Bangalore District Court
(By The Learned Public Prosecutor) vs Persons On 20.01.2018 For The Offences ... on 6 March, 2023
KABC010021802017
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri Manjunatha, B. A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
SC No.110/2017
BETWEEN
State by Kadugondanahalli P.S.,
Bengaluru. .... COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
1.Noor Mohammed Khaleel
@ Khaleen Noor Mohammed
S/o Late Mohammed Noorulla, a/a 42 Yrs.,
2.Smt. Kaammarunnisa
W/o late Mohammed Noorulla, a/a 58 Yrs.,
Both are r/a No.340/3, 5th Cross, Vinobhanagar,
Arabic College Post, Kadugondanahalli, Bengaluru-45.
3.Smt. Ayesha Siddiqa
W/o Fairoz Pasha, a/a 38 Yrs.,
2 SC No.110/2017
4.Fairoz Pasa
S/o Late Kamaluddin, a/a 45 Yrs.,
Both are r/a No.3/4, 2nd Cross, BM Layout,
Pillanna Garden, 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-45. ... ACCUSED
(By Sri NP, Advocate)
*****
Date of offence & time 18.05.2015 20.30 hours
Date of report of offence 19.05.2015 21.00 hours
Date of arrest of the accused A1_20.05.2015
Date of release on bail 1.7.2015
Total period of custody Two months 11 days
Name of the complainant Smt. Shaheeda Parveen
Date of commencement of 18.11.2020
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 7.1.2023
Offences complained off U/s.504 and 307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector, KG Halli P.S., Bangalore City, has filed charge sheet against accused persons for the offences punishable U/s.504 and 307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC in their crime No.266/2019.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that:-
The informant and accused No.1 are the husband and wife, there was matrimonial dispute and in that regard informant has lodged a dowry harassment case against the accused No.1, before Kadugondanahalli P.S., Bangalore, for the offences punishable U/S.498A of IPC in Crime No.224/2015 . The accused persons were harassing and forcing her to 3 SC No.110/2017 withdraw the said case. To had talk with the accused persons in that regard on 18.05.2015 at 8.30 p.m. the informant had been to the house of accused persons bearing No.340/3, 5th Cross, Vinobhanagar, Arabic College Post, within the limits of Kadugondanahalli P.S., Bengaluru, all the accused persons with common intention abused her in filthy language by insulting, accused No.1 told to accused No.4 to bring kerosene can to kill her by pouring and setting fire, as she was causing problems to them, accused No.4 brought the kerosene can from inside the house, the accused No.2 and 3 caught hold her hands, accused No.1 by pouring kerosene on her attempted to set fire with intention to kill he and thereby the accused persons have committed the offences punishable U/s.504 and 307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
3. The concerned police have submitted charge sheet before the jurisdictional XI Addl., CMM., Bangalore. The learned Magistrate after taking the cognizance and receipt of charge sheet for the offences U/s.504 and 307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC against accused, committed the case to the Sessions Court by complying Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., furnishing charge sheet copies to the accused. The same was numbered as SC No.110/2017.
4. The charge was framed read over and explained to the accused persons on 20.01.2018 for the offences U/s.504 and 307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, for which they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
4 SC No.110/20175.The prosecution has examined in all five witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5, got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P5, and identifies MO1 to MO4. The learned Public Prosecutor given up the witnesses CW.7 and CW.8, in view of the available evidence of other witnesses, the learned Public Prosecutor has also dropped the witnesses CW.5. The witnesses cited as CW.5 has not been examined by the prosecution due to failure of concerned police to secure the said witness keep present before the Court for the purpose of evidence. So the evidence of prosecution was taken as closed with an opportunity to examine the said witness CW.5, if the said witness was secured and produced by the concerned police before the Court for examination before conclusion of the trial.
6. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the case was posted for recording statement of accused as provided U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. on 21.01.2023, and the same was duly recorded. The accused persons did not claim for defense evidence nor produced any documents in support of their case.
7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record.
8.The following points that arises for consideration of this court:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 being the husband and accused No.2 to 4 are being the relatives of the husband of the informant-Smt. 5 SC No.110/2017 Shaheeda Parveen, on 18.05.2015 at 8.30 p.m. at house bearing No.340/3, 5th Cross, Vinobhanagar, Arabic College Post, within the limits of Kadugondanahalli P.S., Bengaluru, with common intention picked up quarrel with the complainant, by abusing her with regard to not withdrawing of the dowry harassment case registered against them and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s.504 r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 being the husband and accused No.2 to 4 are being the relatives of the husband of the informant-Smt. Shaheeda Parveen, on 18.05.2015 at 8.30 p.m. at house bearing No.340/3, 5th Cross, Vinobhanagar, Arabic College Post, within the limits of Kadugondanahalli P.S., Bengaluru, with common intention picked up quarrel with the complainant, by abusing her with regard to not withdrawing of the dowry harassment case registered against them and with intention and knowledge attempt to kill her by pouring kerosene and setting fire and thereby the accused No.1 to 4 have committed the offence punishable u/s.307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
3.What Order?6 SC No.110/2017
9.This Court findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
10. Points No.1 and 2: Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are related to each other and to avoid repetition in the discussion.
It is the case of the prosecution that the informant and accused No.1 are the husband and wife, there was matrimonial dispute and in that regard informant has lodged a dowry harassment case against the accused No.1, before Kadugondanahalli P.S., Bangalore, for the offences punishable U/S.498A of IPC in Crime No.224/2015 . The accused persons were harassing and forcing her to withdraw the said case. To had talk with the accused persons in that regard on 18.05.2015 at 8.30 p.m. the informant had been to the house of accused persons bearing No.340/3, 5th Cross, Vinobhanagar, Arabic College Post, within the limits of Kadugondanahalli P.S., Bengaluru, all the accused persons with common intention abused her in filthy language by insulting, accused No.1 told to accused No.4 to bring kerosene can to kill her by pouring and setting fire, as she causing problems to them, accused No.4 brought the kerosene can from inside the house, the accused 7 SC No.110/2017 No.2 and 3 caught hold her hands, accused No.1 by pouring kerosene on her attempted to set fire with intention to kill he and thereby the accused persons have committed the offences punishable U/s.504 and 307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
11.In order to prove the said allegation the prosecution has examined PW.1. PW.1 Shaheed Parveen being the informant and wife of accused No.1 deposed that marriage between her and the accused No.1 performed on 8.2.1999. Accused No.2 to 4 are the blood relatives of accused No.1. She blessed with three children out of the wedlock. After the marriage she went to the house of accused No.1, at the time of marriage, Rs.2,00,000/- cash, watch, suit and house hold articles were given by way of dowry. After marriage she met with physical and mental torture for additional dowry. The accused No.1 used to assault her for one or the other reasons. The accused persons demanded for additional dowry. She filed complaint before the KG Halli P.S., in this regard. Her parents advised the accused not to subject PW.1 for cruelty. On 18.05.2015 at 9.00 p.m. when she went to the house of accused No.3, the accused No.3, insisted her for her ornaments, all the accused persons, poured kerosene on her and traced her. CW.2 took her to Bowring Hospital for treatment. She gave complaint before the Kadugondanahalli P.S., as per Ex.P2. When she was admitted to the Hospital, KG Halli Police drawn the mahazar marked as Ex.P2. Her clothes were seized which are marked as MO1 to 4. The 8 SC No.110/2017 learned Public Prosecutor treated PW.1 as hostile witness and cross-examined with the permission of the Court. During cross- examination PW.1 further deposed in all 5,00,000/- cash was given by way of dowry to the accused persons. All accused persons subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and forced her to with draw the case filed in KG Halli P.S., One Akram took her to the house of accused persons on 18.05.2015 at 8.00 p.m. the accused No.1 was standing in front of house bearing No.340/3, one Akram accompanied her introduced himself to accused No.1, the accused persons abused her in filthy language, poured kerosene on her, with intention to set fire. On 5.6.2015, the KG Halli P.S., drawn the mahazar in the place of occurrence and seized MO1 to 4. During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused persons PW.1 admitted before marriage with the accused No.1, her marriage was solemnized with one Umar Farooq, and out of her first marriage, she blessed with a male child. Her first husband is dead. She denies that her 2 nd marriage with the accused No.1 was solemnized without disclosing her first marriage with one Umar Farooq, her first marriage was performed in the year 1994. She filed dowry harassment case against the accused persons in CC No.54154/2015 before 11 th ACMM, Bangalore. Acquittal of accused No.1 to 3 in the said case is denied. It is also denied when the accused questioned her regarding her first marriage, she went to her native place Bidar. It is also denied that she left the accused No.1 and wen to her native 9 SC No.110/2017 place Bidar. She has told to the concerned police regarding the assault committed by the accused persons, but the same has not been mentioned in her complaint by the concerned police. There is an improvement in the complainant version regarding alleged assault committed by the accused persons even though it has not been stated in her complaint marked as Ex.P1. Offence alleged to have been committed by the accused persons U/s.498A of IPC and U/s.3 and 4 of DP Act has been tried and decided by 11th ACMM Bangalore, CC No.54154/2015. She denies evidence given before 11th ACMM, that her first marriage was solemnized 8 years earlier to the 2 nd marriage with accused No.1. Receipt of suit, house hold articles as well as demand for additional dowry has been denied by the learned counsel for the accused persons. An attempt to pour kerosene and set fire on PW.1 as alleged by he is also denied during cross-examination. She is not aware about seizure of kerosene can. She is not aware about the boundaries of place of occurrence, or name of the neighbouring people. Her signature to Ex.P2 Mahazar was obtained when she was in the Hospital. Immediately after the incident she did not visit to KG Halli P.S., She tried to file complaint immediately, but the police told her to see whether her husband is in the place of occurrence or not. She denies that accused No.1 divorced her immediately after coming to know that her first marriage was solemnized with one Umar Farooq. Drawing of 10 SC No.110/2017 Ex.P2 mahazar in the place of occurrence in the presence of PW.1 has not been spoken by PW.1.
12.PW.2 Syed Rafeeq being the spot mahazar witness deposed that around 8 years back one day the jurisdictional police drawn the Ex.P2 mahazar in the place of occurrence, MO1 to 4 were seized. However during cross-examination her further deposed that no notice was given to him to be present in the place of occurrence. Ex.P2 was not read over to him. PW.1 is his relative. He does not who were all present when Ex.P2 was drawn. His signature was obtained on Ex.P.2 in the Police Station. He cannot speak about the boundaries of place of occurrence. Visit of I.O., to the place of occurrence and drawing of mahazar in the presence of PW.2 has been denied by the learned counsel for the accused persons.
13.PW.3 Ashwatha being the Police Sub-Inspector, of KG Halli P.S., deposed that on 19.05.2015 he visited the Bowring Hosplital and received Ex.P1 complaint filed by PW.1 returned to P.S., and registered the case forwarded the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex.P3. On the same day his subordinate staffs produced the accused No.4 with report marked as Ex.P4. He has recorded voluntary statement of the accused No.1, visited the place of occurrence and drawn Ex.P2 mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses and seized MO1 to 4 under Ex.P2 Mahazar, received Ex.P5 wound certificate of PW.1 Arrest procedures were followed in respect of accused No.2 to 4 who appeared before him after obtaining 11 SC No.110/2017 anticipatory bail. During cross-examination he further deposed that signature of the Medical Officer was obtained on Ex.P1 complaint, kerosene can was not at all seized, as kerosene can was not at all traced in the place of occurrence. He denies filing of false case against the accused persons.
14.PW.4 Afroz Khan being the brother of PW.1, deposed that marriage of accused No.1 with PW.1 was performed in the year 1999. After two years of marriage, dowry harassment case was filed by PW.1 against accused persons. In the year 2015 a meeting was called near Bilal Masjid to settle the family dispute of accused No.1 and PW.1. The accused No.1 on the way to his house, threatened PW.1 that she will be killed by pouring petrol on her. The accused No.1 threatened her that he faced problems because of PW.1. The jurisdictional police visited the place of occurrence. He gave a statement before the Police in this regard. During cross-examination PW.4 admits that it was second marriage to PW.1 with accused No.1. PW.1 as a son out of her first marriage. PW.1 and her first husband were residing at Mangalore. Marriage between first husband and PW.1 was ended in divorce. First marriage of PW.1 was known to accused No.1 even before marriage. Dowry harassment case filed by PW.1 against accused persons is pending or disposed is not known to him. Accused No.3 and 4 were residing separately. Marriage between accused No.3 and 4 was performed even before marriage of PW.1 with accused No.1. He is not aware in which address the accused 12 SC No.110/2017 persons were residing, when the alleged incident took place. Naturally PW.1 being the brother of PW.1 attempted to support the case of the prosecution. But the evidence of PW.1 and PW.4 do not inspire of this Court regarding the alleged offence committed by the accused persons. Seizure of MO under Ex.P2 mahazar has not been established by the prosecution.
15.PW.3 Dr.Shashan Kumar, Medical Officer, Bowring Hospital Bangalore, deposed that 18.05.2015 at 11.30 p.m. examined PW.1 Shaeeda Parveen and issued Wound Certificate marked as Ex.P5. On perusal of Ex.P5 wound certificate
1.Multiple Small Abrasions Over he Left Forearm, Measuring 0.1 cm. X .Cm to 1CM to 1CM, Swelling ovr the forehead
3.Tenderness over the stomach, were found by the medical officer. The cloths worn by PW.1 were not subjected to further examination by the expert. Based on the oral evidence of Medical officer regarding the kerosene smell, it cannot be said that accused persons poured kerosene on her with intention to set fire and kill her.
16.Admittedly dowry harassment case was filed by PW.1 against the accused persons before competent court of Law and PW.1 was residing separately at relevant point of time. Matrimonial dispute between PW.1 and the accused is route cause to file Ex.P1 complaint against all the accused persons. Abusive words expressed against PW.1 and an attempt to kill 13 SC No.110/2017 her by pouring kerosene in the place of occurrence has not been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of PW.1 so far as additional demand of dowry and receipt of dowry is not the subject matter of this case. The prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt should go to the accused persons. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
17. Point No.3: In view of answer of this Court on points No.1 and 2, this court pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.504 and 307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail surety bonds of accused stand canceled.
MO1 to 4 are ordered to be destroy, after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 6th day of March, 2023) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46) 14 SC No.110/2017 ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:-
P.W.1: Shaheed Parveen P.W.2: Syed Rafeeq P.W.3: Ashwatha P.W.4: Afroz Khan P.W.5: Dr. Shashan Kumar.
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Mahazar Ex.P.3: FIR Ex.P.4: Statement of Police Constable Ex.P.5: Wound Certificate.
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
NIL List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:-
NIL List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:-
MO1: Chudidhar Top
MO2: Pant
MO3: Burkha
MO4: Duppatta.
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH 46)
15 SC No.110/2017
Accused No.1 to 4 present,
Lrd., counsel for accused present,
Lrd., Public Prosecutor present.
Order pronounced in the open Court
vide its separate order
ORDER
Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.504 and 307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail surety bonds of accused stand canceled. MO1 to 4 are ordered to be destroy, after appeal period is over.
For compliance of Sec.437A of Cr.P.C., call on....
(Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46)