act?

2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that after the marriage when Cw­1 started to live in her matrimonial house situated at house no.162/A, railway quarters, Yashwanthpura, Bangalore, at that time the accused had gave physical and mental cruelty by not providing proper food and trying to strangulate her neck and thereby committed an offence p/u/s 498(A) of IPC?

7 CC25507/2012

3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 13­03­2011, when Cw­1 along with the accused no.1 was residing at house no.63, 2nd main road, 3rd cross, Nagappa block, at that time the accused no.1 had demanded to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/­ from her parents house and thereby committed an offence p/u/s 4 of D.P Act?

4. What Order?

8. The findings of this Court on above points are as under:­ Point No.1 to 3 : In Negative Point No.4 : As per the final order for the following:­ REASONS

9. POINT No.1 to 3 :­ All the points are connected each other and in order to avoid the repetition of the facts and appreciation of the evidence, all the points are taken up together for common consideration. 8 CC25507/2012

10. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 11­11­2010 the complainant married to accused no.1 at Siddaganga kalyana mantapa and after marriage the complainant started to live in her matrimonial house no.162/A, railway quarters, Yeshwanthpura, Bangalore, at that time the accused no.1 to 5 gave physical and mental cruelty to complainant by demanding dowry of Rs.5,00,000/­. Further the accused no.2 to 5 had assaulted with hands to complainant and demanded her to bring additional dowry. That on 13­03­2011 the complainant was residing with accused no.1 at house no.63, 2 nd main road, 3rd cross, Nagappa block, at that time the accused no.1 had demanded her to bring dowry of Rs.5,00,000/­, assaulted her and gave physical and mental cruelty to her. Therefore the complainant lodged complaint against the accused.

11. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, it got examined one 9 CC25507/2012 witness as PW­1. Along with the oral evidence, the prosecution has produced and got marked two documents as per Ex.P1 & 2..

12. The prosecution got examined PW­1, who is the complainant in this case. The PW1 deposed that she married to accused no.1 in the year 2010, thereafter when she started to live in her matrimonial house, at that time there was a misunderstanding between herself with the accused for silly reason. Apart from that, accused had not given physical and mental cruelty and not demanded to bring dowry. Further when she went to police station, police had obtained her signature on two documents but she is not aware of those documents. At this stage, the learned APP treated this witness as hostile witness and cross examined her with great efforts. But, in spite of that, PW­1 has denied all the suggestions put by prosecution and nothing has been elucidated from her mouth so as to support the case of prosecution.

10 CC25507/2012

13. It is to be expected that, PW.1 being the informant/victim being the star and material witness, has to depose as per the version of prosecution. But in this case, she has turned hostile to the case of prosecution and not supported her own case and denied the acts of the accused persons. Moreover, on perusal of the oral evidence of PW­1, it reveals that she has compromised the matter along with the accused. In view of the non­supporting of the main and material witnesses, this Court is of the considered view that, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, for the said reasons this court answers point Nos.1 to 3 in the Negative.

14. POINT No.4:­ In view of discussion held on above points, this court proceeds to pass the following:

­:: ORDER ::­ Acting u/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused no.2 to 5 are hereby acquitted for the offences 11 CC25507/2012 punishable u/s 498(A) of IPC and 3 & 4 of D.P Act The bail bonds of the accused and sureties shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 15th day of March, 2022) (Sandesh Prabhu B.) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution PW­1 : Asha, D/o Dorai swami
2. Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P­1a : Signature of PW­1 Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P2a : Signature of PW­1
3. Material objects exhibited on behalf of prosecution ­NIL­
4. List of witnesses and documents on Defense side ­Nil­ (Sandesh Prabhu B.) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru