Bangalore District Court
The State vs A-1 K.S. Prashantha on 28 February, 2022
1 C.C.No.27102/2011
IN THE COURT OF XXXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
PRESENT: SRI.PADMAKAR VANAKUDRE
B.A. LL.B.,
C/C XXXII A.C.M.M.BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
C.C. NO.27102/2011
Complainant The State,
by Police Inspector, Girinagar
Police station
-Vs-
Accused A-1 K.S. Prashantha
S/o Siddaiah
Age: 33 years
A-2 Smt. Lalithamma
W/o Siddaiah
Age: 48 years
A-3 Siddaiah
S/o Bhairappa
Age: 59 years
A-4 Smt. Poornima
W/o Late Ravi
Age: 31 years
All are r/at No.12/6, 1st Main,
P.P.Layout, Bengaluru.
The date of 10-05-2011
commission of the
offence :
2 C.C.No.27102/2011
Name of the Smt. Leelavathi
informant of crime :
The offences U/secs.498(A), 326, 323
complained of: r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3
and 4 of DP Act
Date of arrest of Accused Nos.1 to 4 are
accused: on bail
Date of release of 27-05-2011
accused :
Commencement of 06-03-2015
recording prosecution
evidence:
Closure of recording 29-11-2021
evidence:
State represented by : Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor
Accused are Sri.H.E. Gunde Gowda, Adv.
represented by:
Plea of the accused
and their examination Pleaded not guilty
:
Final Order : Acquittal
JUDGMENT
(U/S 355 Cr.P.C) Police Inspector of Girinagar police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 326 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.
3 C.C.No.27102/2011
2. The case of prosecution in brief is as under;
It is alleged that the accused No.1 is the husband of C.W.1 and accused Nos.2 to 4 are his relatives. The C.W.1 married to accused No.1 on 28-05-2009. After the marriage the accused No.1 to 4 have in furtherance of common intention subjected C.W.1 to cruelty. They used to insult her in filthy language and assault her demanding dowry. On 04-05-2011 the accused No.1 to 4 have caused hurt to C.W.1. Thereafter C.W.1 went her paternal home and taken treatments in Spandana Nursing Home, Bengaluru. On these allegations initially C.w.1 lodged First Information before the police.
3. Based on the information Girinagar police have registered the crime in Girinagar police station Cr.No.97/2011 for the offence punishable 498(A), 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Thereafter again C.W.1 gave further statement before the police alleging about demand of dowry during and after her marriage. She has also alleged that the accused No.1 used to assault her demanding dowry on the instigation of accused No.2 to 4. 4 C.C.No.27102/2011 On 06-05-2011 the accused No.1 to 4 have caused her a hurt with Iron rod, burnt her legs, hands with cigarette and subjected her to cruelty. On 07-05-2011 they sent her to her matrimonial home. On 10-05-2011 she took treatments at Spandana Hospital.
4. The C.W.13 has conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/s.498(A) and 326 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.
5. The accused No.1 to 4 have appeared through their learned counsel and got released on bail.
6. Provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C are complied with. The charge for the offences punishable U/s.498(A), 326, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act is framed and read over to the accused Nos.1 to 4. They have not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10, got exhibited 5 C.C.No.27102/2011 12 documents at Ex.P.1 to 12 and got identified 2 material objects at Mos.1 and 2.
8. The statement of accused as contemplated U/s.313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded. The accused have not chosen to lead any evidence on their behalf.
9. I have heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed on record.
10. The point that would arise for my consideration is:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 being the husband of C.W.1 and accused No.2 to 4 being his relatives, in furtherance of common intention, subjected C.W.1 to cruelty and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.498(A) r/w 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 4 have in furtherance of common intention voluntarily caused grievous hurt to C.W.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.326 r/w 34 of IPC?6 C.C.No.27102/2011
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 4 have in furtherance of common intention voluntarily caused hurt to C.W.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.323 r/w 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 4 have in furtherance of common intention demanded dowry during the marriage and received dowry of Rs.25,000/- and golden ornaments from the parents of C.W.1 and committed an offence punishable U/s.3 and 4 of D.P.Act?
11. My finding on the above point is in the Negative for the following:-
REASONS
12. Point No.1 to 4 : It is alleged that the accused No.1 being the husband of P.W.1 and accused No.2 to 4 being his relatives demanded and received dowry from the parents of P.W.1, subjected her to cruelty, voluntarily caused her a hurt and grievous hurt and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498(A), 326, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
7 C.C.No.27102/2011
13. The accused admits the marriage of accused No.1 with P.W.1. The denied the allegations of cruelty, hurt and dowry. Denial of the case of prosecution in toto in their defence.
14. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses as P.W.1 to 10, got exhibited 12 documents at Ex.P-1 to 12 and got identified two material objects. P.W.1 is the first informant. P.W.2 and 3 are the parents of P.W.1. P.W.4 to 6 and 9 are the relatives of P.W.1. P.W.7 is the police official who has recorded first information statement of P.W.1. P.W.8 is the doctor. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer.
/////////////////////////// /// The complainant has deposed that he does not know the accused. The accused has never assaulted and insulted her. He never gave her life threat and never outraged her modesty. She has deposed that she has not lodged any complaint 8 C.C.No.27102/2011 against the accused and the police have not conducted any panchanama in her presence.
14. Learned Sr.APP has cross-examined P.W.2 at length. She has denied all suggestions of Learned Sr.APP. She has denied the execution of panchanama and seizure of helmet in her presence. Nothing worth has been elicited in the cross-examination to prove the guilt of the accused.
15. The P.W.1, who was examined during the evidence under section 299 of Cr.P.C., deposed only regarding publication of proclamation. His evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution. The P.W.2 is the complainant and injured in this case. She has completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The evidence on record is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offfences. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative and I proceed to pass the following:-
9 C.C.No.27102/2011
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offences punishable U/secs.
498(A), 326, 323 R/w 34 of the IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.
Accused Nos.1 to 4 are set at liberty forthwith.
Bail bonds of accused and their sureties stands cancelled.
The property at M.O.1 being
worthless shall be destroyed after
appeal period is over.
Custody of M.O.2, given by the I.O., is made absolute.
(Judgment dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 16th day of February, 2022) (PADMAKAR VANAKUDRE) C/c.XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.10 C.C.No.27102/2011
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1: Smt. Leelavathi W/o Prashanth P.W.2: Gangadhara S/o Siddappa P.W.3: Smt. Kempamma P.W.4: Nagaraju P.W.5: Venkatesh P.W.6: Yelakki Shetty P.W7: N.R. Venkatesh P.W.8: Dr. Kiran P.W.9: Nagaraj P.W.10: B.S. Srinivas.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.1(a) Signature Ex.P.2 Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) Signature Ex.P.3 Wedding card Ex.P.4 & 5 Wedding photos Ex.P.6 to 10 Photos Ex.P-11 FIR Ex.P-12 Wound Certificate.
3:- List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused: Nil.
4:- List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
M.O.1 Iron rod
M.O.2 Chain.
(PADMAKAR VANAKUDRE)
C/c.XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru. 11 C.C.No.27102/2011 (Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offences punishable U/secs. 498(A), 326, 323 R/w 34 of the IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.
Accused Nos.1 to 4 are set at liberty forthwith.
Bail bonds of accused and their sureties stands cancelled.
The property at M.O.1 being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
Custody of M.O.2, given by the I.O., is made absolute.
(Vide separate judgment) C/c.XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru. 12 C.C.No.27102/2011 Case called out, Learned Sr.A.P.P present, Learned counsel for accused present. Accused no.1 and 2 present.
Order pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment) ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/secs. 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
Accused No.1 and 2 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bonds of accused and that of surety, stands cancelled.
( Padmakar Vanakudre) C/c.XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru. The accused no.1 and 2 are directed to execute personal bond for sum of Rs.20,000/- each, for their appearance before appellate Court, if necessary as contemplated in Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Padmakar Vanakudre) 13 C.C.No.27102/2011 C/C.XXXII ADDL.C.M.M. BANGALORE.