Bangalore District Court
Muniyamma vs Venkateshgowda on 20 January, 2025
KABC030378532021
Presented on : 22-06-2021
Registered on : 22-06-2021
Decided on : 20-01-2025
Duration : 3 years, 6 months, 28 days
IN THE COURT OF XXXII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT:
BENGALURU.
PRESENT
Sri. KESHAVA.K., B.A., LL.B.,
XXXII Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
th
Dated this 20 day of January 2025
C.C.No.13230 of 2021
Complainant : State by the Police Sub Inspector,
Nandini Layout police station,
Bengaluru.
[By Assistant Public Prosecutor]
- Vs -
Accused No. 1. Venkatesh Gowda,
S/o.Chikka Hanumaiah,
Aged about 46 years,
2. Madhu Malathi
W/o. Venkatesh Gowda,
Aged about 34 years,
3. Yashashwini
D/o. Venkatesh Gowda,
Aged about 19 years,
(Separate case to be filed before JJ
Board)-order sheet dated 16.02.2023
4. Tejashwini,
D/o. Venkatesh Gowda,
Aged about 20 years,
A1 to 4 are R/at.No.851, 9th cross,
2
C.C.13230/2021
Muneshwara Layout,Laggere
Main road, Laggere, Bengaluru.
5. Rama @ Shankar ,
S/o.Rangaswamy,
Aged about 40 years,
6. Lakshman @ M.R.Sundar,
S/o.Rangaswamy,
Aged Major
A5 and 6 are R/a.Mathkuru grama,
Kakolu Post, Hesarghatta hobli,
Bengaluru rural District,
[By H.B.G ... Advocate]
JUDGMENT
The charge sheet has been filed in this case by the Police Sub Inspector
of Nandini Layout police station against the accused No.1 to 6 for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 323, 342 r/w Sec.
149 of IPC along with offence U/s 24 of Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. Subsequently case against accused
No.3 is separated vide order dated 16.02.2023.
2. In briefly the case of the prosecution is as follows:-
It is the case of the prosecution that, during the lifetime of
Chikahanumaiah ie husband of C.W.1 purchased a site bearing No. 851,
9th cross, Muneshwara Layout, Laggere main road, Bengaluru and
obtained loan from the bank and built a four storied building consisting
of 16 houses and let them out for rent. C.W.6-Rohit Kumar ie the son of
C.W.1 and Chikkahanumaiah constructed a house in the said building and
was residing there. The C.W.1 and her husband purchased a site at
Thammenahalli Palya on Hesarghatta main road and built a sheet roofed
house and gave it to accused No.1. After the demise of husband of
C.W.1, the accused No.1 came to the house of C.W.1 along with his family
members ie accused No.2 to 4 and started living at the house of C.W.1.
The accused No.1 started harassing the C.W.1 by abusing and assaulting
her and demanded her to register the said house in the name of accused
3
C.C.13230/2021No.1 and threatened to kill her if she did not register the house in his
name. The C.W.1 lodged complaint against the accused No.1 at
Rajagopalanagar PS and the police directed the accused no.1 to give
monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/-to C.W.1. The accused No.1
did not give any maintenance amount, when the C.W.1 asked for the
maintenance amount the accused no.1 abused and assaulted C.W.1.
Further the accused No.1 and 2 had filed a civil suit against C.W.1, 3, 5
and 6. The accused No.1 forcefully took C.W.1 to the house at Nandini
Layout and did not provide her food and harassed her everyday for
giving share in the property to her daughters. That on 26.02.2020 the
accused No.1 stuffed a cloth piece in the mouth of C.W.1 and assaulted
her with a pipe on her hands, legs, buttocks and confined her in a room
without providing food and water and the accused No.2, 5 and 6
threatened to kill her and dump her body in a drain. In this regard the
C.W.1 lodged complaint against the accused before theNandini Layout
Police seeking necessary action against the accused in accordance with
law against him.
3. On the basis of the said complaint given by C.W.1, the complainant
police have registered the case under Crime No.78/2020 and sent FIR to
this Court and to their concerned higher authorities. Thereafter, the
complainant police have visited the spot and conducted the spot
mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses, herein after recorded
the statements of witnesses who availed in the station subsequently
who availed where the said mahazars have been drawn, after completion
of the investigation the IO has arived at a conclusion that there are
sufficient materials as to prosecute the accused , for which charge sheet
has been filed for the above said offences.
4. After filing of the charge sheet, this Court registered the case is as
numbered above, the accused No.1, 2, 4 to 6 appeared before court and
were enlarged on bail. Meanwhile copies of the charge sheet and other
4
C.C.13230/2021
prosecution papers were duly supplied as required under Section 207 of
Cr.P.C. Accused no.3- Yashashwini alleged to be minor at the time of
incident, hence a separate case is ordered to be filed before JJ Board.
After hearing both sides, this court found that there were sufficient
reasons so as to frame charge against the accused, therefore charge was
framed and read over and explained to the accused no.1, 2 and 4 to 6 in
the language known to them, after understanding the same they denied
the same and claimed to be tried, accordingly, proceeded with trial.
5. It is reported that the C.W.1 is dead. Further in order to prove its
case, the prosecution has failed to examine the circumstantial witnesses
ie C.W2 to 4 whose name mentioned in the charge sheet, even after
giving sufficient opportunity to the IO to secure the C.W. 2 to 4 before
the court. Further Learned A.P.P prayed that kindly issue summons to
remaining witnesses for the purpose of proving prosecution case. Hence,
on careful perusal of the documents since as per order dated 02.08.2024
recording of evidence of C.W.2 to 4 is dropped. Before that evidence of
C.W.7 has been recorded. Rest of the witnesses ie C.W. 5 and 6 were
given up as it would no purpose will be served if their evidence is
recorded. Consequently the statement of the accused as required
Under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with.
6. Heard both side arguments, in compliance of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.,
bail bonds was obtained from the accused .
7. In view of above said facts and circumstances the following points
that would arise for my consideration are as follows:-
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that after the demise of
husband of C.W.1, the accused No.1 came to the
house of C.W.1 along with his family members ie
accused No.2 to 4 and started living at the house
of C.W.1. The accused No.1 started harassing the
C.W.1 by abusing and assaulting her and
5
C.C.13230/2021demanded her to register the said house in the
name of accused No.1 and threatened to kill her
if she did not register the house in his name. The
C.W.1 lodged complaint against the accused No.1
at Rajagopalanagar PS and the police directed
the accused no.1 to give monthly maintenance
amount of Rs. 10,000/-to C.W.1. The accused
No.1 did not give any maintenance amount, when
the C.W.1 asked for the maintenance amount the
accused no.1 abused and assaulted C.W.1.
Further the accused No.1 and 2 had filed a civil
suit against C.W.1, 3, 5 and 6. The accused No.1
forcefully took C.W.1 to the house at Nandini
Layout and did not provide her food and harassed
her everyday for giving share in the property to
her daughters. That on 26.02.2020 the accused
No.1 stuffed a cloth piece in the mouth of C.W.1
and assaulted her with a pipe on her hands, legs,
buttocks and confined her in a room without
providing food and water and thereby the
accused have committed an offence of
“wrongful confinement” punishable under
section 342 r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that the
accused no.1, 2, 4 to 6 with an intention to
commit an offence and in furtherance of their
common object abused C.W.1 in filthy language
with regard to the property dispute thereby the
accused have committed an offence of
“intentional insult” punishable under section 504
r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves that the
accused no.1, 2, 4 to 6 with an intention to
commit an offence and in furtherance of their
common object assaulted C.W.1 with regard to
the property dispute thereby the accused have
committed an offence of “intentional insult”
punishable under section 323 r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves that the
accused no.1, 2, 4 to 6 with an intention to
commit an offence and in furtherance of their
common object accused No.1., 2, 4 to 6
threatened to kill C.W.1 if she did not register the
6
C.C.13230/2021
house in the name of C.W.1 and thereby the
accused have committed an offence of “criminal
intimidation ” punishable under section 506 r/w
Sec.149 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves that the
accused no.1 with an intention to commit an
offence and in furtherance of his intention the
accused No.1 started harassing the C.W.1 by
abusing and assaulting her and demanded her to
register the said house in the name of accused
No.1 and threatened to kill her if she did not
register the house in his name. The C.W.1 lodged
complaint against the accused No.1 at
Rajagopalanagar PS and the police directed the
accused no.1 to give monthly maintenance
amount of Rs. 10,000/-to C.W.1. The accused
No.1 did not give any maintenance amount and
thereby the accused commited the offence
punishable U/Sec. 24 of maintenance and welfare
of parents and senior citizens act 2007
6. What Order?
8. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point Nos.1 to 5 : In the ‘Negative’
Point No.6 : As per the final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 5: As these points are interlinked with each other I
have taken all these points together for common discussion in order to
avoid repetition of facts.
10. It is the allegation that the accused has committed the offences
punishable u/s.342, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Sec.24 of maintenance and
welfare of parents and senior citizens act 2007 In support of prosecution
case after framing of charge, being issued summons to C.W.1 is reported
to be dead, C.W.2 to 4 , who are said to be circumstantial witnesses they
could not be secured before the court inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, as such examination of C.W.2 to 4 is ordered to be
dropped, for which by considering the documents it depicts that here
7
C.C.13230/2021
the offences are not against the State or any other property of the State
so as to record evidence of remaining charge sheet witnesses. In fact it
exclusively affects the individual/C.W.1/victim, even if the prosecution
failed to secure C.W.2 to 4 before court, but C.W.7 is examined as P.W1,
the evidence of P.W.1 is not helpful to the prosecution as such by
recording evidence of remaining witnesses no purpose will be served,
except waste of precious time of this Court, as such after considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of Learned PP has
been rejected by mentioning the above said reasons. Therefore this
court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to
establish its case by producing and adducing reliable evidence. On that
reason I answer point no.1 to 5 in the Negative.
11. Point No. 6 : In view of my findings on point Nos.1 to 5 and reasons
assigned therein, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the
accused No.1, 2, 4 to 6 are not found guilty
and they are hereby acquitted of the offences
punishable under Secs.504, 506, 323, 342 r/w
Sec. 149 of IPC along with offence U/s 24 of
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act 2007.
The bail bond bonds executed by the
accused No.1, 2, 4 to 6 stands cancelled.
In compliance of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. the
bail bond executed by the accused No. 1, 2, 4
to 6 is ordered to be continued in force for six
months or till issuance of notice in respect of
8
C.C.13230/2021any appeal [if preferred] against the present
Judgment before the Appellate Court.
The property seized in this case if any, is
ordered to be disposed off in accordance with
law after appeal period is over.
(Judgment typed to my online dictation by the Stenographer, computerized copy
revised, corrected and signed & then pronounced in the Open court on this the 20 th day
of January 2025)(KESHAVA.K)
XXXII Addl.Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
:: A N N E X U R E ::
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1-RamakrishnaWITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:
– NIL –
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1-complaint
Ex.P.2-FIR
Ex.P.3-Spot mahazar
Ex.P.1(a), 2(a), 3(a)-Signatures of P.W1DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE:-
– NIL –
XXXII Addl.Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
[ad_1]
Source link