Bangalore District Court
Chethan Lakshmi vs R.J. Yogesh on 4 August, 2025
KABC030327132009
Presented on : 22-12-2009
Registered on : 22-12-2009
Decided on : 04-08-2025
Duration : 15 years, 7 months, 13 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., LL.B.
XXX ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.31563/2009
(Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence -----------
Complainant State by Konanakunte Police Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused R.J.Yogesh,
S/o. Jayaraj,
Aged about 26 years
Judgment 2 C.C.No.31653/2009
R/at. Rameshwara Village,
Palya, Hobli,
Halur Taluk,
Hassan District.
Offences U/s.386, 506(B), 507 of IPC.
Plea/Charge Recorded on 04.09.2024 and
Accused is Pleaded not guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On 27.11.2024
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Final Oder Accused is Acquitted
Date of Order 04.08.2025
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Konanakunte Police Station
has filed charge sheet against accused for the offences
punishable U/s.386, 506(B), 507 of IPC.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.31653/2009
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as
follows:-
It is alleged that, the complainant filed a private
complaint against the accused stated that, the accused and
Cw.1 marriage had been solemnized on 19.12.2007. After
some days of marriage the accused not taken care of the Cw.1,
due to that the Cw.1 went back to her parental house. Further
on 20.10.2008 at about 08.00 PM, the accused went to the
house of Cw.1 and picked up the quarrel with Cw.1 abused her
in filthy language and made public to gather and insulted her
in the public and given life threat to the Cw.1 by showing
deadly weapon to Cw.1 and made her scared and thereby the
accused has committed the above offences punishable
U/s.386, 506(B), 507 of IPC.
03. After filing the complaint, the sworn statement of the
complainant has been recorded and cognizance taken against
Judgment 4 C.C.No.31653/2009
the accused for the offenses punishable U/s.386, 506(B), 507
of IPC. In view of service of summons, the accused appeared
and enlarged on bail and documents the accused as per
section 207 of Cr.PC. Then plea has been recorded for the
offenses punishable U/s.386, 506(B), 507 of IPC. The accused
denied and said he has no defense to make out.
04. In order to secure the Cw.2 to 5 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 25 years old one. Hence, the
said witnesses are dropped after given sufficient opportunities
to prosecution. In this regard relied on the following Hon’ble
High Court, full bench Judgment of the Madras High Court,
passed in The State ( Tamil Nadu) V/s Veerappan and
Others, on 24 March 1980, AIR 1980 MAD260-ILR 3 MAD
245 where in it held as below:
Judgment 5 C.C.No.31653/2009
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 for 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
Judgment 6 C.C.No.31653/2009
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
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
Judgment 7 C.C.No.31653/2009
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.
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.
Judgment 8 C.C.No.31653/2009
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.
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
Judgment 9 C.C.No.31653/2009
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
the 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
Judgment 10 C.C.No.31653/2009at 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
Judgment 11 C.C.No.31653/2009the Court, being left with no other alternative
would 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, present case on hand, Cw.2 to 5 are dropped, who
were not secured since long time. In order to prove the guilt of
the accused, the prosecution has examined 04 witnesses as
PW.1 to PW.4 and 08 documents got marked as Ex.P.1 & P.8.
05. Thereafter examination of accused under Sec.313 of
Cr.P.C. is recorded, where in accused denied the incriminating
evidence in the prosecution case and not chosen to lead his
side evidence.
06. Heard both the side and perused the material
evidence on record.
Judgment 12 C.C.No.31653/2009
07. The following points would arise for my
consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, the
complainant filed a private complaint
against the accused stated that, the
accused and Cw.1 marriage had been
solemnized on 19.12.2007. After some
days of marriage the accused not taken
care of the Cw.1, due to that the Cw.1
went back to her parental house. Further
on 20.10.2008 at about 08.00 PM, the
accused went to the house of Cw.1 and
picked up the quarrel with Cw.1 abused
her in filthy language and made public to
gather and insulted her in the public and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/sec., 506(B) of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt that,
the accused given life threat to the Cw.1
by showing deadly weapon to Cw.1 and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/sec.,386 of IPC?
Judgment 13 C.C.No.31653/2009
3. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the
accused by showing deadly weapon to
Cw.1 and made her scared and thereby
committed an offence punishable U/sec.,
507 of IPC?
4. What order.?
08. My findings on the above points are as
follows:
Point No.1 : In The Negative
Point No.2 : In The Negative
Point No.3 : In The Negative
Point No.4 : In The Negative
Point No.5 : As per final orderREASONS
09. Point No.1 to 4 : These points are inter connected to
each other and have taken for discussion in common to avoid
repetition of the facts and evidence. The case of the
prosecution is already narrated at the inception of this
judgment hence, without repeating the same, I proceed to
Judgment 14 C.C.No.31653/2009appreciate the evidence on records. Further, I have carefully
perused the oral and documentary evidence on records, in my
humble opinion, some portion of the evidence is irrelevant,
hence without wasting much time on explaining its irrelevancy
this court proceeds to appreciate the material evidence.
10. The Cw.1 Chethana Lakshmi who is examined as
Pw.1 and she is the complainant/victim in this case, she
deposed in her evidence before the court that, her and
marriage of the accused before the court took place on
19.12.2007. Our marriage was registered on 23.01.2008. After
the marriage, the accused and she lived in accused village.
After the marriage, the accused used to come home late at
night after drinking alcohol and scold her and beat her. He
would also bring his friends to the house. When she
questioned the same with the accused about this, he said that
she had no right to ask him such questions and would beat
Judgment 15 C.C.No.31653/2009
her. The accused was working as a car driver. Later, he quit
that job. Since the accused quit his job, he could not pay the
house rent, electricity bill, water bill and groceries as he did
not have money. Then she told her parents about her problem.
Then they allowed us to stay at their house. The accused was
silent for about a month and a half while his parents were at
home. Then the accused continued his previous behavior. The
accused used to speak very badly to her. He would bring his
friends and scold them in groups and threaten to kill them.
When her parents asked the accused why he was doing this to
their daughter, the accused asked them for money, On
20.10.2008, between 7.30 and 8.00 pm, the accused, along
with 5-6 of his friends, came to house and abused her in filthy
language and assaulted her, threatened to cut her hair, kill her
and her family. While she was sleeping, the accused came
drunk and demanded her my parents withdraw the case filed
Judgment 16 C.C.No.31653/2009
against the accused. On 23.10.2008, she went to Jayanagar
Police Station and filed a complaint against the accused by
stating that the accused was coming to her study place and
disturbing her. The police did not take any action on the said
complaint. So she filed a complaint with the superiors. Since
they also did not take any action, she filed a private complaint
in the court against the accused.
Further, she stated that, she did not know what is
written in the Ex.P2 Spot Mahazar and it was signed by Cw.1
at the police station. As such, she partly hostile to the
prosecution case.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused had cross
examined the said witness, where in she stated that, she and
accused got, married on 19.12.2007 at Aluru Janardhana
Temple situated between Hassan and Sakaleshpura, further
on the date of incident ie., 20.08.2008, the accused came to
Judgment 17 C.C.No.31653/2009
house along with five people she do not know their names,
further she had not given any wound certificate to the court,
that, on the date of incident the accused and other five people
assaulted her, further she had not mentioned any of the
neighbors near the house in her complaint, further she stated
that, before filing this complaint she already filed a case
against the accused in dowry harassment case and she
further denied the rest of the suggestions put by the learned
counsel for the accused.
11. I have carefully perused the evidence of Pw.1, it is
clear that, she is not having any proof to show that, the
accused on the date of incident assaulted her, or abused her in
filthy language and given life threat to her. On the other hand,
the Pw.1 has not produced any document before the court to
show that the accused had assaulted and threatened by
showing deadly weapon to her.
Judgment 18 C.C.No.31653/2009
Further, as per the Ex.P1 complaint filed after a
lapse of more then 2 months, in this regard delay is concerned,
the Cw.1 has did not given any valid reasons in her complaint
or oral evidence. Further, in order to prove the same, the
prosecution have not produced any independent eye and
circumstantial evidence. On the other hand, the accused
persons was threatened to Cw.1 by showing the deadly weapon
is concerned, it was not produced by the Cw.1 or it is not
seized by the IO at the time of investigation. Further more the
Cw.1 partly hostile in her chief examination regarding the
Ex.P2 Spot Mahazar as discussed supra. Such being the case,
the Pw.1 evidence is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt as
discussed supra.
Hence, in the absence of proving the allegations made in
the Ex.P1, this witness evidence is not helpful to the
Judgment 19 C.C.No.31653/2009
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt.
12. In such a case, the complaint will have to give
credible and compelling reasons as to why there is more than
2 months delay in filing the complaint. However, in the
absence of such reasons, 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, held 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
Judgment 20 C.C.No.31653/2009
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
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
Judgment 21 C.C.No.31653/2009
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
Judgment 22 C.C.No.31653/2009
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
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.”
13. Thus, as analyzed by the Hon’ble Court in the
aforesaid judgments, even in the present case on hand, Cw-1
has not given adequate and credible reasons for why I am
lodging the complaint, after the incident lapse of more than 02
months late and under the conflicting and overwhelming the
Judgment 23 C.C.No.31653/2009
testimony of other relevant evidences in the said case. Further,
the Pw.1 has hostile regarding the spot mahazar that, she did
not know what was written it and signed to the said Ex.P2 at
the police station. Under such circumstances, 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.1 also lends sufficient
support to the said suspicion.
14. The Cw.8 K. Sadanand, who is examined as Pw.2
and IO in this case, in his evidence he deposed before the
court that, On 17.05.2009 at 09.00 am, Police Station PC No.
5385 presented the PCR, accepted it and registered it in Case
No. 274/2009, prepared a preliminary report and presented it
in the court, on 18.05.2009, a face-to-face panchanama was
conducted near the complainant’s house, then staff was
appointed to find the accused, then statement of Vinay Kumar
Judgment 24 C.C.No.31653/2009
and Anil were recorded, on 20.05.2009, the staff appointed to
find the accused reported that the accused was not found,
which was accepted and on 05.11.2009, since there was
evidence against the accused, he filed a charge sheet against
the accused.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused had cross
examined the said witness, where in he had denied the
suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.
15. The Cw.7 B.C.Narasappa, who is examined as Pw.3
and IO in this case, in his evidence he deposed before the
court that, on 19.09.2009 the Cw.9 had orally order to find
out the accused in Crime No.274/2009 and when he went to
address of the accused and enquired their, he came to know
that, the house is locked since long time and he came to the
police station and given his report before the Cw.8.
Judgment 25 C.C.No.31653/2009
Further, the learned counsel for the accused had cross
examined the said witness, where in he stated that, the Cw.8
had not given any notice to find out the accused and further
the Cw.8 not given any identification of the accused and
further he has denied the rest of the suggestions put by the
learned counsel for the accused.
16. The Cw.6 Santosh,who is examined as Pw.4, in his
evidence he deposed before the court that, On 20-05-2009, as
per the verbal instructions of wa-8 to find and produce the
accused under Police Crime No. 274/2009, he had traced the
address of the accused through the informant and went to the
said place. Since the said house has been locked for several
days and he has been missing, further he had given a report to
Cw.8.
17. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Judgment 26 C.C.No.31653/2009
Unless the guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt,
the accused can not be held guilty of the alleged offenses.
18. In the present case, it is important to note that the
Pw.1 is the material witness/complainant has not proved her
allegations against the accused with regard to the Ex.P1,
further most important the Pw.1 had lodged 07 months delay
complaint against the said accused and not given the sufficient
reasons for delay of the complaint. Further the IO’s Pw.2 to 4
they deposed as per their investigation of the case and the
Pw.2, IO has not taken any material proof of evidence
regarding the life threat and assault by the accused and his
friends who were present on the date of incident. Further the
IO has not seized any deadly weapon as mentioned in the
Ex.P1. Hence, in his investigation lacuna is there. Therefore,
his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt
of the accused with regard to Ex.P1. Under such
Judgment 27 C.C.No.31653/2009
circumstances, it is difficult to believe the version of the the
Pw.1 to 4 regarding the offences committed by the accused as
alleged by the Pw.1. Moreover, in the non availability of the
evidence of independent material witnesses regarding the
complainant allegation and spot mahazar, it is not safe to rely
on the evidence of PW.1 to 4 in proving the guilt of the
accused, without any corroborative and material evidence as
discussed supra. As such the accused at the initial stage itself
they are certainly would be entitled to benefit of the doubt.
Regarding the same, I relied on the following judgment, 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
Judgment 28 C.C.No.31653/2009prosecution, the court has a 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.”
19. n the present case, it is important to note that the
circumstantial material witness and IO witnesses have not
proved the alleged commission of the offences by the accused
with corroborative evidence. As such the accused has certainly
would be entitled to benefit of the doubt, since no
Judgment 29 C.C.No.31653/2009
corroborative evidence of the witnesses against the accused to
prove the prosecution case. Hence, the accused is entitled to
the benefit of the reasonable doubt. By considering all these
aspects the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I answer to
the Point No.1 to 4 in the Negative.
20. POINT NO.5: In view of the above findings on Points
No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Powers Conferred upon me
U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused is hereby
Acquitted for the alleged offences
punishable U/s.386, 506(B), 507 of IPC.
The bail bond of Accused and surety
extended for further 6 months in order
to comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter,
Judgment 30 C.C.No.31653/2009this 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 this the 04th day of August-2025)
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B’lore.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Smt. Chethana Lakshmi
P.W.2 : Sri. K.Sadananda
P.W.3 : Sri. B.C.Narasappa
P.W.4 : Sri. Santosh
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Private complaint
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : C/c of Complaint
Ex.P.4 : C/c of Marriage Certificate
Ex.P.5 : Complaint
Ex.P.6 : FIR
Ex.P.7 : Report of Pw.3
Ex.P.8 : Report of Pw.4
Judgment 31 C.C.No.31653/2009
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION: Digitally signed
by THIMMAIAH
NIL THIMMAIAH G
G Date:
2025.08.12
14:50:34 +0530(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B’lore.
Judgment 32 C.C.No.31653/2009