Bangalore District Court
Manjula vs Mohankumar Others on 21 December, 2024
KABC030119112009
Presented on : 26-05-2009
Registered on : 26-05-2009
Decided on : 21-12-2024
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L., LLB.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: This the 21st day of December, 2024
C.C. No.11573/2009
Complainant State by J.C.Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Sri.R.Vishwanath Sr.APP)
Versus
Accused Nos. 1 Sri Mohan Kumar
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Sri Krishnappa,
2 Smt. Narayanamma
Aged about 45 years,
W/o Sri. Krishnappa,
Both are R/at No.51, 1st Cross,
New Pottery Town,
Bengaluru-560 046
3 Sri Krishnappa, (Abated)
4 Sri Mohan Kumar
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Narayanmurthy,
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
R/at No.3/110,
II Main, III Cross,
Lingarajpuram,
Bengaluru-84
5 Sri Venkatramanappa
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Muniyallappa,
R/at No.8, N.Block, C.A.R.North
Police Quarters, Thimmsandra Main
Road, Hegdenagar,
Bengaluru-45
6 Smt. Poornima
Aged about 19 years,
S/o M.Chinnaraju,
R/at No.51, 1st Cross,
New Pottery Town,
Bangaluru-560 046
7 Sri. Rammurthy
Aged about 55 years,
S/o Sri Chowdappa,
R/at No.19, 2nd Cross,
New Pottery Town, Benson Town,
Bengaluru-46
(Rep. by Sri. V. Bharath Kumar
Advocate for Accused No. 1, 2, 4, 5
& 7)
(Rep. by Sri. Raghavendra Advocate
for Accused No. 6)
2
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
1. Date of commission of 28.01.2001 and
offence subsequent to the date of
marriage and on
25/12/2009
2. Name of Complainant Smt. Manjula. A
3. Offences complained of U/s 494, 498(A) r/w 149 of
IPC
4. Charge Pleaded not guilty
5. Final Order Accused No.1, 2, 4 - 7
acquitted for the offence
punishable under section
494 R/w Section 149 of IPC
and Accused No. 1 and 2
convicted for the offence
punishable under section
498A R/w Section 149 of
IPC.
6. Date of order 21-12-2024
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of J. C. Nagara Police
Station submitted charge sheet against accused No. 1 to
7 for the offences punishable U/s 494, 498(A) r/w 149 of
I.P.C.
3
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
2. Prosecution Case: The accused No. 1 got
married to the CW1 Smt. Manjula on 28/02/2001
Bhaagalemma Sri Shiala Kalyana Mantapa. After the
marriage, the accused No. 1 and CW1 had led the
marriage life at house No. 51, I A Cross, New Poultry
Town. The accused No. 1 to accused No. 3 jointly
demanded additional dowry when the CW1 was two
months pregnancy and abused her and thrown her out
of the house thereby inflicted mental and physical cruelty
upon CW1. Thereafter the accused No. 1 remarried the
accused No.6 during the subsistence of marriage of
accused No.1 with the CW1 on 22.12.2018. The accused
No. 4, 5 and 7 instigated the accused No. 6 to get married
to the accused No. 1 and informed her parents namely
CW6 and CW7 and came out of her house for getting
married to the accused No. 1.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of first
information given by informant cum CW1 namely Smt.
Manjula, CW15 PSI of J.C.Nagar Police Station Sri K.
Nagaraju registered Crime No.16/2009 against the
accused No.1 to 7 for the offences punishable U/s 494,
498(A) r/w 149 of I.P.C., prepared FIR and sent the same
to the Court and to his superior officers.
4. Investigation: After registration of FIR, CW15/IO
Sri K. Nagaraju drawn spot mahazar on 12.01.2009 and
recorded the statement of requisite witnesses and
collected the documents and submitted charge sheet
against accused No.1 to 7 for the alleged offences.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took
cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
4
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
6. The accused Nos.1 to 7 were enlarged on bail by
the order dated 21/01/2009 and 29/05/2009
respectively.
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required
U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused
Nos.1 to 7.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel
for accused Nos.1 to 7, the charge for the offences
punishable U/s 494, 498(A) r/w 149 of I.P.C., has been
framed, read over and explained to the accused in the
language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to
establish its case cited 7 witnesses and examined 7
witness and exhibited 24 documents. The examination of
CW4 was given up on account of his death by the order
dated ….. . The presence of CW6 to CW12 and CW15
could not be secured after due execution of proclamation
for evidence by the order dated 09/10/2023.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC:
After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused
Nos.1 to 7 were examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C,
wherein denied all incriminating evidence appearing in
the statement of prosecution witness and did not lead
any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the
record.
12. The following points arisen for consideration is
as follows;
5
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
1. Whether the prosecution
proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that the accused No. 1 got
married to the CW1 Smt.
Manjula on 28/02/2001 Sri
Shiala Kalyana Mantapa,
Bhagyapalli and after the
marriage, the accused No. 1 and
CW1 had led the marriage life at
house No. 51, I A Cross, New
Poultry Town and the accused
No. 1 to accused No. 3 jointly
demanded additional dowry
when the CW1 was two months
pregnancy and abused and
thrown her out of the house
thereby inflicted mental and
physical cruelty upon CW1
thereby resulted in commission
of an offence punishable
u/Sec.498(A) r/w 149 of I.P.C.?
2. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that Thereafter the accused
No. 1 remarried the accused No.6
during the subsistence of
marriage of accused No.1 with the
CW1 on 22.12.2018. The accused
No. 4, 5 and 7 instigated the
accused No. 6 to get married to
the accused No. 1 and informed
her parents namely CW6 and
6
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
CW7 and came out of her house
for getting married to the accused
No. 1 thereby resulted in
commission of an offense
punishable u/Sec.494 of I.P.C?
3. What order?
13. The findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the affirmative
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
14. Point No.1: There is no dispute with regard to the
marriage of PW1 with the accused No. 1 and hence no
much discussion is required for Ex.P.3 to Ex. P. 15 i.e.,
Lagnapatrike and marriage photographs.
15. Evidence of Prosecution must be established that
the accused Nos.1 to 3 started torturing PW1 for bringing
additional dowry when she was two months pregnancy.
Mere omnibus statement regarding harassment does not
ipso facto makes out a case under section 498A IPC,
prosecution is required to prove the overt acts attributed
by the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the said
principle is appreciated in case of Sakharam and another
vs State of Maharastra reported in (2003) 12 SCC 368.
Basing this decision, the present cases are taken up for
discussion.
7
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
16. It is relevant to reiterate Section 498A of Indian
Penal Code which reads as under
Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty —
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.
Explanation.– For the purposes of this
section, “cruelty” means–
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury
or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing
her or any person related to her to meet
any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of
failure by her or any person related to
her to meet such demand.
For commission of an offence under Section 498-A
of IPC, the following necessary ingredients require to be
satisfied:
(a) The woman must be married;
8
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
(b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment;
and
(c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been
shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative
of her husband and the said principle is appreciated in
the case of U. Suvetha v. State reported in (2009) 6 SCC
757.
17. Every harassment does not amount to “cruelty”
within the meaning of Section 498-A. For the purpose of
Section 498-A, harassment simpliciter is not “cruelty”
and it is only when harassment is committed for the
purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related
to her to meet an unlawful demand for property, etc. that
it amounts to “cruelty” punishable under Section 498-A
IPC and the said principle is appreciated in the case of
State of A.P.v.M. Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008)
15 SCC 582.
18. Cruelty can either be mental or physical. It is
difficult for straitjacket the term cruelty by means of a
definition because cruelty is a relative term. What
constitutes cruelty for one person may not constitute
cruelty for another person and the said principle is
appreciated in the case of G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of
Karnataka reported in (2010) 3 SCC 152. The concept of
cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual,
also depending upon the social and economic status to
which such person belongs and the said principle is
appreciated in the case of Gananath Pattnaik v. State of
Orissa reported in (2002) 2 SCC 619.
9
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
19. No doubt, this court cannot expect any evidence
for the matrimonial offences when it was taken place
within the four walls however PW1 deposed that
ಮದುವೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡನಿಗೆ ೧
ಲಕ್ಷ ರೂ ನಗದು ೨೦೦ ಗ್ರಾಂ ಚಿನ್ನವನ್ನು ನೀಡಿ
ಮದುವೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು. ಮದುವೆಯಾದ ನಂತರ
ನಾನು ಪಾಟರಿ ಟೌನ್ನ ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡನ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ
ವಾಸವಿದ್ದೆ. ಗಂಡನ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಅತ್ತೆ ಮತ್ತು
ಮೃತ ೩ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು ವಾಸವಿದ್ದರು.
ಮದುವೆಯಾದ ನಂತರ ೨ – ೩ ತಿಂಗಳು ನಾವು
ಅನ್ಯೂನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಇದ್ದೆವು. ನಂತರ ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡ
ಮತ್ತು ೨ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಅತ್ತೆ ಚಿಕ್ಕಪುಟ್ಟ
ವಿಷಯಕ್ಕೆಲ್ಲ ಜಗಳ ತೆಗದು ನನಗೆ
ಹೊಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ೨ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಅತ್ತೆ
ಚಿಕ್ಕಪುಟ್ಟ ವಿಷಯಕ್ಕೆಲ್ಲ ಜಗಳ ತೆಗೆದು ನನಗೆ
ಹೊಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು ವರದಕ್ಷಿಣೆಯ
ಬಾಕಿ ಹಣ ೮೦ ಸಾವಿರ ರೂ ಒತ್ತಾಯಿಸಿದ್ದು
ಅದನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆಯವರು ನೀಡಿದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ
ನಮ್ಮ ಅತ್ತೆ ನನ್ನ ಮೇಲೆ ಚಾಡಿ ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಆ
ವಿಷಯ ಕೇಳಿ ೧ನೇ ಮತ್ತು ೩ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು
ಹೊಡೆಯುದ್ದರು. ಮನೆ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಹೋಗಿ ಎಂದು
ಮತ್ತು ನಮ್ಮ ಅಪ್ಪ ಅಮ್ಮನ ಜೊತೆ
ಮಾತನಾಡಲು ಬಿಡುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ, ನನ್ನ ಅಪ್ಪ ಮತ್ತು
ಅಮ್ಮ ನೋಡಲು ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದಾಗ ಅವ್ಯಾಚ
ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ ಬಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ೩೦.೦೭.೨೦೦೩
ರಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ಒಂದು ಗಂಡು ಮಗು ನನ್ನ ತವರು
ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಜನಿಸಿದ್ದು ೫ ತಿಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ನನ್ನನ್ನು
ವಾಪಸ್ ಮನೆಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದಿದ್ದು
ಮಗುವನ್ನು ಅವರು ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿ ನೋಡಿಕ್ಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ
ಮತ್ತು ನನಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನಿಂದ ಕಿತ್ತುಕೊಂಡು
ನನ್ನನು ಹೊರ ತಳ್ಳಿದ್ದರು.
10
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
However in the cross examination, PW1 deposed as
under
“ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯವರೂ
ಕುಂಬಾರ್ ಕಮ್ಯುನಿಟಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದವರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಮ್ಮ ಕುಂಬಾರ್ ಕಮ್ಯುನಿಟಿ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ವರದಕ್ಷಿಣೆ
ಕೊಡುವ ಪದ್ದತಿ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಎಲ್ಲ
ಕಮ್ಯುನಿಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ವರದಕ್ಷಿಣೆ ಕೊಡುವ ಪದ್ದತಿ ಇದೆ
ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ಕಮ್ಯುನಿಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮದುವೆಗೆ
ಮುಂಚೆ ಮತ್ತು ಮದುವೆಯಾದ ನಂತರ ಕೆಲವು
ಪದ್ದತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಮದುವೆಗೂ
ಮುಂಚೆ ನಿಶ್ಚಿತಾರ್ಥ ಮತ್ತು ಲಗ್ನ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆ ಬರೆಯುವ
ಪದ್ದತಿ ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಮದುವೆಯ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ
ತಾಳಿ ಕಟ್ಟುವ ಸಂಪ್ರದಾಯ ಅದು ಮಾಂಗಲ್ಯಧಾರಣೆ
ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಈ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಸಂಪ್ರದಾಯಗಳು ನನ್ನ
ಮದುವೆಯ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ಈಗಲು ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ನನ್ನ ಜೊತೆ ಇದ್ದಾರೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಈಗ ನನ್ನ ಮಗನಿಗೆ 20 ವರ್ಷ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸರಿ. 2001ರಲ್ಲ್ಕಿ ನನ್ನ ಹತ್ತಿರ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಪೋನ್
ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. 2004 ರಿಂದ 2014 ವರೆಗೂ
ನಾನು ಪೋಲೀಸ್ ಕ್ವಾರ್ಟಸ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸರಿ” xxxxxx
Thus, it is clear that the prosecution/PW1 has not
produced any document to show that the parents of PW1
has purchased the gold weighing 200 grams or for giving
Rs. 1 lakhs. Though PW1 deposed that the father of PW1
could manage the marriage expenses and alleged dowry
by selling the house but no corroborating document was
produced with regard to sale of house particularly the
accused No. 1 and 2 has taken the defence that PW1 and
her family does not have financial capacity to give the
alleged dowry or to perform the marriage in a grand
11
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
manner as alleged in the complaint as per Ex. P. 1 or in
her statement before the police authority. Added to
which, PW1 did not possess any mobile in the year 2001
and hence the question of preventing the PW1 from
talking to her family members does not arise.
20. Added to which, PW1 had approached the the
superior authority of accused No.1 for allotment of
quarters however the accused No.1 had filed a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights in M. C No. 781/2004
against PW1 which was much less prior to the the
allotment of quarters. The PW1 filed a suit for
maintenance in O S No. 154/2004 wherein the
maintenance amount was awarded. However the accused
No. 1 filed a petition for divorce on the file of family court
in M. C. No. 2508/2006 for divorce however the PW1
through her son filed the partition suit and she filed
maintenance petition in O S No. 1148/2024 and Crl.
Misc. No. 181/2023. thus, it is clear that accused No. 1
had made attempt to bring the marriage life together with
the PW1 by filing the restitution petition. If the PW1 had
intention to restitute the marital life with the accused No.
1, she could have immediately joined the accused No.1 in
the matrimonial rather combating with the superior of
accused No.1 for allotting the quarters. The PW1
expressed her grievance that on the instigation of
accused No. 2, the accused No. 1 and 3 used to assault
her for trivial issues however the acts of accused No. 2 is
normal in the course of marrige life due to the
possessiveness towards her only son and the same
cannot be termed as cruelty.
21. It is the defence of accused No. 1 that PW1 was
demanding a separate house and hence she refused to
12
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
join the matrimonial home after giving birth to her son.
However the PW1 has indirectly admitted the said version
of PW1 which reads as under
2003 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಮಗುವಾದ ನಂತರ ನಾನು
ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದೇ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ, ನನ್ನ
ತಂದೆ ತಾಯಿ ಮಾತು ಕೇಳಿಕೊಂಡು ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕವಾಗಿ
1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕ ಮನೆ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ಮಾತ್ರ
1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಜೊತೆ ವಾಸವಿರ್ತೀನಿ ಎಂದು
ಅವರ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕವಾಗಿ ಮನೆ
ಮಾಡಲು ಆಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ , ಆದರೆ ಅವರು ಅವರ
ತಂದೆ ತಾಯಿಗೆ ಒಬ್ಬನೇ ಮಗ ಎಂದು
ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಿದ ನಂತರ ನಾನು ಅವರ ಮನೆಗೆ
ಹೋಗೇ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ
1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು Restitution of
Conjugal Rights ನ್ನು ಹಾಕಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ 2002ನೇ ಇಸವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೂಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ
ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ.
Thus, the accused No. 1 has filed a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights and the same was pending
on the file of family court till the year 2006.
22. With regard to demand of additional dowry, the
evidence of prosecution witnesses reads as under
i. CW1 is examined as PW1 and got
marked Ex p -1 to P23. In her chief
examination she has not deposed or
reiterated all the contents of her
complaint (Ex.P1) Further in her
chief examination she deposed in13
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009the 11th line of her chief examination
that Varadakshaniya baaki
…………….. aaropigalu
hodeyuthiddaru which is improved
version, which is not stated in her
complaint Ex.P1. Further in the
scond page of her chief examination
in the 6th line she deposed that
Dinanka 25-12-2008 randu
…………….. yeradaneya maduve
agiruttare which is improved version
which is not stated in her complaint
Ex.P1. The same are admitted in her
cross examination.
ii. CW-2 examined as PW-2 who is
the mother of the CW-1 In her chief
examination she has not deposed or
reiterated all the contents of her
statement as per Section 161 of
CRPC. Further in her chief
examination she deposed in the 11th
line of her chief examination that
aaropigalu
varadhakshineya…………..
hodeyuthiddaru which is improved
version which is not stated in her
statement as Section 161 of CRPC
given to the police in fact she admits
the same in cross-examination. In
her cross examination she admits
that in the 2003 she does not have
mobile phone. Further she admits14
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009that she has not remembered dates
of alleged events which she deposed
in her chief examination.
iii. CW-3 examined as PW-3 is the
brother of the CW-1 In his chief
examination he has not deposed or
reiterated all the contents of his 161
statement. Admittedly she is very
young at the time of marrige of the
CW-1 with A-1. He deposed in the
10th line of his chief examination
that Nanthara 1 rinda 3 aaropigalu
……………… biduthiralilla which is
improved version which is not stated
in his 161 statement given to the
police. Further he deposed in the 2nd
line from bottom of his chief
examination that dhinanka 25-02-
2011 ralli ……………..
madhuveyadanu which is improved
version which is not stated in his
statement as per section 161 of
CRPC given to the police.
iv. CW-5 examined as PW-4 who is
the maternal-uncle of the CW-1. In
his chief examination he has not
deposed or reiterated all the
contents of his 161 statement. He
deposed in the 2nd page of 1st line of
his chief examination that punah
………………….. kalisidharu which is15
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009improved version which is not stated
in his 161 statement given to the
police. Further he deposed in the 2nd
page 8th line of his chief examination
that nanthara naavu
………………………. karadhukondu
bandharu which is improved version
which is not stated in his 161
statement given to the police.
Further he deposed in the 2nd page
21st line of his chief examination
that herigegendhu ……………………..
hodharu which is improved version
which is not stated in his statement
as per Section 161 of CRPC given to
the police. Further he deposed in the
2nd page 21st line line of his chief
examination that herigegendhu
………………………. hodharu which
is improved version, which is not
stated in his 161 statement given to
the police. Further he deposed in the
3rd page 2nd para of his chief
examination that 2009 ralli
…………………. vasa madalu
bittirutharre. which is improved
version which is not stated in his
statement as per Section 161 of
CRPC given to the police.
However the defence of accused No. 1, 2, 5 to 7
cannot be accepted that the PW1 to PW4 are family
members of PW1 and hence their version cannot be16
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009relied. It ought to be seen that the marriage is a family
function where this court cannot expect the third party to
witness the marriage talks and marriage expenses. The
prosecution has not produced any document to show
that they had given alleged dowry to the accused No. 1 to
3. Though the PW1 had deposed in the cross-examination
that she has produced the bills in the maintenance case
and if she has given in the maintenance case, what
prevented her to produce the same when she was able to
produce Ex. P. 16 to 23 during the course of evidence.
Thus, the demand of additional dowry by the accused No.
1 to 3 was not proved by the prosecution.
23. Merely the PW1 was staying away from the
matrimonial home in the official quarters of accused No.
1 with her son, does not mean that the accused No. 1
had license to get married to the accused No. 6 by tying
taali in the presence of accused No. 2 during the
subsistence of first marriage and the accused No. 6
herself admitted in her complaint as per Ex. P. 21 and
living under one roof and the Ex. P. 18 how the
photograph of accused No. 1 and accused No. 6 as father
and mother to the girl child Pooja M was embossed was
not explained by the accused No. 1. The criminal
procedure code provides opportunity to the prosecution
to produce the documents relevant to the subject matter
of complaint as per Section 242 of CRPC. Merely PW1
produced the documents at the later stage than giving at
the time of investigation cannot be a ground to suspect
the authenticity of the document particularly when the
accused No. 1 , 2 and 6 was not denied the same as far
as Ex. P. 21 is concerned and Ex. P. 18 as far as accused
Nos.1 and 6 .
17
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
24. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention
Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act which reads as under:
106. Burden of proving fact
especially within knowledge.–When
any fact is especially within the
knowledge of any person, the
burden of proving that fact is upon
him.
Thus, on examination of accused No.1 and 2 as per
313 of Cr.P.C has not at all given any explanation except
denying the incriminating statement posed to them. The
accused No. 2 has not rebutted the contents of Ex. P. 21
against her that she made the accused No. 1 to tie taali to
the accused No. 6 which is very clear that the ill motive of
accused No. 1 and 2 to harm the life of PW1 by putting
the marriage life of PW1 to an end.
25. The accused No. 1 and 2 did not rebut the
contents of complaint- Ex. P. 21. Thus, the prosecution
proved the cruelty upon the PW1 that he contracted the
invalid marriage with the accused No. 6 by tying taali
without dissolution of marriage of accused No. 1 with the
PW1 and making a woman to lead marriage life amounts
to mental cruelty. Thus, the evidence of PW1 with the
Ex. P. 21 and Ex. P. 18 is very clear that the PW1 was
subjected to mental cruelty by the accused No. 1 and 2
thereby offences punishable u/Section 498A of IPC has
been proved as against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence,
this court answers the above point No.1 in the
affirmative.
18
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
26. Point No.2: Before adverting to the points for
discussion, it is relevant to discuss the relevant laws
pertaining to Bigamy.
Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 lays down
the conditions to be fulfilled in a marriage between any
two Hindus. As per the records, Admittedly, the accused
No. 1 and 6 are Hindus and their identity as identified in
the charge sheet was not denied by them. One of the
conditions is that neither party has a spouse living at the
time of the marriage. Section 5 of the Act reads as under
(1) a Hindu marriage may be
solemnized in accordance with the
customary rites and ceremonies of
either party thereto; and
(2) where such rites and ceremonies
include the Saptapadi (that is, the
taking of seven steps by the
bridegroom and the bride jointly
before the sacred fire), the marriage
becomes complete and binding when
the seventh step is taken.
27. Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 deals
with void marriages. One of the conditions, if
contravened, which makes a marriage solemnized after
the commencement of the Act null and void, is, if any
party thereto has a spouse living at the time of the
marriage. Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 has
reiterated the position and providing for punishment of
bigamy reads thus:
19
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
Any marriage between two Hindus solemnized
after the commencement of this Act is void if at
the date of such marriage either party had a
husband or wife living; and the provisions of
Section 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code
shall apply accordingly.
28. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code deals with
the offence of bigamy reads as under;
Marrying again during life-time of
husband or wife
Whoever, having a husband or wife
living, marries in any case in which
such marriage is void by reason of
its taking place during the life of
such husband or wife, shall be
punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
Exception.–This section does not
extend to any person whose
marriage with such husband or wife
has been declared void by a Court of
competent jurisdiction,nor to any
person who contracts a marriage
during the life of a former husband
or wife, if such husband or wife, at
the time of the subsequent marriage,
shall have been continually absent
from such person for the space of
20
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
seven years, and shall not have been
heard of by such person as being
alive within that time provided the
person contracting such subsequent
marriage shall, before such marriage
takes place, inform the person with
whom such marriage is contracted
of the real state of facts so far as the
same are within his or her
knowledge.
Thus, the essential ingredients of offence under
Section 494 of IPC, as explained in the case of Gopal Lal
vs State of Rajasthan reported in (1979) 2 SCC 170 and
in the case of S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala reported in
2024 IN SC 420 are:
(i) that the accused had already married some
person;
(ii) that the accused married another person by
performing marriage with the ceremonies and
rituals;
(iii) that the husband or wife to whom the person
was first married, as the case may be, was alive
on the date of the second marriage; and
(iv) that the second marriage was void by reason
of its taking place during the lifetime of the first
spouse of the accused.
For prosecution under Section 494 of the Indian
Penal Code, it is incumbent upon the informant/PW1 to
21
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
establish that both the marriages pleaded by her were
solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and
ceremonies either prescribed by the Hindu Law governing
the parties or recognized by the custom in the Kumbar
community to which the parties belong and that
admission of either the first or the second marriage by
the accused No. 1 and accused No. 6 is no evidence of the
marriage rather PW1 deposed in the chief examination in
page 2 which reads as under
೨೫/೧೨/೨೦೦೮ ರಂದು ೧ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ೬ನೇ
ಆರೋಪಿ ಜೊತೆ ಹಲಸೂರು ವಡಪುತ್ತರು
ಮಠದಲ್ಲಿ ಎರಡನೆ ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
xxxxxx ೧ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮಾ
ಎಂಬಾಕಿಯ ಜೊತೆ ತೆಗೆಸಿಕೊಂಡ ಬಾವಚಿತ್ರ
ಹಾಗೂ ೨ನೇ ಹೆಂಡತಿಯಾದ ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮಾ
ಹಾಗೂ ಮಗುವಿನ ಜೊತೆ ತೆಗೆಸಿಗೊಂಡ
ಬಾವಚಿತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ ೧೬ ಮತ್ತು ೧೭ ಎಂದು
ಗುರ್ತಿತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ೧ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಹಾಗೂ
೬ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ವೈವಾಹಿಕ ಜೀವನದಿಂದ
ಜನಿಸದ ಪೂಜಾ ಎಂ ಮಗುವಿನ ಶಾಲೆಯ
ಗುರುತಿನ ಚಿಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ ೧೮ ಎಂದು
ಗುರ್ತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ೬ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ
ಚುನಾವಾಣಾ ಗುರ್ತಿನ ಚಿಟ್ಟಿಯ ಹಾಗೂ ಆಧಾರ್
ಕಾರ್ಡ್ನ ಜೆರಾಕ್ಸ್ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ ೧೯ ಮತ್ತು ೨೦
ಎಂದು ಗುರ್ತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಜೆ. ಸಿ. ನಗರ
ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ೬ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ೧ನೇ
ಆರೋಪಿ ವಿರುದ್ದ ವರದಕ್ಷಿಣೆ ಕಿರುಕುಳ ನೀಡಿದ
ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲಿಸಿರುವ ದೂರಿನ ದೃಢಕೃತ ನಕಲನ್ನು
ನಿಪಿ ೨೧ ಎಂದು ಗುರ್ತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಸದರಿ
ದೂರಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ದಾಖಲಾದ ಪ್ರಧಮ
ವರ್ತಮಾನ ವರದಿಯ ದೃಡೀಕೃತ ನಕಲನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ
೨೨ ಎಂದು ಗುರ್ತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಸದರಿ ದೂರಿಗೆ22
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸದ ಸಿ
ಅಂತಿಮ ವರದಿಯ ದೃಢಿಕೃತ ನಕಲನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ ೨೩
ಎಂದು ಗುರ್ತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
Based upon the examination in chief of PW1, this
court had gone through the records particularly from Ex.
P. 16 to Ex. P. 23. It appears from the Ex. P. 21 i.e.,
complaint dated 03/07/2009 which has been extracted
as under
ಈ ಕೆಳಗೆ ರುಜು ಮಾಡಿರುವ ನಾನು ತಮ್ಮಲ್ಲಿ
ದೂರು ನೀಡಿರುವುದೇನೆಂದರೆ ನಾನು
ವಿಧ್ಯಾಭ್ಯಾಸಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ
ಏರಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಇದಂತಹ ಕೆ. ಮೋಹನ್ ಕುಮಾರ್
ಕಾರ್ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಕಾನ್ಸ್ಟೆಬಲ್ ನಂ ೨೮೩೧
ಈತನು ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಪ್ರೀತಿಸಿದ್ದು ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ
ನನಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆಂದರೆ ನನ್ನ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ಮಂಜುಳಾ
ಎಂಬಾಕೆಯನ್ನು ಅವಳ ಬುದ್ದಿ ಸರಿ ಇಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದರಿಂದ
ಅವಳನ್ನು ವಿಚ್ಛೇದನ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ನಿನ್ನ
ಯಾವುದೇ ರೀತಿಯ ಮೋಸ
ಮಾಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ಡೈವೋರ್ಸ್ ಲೆಟರ್
ತೋರಿಸಿ ನನಗೆ ಮೋಸ ಮಾಡಿ ಇಲ್ಲದಾಸಲ್ಲಾ
ಭರವಸೆಯ ಮಾತುಗಳನ್ನೇಲಿ ನಂಬಿಸಿ ನನ್ನನ್ನು
ದಿನಾಕ್ ೨೫-೧೨-೦೮ ರಂದು ಬೆಳಗ್ಗೆ ೯-೩೦
ಗಂಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಲಸೂರಿನ ಒಡಕಟ್ಟುರು ಮಠದ
ನಾಗಮ್ಮ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೋಹನ್ ಕುಮಾರ್
ಈತನು ನನ್ನ ಪತಿಯ ಸ್ನ್ಹೇತನಾಗಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಈತನ
ಸಹ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಇಲಾಖೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡ
ರುತ್ತಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಹಾಗೂ ನಮ್ಮ ಅತ್ತೆಯವರಾದ
ನಾರಾಯಣಮ್ಮರವರುಗಳು ಸೇರಿ ತಾಳಿಯನ್ನು
ಕಟ್ಟಿಸಿ ನನ್ನನು ನನ್ನ ಪತಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಅತ್ತೆಯವರು
ಮದುವೆ ಮಾಡಿಬಿಟ್ಟರು ನಂತರ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಪತಿ
ಹಾಗೂ ಅತ್ತೆಯವರ ಸಂಸಾರ ಮಾಡುಲು ನಂ23
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009೫೮ ಪೆಟ್ತ್ರಿ ಟೌನ್ ೧ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯ ರಸ್ತೆ ಬೆನ್ಸನ್
ಟೌನ್ ಪೋಸ್ಟ್ ಬೆಂ ೪೬ ಈ ವಿಳಾಸದಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ
ಸುಮಾರು ೧೫ ದಿನಗಳು ಮಾತ್ರ ಚನ್ನಾಗಿ
ನೋಡಿಕೊಂಡರು.
Thus, it is clear that the accused No. 1 got married
to the accused No. 6 by tying the thali in the presence of
accused No. 4 and accused No. 2 at Odakathoor Matta,
Nagamma Temple, Halasoor. More so over, the accused
No. 6 has clearly lodged the complaint that the accused
No. 1 divorced PW1 by showing divorce letter as PW1 was
mentally unfit and got married to her. Prosecution did
not make any endeavor to produce any cogent evidence
before this court that the accused No. 2 with the
knowledge of subsistence of marriage of accused No. 1
with the PW1, got married to the accused No. 1.
29. On a reading of the provisions of Section 5, 7,
11, and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it is clear that at
the time of the second marriage, neither party should
have a spouse living. If the spouse is living at the time of
the second marriage, it is a void marriage.
30. The expression ‘spouse’ means a lawfully
married husband or wife. Before a valid marriage can be
solemnized, both parties to such marriage must be either
single or divorced or a widow or a widower and then only
they are competent to enter into a valid marriage. The
word ‘solemnize’ means to celebrate the marriage with
proper ceremonies and in due form. In this context, it is
relevant to mention in the case of Bharao Shankar
Lokhund C Vs State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1965
SUPREME COURT 1564 and Kanwal Ram And Ors vs
24
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
The Himachal Pradesh Admn on 19 August, 1965
reported in AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 614 held that in
a prosecution for bigamy, the second marriage had not
only to be proved as a fact, but it must also be proved
that the necessary ceremonies had been performed. The
burden is heavily upon the prosecution to prove that the
second marriage of Accused No. 1 with the accused No. 6
was taken place with the essential ceremonies to
constitute a valid marriage and the said principle is
appreciated in the case of Priya Bala Vs Suresh Chandra
reported in AIR 1971 SC 1153.
The words used in Section 494 of the Indian
Penal Code “whoever marries” and “marriage”
relate to second marriage. The words used in that
section “husband or wife” relate to the first
marriage. The first marriage is a past event and
the second marriage is a recent event. The words
used in Section 494 of the Penal Code and the
words used in Sec 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act
have to be considered carefully. If we construe
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code as it is with
reference to Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, it is clear that if a person marries again
while the other spouse was living, it is an offence.
The main offence that has to be proved in a case of
bigamy is that a valid marriage took place between the
accused No. 1 and accused No. 6, whilst the other spouse
was living. One of the conditions to be fulfilled is that
they are husband and wife. The relationship of wife and
husband comes in if there is a valid marriage. In the
Supreme Court cases cited above, it was held that the
25
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
valid ceremonies that are required to be necessary for a
Hindu marriage have to be proved. Homam and
Saptapadi are also the essential ceremonies for a valid
Hindu marriage. If the custom dispenses with those two
ceremonies, that custom also has to be proved. The tying
of taali is admitted by the accused No. 6 herself however
the prosecution never adduced any evidence or brought
any evidence to show that the by following the
ceremonies particularly taking the Saptapadi around the
sacred fire were performed whilst the performance of
marriage of accused No. 1 with the accused No. 6. There
is no evidence adduced by the PW1 or produced by the
PW1 that in the Kumbar community of PW1 and the
accused No. 1, there is no custom fo Saptapadi. In fact,
PW1 herself did not see that the marriage of accused No.
1 with the accused No. 6 as per her evidence as she
heard from the neighbour and such being the case this
court cannot come to a conclusion that the accused No. 1
contracted the valid marriage with the accused No. 2.
31. In this regard,Section 50 of the Evidence Act
reads as follows:
Opinion on relationship when relevant:- When
the Court has to form an opinion as to the
relationship of one person to another, the
opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the
existence of such relationship, of any person
who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has
special means of knowledge on the subject, to a
relevant fact:
Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient
to prove a marriage in proceedings under the26
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009Indian Divorce Act (4 of 1869), or in prosecutions
under Section 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
The Proviso clearly shows that as a fact, the opinion
alone itself is not sufficient for proof of the marriage.
Section 50 of the Evidence Act never contemplated that
the presumption as a whole cannot be taken into account
in a case of bigamy.
32. A second marriage which is an offence
punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code,
strict proof is required. Marrying a woman without
following the customs particularly the saptapadi is
equivalent of living in a relationship can at the most be a
morally blameworthy conduct of accused No. 1. The
production of identity card of Pooja M wherein the said
Pooja M was identified as daughter of Murali Mohan K
and Madhumitha however the picture of the accused No.
1 and accused No. 6 was embossed on the identity card
as per Ex. P. 18 issued by MMET English Primary and
High School, M. S. Nagar, Bangalore – 560 033.
However , the production of Ex. P. 16 (photograph of
accused No. 1 and accused No.6 together) , Ex. P 17
(accused No. 1 with the child) and adhara card of
accused No. 6 where she identified as wife of Mohan
Kumar will not supersede the marriage ceremonies
particularly the saptapadi whilst contracting the second
valid marriage of accused No. 1 with accused No. 6 which
cannot be said to have proved an offense punishable
under section 494 of IPC and the said principle is
appreciated in the case of Nisha vs. State of U.P. and
another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 283.
27
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
33. No doubt, the accused No. 1 and accused No. 6
had given identity as Murali Mohan K amd Madhumitha
however the prosecution has not provided any particulars
whether they have just changed the name without
following any procedure of law for change of name only
for concealment of relationship of the Accused No. 1 with
the accused No. 6.
34. The law is well settled that the accused No. 6
being second wife or her family members cannot be
prosecuted for section 494 of IPC and the said principle
is appreciated in the case of Thimmappa & Ors. v.
Bharathi reported in neutral citation 2024 KHC:10412.
Added to which, the accused No. 4 was present as per the
Ex. P. 21 complaint dated 03/07/2019 but there is
nothing on record to show that the accused No. 5, 7 and
accused No. 4 had knowledge of first marriage of accused
No. 1 with the PW1 particularly when the prosecution
has not proved the valid marriage of the accused No. 1
and accused No. 6 by following the ritual of saptapadi
i.e., seven steps around the sacred fire. It appears from
the record that CW15 IO has secured the letter from Sri
Mahan Odukathur Swamigal Mutt, Dhandayaudapani
Temple , Gangadara Setty Road, Bangalore – 560 0042
dated 14/05/2009 wherein it is clear that
“on 25/12/2008, no marriage was
performed between Mohan Kumar
and Smt. Poornima in our temple”
which is evident that no Homa is done for following the
procedure of saptapadi i.e., for taking seven steps /vows28
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009around sacred fire. Thus, the prosecution/PW1 failed to
prove the alleged offences under section 494 R/w section
149 of IPC thereby this court answers the above point No.
2 in the negative.
35. Point No.3: For the forgoing reasons and the
findings to the above points No. 1 and 2, this court
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
By acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C,
i. The accused No.1 and 2 convicted for the
offence punishable U/s.498(A) R/w Section
149 of IPC.
ii. The accused No.1, 2 4 to 7 acquitted
for the offence punishable U/s. 494 R/w
Section 149 of IPC.
iii. Call later for hearing on sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and
typed by him, verified and corrected by me, then the
judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 21st
day of December 2024.)
VIII Addl. CJM, Bengaluru.
29
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Heard on sentence.
2. Learned Sr.A.P.P. prayed this Court to impose
maximum sentence provided for the offence.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
accused submitted that the accused No. 1 is a earning
member of family being Government Servant and the
accused No.2 is a senior citizen. They have no criminal
antecedent. Hence prayed the Court to take lenient view.
4. Having regard the submission of both the parties
admittedly the offence committed by the accused No.l and
2 is against his own wife and daughter-in-law. So, when the
accused No.1 contacted second marriage by tying taali
during the subsistence of first marriage of PW1, the life of
PW1 and accused No.6 in the presence of accused No.2 and
the children of PW1 and children of accused No.6 became a
questionable in the society where they have to undergo lot
of humiliation and the accused No.6 was just 19 years old
who was in the teenage. By encashing the teenage of
accused No. 6, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have spoiled the
life of accused No. 6 in addition to the life of PW1 and their
respective children and hence the accused Nos.1 and Nos.2
is not entitled for the benefit under Probation of Offenders
Act.
5. Section 498A of Indian Penal code provides for
punishment of imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to 3 years, and shall also be liable
to fine.
30
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
6. It is settled principle of law that sentence
imposed shall respond to the cry of the society. Here in
this case, the accused has committed offence against
against his own wife and her daughter in law
respectively.
7. At this juncture it is pertinent to mention
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court State V/s Sanjeev
Nanda AIR 2012 SC 3104 wherein it is held,
“Law demands that the offender should be
adequately punished for the crime, so that
it can deter the offender and other
persons from committing similar offence.
Nature and circumstances of the offence;
the need for the sentence imposed to
reflect the seriousness of the offence; to
afford adequate deterrence to the conduct
and to protect the public from such crime
are certain factors to be considered while
imposing the sentence.”
8. Keeping in mind the mitigating factors against
the accused and considering the above ratio it requires
some leniency while passing the sentence. Hence this
court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
31
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
(i) The accused Nos.1 and 2 shall
undergo simple imprisonment for
2 years for the offence punishable
U/s 498A R/w Section 149 of IPC
and also liable to pay each fine of
₹10,000/-. In default of payment
of fine he shall undergo SI for 30
days.
(ii) Acting under Section 357 of
Criminal Procedure Code out of
the above stated fine amount of
₹16,000/- (Rupees sixteen
Thousand only) be paid to the first
informant/PW1 – Manjula A W/o
Mohan Kumar as compensation.
shall undergo SI for 30 days.
(iii) The bail bond of the accused
Nos.1 and 2 shall stands canceled.
(iv) Office is to supply free copy of
this Judgment to the accused
Nos.1 and 2.
v) The accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 are
found not guilty and acquitted
from the offences punishable U/s
494, r/w 149 of I.P.C.
(vi) Accused Nos.4 to 7 are set at
liberty.
32
KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009
(vii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in
force for 6 (six) months.
(viii) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, revised and
corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open
court, on this the 21st day of December, 2024)
( DEEPA.V ),
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 Manjula.A PW2 Lakshmidevamma PW3 Venu PW4 Sri.Adhinarayanswamy PW5 Smt.Lakshmi PW6 Najinabi PW7 Riyaz Pasha
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint 33 KABC030119112009 CC No.11573/2009 Ex.P.2 Mahazar Ex.P.3 Invitation card Ex.P.4 to 17 Nine Photos Ex.P.18 Identity card Ex.P.19 &20 Copy of Aadhar cards Ex.P.21 Complaint Ex.P.22 FIR Ex.P.23 'C' report Ex.P.24 Report Material objects marked on behalf of the Nil prosecution: Witnesses examined for the defence Nil Documents marked on behalf of the Nil defence VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City. 34
[ad_1]
Source link