Bangalore District Court
State By Basaveshwaranagar P.S vs Raju S/O Javaraiah on 5 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. CMM., AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the Thursday the 5th day of March 2015
Present: Sri B.Venkatesha, B.Sc., LL.B.,
V Addl., C.M.M., Bangalore.
CC No.17874/2009
Complainant State by Basaveshwaranagar P.S.,
(Rep., by Sr.APP B'lore)
V/s.
Accused 1.Raju S/o Javaraiah, 31 Yrs.,
R/o Kasuvanahalli Grama, Palagrahar
Post., Nagamangala Tq., Mandya Dist.,
2.Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma
C/o varadaraju, 44 Yrs.,
R/o Chinnahalli Grama, Amruthur Hobli,
Kunigal Tq., Tumkur Dist.,
3.Bhagya C/o Late Varadaraju, 41 Yrs.,
R/a No.241, +6th Cross, I Main,
PÉgÉ CAUÀ¼À, Kamlanagara, Bangalore.
4.Saroja C/o Chandrashekar, 35 Yrs.,
R/a No.552, 4th Main, 2nd Cross,
Kamalanagara, Bangalore-79.
5.Jayamma C/o Javaraiah, 60 Yrs.,
R/o Kusuvanahalli grama, Palagrahara
Post., Nagamangala Tq., Mandya Dist.,
(Rep. by Sri S. Rajashekar, Adv.,)
2 CC No.17874/2009
JUDGMENT AS PER SEC.355 Cr.P.C.,
1. Serial Number of the case : CC No.17874/2009
2. Date of the commission of the
offence : 30.05.2004
3.The name of the complainant : Smt. Shanthakumari
4.Name of the accused persons
& their parentage and residence : As stated above.
5.the offence complained off : Sec.498A & 506 of IPC
and proved & Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act.
6.The plea of the accused and :Pleaded not guilty and denied
their examination the incriminating evidence.
7.The final order : A-1 is convicted
8.The date of such order :05.03.2015.
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR FINAL ORDER:
The prosecution's case in brief as set out in Cl. No.7 of
charge sheet is that the marriage of complainant-Smt.
Shanthakumari was solemnized with the accused No.1 on
3.5.2004 at Sri Siddalingeshwara Kalyanamantapa, Kurubarahalli
as per the customs and rites prevailing in Hindu Community. Two
months prior to the marriage, the marriage talks were held in a
3 CC No.17874/2009
rented house at Kamalanagar. At that time, all the accused
persons were present and demanded to give 100 grams of gold
ornmanets and cash of Rs.50,000/- in the presence of CW.2 to 6.
At that time, the parents of complainant, CW.2 and CW.3 have
refused the said demand and agreed for payment of Rs.15,000/-
cash, 20 grams gold chain and 5 grams of gold ring to accused
No.1 and gave the same to accused No.1 at the time of marriage
CW.2 and 3 also gave 70 grams worth Gold Mangalya chain, one
neck lace, one pair hangings, one pair cheek chain, two rings to
the complainant and performed her marriage. After the marriage,
they get a house on lease to the complainant and accused No.1
at Kamalanagar. The complainant and the accused No.1 started
to lead their matrimonial life in the said house. At that time, the
accused No.1 started to harass the complainant for petty reasons
and abused her in filthy language. After lapse of some days,
accused No.2 to 5 by visiting the house of complainant and
accused No1. abused the complainant in filthy language,
assaulted her and demanded the complainant to bring additional
4 CC No.17874/2009
dowry of Rs.25,000/- from her parents house as the dowry given
at the time of marriage is not sufficient and instigated accused
No.1 to thrown out the complainant from the house. The accused
No.1 at the instigation of accused No.2 to 5 assaulted the
complainant and ill-treated her physically and mentally without
providing the food and clothes and caused simple injuries. At that
time on 4.1.2009, complainant took treatment to the said injuries
at KC General Hospital, Mallesharam, and even after panchayat
the accused No.1 demanded for additional dowry of Rs.25,000/-
and put threat to her life by stating that if she fails to bring
additional dowry, he will kill her. Thus, the accused have caused
physical and mental cruelty on the complainant with a demand to
bring additional dowry. Therefore, the accused persons have
committed the aforesaid offences as alleged. Hence, the Charge
Sheet.
2.During Crime stage, the accused No.1 to 5 enlarged on
regular bail. After filing of the charge sheet, this Court took
cognizance of the aforesaid offences as alleged against the
5 CC No.17874/2009
aforesaid accused persons. Copies of the charge sheet have been
furnished to accused No.1 to 5 as per Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. With no
objection from the Counsel for the accused No.1 to 5, this Court
framed charge against the aforesaid accused persons for the
aforesaid offences. The same read over and explained to them in
the language known to them. They have pleaded not guilty and
claims for trial. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, the
prosecution has examined six witnesses as PW.1 to 6 and it has
got exhibited 4 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-4 and closed its side of
evidence. Statement of the accused No.1 to 5 as required U/sec.
313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The accused No.1 to 5 have
denied the incriminating evidence that appeared against them
and that they have submitted no defence evidence. Heard the
arguments of both sides
3.This case has been registered in view of the complaint
submitted as per Ex.P1 by the complainant-Smt. Shanthakumari
against the accused persons on 13.03.2009 before the then SHO
of Basaveshwaranagar P.S., at about 9.20 p.m. In the complaint
6 CC No.17874/2009
marked at Ex.P1, the complainant has reiterated almost all the
facts as averred in col., No.7 of charge sheet and para No.1 of
this Judgement. Ex.P-2 discloses that the then SHO of
Basaveshwaranagar P.S., has prepared the mahazar in the
residential house bearing No.552, 4th Main, Kamalanagar, that
situated at Basaveshwaranagar P.S., Bangalore, in between 9.45
a.m. to 10.30 a.m. in the presence of the complainant and two
other panchas namely Siddaraju and Hanumaiah. Ex.P-3 is the
FIR that submitted to this Court by PW.4 Puttaramau the then
SHO of Basaveshwaranagar P.S. Ex.P-4 is the statement of the
witness Siddaraju that recorded by the I.O. Ex.P-4 discloses that
the witness Siddaraju has made the statement to the I.O., at the
time of investigation by specifically supporting the averments
made in the complaint marked at Ex.P1. With the background of
contents of Ex.P-1 to P-4, the oral evidence of PW.1 to 6 is
analyzed to know whether the accused persons have committed
the alleged offences or not.
7 CC No.17874/2009
4.Complainant-PW.1 Smt. Shanthakumari during the course
of her oral evidence that recorded at the time of her chief-
examination has specifically deposed that her marriage was
solemnized with the accused No.1 on 30.05.2004 at
Siddalingeshwara Kalayanamantapa of Kurubarahalli, Bangalore
City. At that time her parents gave 70 grams gold ornaments and
cash of Rs.15,000/- to the accused as dowry. After her marriage
she was resided with the accused persons at Kamalanagar for a
period of 5 years. At that time, the accused persons have not
looked her in a very well manner. The accused No.1 used to
abuse her in a filthy language. The accused No.2 to 5 abated the
accused No.1 to abuse her. All the accused persons have
assaulted her and they have also abused her parents. She has
further deposed that one day during the year 2009 all the
accused have picked up quarrel with her and told to her to bring
a cash of Rs.25,000/- from her parents' house and thrown out her
from their house. She has further deposed that at that time
accused No.1 had put threat to her that he will kill her in case she
8 CC No.17874/2009
fails to bring cash of Rs.25,000/- from her parents' house.
Therefore, she had submitted a complaint marked as per Ex.P-1
against the accused persons and that thereafter police came to
the residential house of the accused persons and prepared the
mahazar as per Ex.P-2.
5.PW.2, Dasappa the father of the complainant, has
deposed before this Court at the time of his chief-examination
before marriage of his daughter with the accused No.1, all the
accused persons came to his residential house and have
demanded payment of Rs.50,000/- and gold ornaments weighing
100 grams as dowry. After negotiations he agreed to gave gold
ornaments weighing 70 grams and a cash of Rs.15,000/- to the
accused No.1 as dowry amount. Accordingly he had delivered 70
grams of gold ornaments and a cash of Rs.15,000/- to the
accused No.1 in the presence of other accused persons at the
time of marriage. He has further deposed that his daughter was
stayed in the residential house of the accused at Kamalanagar
along with the accused persons for a period of 5 years. During
9 CC No.17874/2009
that period the accused persons are not looked his daughter in a
very well manner. The accused No.1 used to abuse his daughter
in filthy language and that the other accused persons instigated
the accused No.1 to abuse his daughter. His daughter told to him
that the accused persons have demanded her to bring a cash of
Rs.25,000/- from him. He arranged panchayat and advised the
accused persons, but the accused persons never changed their
attitude. Therefore, his daughter had submitted the complaint
before the Basaveshwaranagar P.S. against the accused persons,
and that the Basaveshwaranagar police have recorded his
statement.
6.PW.3 Hanumaiah is the brother-in-law of the complainant.
He deposed his evidence before this Court at the time of his chief-
examination by specifically supporting the evidence of PW.1 and 2
as well as the contents of documents marked as per Ex.P-1 and
P2. PW.4 Puttaramu is the then SHO of Basaveshwaranagar P.S.,
He has deposed about receipt of complaint marked as per Ex.P-1,
registration of this case and submission of FIR marked at Ex.P-3
10 CC No.17874/2009
to this Court. He has further deposed that he handed over case
file to CW.8 H.S. Parameshwar for further investigation.
7.PW.5 Siddaraju is the another brother-in-law of the
complainant. He also has deposed his evidence by supporting the
evidence of PW.1 to 3 about giving of dowry etc., to the accused
No.1 at the time of marriage. But he has not supported the
evidence of PW.1 to 3 about the harassment made by the
accused persons to the complainant. He has deposed that he had
put his signature on the document marked at Ex.P-2 in the
Basaveshwaranagar P. S., during the year 2009. He has deposed
that he didn't know the contents of Ex.P-2. PW.5 is treated as a
hostile witness at the request of the prosecution and that he is
subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the case of the
prosecution with permission of this Court. During the course of
his oral evidence that recorded at the time of his cross-
examination also, he has not supported the case of the
prosecution about alleged harassment made by the accused
persons to the complainant. He has specifically denied that he
11 CC No.17874/2009
has made statement to the police as per Ex.P-4 about this case.
He has also specifically denied that in his presence police have
prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the residential house of the
accused persons. Therefore, I am of the view that the evidence
of PW.5 is not much helpful to the case of the prosecution about
the alleged harassment and preparation of the mahazar as per
Ex.P-2.
8.PW.6 Hanumantharaju is also one of the brother-in-law of
the complainant. He has also supported the case of the
prosecution about demanding of dowry by the accused persons,
and receiving of dowry of Rs.15,000/- and 70 grams gold
ornaments. But he has not supported the case of the prosecution
about alleged harassment. He is also subjected to cross-
examination with permission of this Court. During the course of
his cross-examination he has supported the case of the
prosecution that the complainant told to him that the accused
persons have making harassment on her to extort dowry amount.
12 CC No.17874/2009
9.I have carefully perused the evidence of the aforesaid
witnesses that recorded at the time of their respective cross-
examination. From the same, it is clear that the accused persons
never denied that the complainant-Shanthakumari is the wife of
the accused No.1. But they have denied that they demanded for
dowry in the kind of gold and cash. They have also denied that
they have received cash of Rs.15, 000/- and 70 grams gold
ornaments from PW.2 as dowry at the time of marriage of the
accused No.1 with the complainant.
10. During the course of her cross-examination, PW.1 has
deposed as under
£À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ RZÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 1£Éà CgÉÆæ £ÉÆÃrPÀÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÀÉ
¸Àj . 1£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄ vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬Ä PÀ¸ÀĪÀ£ÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ°è EzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj . 2£Éà CgÉÆæ
®Qëä PÀÄtôUÀ¯ï vÁ¯ÉÆèPÀÄ CªÀÄÊvÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À«zÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj . £ÁªÀÅ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è
ªÁ¸À«zÁÝUÀ ££Àß eÉÆvÉ ¨sÁUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀgÉÆÃd ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÁ¸À«zÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ
MA¢Éà ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁVzÀÄÝ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¨sÁUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀgÉÆÃd ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀiÁV ªÁ¸À«zÀÝgÀÄ.
From the aforesaid evidence of PW.1 it is clear that the
accused No.2 to 5 are not residing along with the complainant
13 CC No.17874/2009
and accused No.1 at any point of time. Accused No.2 to 5 are
residing separately in a separate places and houses. PW.1 has
not specifically stated that on what date and where the accused
No.2 to 5 have been instigated accused No.1 to insult her. She
has also not specifically stated that on what date and where the
accused No.2 to 5 demanded her to bring additional dowry of
Rs.25,000/- from her parents' house. Therefore, I am of the
opinion that her evidence is doubtful towards her case against
accused No.2 to 5. The evidence of PW.2, 3, 5 and 6 about the
alleged harassment is hearsay in nature. They have not stated
before this Court that in their presence, the accused persons have
made harassment or threat to the complainant with an intention
to extort more dowry amount. They have deposed that PW.1 has
told them about the alleged harassment and threat put to her
with an intention to extort more dowry amount. No pachayatdars
have been examined before this Court. Therefore, I am of the
view that the evidence of PW.2, 3, 5 and 6 is not reliable in
nature. But so far the case as against accused No.1 about the
14 CC No.17874/2009
alleged harassment for dowry is established from her evidence.
Evidence is not clear or doubtful about the place of negotiation of
that marriage. The alleged demand of dowry before the marriage
is not established. PW.1 being the wife of accused No.1 may not
depose false evidence against her husband. At the time of
recording statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused
No.1 has not stated anything that why the PW.1 has deposed
false evidence against him. He also is not examined any witness
or he himself is examined to show that why the PW.1 has
deposed false evidence against him. Nothing is elicited during the
course of cross-examination of PW-1 that why she was deposed
false evidence against him. Therefore, I am of the opinion that
the evidence of PW.1 may be accepted against her husband
accused No.1. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
prosecution. has proved its case as against accused No.1 beyond
all reasonable doubt. Further the prosecution has miserably failed
to prove its case as against accused No.2 to 5 beyond all
reasonable doubt.
15 CC No.17874/2009
11.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court proceed to
pass the following:-
ORDER
By acting under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. the aforesaid accused No.1 is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Secs.498A and 506 of IPC and Sec.4 of D. P. Act.
By acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the aforesaid accused No.2 to 5 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.498A and 506 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D P Act.
By acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the aforesaid accused No.1 is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/s.3 of D P Act. PB and SB of accused No.1 stands cancelled Release accused No.2 to 5 forthwith if they are not required to other cases. Their bail bonds as well as surety bonds extended for a period of 6 months in view of Sec.437 of Cr.P.C., Order regarding Imposition of sentence on the accused No.1 for the aforesaid offences is to be made after hearing the accused No.1 and the prosecution.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by him is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this Thursday the 5th day of March 2015.) (B.VENKATESHA) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
16 CC No.17874/2009ORDER ON SENTENCE I have heard both sides on sentence and perused the material available on record. The Lr., Sr. APP has sought for imposition of sentence to the Accused No.1 as prescribed under the said sections. The Lr., counsel SRS for Accused No.1 has argued that accused No.1 has responsibility to maintain his old aged parents and that therefore, he has sought for showing some lenient view while imposing sentence to the accused No.1 for the said offences.
While fixing punishment various factors have to be considered, i.e. the nature and seriousness of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, degree of deliberation shown by the offenders, their age and characters. In other words while judging the adequacy of sentence, the nature of the offence, the circumstances of its commission, the age, character of the offender, injury to individuals or to the society and effect of the punishment on the offenders are some amongst many other factors that have to be taken into consideration. 17 CC No.17874/2009
Considering the nature of the offence, the age, character of the offender, injury to individuals and to the society, effect of the punishment on the offenders, the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the accused No.1 is to be convicted by imposing suitable sentence. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER By acting U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C., I hereby sentence the accused No.1 to under go simple imprisonment for one and half year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default he shall under go simple imprisonment for nine months for the for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC.
Further by acting U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C., I hereby sentence the accused to under go simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC.
Further by acting U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C., I hereby sentence the accused to under go simple imprisonment for one year and 18 CC No.17874/2009 to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default he shall undergo SI for six months for the offence punishable under section 4 of D P Act.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
(B.VENKATESHA) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION PW.1 Smt. Shantha Kumari PW.2 Dasappa PW.3 Hanumaiah PW.4 Puttaramu PW.5 Siddaraju PW.6 Hanumantharaju.
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P1 Complaint dt., 13.03.2009 Ex.P2 Spot Mahazar dt., 14.03.2009 Ex.3 FIR Ex.P4 Statement of PW.5
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
NIL (B.VENKATESHA) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.19 CC No.17874/2009
05-03-2015. Case called. A-1 to 5 pt., For Judgment, Judgment pronounced in the open Court as under vide separate Judgement kept in the file.
By acting under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. the aforesaid accused No.1 is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Secs.498A and 506 of IPC and Sec.4 of D. P. Act.
By acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the aforesaid accused No.2 to 5 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.498A and 506 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D P Act.
By acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the aforesaid accused No.1 is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/s.3 of D P Act. PB and SB of accused No.1 stands cancelled Release accused No.2 to 5 forthwith if they are not required to other cases. Their bail bonds as well as surety bonds extended for a period of 6 months in view of Sec.437 of Cr.P.C., Order regarding Imposition of sentence on the accused No.1 for the aforesaid offences is to be made after hearing the accused No.1 and the prosecution.
(B.VENKATESHA) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
I have heard both sides on sentence and perused the material available on record. The Lr., Sr. APP has sought for imposition of sentence to the Accused No.1 as prescribed under the said sections. The Lr., counsel SRS for Accused No.1 has 20 CC No.17874/2009 argued that accused No.1 has responsibility to maintain his old aged parents and that therefore, he has sought for showing some lenient view while imposing sentence to the accused No.1 for the said offences.
While fixing punishment various factors have to be considered, i.e. the nature and seriousness of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, degree of deliberation shown by the offenders, their age and characters. In other words while judging the adequacy of sentence, the nature of the offence, the circumstances of its commission, the age, character of the offender, injury to individuals or to the society and effect of the punishment on the offenders are some amongst many other factors that have to be taken into consideration.
Considering the nature of the offence, the age, character of the offender, injury to individuals and to the society, effect of the punishment on the offenders, the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the accused No.1 is to be convicted by imposing suitable sentence. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER By acting U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C., I hereby sentence the accused No.1 to under go simple imprisonment for one and half year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default he shall under go 21 CC No.17874/2009 simple imprisonment for nine months for the for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC.
Further by acting U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C., I hereby sentence the accused to under go simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC.
Further by acting U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C., I hereby sentence the accused to under go simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default he shall undergo SI for six months for the offence punishable under section 4 of D P Act.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. Furnish free copy of Judgement and order to the accused No.1 forthwith.
(B.VENKATESHA) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
Lr., Counsel has filed Applications U/s.389(3) and Sec.424 of Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of Judgement and Sentence and granted time for payment of fine amount, as the accused intends to prefer appeal before the appellate Court. Sr. APP has orally opposed.22 CC No.17874/2009
Heard and perused, in the interest of equity and justice aforesaid judgement and sentence as against accused No.1 is hereby suspended for a period of one month till this date.
Accused No.1 is enlarged on bail on his furnishing PB in a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety for the like sum. He shall pay fine amount in the next date without fail. Pray time to furnish surety. Take PB. Surety by 6.3.2015.
(B.VENKATESHA) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.23 CC No.17874/2009