Bangalore District Court
Mamatha vs Siddesh on 7 April, 2025
KABC030262062013
IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2025
Present : Sri. Puttaraju, B.A.LLB.,
VII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/s 355 OF Cr.P.C.
C.C. No.6865/2013
Complainant : State by : Yelahanka Police Station.
(By Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused
Nos. 1. Siddesha,
S/o Chikkanna,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at: Ashwatha Katte Road,
Near Ganesha Temple,
New Street, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru.
2. Hanumakka,
W/o Chikkanna,
Aged about 50 years,
2 C.C.6865/2013
R/at: No.1066,
Ashwatha Katte Road,
Near Ganesha Temple,
New Street, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru.
3. Amar,
S/o Chikkanna,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at: No.1066,
Ashwatha Katte Road,
Near Ganesha Temple,
New Street, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru.
4. Anushuya,
W/o Venkatesh,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at: No.1066,
Ashwatha Katte Road,
Near Ganesha Temple,
New Street, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru.
Date of occurrence of offence In between 15.06.2012 to
19.09.2012
Date of report of offence 19.09.2012
Name of the Complainant Mamatha
Date of Commencement of 02.03.2015
recording Evidence
Date of Closing of Evidence 28.03.2025
Offences complained of U/s 498A, 323, 506 r/w 34
of I.P.C and Section- 3 and 4
3 C.C.6865/2013
of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Opinion of the Judge Accused have not been found
guilty.
This charge sheet is submitted by the Police
Inspector of Yelahanka Police Station against the
accused persons for the offences punishable u/s 498A,
323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the
marriage of CW.1 was held with accused No.1 on
01.11.2006. At the time of marriage, the accused No.1
along with accused No.2 to 4 have demanded gold
ornaments, Cash and Hero Honda Bike as dowry and
accordingly the father of CW.1 gave said items as
dowry. After marriage, CW.1 was residing in the house
of accused situated within the jurisdiction of
Yelahanka Police Station. After 7-8 months from
marriage, accused No.1 was picked up quarrel with
CW.1 for silly reasons saying that her parents did not
4 C.C.6865/2013
give dowry properly and demanded her to bring
additional dowry of Rs.10 lakh from her parents. The
accused No.2 to 4 have supported accused No.1 in that
regard and also giving physical and mental torture
without providing food, cloth. The accused did not visit
to her parents house to see her child and bring back
her to matrimonial home, saying that if she gave Rs.10
lakh, they will taken her to their home, otherwise not,
thereby the accused have committed the offences
punishable 498A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and Section
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The accused -1 to 4 are on bail. As required
u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet
papers were furnished to the accused. Charge was
framed for the offence punishable u/s 498A, 323, 506
r/w 34 of I.P.C and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and read over and explained to the
accused in the language known to them. Accused
have not pleaded guilty and claimed for trial.
5 C.C.6865/2013
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution,
the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to 16. On closure of the evidence on
the side of the prosecution, the statement of the
accused u/sec. 313 Cr.PC came to be recorded, the
accused have denied the incriminating evidence
appearing against them and not chosen to lead defence
evidence.
5. Heard the arguments. Perused the
documents placed on record.
6. The points that arise for consideration are :
1. Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that
accused have committed the offences
U/s 498A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and
Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act.?
2. What order ?
6 C.C.6865/2013
7. The above points are answered as under :
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the following :
REASONS
8. Point No.1 : The accused have picked up
quarrel with CW.1 unnecessarily and tortured her
physically and mentally without reason demanding
additional dowry of Rs.10 lakh and thereby the
accused have committed the offences punishable u/s
498A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and Section 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
9. The Ld. Sr.APP for the state during the course
of argument has submitted that prosecution has
examined first informant, eye witnesses, mahazar
witnesses, doctor and police officials as PW.1 to 10, the
evidence placed by prosecution witnesses and
documentary evidence are clearly establishes that the
accused have committed the offense as alleged in the
7 C.C.6865/2013
charge sheet. Therefore, prays to convict the accused
by imposing maximum sentence.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
accused during the course of argument has submitted
that though the prosecution has examined first
informant as PW.1, the eye witnesses examined as
PW.2 to 5 did not turn up for cross examiantion, when
the witnesses did not avail for cross examintion, their
chief examination has no evidentiary value. So,
testimony of PW.1 is not supported by corraborative
testimony of PW.2 to 5. The other witnesses are doctor
and police officials, they stated about their offical act
done by them during the investigation, in the absance
of evidence of PW.1 with corraborative evidence of
PW.2 to 5, the evidence of doctor and police officails is
of no use. Therefore, evidence placed by the
prosecution is not sufficient to come to conclusion that
the accused have committed offense as alleged in the
charge sheet.
8 C.C.6865/2013
11. In the light of the submission made above,
on careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence
placed by the prosecution, the first informant
examined as PW.1. She has stated that accused have
demanded Cash of Rs.80,000, Hero Honda Bike,
golden ornaments, as dowry and same were being
given by her father at the time of marriage. After
marriage, the accused No.1 started quarrel with her
saying dowry given by her parents was not sufficient.
On 15.06.2012 at about 7.00 p.m. all accused together
joined and picked up quarrel with her and assaulted
her saying go to her parents house, otherwise, they
would kill her. Therefore, she identified the complaint
as Ex.P.1, Mahazar as Ex.P.2, marriage Invitation card
as Ex.P.3, Marriage photos as Ex.P.4 and 5, notary
copies of jewelry shop receipts as Ex.P.6 to 12. In the
cross examination PW.1 denied suggestion of learned
counsel for accused. The documents relied by the
prosecution to substantiate the oral testimony of PW.1
9 C.C.6865/2013
are marriage invitation card, photos and notary copies
of jewelry shop receipts. The marriage photos and
invitation cards would show marriage held between
accused No.1 with PW.1. The copies of jewelry shops
would show jewelries items purchased by father of
PW.1 from jewelry shops, except said receipts nothing
is on record, mere producing receipt to show jewelry
purchased does not mean to say that said jewelry were
given to accused as dowry, so, said receipts will not
help the prosecution to prove the fact that said golden
ornaments were given to accused as dowry.
12. PW.1 alleged to have been tortured by
accused mentally and physically by demanding
additional dowry is concerned, PW.1 has stated in her
evidence that after marriage, the accused have
tortured her physically and mentally to bring
additional dowry of Rs.10 lakh from her parents. The
eye witnesses to the incident have been chief examined
as PW.2 to 5, but thereafter, they did not avail for their
10 C.C.6865/2013
cross examination, despite issued warrants and
proclamation on several occasions, they did not turn
up and then, they have been dropped. In this regard,
the law is very clear that if witness adduced evidence
by way of chief examination, did not avail for cross
examination, the chief examination such witness has
no evidentiary value. In that view of matter, the chief
examination of PW.2 to 5 has no evidentiary value.
PW.6 is another eye witness, he stated that he does
not know anything about the case, he has not given
any statement before police and turned hostile. In the
cross examination by Learned Sr. APP, nothing has
been elicited in support of prosecution case. So,
testimony of PW.1 is not supported by corroborated
testimony of eye witnesses PW.2 to 6, in the absence of
such corroborative and circumstantial evidence, it is
not safe to believe the sole testimony of PW.1 and
which does not inspire confidence.
11 C.C.6865/2013
13. The other witnesses examined on behalf of
prosecution are police officials and doctor, they stated
about their official act done, which will not help the
prosecution to prove ingredients of alleged offence.
14. Therefore, in view of discussion made above,
the considered opinion is of the court that, the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are entitled to
benefit of doubt. Hence, answered the point No.1 in the
Negative.
15. Point No.2: In view of discussion made on
point No.1 this court proceeds to pass following
ORDER
Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C the accused-1 to 4 are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 498A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and Section -3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 12 C.C.6865/2013
Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 7h day of April, 2025) VII Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru. ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution :
PW.1 Mamatha
PW.2 Muniyappa
PW.3 Chikkanna
PW.4 Chikkathayamma
PW.5 Mallaiah
PW.6 Narayanappa
PW.7 Munikrishna B. H.
PW.8 Dr.Ashwathanarayana
PW.9 Bommaraju
PW.10 Anitha Kumari
13 C.C.6865/2013
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution :
Ex.P.1 First Information Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 Invitation card Ex.P.4 & 5 Photos Ex.P.6 to Copies of jewelry shop receipts 12 Ex.P.13 Statement Ex.P.14 Wound Certificate Ex.P.15 Report Ex.P.16 FIR List of witnesses examined for the Accused Nil List of documents exhibited for the Accused Nil List of material objects marked for the Nil. Prosecution VII Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.14 C.C.6865/2013 15 C.C.6865/2013
Judgment pronounced in the open court.
(vide separate order):
ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C the accused-1 to 4 are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 498A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and Section -3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
7th ACJM, Bengaluru.