Bangalore District Court
Chandra Layout Ps vs A1 Ravi Kumar Alias Ravi Kumar ... on 29 March, 2025
KABC010043482019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 29th day of March, 2025.
Present;
Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.,
LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No.99/2019
COMPLAINANT: STATE
Represented by
Chandra Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : 1.Ravikumar @ Ravikumar
Nagarabandi,
S/o.Mallareddy,
Aged about 27 years,
2.Anandareddy,
S/o.Mallareddy,
Aged about 45 years;
Both are r/at Kandalli village,
Vadagera Taluk,
Yadagiri District.
(A1 & 2-Rep.by Sri.KNN Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence : 01.11.2014
2 Spl.C.No.99/2019
2. Date of report of Offence : 21.05.2018
3. Name of the Complainant : Smt.Shobharani
4. Date of commencement of : 19-05-2022
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 22-11-2024
6. Offences Complained are : U/sec.498A, 109 of IPC &
sec.4 of D.P.Act & u/s.3(1)
(r),(s),(w),(i) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused Nos.1 and 2
convicted for the offence
punishable u/s.498A of
IPC.
Accused No.2 convicted
for the offence punishable
u/s.109 of IPC.
Accused Nos.1 and 2
acquitted for the offence
punishable u/s.4 of
D.P.Act & u/s.3(1)(r),(s),
(w),(i) of the SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989.
JUDGMENT
The ACP, Vijayanagar Sub-division, Bengaluru has submitted Charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section U/sec.498A, 109 of IPC & sec.4 of D.P.Act & u/s.3(1)
(r),(s),(w),(i) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. 3 Spl.C.No.99/2019
2. The prosecution case is that, the complainant made complaint on 21.05.2018 against the accused persons namely one Ravi Kumar is her husband and Ananth Reddy is elder brother of the husband of the victim. The victim has made allegations that she has been directed to bring dowry from her maternal house and she has been given mental and physical torture by the accused persons. The complainant submits that she belongs to 'madiga schedule caste' resident of Aanuru, Vadagera Taluk of Yadagiri District. The complainant submits she has been given in marriage to one Mallappa S/o.Sabanna of Jeevnakera village by performing the child marriage, however the said Mallappa had died even before solemnizing of marriage in the year 2002 itself.
The complainant submits in the year 2012-13 she came to Bengaluru along with her parents and started doing work in the year 2014 as a home nurse. The accused was also doing work in home nurse where she was working and accused was 4 Spl.C.No.99/2019 hailing from Kandalli which is neighbouring village to the village of the victim. The accused was also doing coolie work and both were got acquainted after some days accused No.1 mentioned he is in love with the victim and they can marry. The complainant submits she informed about her child marriage and she belongs to 'madiga schedule caste'. In that regard, accused No.1 mentioned he does not value caste, but he is in deep love with the victim, as such they can marry. The accused No.1 was taken to the parents of victim who informed that they will talk to the parents of the accused No.1 and as the parents of the victim went to the native who have been informed through phone, when the parents of victim questioned the accused, he mentioned that they are from different caste, then accused no.1 mentioned he is not going to live with his parents and he will marry the victim and reside in Bengaluru itself, to which parents of victim consented then Ravi Kumar started loving the victim and he promised her that he will lead life 5 Spl.C.No.99/2019 with her and in the year 2013-14, both went to Manthralaya near Raichur there they exchanged garlands and started living together in Nayandahalli 4th Main, 6th Phase, Vinayaka Layout by taking a room on rent for Rs.1,500/-. In the year 2016 in March month victim became pregnant she had informed the same and she had been 3 months pregnant. When Ravi Kumar, mother Channamma fell in bathroom at his native he mentioned he will meet her and come back and went to his native. After this, he did not return even after 1 week or so and she tried to contact him over phone but he did not communicated. As victim gave birth to a male child, she continued to live in the same house by doing coolie work, when victim became ill when the child was 9 months she went to her native and also went to Yadgiri hospital, there accused met her, he consoled her and took her to Manthralaya once again and after they visited temple, they returned back to Bengaluru and started living together. After this, husband of victim mentioned that her family 6 Spl.C.No.99/2019 members did not gave any dowry and elder brother of the accused No.1 mentioned unless the victim brings amount form her maternal house, she will not be taken in to the matrimonial house. After this, when victim questioned, they both fell in love and married, then how the question of dowry arises and victim refused, that she is unable to pay either Rs.2 lakhs with 55.0 grams of gold as demanded, after this accused mentioned if at all she pays the same, he will live with her otherwise not and he left the matrimonial house, victim continued to live there by earning on her own alongwith the child.
The victim submits after several days, she came to know that accused No.2 mentioned to the accused No.1 unless he has brought dowry how he can live with a person belonging to SC/ST, accordingly, he directed accused no.1 to return back, after this victim was harassed to bring dowry. In fact it is also mentioned from Mothakapalli village a girl from same community will be given in marriage to the accused No.1 and also 28 acres of 7 Spl.C.No.99/2019 land will be given and did gave threat to the victim. Accordingly, complainant without having any alternative as the accused No.2 abused her with caste and demanded dowry, she made a complaint before the police. On the basis of this complaint, the Investigating Officer took up investigation and first during the course of investigation conducted by the Dy.SP Yadgiri, the conducting spot Mahazar, giving notice to the accused and making spot inspection, he came to know that the entire chain of events namely allegations made in the complaint did happened in jurisdiction of Bengaluru, accordingly the same was transferred to Chandra Layout police. The Investigating Officer, ACP West was entrusted to enquire the matter, accordingly, once again crime No.306/2018 came to be registered.
3. The charge sheet copies were furnished to the accused persons as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge. As there was sufficient materials available, charge framed 8 Spl.C.No.99/2019 for the offences punishable u/sec.498A, 109 of IPC & sec.4 of D.P.Act & u/s.3(1)(r),(s),(w),(i) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, read over and explained to the accused persons in vernacular language and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. At trial the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused got examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and placed Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24. After completion of evidence of prosecution, the statement of the accused persons U/Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused persons denied incriminating evidence appeared against them and submits they have no defence evidence.
5. On hearing both side the following points would arise for the determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that at 6th cross, 4th Main, Vinayaka Layout, Nayandahalli, Mysuru road within the limits of Chandra Layout police station, accused No.1 married C.W.1 who belongs to schedule 9 Spl.C.No.99/2019 caste madiga community, later she had gave birth to a boy child, later accused No.1 forced her to bring Rs.2 lakhs and 5 thola gold as dowry and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty by demanding dowry and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, time and place the accused No.1 demanded CW1 to bring dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and 5 thola gold from her maternal house otherwise not to join his family and thereby committed the offence punishable u/sec.4 of DP Act?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, time and place the accused No.2 abetted accused No.1 that he has married lower caste without dowry and abetted to give torture to her, and abetted to get marry another girl and thereby committed the offence punishable u/sec.109 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons in prosecution of their common intention though not belonging to SC/ST has intentionally insulted with intent to humiliate CW1 being the members of Scheduled Caste as "ನೀನು ಎಸ್.ಸಿ ಜನಾಂಗದವಳು, ಮಾದಿಗ ಸುಾಳೆ, in a place within the public view and thereby committed offence 10 Spl.C.No.99/2019 punishable u/sec 3(1)(r) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons in prosecution of their common intention the accused persons though not belonging to SC/ST have intentionally insulted with intent to humiliate CW1 being a members of Scheduled Caste by taking the name of her caste as "ನೀನು ಎಸ್.ಸಿ ಜನಾಂಗದವಳು, ಮಾದಿಗ ಸುಾಳೆ, in a place within public view and thereby committed offence punishable u/sec 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
6) What order?
6. My findings to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : In the Affirmative Point No.3 : In the Affirmative Point No.4 : In the Negative Point No.5 : In the Negative Point No.6 : As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT NO.3: The complainant in her examination in chief deposes that she belongs to Madiga caste, accused 11 Spl.C.No.99/2019 belongs to Lingayath caste and they are native of Yadgiri, Anooru village, accused similarly of Shahapura Taluk at Nagarabhavi. The complainant deposed she met accused who was also working in the same home nursing and both came in contact and accused No.1 submitted as both are of same village can marry each other. The accused No.1 mentioned he will convince his parents and he will take her home. After this, accused No.1 came to the house of the victim he convinced the parents of the victim and then he tried to convince his mother who refused to take victim as her daughter-in-law, however accused No.1 took her to Manthralaya and both married. The victim submits they were both residing in Vinayaka Layout and when she was 4 months pregnant accused No.1 went to his native to see his mother who had broken her leg, due to fall. The complainant deposes even though her child became 9 months old, accused No.1 did not returned to the matrimonial house, however she was earning as a coolie. This witness deposes once she return to Yadgiri, due to her ill health, she met accused No.1 accidentally where accused No.1 mentioned why she had 12 Spl.C.No.99/2019 came her, when she mentioned she is not well, he abused her and mentioned she had come to disturb his mother and even assaulted the victim. After this both of them went to Manthralaya, once again with the child, stayed there for 2 days and after this accused went to his native, after 2 days when the victim contacted the accused No.1, accused No.2 mentioned over the phone that you are from different caste and she will not be suitable for their family and further mentioned if she is able to bring 2 lakhs cash and 5 tholas of gold they may think about that otherwise, does it is not possible to take her back. The complainant has deposed after this, within 15 days accused came to assault her in Bengaluru. After this, accused No.1 switched of her mobile phone and even a year it is came to the knowledge of the accused that accused No.1 had married a girl of Mothakapalli and also got 28 acres of land and residing as a son-in-law there itself.
8. The victim deposed about accused No.2 had mentioned that he will pay Rs.1 lakh, however panchayath was called in the village where 13 Spl.C.No.99/2019 panchayathdar mentioned 2 acres of land is to be given and 5 lakhs amount is to be given, accused No.2 refused and went away from the panchayath. As such complainant was forced to lodge complaint.
9. The complainant deposed about after the complaint, Investigating Officer came to her house and conducted spot Mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 to 8 are the photographs.
10. In her cross examination dated:04.08.2023 the victim deposed she knows the accused since 15 years. She deposed she had come to Bengaluru since 10 to 11 years back she is from Anooru B and her parents are doing coolie work. She deposed in the year 2009 she met the accused No.1 as she was working as a ayya in Jayanagar, accused No.1 was also doing the same job, she had studied upto 8th std, accused No.1 had studied upto PUC. This witness deposes she may be about 14 years at that time, in the year 2009 accused No.1 was also working with her and she has given document to that effect. This witness deposes by admitting that in Bengaluru to do house keeping work the entire address 14 Spl.C.No.99/2019 will be collected. This witness deposes on 02.11.2014 accused No.1 took her to Manthralaya where they married , however she is not having any receipt to that effect but they have just exchanged garland.
11. This witness admits "ಸದರಿ ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಗ್ರಾಮದಲ್ಲಿ ದಲಿತ ಸಂಗರ್ಶ ವತಿಯಿಂದ ಪಂಚಾಯಿತಿ ಮಾಡಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ಹೌದು. ರಾಜೀ ಸಂದಾನಕ್ಕೆಂದು ನಾನು ಆರೋಪಿಬಳಿ ಹೋಗಿ ಕೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಅವರೇ ಬಂದು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದಾರೆ". This witness denies as she knows the accused persons to extract money she had made a false complaint. It has been specifically suggested "ನನಗೆ ಸದರಿ ಆರೋಪಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ಮದುವೆಯಾಗದ ಪೂರ್ವ ನನಗೆ ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ".
12. The P.W.2 Kempegowda in his evidence deposed he has signed Ex.P.2 as per Ex.P.2(b), but he cannot recollect the date, however signed about 5 years back. This witness admits his signature on Ex.P.9. The witness has been treated as hostile by learned SPP who deposed on 21.05.2018 he had signed Ex.P.2 is admitted with regard to the specific suggestion out of the marriage of the accused No.1 15 Spl.C.No.99/2019 with victim a child is born, he answers at that time, child was not yet born. This suggestions are specifically denied by this witness.
13. The P.W.3 Chukkamma and P.W.4 Rathnamma both of these witnesses deposed that accused No.1 Ravi and victim were residing as husband and wife for a period of 2 years, after that accused disputed with the victim and went away. These two witnesses deposed accused No.1 had demanded Rs.2 lakhs and gold from the victim, otherwise he cannot live with the victim. In the cross examination of these two witnesses, they denied the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.
14. The P.W.5 Muthamma deposes accused No.1 and victim were husband and wife, they were residing nearby and they were doing work and Ravi Kumar belongs to lingayath community and victim belongs to Madiga community and they both had a male child. This witness deposes for a period of about 7 years, they were living together, this witness 16 Spl.C.No.99/2019 deposes how they got difference she does not know. Further deposes there was a demand of Rs.2 lakhs may be brought from the parents of the victim, as such she had given statement before the police. This witness deposes admitting she had come all along with Rathnamma. This witness admits as requested by complainant she is deposing.
15. The P.W.6 Panduranga.S Dy.S.P that he took investigation as on 22.5.2018 from C.W.17 as per Ex.P.12, the order is marked. This witness deposes victim had come to the office and gave further statement, FIR is registered and on 8.6.2018 they visited Vinayaka Layout where complainant is residing, he recorded statement of PWs.2 and 3, drew spot Mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and recorded statements of P.Ws.4 to 6. This witness deposes about handing over further investigation by transfer of FIR to Chandralayout police station. In the cross examination this witness deposes P.W.1 had given statement before PSI of Wadigera police station. This 17 Spl.C.No.99/2019 witness deposes the PSI on registering crime sent the same to him but the Investigating Officer has visited the spot on 9.6.2018, he visited the spot and conducted Mahazar. This witness denies specific suggestion.
16. The P.W.7 Hanumagowda Patil deposed about registering crime, he arrested the accused and produced before the Investigating Officer and reported.
17. The P.W.8 PSI Sunitha Sandoor deposed about registering crime No.144/2018 and sent requisition to court for transferring the same for investigation to ACP.
18. The P.W.9 S.Manjunath ACP deposes that on 5.10.2018 further investigation was ordered in Cr.No.306/2018, he recorded statement of victim who deposes about accused marrying another girl as per Ex.P.18, he received documents and on 4.12.2018 he obtained documents of Thayi card and collected additional materials from the hospital as 18 Spl.C.No.99/2019 per Ex.P.20, further deputed his staff for searching accused on moving the accused No.1 before him and receiving report, he filed charge sheet. In the caste report deposes his Predecessor in office had recorded further statement of victim, he denies suggestion that he did not conducted prior investigation nor recorded statements by getting documents he has filed charge sheet.
19. The P.W.10 Mahadevappa Bheemashya deposed on 21.5.2018 he received complaint as per Ex.P.1 and fresh FIR has been registered as per Ex.P.22 and sent the same to court.
20. The P.W.11 retired Dy.SP deposed on 28.6.2018 he took further investigation and obtained order from DCP as per Ex.P.23 and recorded further statement of complainant as per Ex.P.10 and 11 and filed charge sheet. This witness denies suggestion made by learned counsel for the accused.
21. In the case on hand, the learned SPP submits the victim and accused No.1 residing together is 19 Spl.C.No.99/2019 undisputed fact since there are no suggestions made to the material witnesses namely PWs.2 to 5 who have specifically deposed are residing with the victim and they have seen the same. In fact the demand of dowry has been made by the accused No.1 is specifically deposed by PWs.3 to 5. The official witnesses who registered crime and conducted investigation and being examined, the complainant married the accused after informing about her caste is accepted. The marriage has not been performed in any temple but by exchanging garlands, they have married and this aspect has been proved by the prosecution since there is no any formal proof of marriage since there is no denial by the defence with regard to marriage between accused No.1 and victim. The prosecution witnesses have deposed about accused Nos.1 and 2 living together as husband and wife. In fact the question of marriage of victim does not arise as she has specifically mentioned in her statement that she was very young 20 Spl.C.No.99/2019 as child marriage has been performed. The person who did married the victim had succumbed even before the consummation of marriage the victim had come to Bengaluru, alongwith her parents and she was working as a home nurse where accused No.1 was also working. The learned SPP submits it is pertinent to note that accused No.1 had again married is an admitted fact. As such, though there is no charge is framed with regard to sec.498A of IPC, as there is no complaint to that effect, the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.498A are established since victim has been demanded to pay dowry as deposed by material witnesses and relatives of the victim.
22. The learned SPP submits the standard of proof with regard to marriage in court of law is not as mentioned by the defence, the prosecution has placed substantial materials to prove the ingredients of alleged offence since it is between the accused No.1 and the victim, there are change of words only 21 Spl.C.No.99/2019 through victim and other material witnesses have deposed before the court that they came to know about the demand of dowry. Therefore the question of hearsay witnesses does not arise. The prima facie case being established. The demand of dowry is also proved by the prosecution.
23. The learned counsel for the accused Sri.KNN argues complaint itself is manipulated one, there is no any actual marriage between the accused and victim. This fact has been brought in the cross examination of P.W.1 in page-9 which is an admitted fact. Therefore as she has admitted that there is no document to that effect clearly goes against the case of prosecution. There is admission with regard to previous marriage which has not been disproved by the prosecution as there is no any divorce or material documents placed by the prosecution to disprove the marriage had happened as per the law recognized with regard to the marriage governing Hindu marriage. In this regard, the learned counsel for the 22 Spl.C.No.99/2019 accused brings to the notice of the court the following citations:
1. Ankita Argal and another V/s. State of M.P. 2021(4) M.P.L.J. of Orissa High Court 1994 Crl.L.J.1466
2. Preethi Gupta V/s. State of Jharkhand (2010) SCC 667
3.Mrs.Padma Ramachandrappa V/s.
Dr.G.Ramachandrappa and another of High court of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.608/2008.
24. The learned counsel for the accused submits it has been mentioned that victim was working as coolie as deposed by even material witnesses. However as per the complainant, she was working as a house nurse. There is no any marriage as per his customs and traditions of Hindu Law and there is no documents to that effect that it is a legal marriage. Mere production of photographs does not prove or establish the marriage. Exs.P.5 and 6 are doubtful as such when the marriage itself is doubtful there is no question of proof of guilt of accused with regard to beyond reasonable doubt.
25. In the year 2018, when complainant met the accused for the second time, accused No.2 promised 23 Spl.C.No.99/2019 to pay alimony of Rs.5 lakhs is the allegation. However no panchayath conducted, no documents, no witnesses and when accused No.2 was to file election nomination, the complaint is made.
26. In the case on hand, there is no proof with regard to standard of proof of marriage, as such prosecution case fails, then the question of allegations with regard to sec.498A of IPC is only imaginary one even though there is no any crime committed by the accused persons, they are being falsely implicated the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, the material witnesses have turned hostile other than the official witnesses, therefore evidence cannot substitute the evidence of material witnesses. In the case on hand, in the absence of proof with regard to any commission between the accused No.1 and the victim, the complainant has played fraud and accused No.2 has been falsely implicated without there being no any relationship with the accused 24 Spl.C.No.99/2019 No.1. Therefore under such circumstances the ingredients of alleged offence are not being made out. Further it is submitted accused No.2 never demanded dowry and the fact is not at all proved. In fact accused No.2 never visited the matrimonial house as admitted by the material witnesses. No proper investigation being conducted, the living together or else not proved contrary, the alleged offence u/s.3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 does not arise. The victim had falsely implicated the accused persons as such in the absence of proof with regard to the alleged offence, accused are to be acquitted of alleged offence is the prayer.
27. POINT NO.3: In the case on hand, my Predecessor in office has framed Point No.3 with regard to offence punishable u/s.109 of IPC. In the case on hand, to prove the demand of dowry, and as victim belongs to lower caste, the accused No.2 instigated accused No.1 by directing the victim to bring dowry, as such accused No.2 instigated further 25 Spl.C.No.99/2019 accused No.1 to go for another marriage, as such the offence punishable u/s.109 of IPC being committed by the accused No.2.
28. The learned SPP argues the complainant has specifically made complaint before the Vadagera police wherein in the complaint it has been specified in page-2 of the complaint "ನಾನು ನಿನಗೆ ಮದುವೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದ ಕ್ಕೆ ನಿಮ್ಮ ತವರು ಮನೆಯವರು ಏನು ವರದಕ್ಷಿಣೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ್ಠ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಣ್ಣ ನು ನನಗೆ ನಿನ್ನ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ತವರು ಮನೆಯಿಂದ ವರದಕ್ಷಿಣೆ ತಂದರೆ ಅವಳಿಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳು ತ್ತೇನೆ , ತರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದ್ರೆ ಬೇಡ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ದೈಹಿಕ ಮತ್ತು ಮಾನಸಿಕ ಕಿರುಕುಳ ಕೊಡಲಾರಂಭಿಸಿದಾಗ ನಾನು ನಾವಿಬ್ಬ ರೂ ಪರಸ್ಪ ರ ಪ್ರೀತಿ ಮಾಡಿ ಮದವೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೇವೆ. ಈಗೆಕೆ ವರದಕ್ಷಿಣೆ ವಿಷಯ, ನಾವು ಬಡವರಿದ್ದೇವೆ ವರದಕ್ಷಿಣೆ ಕೊಡಲು ಆಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರೂ ಕೂಡಾ ಕೇಳದ್ಠೆ ಅವನು ವರದಕ್ಷಿಣೆ ನಗದು ಹಣ 2 ಲಕ್ಷ ರೂ. ಮತ್ತು 5 ತೊಲೆ ಬಂಗಾರ ತಂದರೆ ನನ್ನ ಜೊತೆ ಸಂಸಾರ ಮಾಡಲು ಬಾ ಇಲ್ಲ ದಿದ್ದ ರೆ ಬರಬೇಡ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ಹೋದನು".
29. Further in the same complaint, it has been mentioned by the complainant that "ನಾನು ವರದಕ್ಷಿಣೆ ತರದೆ ಇದ್ದು ದ್ದ ಕ್ಕೆ ಸಿಟ್ಟು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡ ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡನ ಅಣ್ಣ ಅನಂತರೆಡ್ಡಿ ತಂದೆ ಮಲ್ಲಾ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ನಾಗರಬಂಡಿ ಸಾಃಕಂದಳ್ಷಿ ಈತನು ತನ್ನ ತಮ್ಮ ರವಿಕುವಾುರನಿಗೆ 26 Spl.C.No.99/2019 ನೀನು ಕೀಳು ಜಾತಿ ಹುಡುಗಿಗೆ ಹೇಗೆ ಮದುವೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿಧಿ ಅದು ವರದಕ್ಷಿಣೆ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಾ ಎಂದರೆ ತರುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ . ಅವಳು ನಮ್ಮ ಜಾತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆಯಲ್ಲ ನಿನಗೆ ಬೇರೆ ಕಡೆ ಹುಡುಗಿ ನೋಡಿನಿ ಎಂದು ಸೇಡಂ ತಾಲ್ಲೂ ಕಿನ ವೋತಕಪಲ್ಲಿ ಗ್ರಾಮದ ತಮ್ಮ ಜಾತಿಯ ಹುಡುಗಿಯೆಾಂದಿಗೆ ಲಗ್ನ ಮಾಡಿ 28 ಎಕರೆ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಆಸೆಯಿಂದ ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡನಿಗೆ ಅಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಮನೆ ಅಳೆತನಕ್ಕೆ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ." In this regard, Investigating Officer has conducted spot inspection and evidence of complainant is placed to that effect wherein complainant in her evidence before this court has deposed in page-3 "ನಂತರ 1 ಮತ್ತು 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಒಂದು ದಿನ ನನಗೆ ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ ನೀನು ಬೇರೆ ಜಾತಿಯವಳು ಇದ್ದೀಯಾ, ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಗೆ ಸೆಟ್ ಆಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . ನನಗೆ 2 ಲಕ್ಷ ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಹಣ ಮತ್ತು 2 ತೊಲ ಬಂಗಾರವನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಾ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು. ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ ತಾಯಿ ಬಡವರಿದ್ದಾರೆ, ಹಣ ಮತ್ತು ಬಂಗಾರ ಕೊಡಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯ ವಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿದೆ. ಹಣ, ಬಂಗಾರ ಕೊಡದಿದ್ದ ರೆ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬರಬೇಡ ಎಂದು ಇಬ್ಬ ರೂ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು ನನಗೆ ಹೊಡೆಯಲು ಬಂದಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ನಂತರ ಸುಮಾರು 15 ದಿನಗಳ ಕಾಲ 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ತನ್ನ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಫೋನನ್ನು ಸ್ವಿಚ್ ಆಫ್ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಒಂದು ವರ್ಷದ ನಂತರ 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಸೇಡಂ ತಾಲ್ಲೂ ಕಿನ ಮೋತಕಪಲ್ಲಿಯ ಒಬ್ಬ ಳು ಹುಡುಗಿಯನ್ನು 28 ಎಕರೆ ಜಮೀನಿನ ಆಸೆಗೆ ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿ ಮನೆ ಅಳಿಯರಾಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು 27 Spl.C.No.99/2019 ತಿಳಿದುಬಂತು. ನಂತರ ನಾನು ಊರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಪಂಚಾಯತಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಿಸಿದೆ. ನ್ಯಾಯ ಪಂಚಾಯತಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ನನಗೆ 1 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಡುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರು. ಪಂಚಾಯತಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರಿದವರು 2 ಎಕರೆ ಹೊಲ, 5 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣ ಕೊಡುವಂತೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದಾಗ 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಪಂಚಾಯತಿಕೆಯಿಂದ ಎದ್ದು ಏನು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ತ್ತೀರಾ ನೋಡುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ಹೊರಟು ಹೋದರು. ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಾನು ವಡಗೇರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ದೂರನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದೆನು. ನಾನು ನೀಡಿದ ದೂರನ್ನು ನೋಡಿದರೆ ಗುರುತಿಸಬಲ್ಲೆ."
30. The learned SPP argues to prove relationship between the accused No.1 and the victim the PW.2 though has turned hostile with regard to signing the spot Mahazar but he admits his signature. Further in his cross examination on 06.02.2024 before this court by reading over the Mahazar when it has been mentioned to the witness that the spot Mahazar is drawn on 21.04.2018 he has admitted is correct. Further he explained he does not remember it. Further this witness deposes complainant and accused are being married and out of that marriage a male child is born, he has answered, at that time, 28 Spl.C.No.99/2019 there was no child birth is the answer. The learned SPP brings to the court notice that the accused No.1 and the complainant did resided in the premises of the CW.2 as per the statement of CW.2 as evident from the evidence of CW.6 though the statement recorded in the year 2018 witness has given evidence that in year 2016, the victim had become pregnant however by that time in the year 2016 as per the statement of this witness the accused as mentioned he wants to go to his native as his mother was not well but he did not return, therefore the period is to be inferred as per Ex.P.2 panchanama as deposed by Kempegowda the year when Shobha Rani was residing alongwith accused is of the year before 2016 which has been proved by the prosecution even by placing and collecting the mother card which is marked as Ex.P.19 wherein it discloses it is of the year 01.08.2016. Therefore as per the evidence of PW.1, she had specifically given explanation that as accused did not return, she went to her native and 29 Spl.C.No.99/2019 she had given birth to a male child. Therefore the evidence of the PW.2 with regard to the fact that accused No.1 and this victim were residing as husband and wife which is further supported by PWs.3, 4 and 5 makes it clear that they were residing together in the premises of CW.2 is undisputed. In fact in the cross examination of CW.2 when he has become hostile there is no any specific suggestions made to that effect. Therefore, this fact which is undisputed fact that as deposed by PW.2, both accused No.1 and victim were residing establishes their relationship. In fact the reason for which accused No.2 prevented the accused No.1 from accepting the complainant was specified therein which is unchallenged. This fact is to be accepted by this court alongwith evidence of Investigating Officer who has specifically deposed. Therefore ingredients of alleged offence of proof by the prosecution is the arguments.
30 Spl.C.No.99/2019
31. The learned counsel for the accused argues in the cross examination of PW.1 with regard to fact that there was no demand of dowry as on 04.08.2023 the victim has deposed that there is no any valid marriage between accused No.1 and the victim which has been disproved by the defence that the allegation of marriage is of 02.11.2014 however there was no any receipt or entries made in the temple goes against the case of prosecution that they have to prove the marriage being valid.
32. Further the learned counsel for the accused submits the accused No.2 being a respectable person in the locality has been got elicited in page-8 of the evidence of PW.1 wherein she has specifically deposed "2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತ ಹಲವು ಭಾರಿ ಚುಣಾವಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಪ ರ್ಥಿಸಿದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಹೌದು. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಲಿಂಗಾಯಿತರು ಎಂದರೆ ಹೌದು. ನಾನು ಪ.ಜಾತಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದವಳು ಎಂದರೆ ಹೌದು. ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನುಡಿದಿರುವಂತೆ ಆರೋಪಿ 1 ನ್ನು ನಾನು ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿಲ್ಲ , ಅದರಿಂದ ಮಗು ಆಗಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಸೂಚಿಸಿದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . ಸದರಿ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಗೌರವಯುಕ್ತ ಕುಟುಂಬವಾದಂತೆ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಆಗದವರ ಮಾತು ಕೇಳಿ ಈ ರೀತಿ ಸುಳ್ಳು 31 Spl.C.No.99/2019 ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಮಾಡಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲ .". In page-9 it has been specifically suggested specifically that as accused were known to her to extract money. It has been got elicited she had made a false crime. Further she has admitted she was already married before the so called marriage with accused No.1 this fact goes against the case of the prosecution as she has not at all given any explanation to that effect.
33. In cross examination of P.W.1 dated:12.10.2023 it has been specifically suggested " ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಾ ಗಲೀ ಪೋಲೀಸರ ಮುಂದಾಗಲೀ ಪಂಚಾಯತಿ ವಿವರ ತಿಳಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಈಗ ಕೇಳಿದಕ್ಕೆ ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ದೂರನ್ನು ನಾನೇ ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೇೆನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಹೌದು." and there is no documents placed with regard to question of marriage of accused No.1 with victim. Under such circumstances the allegations of abetment made by the accused No.2 does not survives. Therefore as per the citations relied supra namely Ankitha Argal and another V/s. State of M.P. 2021(4) M.P.L.J. of Orissa High Court 1994 Crl.L.J.1466, has considered when there is no 32 Spl.C.No.99/2019 valid marriage then question of granting any relief as per the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act does not arise is the observation, therefore question of offence punishable u/s.109 does not arise is the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court. Further there was no any protection granted to the so called complainant. Further more in Preethi Gupta V/s. State of Jharkhand (2010) SCC 667 the alleged offence not been proved as such observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to that effect in page- 36 to 39 are been considered and complainant is not entitled to any relief per contra, accused are not guilty of alleged offence. Therefore, accused No.2 is not answerable is to be acquitted is the prayer.
34. The learned SPP submits as per the complaint, the complainant has mentioned in the complaint that she did married in the year 2002 as a child marriage but that person so called Mallappa had died even before consummation of marriage, as such she did not go to the matrimonial house. Moreover the 33 Spl.C.No.99/2019 complainant has specifically mentioned with regard to allegation of abetment by the accused No.2 that accused No.2 is the person who drove the accused No.1 to demand Rs.2 lakhs as dowry and 5 tholas of gold from the complainant, otherwise the complainant could not go to matrimonial house. In this regard only, the accused No.2 had made the accused No.1 to marry another person of Mothakapalli village who had given 28 acres of land to the accused No.1 as dowry. In fact in the evidence of P.W.1 specific suggestion has been made by counsel for the accused that in page-8 that by hearing the persons who are enemical to the family of the accused, this complainant had got a panchayath held the victim has answered they have called themselves the evidence is as follows: "2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತ ಹಲವು ಭಾರಿ ಚುಣಾವಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಪ ರ್ಥಿಸಿದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಹೌದು. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಲಿಂಗಾಯಿತರು ಎಂದರೆ ಹೌದು. ನಾನು ಪ.ಜಾತಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದವಳು ಎಂದರೆ ಹೌದು. ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನುಡಿದಿರುವಂತೆ ಆರೋಪಿ 1 ನ್ನು ನಾನು ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿಲ್ಲ , ಅದರಿಂದ ಮಗು ಆಗಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಸೂಚಿಸಿದರೆ 34 Spl.C.No.99/2019 ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . ಸದರಿ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಗೌರವಯುಕ್ತ ಕುಟುಂಬವಾದಂತೆ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಆಗದವರ ಮಾತು ಕೇಳಿ ಈ ರೀತಿ ಸುಳ್ಳು ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಮಾಡಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲ .". Therefore the marriage between the complainant and the accused No.1 is undisputed as such now the arguments made by relying on the citations "Ankita Argal and another V/s. State of M.P. 2021(4) M.P.L.J. of Orissa High Court 1994 Crl.L.J.1466, Preethi Gupta V/s. State of Jharkhand (2010) SCC 667 and Mrs.Padma Ramachandrappa V/s. Dr.G.Ramachandrappa and another of High court of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.608/2008 have no bearing in the present case since marriage is undisputed at the time of cross examination i.e. on 12.10.2023. Therefore accused No.2 has abetted the offence which was been committed by the accused No.1 on hearing the accused No.2. Therefore though accused No.1 made no guilty directly with regard to the offence u/s.109 of IPC as accused No.1 has been forced by the accused No.2 who is elder brother, who is an 35 Spl.C.No.99/2019 influential person who had already stood for elections and directed the accused No.1 who deserted the victim as the complainant knowing fully belongs to schedule caste 'madiga community' is unable to bring such huge amount of dowry seems reasonable prayer.
35. The learned SPP submits in the evidence of P.W.2 to 5 they have specifically deposed about accused Nos.1 and 2 are residing together as husband and wife in the house of C.W.2/P.W.2 Kempegowda at an undisputed point of time case goes against the defence seems reasonable. In the case on hand, the arguments of learned counsel for the accused that the exhibits placed on record namely Ex.P.5 to 8 with regard to marriage of the accused No.1 and complainant being not performed as per the family rituals or as per the Hindu marriage Act, there is no marriage is to be considered based on the citations is the arguments. However learned SPP submits as per the catena of decisions of Hon'ble 36 Spl.C.No.99/2019 Apex Court when two persons live for long period as husband and wife to the knowledge of the public at large as the facts in the case on hand the PWs.3 and 4 and even P.W.5 have deposed that accused Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. In fact in the evidence of P.W.1 the complainant has specifically given explanation that the accused No.1 did not married the victim in any temple is an admitted fact. Mere denial that there is no marriage itself is not sufficient since as per the admission of the defence in page-8 of cross examination that when there is no relationship of husband and wife then who called the panchayath for resolving the differences between the victim and the accused No.1 in panchayath as answered by the complainant definitely goes against the defence seems reasonable. In the case on hand, it is true there is no formal marriage as argued by the learned counsel for the accused who at the point of time if accused No.1 and complainant resided together for a substantial period and there is a child 37 Spl.C.No.99/2019 birth out of the marriage and complainant had given name to the child shows that they were living together. However it may not be a case of marriage of the accused No.1 and the complainant to be considered as per the customs and rituals of the Hindu Law since the marriage as submitted by the complainant and accused No.1 is an inter caste marriage. Therefore the citation relied by the counsel for the accused cannot be applied to the facts on hand is my firm opinion.
36. The learned counsel for the accused brings to the court notice Ex.P.19 wherein the complainant has specifically given particulars before the Assistant Surgeon in Bengaluru when she got 'Thayi card' with regard to the child birth she had specifically given her caste as 'Christian' and even the Medical Officer has specifically mentioned that the caste of the complainant is other than the SC/ST namely "ಇತರೆ". Therefore, the complainant has changed the caste from schedule caste to 'Christian'. However whether 38 Spl.C.No.99/2019 the changing of caste by the complainant with the consent of accused No.1 or what must be transpired is not forthcoming from the material on record, as such the marriage of the accused No.1 with the complainant cannot be inferred as a marriage which has been performed as per the law and when the complainant herself has declared she belongs to 'Christian community' then the entire case of sec.498A of IPC cannot be considered being committed by the complainant against her seems reasonable prayer. Under such circumstances the proof of marriage is material to consider the offence punishable u/s.109 of IPC seems reasonable. However accused No.2 is the person who is instrumental in commission of offence by the accused No.1 definitely provides material before this court that the accused No.1 has been driven away from the matrimonial house when he was residing with the complainant after he rejoined the complainant as documents placed on record the 39 Spl.C.No.99/2019 accused No.1 after the year 2016 when he met complainant at Yadgiri and a panchayath being held in their native village in the year 2015, he once again went back to his native only on the demand made by the accused No.2 when complainant is able to pay Rs.2 lakhs dowry or bring 5 tholas then only they can consider the marriage, definitely makes clear that as admitted by the defence namely accused No.1 definitely there is recognized marriage which has been recognized by the accused No.1 with complainant is my firm opinion. Accordingly, the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.109 of IPC being committed by the accused No.2, there is substantial material placed by the prosecution on record is my firm opinion. Accordingly, accused No.2 is answerable to the offence punishable u/s.109 of IPC. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered in the Affirmative.
37. POINT NO.1: In the case on hand, in proof of offence punishable u/s.498A as per the the 40 Spl.C.No.99/2019 provisions, it is clear that "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine". In the case on hand, the accused No.1 being the husband of the victim has committed the offence punishable u/s.498A is not the direct allegation made by the complainant against her husband, however she has made allegation against accused No.2 who is instrumental to leave the company of the accused No.1 as per the complaint made in page-2 is the fact which has been argued by the learned SPP. The learned SPP submits even though the accused No.1 was forced by accused No.2 by advising him to leave the company of complainant, he had left the same and it has been specifically mentioned by the complainant that "ನಾನು ವರದಕ್ಷಿಣೆ ತರದೆ ಇದ್ದು ದ್ದ ಕ್ಕೆ ಸಿಟ್ಟು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡ ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡನ ಅಣ್ಣ ಅನಂತರೆಡ್ಡಿ ತಂದೆ ಮಲ್ಲಾ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ನಾಗರಬಂಡಿ ಸಾಃಕಂದಳ್ಷಿ ಈತನು ತನ್ನ ತಮ್ಮ ರವಿಕುಮಾರನಿಗೆ ನೀನು ಕೀಳು ಜಾತಿ 41 Spl.C.No.99/2019 ಹುಡುಗಿಗೆ ಹೇಗೆ ಮದುವೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದಿ , ಅದು ವರದಕ್ಷಿಣೆ ತೆಗದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಾ ಎಂದರೆ ತರುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ". Therefore even on this count as accused No.1 deserted the complainant it amounts to cruelty against the complainant by accused No.1, but it itself is not sufficient to consider accused No.1 has also committed the alleged offence. However the complainant is soft manner towards her husband accused No.1 as he is not the perpetrator of the alleged offence and the entire episode of calling panchayath and going away from the panchayath and allegations made by the accused No.2"ಏನು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ತೀಯೊ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಷಿ " the entire set of facts has driven the complainant to desperate possession and as such she has lost her love due to the conduct of the accused No.2. Therefore accused No.2 is the main person who has committed the offence of cruelty against the complainant. Further the Investigating Officer has specifically visited the spot and conducted spot Mahazar at Chandra layout, Bengaluru. Further more, the evidence of the 42 Spl.C.No.99/2019 material witnesses namely PWs.3, 4 and 5 discloses the accused No.1 had not left voluntarily the company of the complainant, but as he received information about his mother being not well he had left the company of the complainant. However the influential brother accused No.2 is instrumental in causing desertion by accused No.1 as he is the head of the family insisted to bring dowry. Therefore the offence is actually committed by the accused No.2. Therefore he cannot be left free for the alleged offence punishable u/s.498A of IPC.
38. In the case on hand, as argued by learned SPP the complainant has specified without writing the facts that when she was 3 months pregnant accused No.1 deserted her but even then she got herself medical attention and gave birth to the child. However when she went to her native once again she met accused No.1, both resolved with their differences and once again accused No.1 took the victim to Manthralaya and then returned to 43 Spl.C.No.99/2019 Bengaluru. The present complaint is given on 21.05.2018 only after accused No.2 instigated accused No.1 to desert the complainant. In fact as per the prosecution materials the panchayath has been held in the village and it is specifically mentioned by the accused No.1 his elder brother is not accepting her as wife since she has not brought any dowry from her maternal house. The panchayath being held at the village is an admitted fact as got elicited in page-8 of the cross examination of P.W.1. Therefore when this fact is undisputed as per sec.17 of the Indian evidence Act, then the accused are knowing about the entire facts. In fact the marriage of accused No.1 and complainant is of the year 2014, as per the statement made by the complainant and the complaint made u/s.498A is within 7 years from the date of actual marriage between the accused No.1 and complainant. Therefore the presumption value under 498A of IPC is to be drawn in favour of the complainant seems reasonable.
44 Spl.C.No.99/2019
39. The learned SPP argues the caste of the accused No.1 mentioned in 'Thayi card' does not comes to the aid of the defence since it is a intercaste marriage the mentioning of the caste of the victim as 'Christian' itself does not takes away her status as a schedule caste member unless the defence proves that complainant had changed her caste from schedule caste to 'Christian'. Therefore the presumption available as per the sec.498A is to be drawn and accused No.2 is the perpetrator who has forced even accused No.1 to concede for his demand of dowry. Accordingly, accused No.1 is to be convicted alongwith accused No.2 seems reasonable. Under these circumstances, this court answers Points No.1 in the Affirmative.
40. POINT NO.3: In the case on hand, the learned SPP submits as per the complaint, it has been specifically mentioned accused No.2 made demand of dowry to which the accused No.1 accepted his elder brother's demand and co-operated with the 45 Spl.C.No.99/2019 accused No.2 rather stood with his wife. In the complaint, it has been specifically mentioned in page-2, Rs.2 lakhs cash and 5 tholas of gold had been demanded by the accused No.2 through accused No.1 and as she did not brought the same accused No.1 is forced to act as per the demand of accused No.2 and accordingly accused No.2 further got marriage of the accused No.1 with one third person, a girl from Mothakapalli village. In this regard, the Investigating Officer has collected the invitation card which is got exhibited as Ex.P.18. That Ex.P.18 makes it clear that the marriage has been performed only on 22.05.2015 however by that date the victim was pregnant. As per the BBMP records, Ex.P.21 victim had delivered as on 06.01.2017. There is no any defence led to that effect that the child born out of the wedlock of the accused No.1 and the victim. In fact the complainant has specifically shown to the Investigating Officer while drawing spot Mahazar where they were residing and further in Ex.P.7 and 8 photographs of the child which is considerably aged about 1 or 1 ½ years has been taken 46 Spl.C.No.99/2019 in the hands of accused No.1 who was standing alongwith the complainant. Therefore the accused No.1 has not at all disowned the birth of the child even after delivery of the child as on 06.01.2017 onwards. Accordingly, the offence punishable u/s.4 of DP Act is being proved by the prosecution. Moreover, the so called witnesses P.W.2 to 5 though P.W.2 has turned hostile with regard to spot Mahazar, his answer during the course of cross examination is very specific with regard to accused No.1 was staying along with the victim in his house on rent. This piece of evidence is to be considered so as to link the accused to the demand of dowry. Accordingly, accused is to be convicted is the prayer.
41. The learned counsel for the accused submits as per the evidence of PW.1, there is no any time specified, given by the accused when the demand of dowry has been made, it has been mentioned in page-3 of evidence of P.W.1 that when accused Nos.1 and victim have come to Bengaluru from Manthrayalaya accused No.1 had informed the victim that he will return within 2 days to Bengaluru. The accused Nos.1 and 2 telephoned after 47 Spl.C.No.99/2019 that and mentioned that you are from a different caste, you cannot be called as wife since Rs.2 lakhs cash and 5 tholas gold is to be brought otherwise you need not come over here. Therefore the date when accused No.1 met the victim and they went to Manthralaya and back, there is no any specific date mentioned. Moreover, the alleged demand of dowry is made only through telephone is the allegation made by the complainant, however in the complaint, there is no such explanation given that the demand of dowry has been made by accused Nos.1 and 2 simultaneously. Therefore accused are to be acquitted of the alleged offence since there is no any date mentioned to that effect. Moreover with regard to demand of dowry, the PWs.3 and 4 have specifically deposed in their examination in chief about demand of Rs.2 lakhs and 5 tholas of gold being made by the accused persons. However in the cross of P.W.3, this witness specifically admitted she does not know when the demand has been made and she has no any personal knowledge. In fact as deposed by P.W.1, the PWs.3, 4 and 5 does not specify the dowry demand has been made through phone as 48 Spl.C.No.99/2019 complainant has explained in her examination in chief itself. Therefore the contents of the complaint and the demand of dowry made during the course of evidencing contradictions seems reasonable. Under these circumstances, on going through the evidence placed on record, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have actually made demand of dowry from the complainant as per the complaint is not forthcoming from the evidence seems reasonable. Under such circumstances to prove the ingredients of oofence punishable u/s.4 of D.P.Act are not made out is my firm view. Accordingly, this Point No.3 is answered in the Negative.
42. POINT NO.4 & 5: In the case on hand, my Predecessor in office has specifically framed charge with regard to offence punishable u/s.3(1)(r),(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 in proof of this the learned SPP brings to the court attention the complainant has mentioned she has been abused by taking her caste and mentioned that her caste cannot be accepted and they are going to get some other girl from their own community, in the entire complaint in which day what are the abusive words used 49 Spl.C.No.99/2019 by the accused is not forthcoming. In fact the abusive words being used neither and specifically mentioned in the complaint in consonance with the same complainant as deposed in her examination in chief. Therefore, accused are to be convicted is the prayer.
43. The learned counsel for the accused brings to the court notice that in Ex.P.1, there is no mention on which date abused the victim by taking her caste or she being disrespected. It is a specific mention made in the complaint Ex.P.1 that brother of the accused No.1 namely accused No.2 questioned the accused No.1 why he married the victim of lower caste and it is only specified caste abuse made. However to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.3(1)(r),(s) there is no direct intimidation to the complainant by accused No.2 who is the perpetrator of the alleged offence as per the prosecution case. Moreover none of the material witnesses examined have specified about any abusive words being used by the accused either accused No.1 or accused No.2 so as to prove the ingredients of alleged offence. This court on going through the citation of 50 Spl.C.No.99/2019 Hon'ble Apex Court in (2020)10 SCC 710 in case of Hitesh Verma V/s. State of Uttarakhand and another wherein it is held that:
"Held, all insults or intimidation to person will not be offence under the 1989 Act, unless such insult or intimidation is only on account of victim belonging to SC/ST- Thus, offence under the 1989 Act would be made out, when member of vulnerable section of society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment, because of belonging to that vulnerable section of society-Assertion of title over land by either of parties, is not due to either indignities, humiliations or harassment-Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law.
Further more, as per FIR, allegations of abusing informant (R-2 herein) were within four walls of her building-it is not case of informant, that there was any member of public(not merely relatives or friends) at the time of incident, in the house-Therefore, basic ingredient, that words were uttered "in any place within public view", is not made out"
44. The arguments made by the defence that the ingredients of alleged offence are not made out from the material placed by the prosecution seems reasonable. Moreover, the complainant has specifically deposed in her examination in chief in page-3 that only over phone such an abusive words being used by the accused is the 51 Spl.C.No.99/2019 allegations. Under such circumstances in the absence of proof to that effect even though the Investigating Officer has registered the crime has not collected call details when and where the victim being disrespected are not coming forth from the material on record. Under such circumstances, even considering the evidence of Investigating Officer who conducted investigation in the absence of proof with regard to ingredients of alleged offence accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s.3(1)(r),(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 as argued by the learned counsel for the defence seems reasonable. Accordingly, this court is satisfied to answer these Point Nos.4 and 5 in the Negative.
45. POINT NO.6: In the case on hand, with regard to the offence punishable u/s.3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, the prosecution has placed reliance on the complaint wherein as the victim is belonging to schedule caste and accused No.1 had sexual relationship with the complainant she became 3 months pregnant in the year 2016 and then as mother of the accused No.1 had fallen in the native accused No.1 went away but he never 52 Spl.C.No.99/2019 returned. Therefore after this, within 9 months as the victim had given birth to the child as per Ex.P.19 and 21, the accused No.1 had physical relationship with the victim knowing she is belonging to schedule caste. Therefore accused No.1 is to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s.3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 as even though there is consent accused No.1 is to be convicted for the alleged offence.
46. The learned counsel for the accused argues in the case on hand, the allegations made against the accused No.1 is her husband. Even as per the documents placed on record Ex.P.19 and 21 when the name of the victim is shown alongwith accused No.1, if at all this court consider the accused No.1 is husband of the victim, then the question of convicting the accused for the offence punishable u/s.3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 does not arise. Per contra accused No.1 has disputed any physical relationship with the victim. Moreover, the Ex.P.5 to 8 have no any bearing since they are not being proved by the prosecution by placing cogent documents namely any entry or proof with regard to the 53 Spl.C.No.99/2019 photographs being taken as per the allegations made in the complaint. Under such circumstances in the absence of proof with regard to alleged offence punishable u/s.3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 accused cannot be convicted is the prayer.
47. This court on going through the material on record, has come to the conclusion that the relationship between the accused No.1 and the victim is of husband and wife as deposed by PW.2 to 5. Under such circumstances the question of once again considering they are not husband and wife and there is sexual assault made by the accused No.1 on the victim cannot be taken into consideration on the same time based on the material on record. Under such circumstances, this court is satisfied to answer the Point No.6 in the Negative.
48. In the case on hand, the learned counsel for the accused has submitted Ex.P.5 and 6 are not being proved by the prosecution beyond doubt, as per the complaint is made only in the year 2018, the accused No.2 has been demanded to pay an amount of Rs.5 54 Spl.C.No.99/2019 lakhs, when she was unable to agree for the same, due to political rivalry the persons who are inimical towards the accused No.2 go to help of the complainant and lodged false complaint, as such in the absence of any valid marriage as per the Hindu Customs and Traditions, there is no any offence punishable u/s.498A of IPC being committed by any of the accused. In fact in the course of P.W.1, the P.W.1 in page-9 has specifically admitted that she had married even before the accused No.1 did married. This fact contradicts the prosecution case, as such accused No.1 is to be acquitted of all the alleged offence.
49. In the case on hand, on going through the entire materials on record, this court on observing the specific admission brought to the court, the suggestion is " ನನಗೆ ಸದರಿ ಆರೋಪಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ಮದುವೆಯಾಗದ ಪೂರ್ವ ನನಗೆ ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ." This court by observing this piece of evidence which has been relied by the defence if considered the same alongwith the complaint, the complainant in her complaint dated:21.05.2018 has specifically mentioned "ನಾನು 55 Spl.C.No.99/2019 ಚಿಕ್ಕ ವಳಿದ್ದಾಗ ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ ತಾಯಿ ನನಗೆ ಜೀನಕೇರಾ ಗ್ರಾಮದ ಮಲ್ಲ ಪ್ಪ ತಂದೆ ಸಾಬಣ್ಣ ಎಂಬುವನೊಂದಿಗೆ ಬಾಲ್ಯ ವಿವಾಹ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದ ರು. ಆದರೆ ನಾನು ಇನ್ನು ಚಿಕ್ಕ ವಳಿದ್ದಾಗ ಸುಮಾರು 2002 ನೇ ಸಾಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಬಾಲ್ಯ ವಿವಾಹದ ಗಂಡ ಮಲ್ಲ ಪ್ಪ ನು ತೀರಿಕೊಂಡನು. ಹೀಗಾಗಿ ನಾನು ಅವರ ಮನೆಗೆ ನಡೆಯಲು ಹೋಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ". This piece of complaint which has been explained by the complainant in her complaint itself contradicts the previous marriage being in existence. The explanation offered by the complainant in her complaint itself makes clear that the first so called husband during her childhood was no more by the year 2002 itself. Under such circumstances, the admission of the accused by making suggestion in the cross examination page-9 last suggestion noted supra shows there is existence of marriage between the accused No.1 and the victim. Per contra as discussed supra, the material witnesses PWs.2 to 5 have also deposed about marriage of accused No.1 with victim. It is true there is no marriage as per the Hindu Customs and Traditions prevailed as argued by the learned 56 Spl.C.No.99/2019 counsel for the accused, however as the marriage itself is an inter-caste marriage, then question of following the traditions not becomes immaterial, the admission of the accused by suggesting before his marriage she was already married definitely goes against the defence is my firm view.
50. On going through the material on record, considering the nature of alleged offence, the prosecution is unable to prove the allegations made with regard to the offence punishable u/s.3(1)(r),(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. The accused No.1 being arrested on 11.01.2019 was in JC up 14.02.2019 i.e for a period of more than 1½ months. The complainant while she was before the court has submitted there was no any intention of her husband to desert her but it is the accused No.2 who instigated the accused No.1 to desert her as accused No.2 is the person who demanded the dowry. As such, she does not want her husband to be punished severely. It is true the provisions of 57 Spl.C.No.99/2019 sec.498A as provided imprisonment for a period of 3 years. In the case on hand, as per the explanation of sec.498A Explanation(A) is not coming into operation so as to punish the accused severely to the maximum sentence. However it falls to the category Explanation(B) wherein victim has been coerced to meet the demand of dowry for property and valuable security. In the case on hand, complaint has been made by the complainant herself and she has specified in the complaint had made allegations against accused No.1 become angry and who had informed the complainant that his brother namely accused No.2 had put demand of bringing dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and 5 tholas gold as family of the victim have not given how accused No.1 can live with the victim. Admittedly the complainant has specifically mentioned that herself and accused No.1 had patched up well before panchayath being held which is an admitted fact and with the demand of dowry being put forth then only 58 Spl.C.No.99/2019 as deposed by complainant the accused No.2 had got the panchayath held as further cross examination of P.W.1 in page-8. Therefore the entire case revolves around the demand of dowry putforth by the accused No.2 who made the accused No.1 to desert the victim. As such accused No.2 is the perpetrator as argued by the learned SPP needs to be furnished in accordance with law seems reasonable. The learned SPP at the same time, submits that the complainant wants to patch up with the accused No.1, as such this court can pass suitable orders to that effect. Considering the submissions made by the complainant herself before the court, this court is satisfied to proceed to pass the sentence without hearing the sentence since the alleged offence punishable u/s.498A and 109 of IPC are punishable for a period of more than 3 years and with fine. The offence of sec.109 of IPC provides punishment as of the major offence.
59 Spl.C.No.99/2019
51. POINT No.5 :- In view of my foregoing reasons, this court without reserving the matter for hearing on sentence proceeds to pass the following order:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of IPC.
Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.2 is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 109 of IPC.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 4 of D.P.Act & u/s.3(1)(r),(s),(w),(i) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
The accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable u/s.498A of IPC and pay fine of 60 Spl.C.No.99/2019 Rs.5,000/- each. In default accused Nos.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.
The accused No.2 is hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable u/s.109 of IPC.
The sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
The accused No.1 further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to victim as a child is born out of the wedlock as a means for the child for its future and education.
The accused Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to make good the compensation awarded.The accused No.1 is given 6
months time to make fixed deposit of amount of Rs.5 lakhs in the name of minor child which can be operated by victim/ complainant.
The accrued interest on the amount in deposit is directed to be made payable by the concerned bank/ post office to credit the said amount to the S.B.Account of the complainant which may be utilised 61 Spl.C.No.99/2019 for the upbringing of the minor child. After attaining majority the entire amount is to be paid to minor child.
On failure of the deposit of Rs.5 lakhs compensation, the complainant is entitled to recover the same as arrears of land revenue from the ancestral properties of accused No.1 or share or his any other personal properties by filing Criminal Miscellaneous case.
The Bail bond and surety bond
of accused Nos.1 and 2 stand
cancelled.
The accused Nos.1 and 2 have
executed bond in compliance of
Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., shall be in
force till appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer Grade I in open court, transcription thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 29th day of March, 2025).
(Rajesh Karnam K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.62 Spl.C.No.99/2019
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Shobharani P.W.2 Kempegwoda P.W.3 Chukkyamma P.W.4 Rathnamma P.W.5 Muthamma P.W.6 Panduranga.S P.W.7 Hanumagowda Patil P.W.8 Sunitha Sandoor P.W.9 S.Manjunath P.W.10 Mahadevappa Bheemashya P.W.11 Dr.Prakash.S
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 complaint Ex.P.1(a),(b) Signature of P.W.1, 10 Ex.P.2 Panchanama Ex.P.2(a)(b)(c) Signature of P.W.1, 2, 6 Ex.P.3 to 8 : Photos Ex.P.9 Notice Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.2 63 Spl.C.No.99/2019 Ex.P.10 Caste report Ex.P.11 Caste report Ex.P.12 SP Order Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.13 Request letter Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.14 Request letter Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.15 Report Ex.P.15(a) Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P.16 Letter Ex.P.16(a) Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.17 FIR in Cr.No.306/18 of Chandralayout PS Ex.P.17(a) Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.18 Marriage card Ex.P.19 Medical report Ex.P.20 covering letter Ex.P.20(a) Signature of P.W.9 Ex.P.21 Hospital document Ex.P.22 FIR in Cr.No.144/2018 Ex.P.22(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.23 DCP Order Ex.P.23(a) Signature of P.W.11 64 Spl.C.No.99/2019 Ex.P.24 Report of C.W.15 Ex.P.24(a) Signature of P.W.11
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS FOR PROSECUTION:
Nil (Rajesh Karnam K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.