Bangalore District Court
The State By Subramanya Nagar vs A1. S. Raju on 10 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ACMM, BENGALURU
Present : Sandesh Prabhu.B. BA(LAW), LL.B.
XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru,
C.C.No.21771/2006
Dated : On this the 10th April, 2023
Complainant: The State by Subramanya Nagar
Police Station, Bengaluru
(By Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused: A1. S. Raju, S/o Srinivasa,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at Tagaranahatti Village,
Sollapura Post,
Chitradurga District.
A2. Chandramma,
Aged about 26 years,
Teacher, Talikatte,
Govt. Primary School,
Javagondanahalli,
Hiriyuru Taluk,
Chitradurga District.
(Rep. By Sri. G.R.S. Advt.)
Date of commission of offence : 09.04.2006
Date of report of the offence : 15.07.2006
Name of the Complainant : Smt. Meena
Date of Commencement of
recording of Evidence : 22.01.2016
2 CC.21771/2006
Date of Closing of evidence : 22.11.2022
Offences complained are : U/S 498A, 420,
511 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not
guilty
(Sandesh Prabhu B.)
XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru
:: JUDGEMENT ::
The PI of Subramanya Nagar Police Station has filed
charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the
offences punishable under Sec.498A, 420, 511 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as
follows :
That the marriage of the complainant was took
place along with the accused No.1 on 19.04.1999 at Sri
Mahadeshwaraswamy Temple of Kumbarakoppalu
Village, Mandya District as per Hindu rites and customs
and after the marriage when the complainant was
residing along with the accused No.1 in the house of the
complainant itself, they lived together happily for one
year and thereafter they started living in rented house
of CW8 situated at Bagalagunte and when they were
3 CC.21771/2006
residing in the said rented house, the accused gave
physical and mental cruelty to the complainant by
saying that she should bring dowry from her parents
house and also bring money by selling the land which is
in the name of complainant.
3. It is the further allegation against the accused
that about two months prior to the filing of the
complaint, the accused No.1 started residing along with
the complainant in a rented house situated at Milk
Colony, 3rd Cross of Subramanya Nagar and when he
was residing in the rented house, the accused No.1 gave
physical and mental cruelty to the complainant.
Thereafter the accused left the company of the
complainant by saying that he will get marry the
accused No.2 and made an attempt to get marry
accused No.2 at Dharmastala and thereby made an
attempt to cheat the complainant. Therefore
complainant gave complaint against the accused.
4. Initially the complainant filed the private
complaint against the accused No.1 and 2 under
4 CC.21771/2006
Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. After filing the private complaint, this
court had referred the private complaint for
investigation under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the
investigating officer had registered the FIR against the
accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.92/2006 for the
offences punishable under Sec.498A, 420, 511 of IPC
and after the investigation has filed charge sheet
against the accused No.1 and 2 for the aforesaid
offences.
5. During crime stage itself the accused No.1 was
produced before the court and subsequently he was
enlarged on bail. After filing charge sheet against the
accused No.1 and 2, this court had taken cognizance of
the offences against the accused. Subsequently in
pursuance of NBW, the accused No.2 appeared before
the court and she was enlarged on bail.
6. Thereafter charge sheet copies were furnished to
the accused as contemplated u/s 207 of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter heard the learned prosecution and counsel
for the accused about framing of charge. Since there
5 CC.21771/2006
were sufficient materials to frame charge against the
accused, charges were framed under Sec. 498A, 420,
511 of IPC. The sum and substance of the accusation
was read over to the accused and their answer to the
said accusation was denial and they claimed to be tried.
Hence, the prosecution was given an opportunity to
establish the guilt of the accused.
7. The prosecution to establish the guilt of the
accused it got examined six witnesses as PW1 to PW6
and got marked documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to
Ex.P5. The prosecution has failed to examine the
remaining cited witnesses and their evidence was
dropped by this court.
8. After completion of prosecution evidence,
statement of the accused as contemplated u/s 313 of
Cr.P.C was recorded. Their answer to the incriminating
circumstances arised in the evidence was denial and
not chosen to lead any defence evidence.
9. Heard the arguments of learned prosecution
and counsel for accused.
6 CC.21771/2006
10. The points that arise for consideration of this
Court are as under :
:: POINTS ::
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the marriage of the complainant was took place along with the accused No.1 on 19.04.1999 at Sri Mahadeshwaraswamy Temple of Kumbarakoppalu Village, Mandya District as per Hindu rites and customs and after the marriage when the complainant was residing along with the accused No.1 in rented house of CW8 situated at Bagalagunte the accused No.1 gave physical and mental cruelty to the complainant by saying that she should bring dowry from her parents house and also bring money by selling the land which is in the name of complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 498(A) of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, time and during the same transaction, the accused No.1 left the company of the complainant and the 7 CC.21771/2006 accused No.1 made an attempt to get marry with the accused No.2 and they cheated the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 420, 511 of IPC?
3. What Order?
11. The findings of this Court on above points are as under: Point No.1 and 2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : As per the final order for the following: REASONS
12. POINT No.1 and 2: Both these points are connected each other and in order to avoid the repetition of the said facts and appreciation of the evidence, both these points are taken up together for common consideration.
13. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the marriage of the complainant was took place along with the accused No.1 on 19.04.1999 at Sri Mahadeshwaraswamy Temple of Kumbarakoppalu 8 CC.21771/2006 Village, Mandya District as per Hindu rites and customs and after the marriage when the complainant was residing along with the accused No.1 in the house of the complainant itself, they lived together happily for one year and thereafter they started living in rented house of CW8 situated at Bagalagunte and when they were residing in the said rented house, the accused gave physical and mental cruelty to the complainant by saying that she should bring dowry from her parents house and also bring money by selling the land which is in the name of complainant. It is the further allegation against the accused that about two months prior to the filing of the complaint, the accused No.1 started residing along with the complainant in a rented house situated at Milk Colony, 3rd Cross of Subramanya Nagar and when he was residing in the rented house, the accused No.1 gave physical and mental cruelty to the complainant. Thereafter the accused left the company of the complainant by saying that he will get marry the accused No.2 and made an attempt to get 9 CC.21771/2006 marry accused No.2 at Dharmastala and thereby made an attempt to cheat the complainant. Therefore complainant gave complaint against the accused.
14. The prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused it got examined six witnesses as PW1 to PW6. The PW1 is the victim / complainant, PW2 to PW4 are the independent witnesses who have deposed about the marriage of the complainant took place along with the accused No.1 and illtreatment given by the accused No.1 to the complainant, PW5 is the Police Constable who arrested the accused and PW6 is the Police Inspector who conducted partial investigation. Along with oral evidence, the prosecution has produced and got marked five documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 which includes the private complaint, spot panchanama, marriage invitation card, FIR and report given by the Police Constable who arrested the accused. The prosecution has failed to examine the remaining cited witnesses and their evidence was dropped by this court.
10 CC.21771/2006
15. Now it is necessary to analyse the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution got examined PW1 who is the victim who deposed that her marriage was took place along with the accused No.1 on 19.04.1999 at Sri Mahadeshwaraswamy Temple of Kumbarakoppalu Village of Mandya District. The witness further deposed that prior to the marriage the accused No.1 was the jeep driver in her village and he was residing in her house as a tenant. The witness further deposed that after the marriage she became pregnant and prior to her marriage along with the accused No.1, he already got married one Chandramma. The witness further deposed that prior to her marriage along with accused No.1, she got married one Ramesh, but subsequently she got divorce with said Ramesh by entering into an agreement. The witness further deposed that after the marriage when she became pregnant of three months, the accused No.1 brought her to Bangalore and they started residing in a rented house. The witness further deposed that she 11 CC.21771/2006 gave birth to a male child at K.C. General Hospital and thereafter the accused No.1 without her knowledge went to Holalkere which is his native place and thereafter he stopped coming to a rented house of complainant. The witness further deposed that thereafter the accused No.1 made an attempt to get marry along with the accused No.2 at Dharmastala and she along with the police went to Dharmastala and stopped the marriage of accused No.1 along with the accused No.2.
16. The witness further deposed that when she was residing along with the accused No.1, he was giving physical and mental cruelty to her to bring money by selling the property which was given to her by father. The witness further deposed that she had given money to the accused No.1 by obtaining the same from her sister, but the accused No.1 did not gave back the said money to her. The witness further deposed that the accused No.1 had assaulted her on neck and she sustained severe pain. The witness further deposed about filing of private complaint before the court which 12 CC.21771/2006 is marked as Ex.P.1. The witness further deposed about drawing of panchanama by the police after filing the private complaint. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
17. The prosecution further got examined PW2 who deposed that the accused No.1 was driving a jeep at Doddenahalli of Nagamangala Taluk and he along with other public had performed the marriage of complainant along with the accused No.1 at Mahadeshwaraswamy Temple of Doddenahalli Village in the month of April1999. The witness further deposed that at the time of marriage the CW4 who is the mother of the complainant had give one gold chain, a bracelet and an amount of Rs.25,000/ as dowry to the accused No.1. The witness further deposed that after the marriage, the accused No.1 started residing at Belluru along with the complainant and thereafter they shifted to Bangalore. The witness further deposed that he came to know from the complainant that the accused No.1 gave physical and mental cruelty to the complainant 13 CC.21771/2006 and he made an attempt to get marry along with the accused No.2 at Dharmastala. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
18. The prosecution further got examined PW3 who deposed that she was residing at Bagalagunte of Bangalore in the year 2006 and the complainant was her neighbor. The witness further deposed that the complainant was residing along with the accused No.1 in a rented house and the accused No.1 was working as a teacher at Kolalukere Village of Chitradurga District. The witness further deposed that two years afterwards they went to Subramanya Nagar and when she made contact to the complainant, she told that the accused No.1 was giving physical and mental cruelty to her and made an attempt to marry accused No.2 at Dharmastala. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
19. The prosecution also got examined PW4 who is the sister of the victim who deposed that she is working at Sipha Hospital at Bangalore and her sister who is 14 CC.21771/2006 CW1 was residing at Gondenahalli of Nagamangala Taluk. The witness further deposed that the CW1 who is her sister earlier got married one Ramesh who left her after one year of the marriage. The witness further deposed that thereafter her sister got married the accused No.1 at Madeshwara Temple of Gondenahalli and after the marriage they shifted to Bagalagunte of Bangalore and when they were residing together, the accused No.1 gave physical and mental cruelty to her sister and made an attempt to get marry along with the accused No.2. This witness subsequently did not turned up before the court for her cross examination and therefore her evidence was discarded by this court.
20. The prosecution further got examined PW5 who is the police constable who deposed that on 22.04.2006 there was information that the accused No.1 making an attempt to get marry along with the accused No.2 at Dharmastala and on 23.04.2006 he along with CW15 had arrested the accused at Dharmastala and on 24.04.2006 he produced the 15 CC.21771/2006 accused before the investigating officer. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
21. Lastly the prosecution got examined PW6 who is the police inspector who deposed about registering of FIR, conducting of spot panchanama, recording of the statement of witnesses, obtaining of marriage invitation card and copy of rent agreement from the victim, arresting of the accused and thereafter handed over the case file to CW16 for further investigation. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
22. On careful evaluation of entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused it mainly relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW4. On perusal of the defence of the accused, the accused No.1 has seriously denied that he got married the complainant and they never resided together.
23. As it is stated above it is the allegation against the accused No.1 that he committed the offence punishable under Sec.498A, 420 and 511 of IPC. In 16 CC.21771/2006 order to fix the liability on the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sec.498A of IPC the prosecution initially should establish that the accused No.1 is the husband of the complainant. When the accused No.1 has seriously disputed that he did not marry the complainant, then the initial burden lies upon the prosecution to establish that there was marriage took place between the complainant and accused. The prosecution to establish the said fact that the complainant got married the accused No.1, it relied upon the evidence of victim and the other witnesses who are the PW2 to PW4. Now it is necessary to conclude whether the prosecution has successfully established that the complainant got married the accused No.1. In order to conclude about the said fact, it is necessary to analise the oral evidence of victim who is PW1 and also the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution.
24. The prosecution has produced and got marked the marriage invitation card as Ex.P.3. No doubt on 17 CC.21771/2006 perusal of Ex.P.3 it is mentioned that the marriage of complainant was took place along with one Raju who is the accused No.1 on 19.04.1999 at Madeshwaraswamy Temple, Kumbarukoppalu Village of Mandya Taluk. Merely on the basis of marriage invitation card, this court cannot blindly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the marriage took place between the complainant and accused No.1. Therefore it is necessary to analise the other material evidence available on record.
25. As it is discussed above the victim got examined herself before the court as PW1 and in her examination in chief itself she deposed that prior to the alleged marriage along with the accused No.1, she got married to one Ramesh who is CW11 in the present case. Further the PW1 in her examination in chief deposed that since there was no consent for her marriage along with the CW11, they got divorce by mutual agreement, but not through any court decree. Thereafter she got married the accused No.1. The 18 CC.21771/2006 accused No.1 seriously disputed about the marriage of complainant which was took place along with him. As per the defence of the accused No.1, the accused No.1 got married one Chandramma who was the nurse at primary health center, Bommenahalli of Nagamangala Taluk and the accused No.1 was driver of a jeep. Since there was no one to look after the children of accused No.1, he appointed the present complainant as maid to look after his children. When the accused No.1 has taken up such a defence, then the initial burden lies upon the prosecution to establish by producing material evidence that there was marriage took place between the complainant and accused No.1. Therefore it is necessary to peruse the cross examination of victim in order to conclude that whether the victim has deposed the truth before the court.
26. On perusal of the cross examination of PW1 she admitted that the accused No.1 got married one Chandramma who was working as a nurse at primary health center, Bommenahalli of Nagamangala Taluk. 19 CC.21771/2006 Further the PW1 has not denied that the said Chandramma who is the wife of accused No.1 was coming to the Gondenahalli of Nagamangala Taluk in order to enquire the health conditions of pregnant women and she never denied that the accused No.1 and said Chandramma were residing in a rented house of Shivaramegowda of Gondenahalli Village. Further the PW1 during her cross examination deposed that she never got divorce from said Ramesh who is the CW11 by obtaining a court decree. Further the PW1 during her cross examination deposed that she got document to show that she was residing along with the accused No.1 and she also produced some letters written by the accused No.1 to her and she got document to show that the accused No.1 at present working as a teacher at Holalkere of Chitradurga District. Even though the PW1 has deposed that she got such documents with her, but no such documents are produced before the court in order to establish that she resided along with the 20 CC.21771/2006 accused No.1 and led the matrimonial life along with the accused No.1.
27. Further the PW1 during her cross examination admitted that she filed a maintenance case in Crl.Misc.244/2007 before the Family Court and the said case was dismissed by said court and against the said order, she preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which was also dismissed. On careful perusal of the entire oral evidence of PW1 who is the victim, even though she deposed that she got document to show that the accused No.1 was residing along with her and she got document to show that the accused No.1 led matrimonial life with her, but no such documents are produced before this court. Therefore the oral evidence of PW1 is not much helpful to the prosecution to establish the initial burden that the accused No.1 is the husband of the complainant.
28. The prosecution to establish the fact that the complainant got married the accused No.1, it relied upon the evidence of PW2 to PW4. As it is discussed 21 CC.21771/2006 above the PW2 has deposed that the marriage of the complainant which was took place along with accused No.1 in the month of April 1999 at Mahadeshwaraswamy Temple of Gondenahalli Village and at the time of marriage the CW4 who is the mother of the complainant had given one gold chain, a bracelet and Rs.25,000/ as dowry to the accused No.1. The accused counsel subjected the PW2 for cross examination and the PW2 in his cross examination categorically admitted that the complainant told him to come to the court to give evidence before the court. On careful evaluation of entire cross examination of PW2, his oral evidence does not inspire this court to conclude about the marriage of complainant took place along with the accused No.1 unless there are other documentary evidence produced before the court.
29. Further the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW3 who deposed that the complainant was residing along with accused No.1 in a rented house of Bagalagunte of Bangalore in the year 2006 and the 22 CC.21771/2006 complainant was her neighbor. The accused counsel subjected the PW3 for cross examination and on perusal of the cross examination of PW3, she admitted that her native place is Gondenahalli of Nagamangala Taluk and the complainant belongs to the same village. Further the PW3 during her cross examination deposed that she got document to show that she is the neighbor of the victim and she got document to show that she was going to a garments at Bagalagunte. Even though the PW3 has deposed said version, but no such documents have been produced before the court in order to establish that the complainant was the immediate neighborer and she was residing at Bagalagunte of Bangalore. When the PW3 herself admitted that she and the victim belonged to same village at Nagamangala Taluk, then unless her oral evidence is supported by documentary evidence, her oral evidence cannot be blindly accepted. Therefore the evidence of PW3 also not helpful to the prosecution to 23 CC.21771/2006 establish that the complainant and accused No.1 residing together at Bagalagunte of Bangalore.
30. The prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of PW4 who is the sister of the victim in order to establish the marriage of complainant took place along with the accused No.1. Even though the said witness deposed that the marriage of complainant who is her sister was took place along with the accused No.1, but this witness subsequently did not turned up before the court for her cross examination and her evidence was discarded by this court. Therefore the evidence of PW4 also not helpful to the prosecution, but initially establish that the complainant got married the accused No.1.
31. Further the evidence relied upon by the prosecution to establish about the case of the prosecution is the evidence of PW6 who is the investigating officer. The said witness in his examination in chief deposed that he collected a rent agreement which stands in the name of complainant to 24 CC.21771/2006 show that the victim resided along with accused No.1, but since the said rent agreement is a xerox copy and the same is not got marked by the prosecution. The accused counsel subjected the PW6 for cross examination and he admitted that the victim in her statement given before the investigating officer stated that she resided in a rented house of one Hanumanthaiah of Bagalagunte, but the rent agreement which was collected during the investigation shows that, one Mallikarjun is the owner of the house stated in the said rent agreement. The entire cross examination of PW6 also shows that he being the investigating officer also not collected any materials to conclude that the complainant got married the accused No.1 and they led the matrimonial life.
32. As it is discussed above the PW1 during her cross examination admitted that she filed a maintenance petition before the family court in Crl.Mis.244/2007 and the said petition was dismissed by the family court. The accused counsel during 25 CC.21771/2006 arguments has produced the certified copy of said order passed by the family court in Crl.Misc.244/2007. When the complainant herself admitted that she filed the maintenance petition against the present accused No.1, then there is no bar to consider the said order passed by the family court. On perusal of the order passed by the family court, the said court came to the conclusion that the present complainant has failed to establish that she got married the accused No.1. Further the PW1 during her cross examination admitted that she preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against the said order passed by the family court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has also dismissed the appeal filed by her. The accused counsel at the time of argument has produced the copy of appeal preferred by the present complainant before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RPFC No.131/2013 and on perusal of the said order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, it is also observed that the present complainant has miserably failed to establish 26 CC.21771/2006 about the marriage took place along with the accused No.1. When the family court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka itself came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to establish her marriage took place along with the accused No.1, then there is no hurdle to come to the conclusion that the complainant has initially failed to establish that her marriage was took place along with the accused No.1 which is the main ingredient to establish the offence punishable under Sec.498A if IPC. Moreover on careful evaluation of entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has initially failed to establish that the complainant got married the accused No.1 and the accused No.1 being the husband of the complainant gave physical and mental cruelty to the complainant. Therefore when the prosecution has initially failed to establish that the accused No.1 is the husband of the complainant, then the question of giving illtreatment by the accused No.1 to the complainant does not arise. 27 CC.21771/2006 Therefore the prosecution has failed to establish the first allegation against the accused No.1 that he being the husband of the complainant, gave mental and physical cruelty to her when she resided along with the accused No.1.
33. It is the further allegation against the accused that he on 23.04.2006 without the knowledge of the complainant made an attempt to get marry the accused No.2 at Dharmastala and thereby made an attempt to cheat the complainant. As it is discussed above the prosecution has initially failed to establish about the marriage of the complainant took place along with the accused No.1. When the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused No.1 is the husband of the complainant, then the other allegation that he made an attempt to cheat the complainant by marrying second time to accused No.2 does not arise. Therefore the prosecution has failed to establish the second allegation made against the accused No.1 and 2. Hence on careful evaluation of entire oral and documentary evidence 28 CC.21771/2006 produced by the prosecution, it failed to establish that the complainant is the wife of accused No.1 and the accused No.1 gave physical and mental cruelty to the complainant and also failed to establish that the accused No.1 and 2 cheated the complainant by making attempt to marry second time as alleged in the complainant. The accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.
34. It is the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that no man should be punished unless the guilt against them is proved beyond reasonable doubt. As it is discussed above the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused No.1 and 2 are entitle for benefit of doubt. Therefore this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 498(A), 420, 511 of IPC. Hence for the said reasons this court answer point no.1 and 2 in negative. 29 CC.21771/2006
35. POINT No.3: In view of discussion held on above points, this court proceeds to pass the following:
:: ORDER :: Acting under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 498(A), 420, 511 of IPC.
The bail bonds of the accused and sureties shall stands cancelled. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her and corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the of 10th April 2023) (Sandesh Prabhu B.) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution PW1 : Meena PW2 : Manjegowda PW3 : Yashoda PW4 : Jayalakshmi PW5 : Lakshminarasimhaiah PW6 : M. K. Tammaiah
2. Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution Ex.P1 : Complaint 30 CC.21771/2006 Ex.P2 : Spot panchanama Ex.P3 : Marriage invitation card Ex.P4 : Requisition Ex.P5 : FIR
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