Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka Through vs Altaf Ahmed Giyas on 11 April, 2023
1 CC.No.26507/14
KABC030670492014
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF APRIL 2023
C.C. No.26507/14
Present: SRI. B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR
B.A., LL.B.,
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
COMPLAINANT : The State of Karnataka through
Chamarajpet Police Station
Rep.by Sr.APP
V/s.
Accused 1. Altaf Ahmed Giyas, s/o.Fayaz
Ahmed Giyas, 32 yrs,
2. Raheem Unnisa, w/o.Fayaz
Ahmed Giyas, 52 yrs
3. Fayaz Ahmed Giyas (Abated)
4. Farooq Ahmed Giyas, s/o.Fayaz
Ahmed Giyas, 30yrs
2 CC.No.26507/14
5. Farhan Ahmed Giyas, s/o.Fayaz
Ahmed Giyas, 26 yrs
A1 to 5 are R/at.No.79/A, 5th cross,
Tippunagar, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru.
Rep.by Smt.GJK, Advocate
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 01/09/2012 onwards
OF OFFENCE
DATE OF ARREST OF THE : Accused No.1, 2, 4 and 5 are on
ACCUSED bail.
OFFENCES ALLEGED : U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4
of D.P.Act
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 06/04/2023
OF EVIDENCE
DATE OF CLOSING OF : 06/04/2023
EVIDENCE
OPINION OF THE JUDGE : Found not guilty
(B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR)
XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
: J U D G M E N T :
The PI of Chamarajpet Police station has filed
chargesheet against accused No.1 to 5 for the offences
punishable u/s.498(A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
3 CC.No.26507/14
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are
that the CW1 is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1, their
marriage was solemnized on 1/9/12 at Shivajinagar, at that
time, accused persons demanded and received 250 grams of
silver articles, Rs.6 lakhs cash, 262 grams gold and
household articles as dowry from the parents of CW 1,
thereafter, while C.W.1 was residing along with accused
persons, they have subjected the CW 1 to cruelty mentally
and physically for more dowry and tortured CW1. Later on
the CW 1 gave birth to a female child, at that time, the
accused persons insisted the CW 1 to bring money in the
name of female child and also threatened her to perform 2 nd
marriage to the accused no.1 and have treated CW1 with
cruelty and thereby committed the offences u/s.498(A) of
IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
3. On the basis of the complaint of the CW 1, this crime
has been registered by Chamarajpet Police Station. During
the crime stage, the accused No.1 was arrested and produced
before the court and later on the accused No.1 filed the bail
application through his counsel. Accordingly, he has released
on bail. After investigation, Investigating officer has
submitted the chargesheet against the accused No.1 to 5 for
the offences u/s.498(A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
4 CC.No.26507/14
The cognizance for the said offences are taken. Thereafter on
issuance of summons, the accused No.2 to 5 have appeared
before the court through their counsel and filed bail
application, accordingly, they have released on bail. At this
juncture, accused no.3 was reported as dead, hence, case
against accused no.3 is ordered to be abated vide orders dtd:
03/09/17.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have furnished
to the accused No.1, 2, 4 and 5 as contemplated u/s.207 of
Cr.P.C., After being heard the arguments before charge, as
there were no grounds to discharge them, charge for the
offences u/s.498(A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act have
been framed & read over, explained to the accused No. 1, 2, 4
and 5 in the language best known to them. The accused No.
1, 2, 4 and 5 have not pleaded guilty and claims to be tried.
Hence, the case taken up for trial.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the
prosecution has examined the complainant and victim as PW1
out of 16 witnesses as cited in the chargesheet. 3 documents
have been marked as Ex.P.1 to 3. Since the PW1 being the
victim has turned hostile and there is no incriminating
evidence against the accused persons, examination of accused
persons u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., has been dispensed with.
5 CC.No.26507/14
6. Heard the arguments of learned APP and counsel for
accused persons. Perused, On the basis of the above, the
following points have arises for my consideration :
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the CW1 is the
legally wedded wife of accused No.1,
their marriage was solemnized on
1/9/12 at Shivajinagar, at that time,
accused persons demanded and
received 250 grams of silver articles,
Rs.6 lakhs cash, 262 grams gold and
household articles as dowry from the
parents of CW 1, thereafter, while C.W.1
was residing along with accused
persons, they have subjected the CW 1
to cruelty mentally and physically for
more dowry and tortured CW1. Later
on the CW 1 gave birth to a female child,
at that time, the accused persons
insisted the CW 1 to bring money in the
name of female child and also
threatened her to perform 2nd marriage
to the accused no.1 and have treated
CW1 with cruelty and thereby
committed the offences u/s.498(A) of
IPC ?
2) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that accused persons
in furtherance of the above act accused
demanded and received Rs.6 lakhs
cash, gold and silver articles and
household articles as dowry from the
6 CC.No.26507/14
parents of CW 1 and demanded further
dowry from CW 1 and thereby
committed the offences u/s.3 and 4 of
D.P.Act ?
3) What order ?
7. My answer to the above points is as under;
Point No.1 and 2 In the Negative
Point No.3As per final order for the following :
REASONS
8. Point No.1 and 2 : Since all these points are
interlinked, I have taken them together for common
discussion in order to avoid the repetition. According to the
prosecution, accused No.1,2, 4 and 5 have committed the
offences u/s.498(A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act. In
order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the
prosecution has examined the complainant as PW.1, who is
the victim. The PW 1 has deposed that the accused No.1 is
her husband, accused No.2 and 3 are her inlaws, accused
no.4 and 5 are her brother in laws. She further deposed that
on 1/9/12 her marriage with accused no.1 was solemnized at
Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. After her marriage, the accused
persons are in cordial terms with her. Accused persons never
subjected her to cruelty. About 810 years back, when she
7 CC.No.26507/14
went to Police Station, they have took her signature on two
documents which are the complaint and mahazar and they
have marked as Ex.P.1 and 2. She has deposed that she does
not know what has written in Ex.P.1 and 2. Thus she has
totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
9. At request of learned senior APP this witness has been
treated as hostile witness and permission was accorded to
cross examine her. In the cross examination the learned
Sr.APP suggested the case of the prosecution and same has
been denied by the witness. On the basis of the above
evidence of PW.1 the court cannot come to conclusion that
the accused persons have committed the offence as alleged by
the prosecution. Here the PW.1 turned hostile, in the cross
examination she has categorically admitted that, she and
accused persons have compromised the matter. That is the
reason why PW.1 has not given any evidence supporting the
case of the prosecution. In a criminal justice system, if a tiny
doubt arises in the mind of the court, benefit of doubt shall be
extended to the accused persons. In this case, not only tiny
doubt but the strong doubt arise in the mind of the court,
because the victim herself has not supported the case of the
prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to
prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable
8 CC.No.26507/14
doubt. Hence, in my opinion it is a fit case to extend benefit
of doubt to the accused persons. Accordingly point under
reference answered in the Negative.
10. POINT NO.2 :
For the aforesaid reason and discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1, 2, 4 and 5 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s.498(A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
The bail bond executed by the accused No.1, 2, 4 and 5 are stands cancelled. However, Accused No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 shall execute personal bond of Rs.50,000/ each by undertaking to appear before the appellate Court, if any appeal is filed. It is not a fit case to award victim compensation as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C., Property seized in PF.No.88/14 item No.1& 2 viz., Marriage invitation card and photos are worthless, ordered to be destroyed after the 9 CC.No.26507/14 appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer, script transcribed by her and then corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 11 th day of April 2023).
(B.C.Chandrashekar) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW1 : Rahath Umera Documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature Ex.P.2 : Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 : Statement of PW 1
Witnesses examined for the accused: NIL Documents marked for the accused: NIL (B.C.Chandrashekar) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.