Bangalore District Court
State By Hebbal vs H.R.Venkatesh S/O Rajanna on 10 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 10th day of June 2016
PRESENT:
Sri Rudolph Pereira, B.Com., L L.M.,
CMM, Bengaluru
C.C. No.40239/2010
Complainant : State by Hebbal
Police, Bengaluru City
-V/s-
Accused : 1. H.R.Venkatesh s/o Rajanna, 38 yrs,
R/at No.51/A, 1st Cross, Muneshwara
Layout, Manorayanapalya, R.T.Nagar
Post, Bengaluru-32.
2. Shanthamma w/o Late Veeranna,
32 yrs, R/at No.52/1, 1st Cross,
Kavalbyrasandra, R.T.Nagar Post,
Bengaluru-32.
Date of offence : 29-04-2010 (As per F.I.R.)
Offence : Section 498(A) IPC and
Section 3, 4 of D.P. Act
Plea of the : Accused No-1 and 2 pleaded not
Accused guilty
Final order : Accused No-1 and 2 Acquitted
Date of Judgment : 10-06-2016
2 CC No.40239/2010
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
The Police Inspector of Hebbal P.S., Bengaluru City
has filed charge sheet against accused No-1 and 2 for the
offences punishable U/S 498(A) of IPC and S.3, 4 of D.P.
Act.
2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that-
Accused No-1 is the husband of CW1 Ningamma @
Baby and their marriage was solemnized on 05-05-1999 as
per the customs prevailing in Hindu Community. It is alleged
that at the time of marriage, accused No-1 received cash
amount of Rs.70,000/-, gold bracelet and gold chain as
dowry. Thereafter, accused No-1 and CW1 were leading
matrimonial life within the limits of Hebbal Police Station
i.e., Narayanaswamy Building, Muneshwara Layout,
Manorayanapalya, Bengaluru. At that time, accused No-1
had illicit relationship with accused No-2 and both the
accused used to harass CW1, physically and mentally by
demanding to bring money from her parental house and on
3 CC No.40239/2010
29-04-2010 at 10 a.m., both of them picked up quarrel with
CW1, assaulted her and thrown her away from the house.
Thereby the accused persons committed aforesaid offences.
3. Accused No-1 and 2 are on bail. After furnishing
charge-sheet copies, my the then learned predecessor on the
basis of materials placed before the Court has framed charge
against both accused for the alleged offences and read over &
explained in the language known to them. The accused No-1
and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has
examined in all seven witnesses as per PW1 to 7 and
produced documents as per Ex.P1 to 9. The learned Sr.APP
has given up CW2. CW6 and CW7 did not turn up before this
court inspite of coercive steps taken by this court. Hence by
rejecting the prayer of learned Sr. APP, this court dropped
CW6 and CW7 in the interest of speedy justice to the accused
persons. Thereafter the statement of accused No-1 and 2, as
required U/S 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein they have
4 CC No.40239/2010
denied the incriminating evidence in toto and opted not to
adduce any defence evidence.
5. Heard arguments of the learned Sr. APP and learned
advocate for accused No-1 and 2.
6. In the case on hand, the prosecution has alleged the
offences of Section 498(A) IPC and Section 3, 4 of D.P. Act.
It is the burden on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present
case on hand, it is alleged that the accused No-1 who is the
husband of the complainant (CW1) has subjected her to
physical and mental cruelty by demanding dowry and ousted
her from the house on 29-04-2010 at the instigation of the
accused No-2, who is alleged to be having illicit relationship
with accused No-1.
7. In order to prove the allegations made against the
accused persons, the CW1 Smt. Ningamma entered into the
witness box as PW1 and stated that as per the demand of the
accused No-1, her elder brother had given two gold chain, a
5 CC No.40239/2010
ring and cash amount of Rs.75,000/- during the occasion of
marriage as dowry. But to substantiate the above statement of
PW1, the IO has not cited the brother of the PW1 as witness
in the above case. During the course of cross-examination,
the PW1 has disclosed that her father is an agriculturist and is
having two wives and nine children, out of which, six are
daughters. She has frankly admitted that her father had
financial constraints. The PW1 has further stated that prior to
the six months of her marriage with accused No-1, the
negotiations for marriage were taken place in the presence of
elderly people by name Doddapapaiah, Eraiah, Sannapapaiah
and dowry amount has been paid in the presence of one
Shivanna. But the IO has not chosen to cite the above said
people as the witnesses in the above case. The PW1 has
further admitted that before her marriage, her brother and
mother were working in the house of one Shet at Bengaluru.
She has conceded that in their marriage invitation, the name
of the said Shet was mentioned. She has expressed her
6 CC No.40239/2010
inability to depose about the exact income of her father from
all sources. Therefore, it is very clear from the above
statements of PW1 that her parents had no capacity to give
dowry and her allegations against the accused persons
regarding demand for dowry, receipt of dowry and
harassment for dowry are false and frivolous.
8. In Ex.P1 (complaint), the PW1 has alleged that on
29-04-2010 at 10 a.m., the accused persons by picking up
quarrel, manhandled her and ousted her from the matrimonial
house. But before this court, she has not specifically stated
the above said date of harassment. The PW1 has deposed
that the neighbourers of her husband had witnessed the ill-
treatments given by the accused persons to her. But, though
the IO has cited an independent eye witness i.e., CW6
(neighbour) of PW1 as a witness in the above case to prove
the allegations made against the accused persons, the said
witness did not appear before this court to support the
prosecution version. The PW1 has admitted that she cannot
7 CC No.40239/2010
read and write Kannada and the scribe of Ex.P1 is a police.
But in Ex.P1, there is no such endorsement by the concerned
police who has drafted the said document.
9. It appears from the evidence of PW1 that the accused
No-2 is the wife of the uncle of the accused No-1. She has
alleged that the accused No-1 is having illicit relationship
with accused No-2 and that at the instigation of accused No-
2, the accused No-1 is subjecting her to cruelty. But, before
this court, the PW1 has not adduced sufficient evidence to
prove the allegations made against the accused No-2. From
the above testimonies of PW1, it appears that her allegations
against the accused persons are not trustworthy.
10. One Suguna who is the daughter of the PW1
entered into the witness box as PW2. In fact during chief
examination, she has deposed about ill treatment given by the
accused No-1 and 2 to her mother i.e., PW1. But during
cross-examination, she has admitted that she is studying at
St.Meera's School and her father (accused No-1) admitted
8 CC No.40239/2010
her to the said School and paid the school fees. Similarly she
has conceded that she is having extra love and affection
towards her mother i.e., PW1. It appears from the above
statement of PW2 that out of intimacy and in order to help
the PW1, the PW2 has adduced evidence against the accused
persons.
11. The father of PW1 namely Srikantaiah and step
mother of PW1 namely Anasuyamma appeared before this
court as PW3 and PW4. During chief examination, both
witnesses have deposed about cruelty meted out by the
accused persons on the PW1. But, during cross-examination,
the PW3 has admitted that he is suffering from eye sight and
memory problems. Similarly PW4 has stated that she has not
personally witnessed the harassment given by the accused
persons to the PW1. The PW4 has revealed that the mother of
the PW1 is alive. If there was such incident on 29-04-2010,
then the mother of the PW1 would have definitely appeared
before the court to support the allegations of the prosecution.
9 CC No.40239/2010
It appears that without holding proper investigation, the IO
has sent up the accused persons for trial.
12. The prosecution has examined alleged spot mahazar
witness by name Pushpa as PW5. But, she has turned hostile
and stated that she has signed the Ex.P2 (spot mahazar) in the
police station and she doesn't know the contents of the said
document. The above statement of PW5 indicates that the
Ex.P2 was not prepared in the spot and in the presence of
PW5.
13. Both Investigating Officers namely Basavaraj
M.Patil and M.Prabhushankar appeared before this court as
PW6 and 7 respectively. In fact, both witnesses have deposed
about their role in the investigation of present case. But
during cross-examination, PW6 has stated that during
investigation of this case, he has not enquired that the house
in question, where the alleged offences were taken place is
belonging to whom. Similarly the PW7 has stated that one
Veeranna Gowda is the husband of accused No-2 and his
10 CC No.40239/2010
name is found in the marriage invitation (Ex.P3) of accused
No-1 and PW1. If there was illicit relationship between the
accused No-1 and 2 as alleged by the PW1, then the husband
of the accused No-2 would not have allowed the accused No-
1 to mention his name in the marriage invitation card.
Therefore, it appears that the present case is a concocted case
foisted against the accused persons to harass them
unnecessarily.
14. With the above observations, I conclude that there
is no sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of the
accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence I hold
that they are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The accused No-1 and 2 are found not guilty. Hence acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., they are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 3, 4 of D.P. Act.
11 CC No.40239/2010The bail bonds of accused No-1 and 2 shall stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on Computer. The computerized print out taken by him is revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this day i.e., 10-06-2016) (Rudolph Pereira), Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
PW1 : Ningamma
PW2 : Suguna
PW3 : Srikantaiah
PW4 : Anusuyamma
PW5 : Pushpa
PW6 : B.M.Patil
PW7 : M.Prabhushankar
List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P3 : Marriage Invitation Card
Ex.P4 to 8 : Photos
Ex.P9 : F.I.R.
List of Material objects produced:-
NIL List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL C.M.M., BENGALURU.12 CC No.40239/2010
10-06-2016 (Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate sheets) ORDER The accused No-1 and 2 are found not guilty. Hence acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., they are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 3, 4 of D.P. Act. The bail bonds of accused No-1 and 2 shall stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.