Bangalore District Court
Leenabai vs Nirmala Bai on 4 August, 2025
KABC030725972015
Presented on : 04-11-2015
Registered on : 04-11-2015
Decided on : 04-08-2025
Duration : 9 years, 9 months, 0 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 04th day of August-2025
:Present: Sri.Thimmaiah.G B.A. LLB.
30th ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.25944/2015
Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.
Date of Offence 28.05.2014
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station,
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused A1. Smt. Nirmala Bai,
W/o. Lingoji Ram Mane,
A2. Smt. Sumithra
D/o. Lingoji Ram Mane,
A3. Shrath
S/o. Lingoji Ram Mane,
Judgment 2 C.C.No.25944/2015
All are R/at. No.C-18,
KEB Quarters,
Yadalum Nagara,
Subramanyapura Post,
Bengaluru City.
Offences U/s. 498-A and Sec., 3 & 4 of
the DP Act.
Plea Recorded on: 28.08.2018 and
accused persons are Pleaded not
guilty.
Examination U/sec., On 09.07.2025
313 of Cr.P.C recorded
on:
Final Oder Accused No.1 to 3 are Acquitted.
Date of Order 04.08.2025
Thimmaiah.G
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Subramanyapura Police Station has filed
charge sheet against accused persons for the offences
punishable U/s. 498-A of IPC and Sec.,3 & 4 of the DP Act.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.25944/2015
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
follows:-
It is alleged that, the Cw.1 and accused No.1 son by name
Bharath Ram Mane solemnized on 25.05.2008 at Benaka
Samudaya Bhavana, Guthalu Road, Mandya City and as per
the demand of the accused persons, the Cw.1 parents given
the golden ornaments and performed the said marriage. After
the marriage the Cw.1 was residing with accused persons
within the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura police station, at
that time, the accused persons started harassing the Cw.1 to
get more dowry from her parental house and used to assault
the Cw.1 by their hands and given mental and physical torture
to Cw.1. Further on 28.05.2014 the accused persons picked
up the quarrel with Cw.1 for the dowry matter and assaulted
her due to the torture of the accused persons family, the Cw.1
now residing with her parental house and thereby the accused
persons have committed the above said alleged offences which
are punishable U/s. 498-A of IPC and Sec., 3 & 4 of the DP
Act.
3. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the
offences punishable U/s. 498-A of IPC and Sec., 3 & 4 of the
DP Act against the accused persons. The accused persons
were released on bail. Copy of the prosecution papers
furnished to the accused persons as required U/Sec.207 of
Judgment 4 C.C.No.25944/2015
Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has been framed and read
over to the accused persons language known to them wherein
they have denied the same and claim to be tried.
4. In order to secure the Cw.3, 5 to 8, continuously this
court issued summons, NBW and proclamation. In spite of
that, the concerned police have failed to secure the said
witnesses. Moreover, this case is 10 years old one. Hence, the
said witnesses are dropped after given sufficient opportunities
to prosecution In this regard relied the Judgment of the
Madras High Court, passed in The State( Tamil Nadu) V/s
Veerappan and Others, on 24 March 1980, where in it held
as below:
2. Of the two questions which have been
referred to this Full Bench, the first one, namely,
whether under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., a
Magistrate can acquit the accused if the
prosecution fails to apply for the issue of
summons to any witness and does not produce
the witness for several hearings and does not
serve summons on the witnesses despite having
been granted sufficient opportunity to serve the
summons or to produce the witnesses, is the one
that directly arises for determination in these
appeals. The second question which arises for
determination by us incidentally is whether a
Magistrate can acquit the accused under Section
248(1) Cr. P. C., if the prosecution does not apply
Judgment 5 C.C.No.25944/2015for the issue of summons to any of the witnesses
and does not produce the witness for several
hearings and does not serve the summons on
the witnesses despite having been granted
sufficient opportunities to serve the summons on
the witnesses or to produce the witnesses.
3. In all these appeals, the learned
Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section
255(1) Cr. P. C., on the ground that even though
the cases had been posted for hearing on
various dates and summons had been issued
to the witnesses for all the hearings, the
witnesses were not produced on any of the
hearing dates and in spite of a notice issued
that the case would be disposed of without
examining the witnesses if they are not
produced the prosecution did not choose to let
in any evidence and as such the Magistrate
found that the prosecution had no evidence to
let in.
15. In State of Madh. Pra. v. Kaluthawar,
1972 Cri LJ 1639, a Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as
follows: “It was the duty of the prosecution to
make necessary arrangements for the
production of its witnesses…. The Police must
always remember that it has got a duty to the
court and they cannot just send a challan and
think that the rest will be done by the court.
When nobody appeared in t he court to inform
Judgment 6 C.C.No.25944/2015
what the reason was for non-appearance of the
witnesses, the court could legitimately come to
the conclusion that the police was not very
serious in prosecuting the offence which was a
minor one. Under Section 245, the Magistrate
can record an order of acquittal if there is no
evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the
prosecution did not take proper steps to produce
the witnesses, or ask the court to give them
time to do the same, or to issue fresh summons,
the court was not bound to fix another date.
The police has a duty towards the citizen.
When the accused is brought before the court
and the prosecuting department does not take
any steps it will be an abuse of the process of
the court to continue the trial. Bringing a person
before the court accusing him of some offence is
a serious matter and however petty the offence
may be, the prosecuting department, must do
its duty towards the accused as well as the
court. When once the accused is challaned
there is no privilege given to the police to remain
absent”.
16. There are quite a number of decisions in
which it had been held that an acquittal of the
accused on the failure of the prosecution to
produce the witnesses is not legal. (Vide State
v. Kaliram Nandlal, ), the State of Mysore v.
Ramu, 1973 Mad LJ (Crl.) 116: (1973 Cri LJ
1257) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Kalilulla Ahmed
Sheriff. AIR 1971 Mys 60; Kanduri Misra v.
Judgment 7 C.C.No.25944/2015
Sabadev Kunda, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 295; State of
Orissa v. Sibcharan Singh, ; State of Mysore v.
Somala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 476: (1972 Cri LJ
1478) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Shanta, 1972
Mad LJ (Cri) 589 (Mys); State v. Nagappa, 1973
Cri LJ 548 (Mad); Public Prosecutor v.
Sambangi Mudaliar, ; State of Kerala v.
Kunhiaraman, 1964 Mad LJ (Cri) 330 (Ker);
State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda, AIR 1965
Mys 167; State of Gujarat v. Thakorbhai
Sukhabhai, , State of U.P. v. Ramjani, All LJ
1126; Lakshmiamma Kochukuttiamma v.
Raman Pillai, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 268; State v.
Madhavan Nair, 1959 Mad LJ (Cri) 633 (Ker);
Emperor v. Varadarajulu Naidu, AIR 1932 Mad
25 (2); State of Kerala v. Desan Mary, 1960
Mad LJ (Cri) 378 (Ker); Kesar Singh v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir, 1963-1 Cri LJ 765: (AIR
1963 J & K 23); R. K. V. Motors and Timbers
Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority,
Trivandrum, ; K. K. Subbier v. K. M. S.
Lakshmana Iyer, 1942 Mad WN (Cri) 64: (AIR
1942 Mad 452 (1)); State of Tripura v. Niranjan
Deb Barma, 1973 Cri LJ 108 (Tripura); Apren
Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri)
10: (1972 Cri LJ 1162) (Ker). As against these
decisions, there are the following decisions in
which it has been held that acquittal on the
ground of non-production of witnesses by the
prosecution was proper.
Judgment 8 C.C.No.25944/2015
23. On the question as to whether the
Magistrate can acquit an accused at all under
Section 251A (11), Cr. P. C., if the prosecution
failed to produce their witnesses, a Division
Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed in
State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya (1962)’2 Cri
LJ 537 (2), as follows: “Where a charge Is
framed In a warrant case on police report, if
owing to the failure of the prosecution to
produce their witnesses and owing also to the
failure of the prosecution to make full
endeavour to serve the summonses according
to the provisions contained in Sections 69, 70
and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there is no evidence
before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can acquit
the accused under Section 251A (11).”
” In State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti
1980 Mad LJ 138: (1980 CA LJ NOC 129), a
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
referring to the decisions in State of Mysore v.
Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR
1965 Mys 167) and the State of Mysore v. Abdul
Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys LJ 4: (1970 Cri LJ
112 (Mys)), observed that the real distinction
between the two decisions is as to whether
there was remissness and want of diligence on
the part of the prosecuting agency in producing
the witnesses before the Court and therefore the
principle laid down in Abdul Hameed Khan’s
case applied to the facts of the case with which
Judgment 9 C.C.No.25944/2015the Division Bench was concerned. We may riots
here that in Abdul Hameed Khan’s case, it was
found on the facts that the prosecution was not
at all diligent as the non-bailable warrants
issued to the witnesses had neither been served
nor returned to the court by the concerned police
and it was therefore held that where the
prosecution was not diligent in producing its
witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable
warrants on the witnesses and return the same
the Magistrate would be justified in refusing to
grant an adjournment and to proceed to acquit
the accused on the material on record. We may
note here that in State of Karnataka v.
Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138 the Division
Bench was dealing with a24. After carefully
considering all the aforesaid decisions and the
views expressed therein, we are of the view that
if the prosecution had made an application for
the issue of summons to its witnesses either
under Section 242(2) or 254(2) of the Criminal
Procedural Code it is the duty of the court to
issue summons to the prosecution witnesses
and to secure the witnesses by exercising all the
powers given to it under the Criminal Procedure
Code, as already indicated by us and if still the
presence of the witnesses could not be secured
and the prosecution also either on account of
pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does not
produce the witnesses after the Court had given
it sufficient time and opportunities to do so, then
the Court, being left with no other alternative
Judgment 10 C.C.No.25944/2015would be justified in acquitting the accused for
want of evidence to prove the prosecution case,
under Section 248, Cr. P. C., in the case of
warrant cases instituted on a police report and
under Section 255(1), Cr. P. C. in summons
cases, and we answer the two questions
referred to us in the above terms.
Hence, considering the present case on hand, the Cw.3,
5 to 8, are dropped from the case. Further, the Cw.2 is given
up as prayed by the Ld.Sr.APP. Further, the Cw.11 as reported
dead. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons the
prosecution has examined 05 witnesses as PW.1 to 5 and 07
documents got marked as Ex.P1 to P7.
5. Thereafter examination of the accused persons
U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, the accused persons have
denied the incriminating evidence in the prosecution case and
not chosen to lead their side evidence. No documents are got
marked on their behalf.
6. Heard both sides and perused the evidence available
on record.
7. Upon hearing arguments advanced from both sides
and on perusal of materials placed on record, following points
arise for my consideration:
Judgment 11 C.C.No.25944/2015
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that, the
Cw.1 and accused No.1 son by name
Bharath Ram Mane was solemnized on
25.05.2008 at Benaka Samudaya
Bhavana, Guthalu Road, Mandya City
and as per the demand of the accused
persons, the Cw.1 parents given the
golden ornaments and performed the said
marriage and thereby the accused
persons have committed the offence
punishable U/sec.,3 & 4 of DP Act ?
2.Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that, after the
marriage the Cw.1 was residing with
accused persons within the jurisdiction of
Subramanyapura police station, at that
time, the accused persons started
harassing the Cw.1 to get more dowry
from her parental house and used to
assault the Cw.1 by their hands and given
mental and physical torture to Cw.1 and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/sec., 498-A of IPC?
3. What order.?
8. My findings to the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per final order
for the following:
Judgment 12 C.C.No.25944/2015
REASONS
9. POINTS NO.1& 2: These points are inter connected
to each other and have taken for discussion in common to
avoid repetition of the facts and evidence. Further, I am of the
opinion that, I need not repeat the entire case of the complaint
here also, since I have already narrated the same at the
inception of this judgment.
10. The Cw.12 Arjun, who is examined as Pw.1 and IO
in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court
that, On 15.03.2015, Cw.11 registered a case, prepared a
preliminary report, conducted a panchanama and handed over
the file to him. On 16.03.2015, he recorded the statements of
witnesses from Cw.2 to 6, received photographs from Cw.1,
then received the injury certificate on 25.09.2015, then Cw.1
gave the injury certificate dated 16.04.2015, and then filed the
charge sheet against the accused persons.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused persons had
cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that, he
did not eqnuired about the 10 months delay of complaint by
the complainant and nor called the complainant husband for
investigation and further denied the rest of the suggestions put
by the learned counsel for the accused persons.
Judgment 13 C.C.No.25944/2015
11. The Cw.1 Smt. Leena Bai, who is examined as Pw.2
and complainant/victim in this case and she has deposed in
her evidence before the court that, On 25.05.2008, I got
married to Bharat Rao Mane in Mandya and my marriage was
arranged by her mother and brother. Cw-2 is her mother. Cw-3
and 4 are her brothers. The accused No.1 in this case is her
mother-in-law. The accused No.1 is her husband sister and the
accused No.3 is her husband brother. After marriage, she and
her husband and other accused persons were lived in
Bangalore. After the marriage, the accused persons used to
physically and mentally torture her. In this regard, she filed a
complaint at Subramanyapura Police Station on 25.12.2010.
Then the accused persons had written a confession at the
police station. At that time, she had a daughter. Later, she
came to her mother-in-law’s house and her second child was
also a daughter. The accused persons tortured her and threw
her out of the house because, she had two daughters. Then
her husband and she started living in a separate house. The
accused persons used to come there too. On 28.05.2014 at
12.00 am, the accused persons tried to kill her and her
daughter in front of her husband and took away one earring
from her left ear, two gold bangles and a mangalya chain from
her house. They used to harass her to bring dowry from her
parental house. They used to torture her to bring ornaments
Judgment 14 C.C.No.25944/2015and money when her mother went home. Before that, also she
had given money and ornaments to the accused persons as
dowry. Later she went to the police station and filed a
complaint about the incident. After filing the complaint, she
went to the hospital and got treatment for the injuries she
sustained due to the assault of the accused persons. After the
complaint, the police came to her house on 15.03.2015. There,
the police conducted the Mahajar, taken her signature on the
said document.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused persons has
been cross examined the said witness, where in she stated
that, she had given written complaint but, the said complaint
is typed one but she do not who typed the said complaint and
also she do not know when the said complaint was typed,
further denied the contents of the Ex.P1 complaint, but she
knows the contents of which she had written complaint in her
hand writing, she do not know, that the accused No.2 is got
married on 13.05.2004, but, the accused No.2 got married
before her marriage, on 25.12.2010 when she had given her
first complaint, at that time, she had given complaint against
her husband also, further she had not produced the said
complaint and affidavit before the police, further stated that,
since 25.12.2010 she and her husband was staying separate
in Maruthi Nagara, but further stated that, from 25.12.2010
Judgment 15 C.C.No.25944/2015she and her husband is leaving separately, further, she had
not lodged any criminal case against her husband, further
denied the suggestions of the learned counsel for the accused
persons.
12. I have carefully perused oral evidence of Pw.2, where
in she admittedly that she do not know the contents of the
Ex.P1, which is typed one, further she had not placed the
documents pertaining to her previous complaint and affidavit
given by the accused persons as alleged in her chief
examination. Further she had admitted that since 25.12.2010
she and her husband is leaving separately. Under such
circumstance, arised the doubt regarding physical harassment
as alleged by her and more importantly she had filed the
present complaint 10 months delay after the incident. On the
other hand, there is a lot of contradiction and improvements in
her oral evidence with regard to the Ex.P1.Further the Pw.2
had not given valid reasons for delay of lodging the complaint
Ex.P1. Further, there is no eye witness as supportive evidence
to the allegation of Pw.2.
13. In such a case, the complaint will have to give
credible and compelling reasons as to why there is 10 months
delay in filing the complaint. It is suspected that, the
complaint is self-inflicted. It may be cited in this context that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the following decided judgment,
Judgment 16 C.C.No.25944/2015held that, it is not possible to treat the allegations of an
unsubstantiated complaint without doubt and that such
belated complaints are afterthought complaints its held in:
1) (2003) 12 SCC 675 (DB) State of Madhya Pradesh V/s
Kariparam
2) (2007) 12 SCC 332 Vikram V/s State of Maharashtra.
3) (2014) 9 SCC 365 Ramaiah V/s State of Karnataka.
” 16. We are conscious of the fact that in such cases,
sometimes there may be delay in lodging the FIR for various
valid reasons. However, it is important that those reasons
come on record. is no explanation worth the name given by
the complainant as to why the complainant maintained
stoic silence. In this backdrop, the testimony of these witness
alleging dowry demand has to be tested more stringently
and with some caution. On that touchstone, when we
analyse the statements, we find the contradictions therein, as
pointed out by the learned trial court, become very
appealing and meaningful. ”
25. ” We may hasten to add here that many times in such
type of cases, there can be reasons for keeping quiet at the
given time and not reporting the matter immediately.
Therefore, we are conscious of the legal position that delay
per se may not render prosecution case doubtful as there
may be various reasons for lodging the Fir with some delay
(see Sahebrao V. Sate of Maharashtra.) Thus, there is no
hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would
automatically render the prosecution case doubtful.
However, what is emphasised is that if that was so, it was
Judgment 17 C.C.No.25944/2015
necessary for the prosecution to at least come forward with
the the explanation as to why the complainant kept quiet
and why he did not report the matter to the police
immediately. No such explanation is coming forward in the
present case. Moreover, in the instant case, the delay is seen
as fatal when examined in juxtaposition with other material
that has come on record and discussed above, which shakes
the veracity of the prosecution case, bringing it within the
four corners of doubtful prosecution story. ”
(2008) 15 SC 582 State of Andhra Pradesh N
Madhusudan Rao. In the said judgment also it may be
noted that the learned Court has mentioned as follows
“30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt
lodging of the first information report has been highlighted.
Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than
not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a
creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets
bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the
introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account
of the incident or a concocted story as a result of
deliberations and consultations, also creeps. In casting a
serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the
delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.
31. In the present case, as noted supra, the first information
report in regard to the alleged occurrence on 19.04.1996 was
lodged on 22.05.1996. Admittedly, after her discharge from
the hospital on 22.04.1996, the complainant went to her
parents house and resided there. In her testimony, the
complainant has deposed that since no one from the family
of the accused came to en-quire about her welfare, she
decided to lodge the first information report. No explanation
Judgment 18 C.C.No.25944/2015
worth the name for delay in filing the complaint with the
police has come on record. We are of the opinion that this
circumstance raised considerable doubt regarding the
genuineness of the complaint and the veracity of the evidence
of the complainant (PW-1) and her father (PW-3) rendering it
unsafe to base the conviction of the respondent upon it.
Resultantly, when the substratum of the evidence given by the
complainant (PW-1) is found to be unreliable, the prosecution
case has to be reject in its entirely.”
14. Thus, as analyzed by the Hon’ble Court in the
aforesaid judgments, even in the present case, Pw.2 has not
given adequate and credible reasons for lodging the complaint
10 months late and under the conflicting and overwhelming
testimony of other relevant evidences in the said case. It is
clear that a lot of doubt has been raised about the complaint
lodged after thinking and about the points in the said
complaint and the inconsistency evidences of the Pw.2 also
lends sufficient support to the said suspicion.
15. The Cw.4 Lokesh who is examined as Pw.3 and he is
the brother of Pw.2, he has deposed in his evidence before the
court, the Cw-1 who is his sister got married to Bharat Ram
Mane on 25.05.2008 at Benaka Samudra Bhavan on Guthalu
Road, Mandya. After marriage, Cw-1 lived with the accused
persons in her husband’s house. Cw-1 has two daughters.
Since marriage, the accused persons had been harassing Cw-
1. In 2010, a complaint was filed at the Subramanyapura
Judgment 19 C.C.No.25944/2015
police station and it was later settled. The accused personsn
assaulted the Cw-1 to bring gold and money, saying that Cw-1
had two daughters and no sons. On 28.05.2014, between
11.00 and 11.30 pm, the accused persons harassed Cw-1 and
grabbed her by the head and pulled her. The accused persons
threw Cw-1 out of the house. Then we went and took Cw-1
and he had given a statement to the police regarding the same.
16. I have carefully perused the oral evidence of Pw.3
who is the brother of complainant ie, Pw.2 and he had not
seen the incident directly. As such he is hearsay witness,
according to Indian Evidence Act Sec,60, the oral evidence
must be direct. Moreover, he is the family member of the Pw.2
and he may deposed in the interest of their family. Hence, this
court can not consider his evidence as proved one to prove the
guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
17. The Cw.9 Dr.H.V.Shivakumar is examined as Pw.4,
he has deposed in his evidence before the court that, on
29.05.2014 at 01-50 PM, the Cw-1 came to the hospital for
treatment after being assault along with Cw-4. When Cw-1
was examined, the following injuries were found. A wound on
the upper right arm that hurts when touched. A wound on the
neck that hurts when touched. A wound with swelling on the
forehead. A wound on the lower left elbow that hurts when
touched. A wound on the chest that hurts when touched. A
Judgment 20 C.C.No.25944/2015
wound on the back of the back that hurts when touched is
found. The above said injuries are simple in nature and
regarding the same he had given the wound certificate.
Further, the the learned counsel for the accused persons
had cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that,
Cw-1 did not tell him who assaulted her. It is correct that we
treat a person who usually has the type of injuries mentioned
in Ex.P6 based on her statement. It is correct that we know
that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P6 are all the injuries except
the injury number-3, which is mentioned in Ex.P6, are caused
by Cw1’s statement that she suffered. It is correct that the age
is not mentioned in the wound certificate Ex.P6. It is correct
that the injury mentioned in serial number 3 in Ex.P6 is likely
to occurred when a person accidentally fell down on a hard
ground and further denied the rest of suggestions put by the
learned counsel for the accused persons.
I have carefully perused the said doctor evidence,
admittedly there is no extreme injuries are found on Pw.2.
Further the Pw.2 did not told that the said alleged injuries
happened, but after the long time filed the present complaint.
Further, the doctor admitted that the said alleged injuries are
fresh wound or not is did not mentioned. Under such
circumstance, the above said doctor evidence did not helpful to
the prosecution case.
Judgment 21 C.C.No.25944/2015
18. The Cw.10 Dr. Pushparani, who is examined as
Pw.5, she has deposed in her evidence before the court that,
On 30-05-2014 at 01-15 pm, Cw-1 had already received
treatment at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore following the assault
and later came to our hospital for treatment. When the said
person was subjected to medical examination, the following
injuries were found. Painful injury on the top of the head
Painful injury on both shoulders Painful injury on both sides
of the chest and the middle part Painful injury on the neck
Painful injury on the left ear Painful injury on the right arm
Regarding the above injuries, we have advised Cw-1 to undergo
examination by the relevant specialist doctor and get X-rays
done and get treatment, but Cw-1 has not received treatment
for this. Later, I have informed Victoria Hospital about the
treatment I gave to Cw-1 as per Ex.P7, When she examined
Cw-1 in Ex.P7 the injuries were likely caused by a physical
assault by a person.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused persons had
cross examined the said witness, as per Ex.P7 when she
examined the Cw.1 she did not found any bleeding injuries
and further denied the rest of the suggestions put by the
learned counsel for the accused persons.
19. In the present case, victim and material witnesses
i.e Pw.2 was not supported to the prosecution case as proved
Judgment 22 C.C.No.25944/2015
one with cogent and believable evidence. On the other had, she
denied the contents of the Ex.P1 complaint and turned partly
hostile to the case more particularly regarding Ex.P1 typed
compaint, whch was filed after the 10 months late, after the
alleged incident. Further, at the time of alleged incident no
independent, circumstantial witnesses were present, except
Pw.2. Further there is lot of inconsistency and improvements
in her oral evidence. Further the Pw.1 who is the IO in this
case, he has deposed as per the investigation he had done and
submitted the charge sheet before the court. Further the Pw.3
who is the brother and hearsay witness to the case, where in
he had not seen the incident directly. It is well settled
possession of law that, the oral evidence must be direct, as per
Sec.,60 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further, the Pw.4 and 5
who are the doctor witnesses to the case and they deposed as
per their treatment given to the Cw.1 and regarding the same
they had given the wound certificate. Under such
circumstances, it is difficult to believe the version of the Pw.1
to PW.5 as discussed supra. Moreover in the absence of the
independent and eye witnesses and also in the absence of
valid reasons to delay of complaint, it is not safe to rely on the
evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 in proving the guilt of the accused
persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
Judgment 23 C.C.No.25944/2015
20. Further, the independent and rest of the material
witnesses Cw.3, 5 to 8, continuously this court issued
summons, NBW and proclamation. In spite of that, the
concerned police have failed to secure the said witnesses.
Moreover, this case is 10 years old one. Hence, this court
dropped the said Cw.3, 5 to 8. Such being the case, in the
absence of supportive and cogent evidence and also partly
hostile evidence of the Pw.1, it is not safe to relay on the police
official’s oral evidence who may deposed in favour of their own
investigation. On the other hand, it is important to note that,
the prosecution have not placed any believable and cogent
evidence as chain ling in order to prove the alleged commission
of the offences by the accused persons. Such being the case,
the prosecution has not proved the allegation made against the
accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, in
support of my above discussion, this court relied on the
following Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported Judgment which is,
held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 – AIR 2016 SC 4581 in para 56,
Hon’ble Apex held thus hereunder:
”56. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion
however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that
the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge
cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of ”may be
true”’ but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of
”must be true”. In a criminal prosecution, the court has
Judgment 24 C.C.No.25944/2015a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do
not take the place of legal proof and in a situation
where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the
backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent
miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended
to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be
reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or
non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial,
prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touchstone
of reason and common sense. It is also a primary
postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views
are possible on the evidence available one pointing to
the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence,
the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.”
21. Thus, the above Hon’ble Apex Court decision has
opt to the present case on hand and the accused persons are
entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. In the present
case, it is important to note that, in the absence of believable
and cogent evidence prosecution have not proved the alleged
commission of the offences by the accused persons with
corroborative evidence. As such the accused persons are have
certainly would be entitled at the initial stage itself. Hence, the
accused persons are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable
doubt. By considering all these aspects the prosecution utterly
Judgment 25 C.C.No.25944/2015
failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all
reasonable doubt. Therefore, I answer to Point No.1 & 2 in
the Negative.
22. POINT NO.3: In view of the above findings on Point
No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following.
: ORDER :
In the exercise of Powers Conferred U/Sec.
248(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 to 3 are hereby
Acquitted for the alleged offences punishable
U/sec,.498-A, of IPC and Sec.,3 & 4 of the DP Act.
The bail bond of Accused No.1 to 3 and
surety extended for further 6 months in order to
comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail
bond automatically stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and after corrections made by
me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on the 04th day of August-2025).
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
Judgment 26 C.C.No.25944/2015
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
P.W. 1 : Sri. Arjun
P.W.2 : Smt.Leena Bai
P.W.3 : Sri. Lokesh
P.W.4 : Sri. Dr.H.V.Shivakumar
P.W.5 : Smt. Dr. Pushparani
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P2(b) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P2 : FIR
Ex.P3 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P4 & 5 : Photos
Ex.P6 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P6(a) : Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P7 : MLC report
Ex.P8 : Signature of Pw.5
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
-NIL-
4. LIST OF THE MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION Digitally signed
by THIMMAIAH
-NIL- THIMMAIAH G
G Date:
2025.08.12
11:07:28 +0530(Thimmaiah G)
30th ACJM, Bengaluru.
Judgment 27 C.C.No.25944/2015