Bangalore District Court
Ramya Krishna vs Lenin A.S. Alias Lenin Sabastin on 22 January, 2025
KABC030035282020
Presented on : 16-01-2020
Registered on : 16-01-2020
Decided on : 22-01-2025
Duration : 5 years, 0 months, 6 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 22nd Day of January, 2025
C.C. No.868/2020
State by Hebbala Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Lenin.A.S. @ Lenin Sebastian,
Aged about 29 years,
S/o Sri Antony.S.,
R/a No.38, Flat No.-T5,
5th Main, Anandagiri Extension,
Near S.C.S. School, Hebbal,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bengaluru City.
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
2. Smt. Jaya Mary - Abated
Aged about 50 years,
W/o Sri Antony,
R/at No.1004, 2nd Main,
L.B.S. Nagar, Bengaluru.
3. Smt. Maria Vallarin,
Aged about 30 years,
W/o Sri Sathish Reddy,
R/at No.78/1, 1st Main, 8th Cross,
Malleshapalya, Bengaluru.
4. Sri Sathish Reddy,
Aged about 30 years,
S/o Sri Venkataramana Reddy,
R/at No.78/1, 1st Main, 8th Cross,
Malleshapalya, Bengaluru. ... Accused
(Represented By Sri. Prasad G V Adv.)
1. Date of commission of 27-07-2019 to
offence 27-07-2019
2. Name of Complainant Smt. Ramya Krishna.B.M.
3. Offences complained of Under Section 498(A), 504,
506 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code.
2
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
4. Charge Pleaded not guilty
5. Final Order Acquitted
6. Date of order 22-01-2025
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Hebbala Police
Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1
to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A),
504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 27-07-2019 at about
8.00 p.m. at Flat No.38, situated at 5 th Main Road,
Anandagiri Layout, within the limits of Hebbala Police
Station accused No.1 to 4 with common intention ill-
treated CW1 by abusing her with filthy language,
beaten her with hands and caused bleeding injuries.
Further the accused forced to CW1 to bring money
from her parental house and threatened her with dire
consequences, thereby subjected her to mental and
physical cruelty.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of
first information given by informant cum CW1 namely
Smt. Ramya Krishna, CW9/PW7 the PSI of Hebbala
3
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
police Sri Rajesh.M.V., registered Crime
No.128/2019 against the accused persons for the
offences punishable under Section 498(A), 504, 506
R/w Sec. 34 IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P5 and sent
the same to the Court and to his superior officers.
4. Investigation: After registration of case, he
drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 on 30-07-2019 in
the presence of CW2 and CW3 from 10 am to 11.15
a.m. and seized one blood stained top, recorded the
statement of requisite witnesses, collected the wound
certificate and discharge summary as per Ex.P3 and
Ex.P7 and submitted the charge sheet against
accused for the alleged offences.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took
cognizance of the offences alleged against the
accused.
6. At the pre-summoning stage, accused No.1
was enlarged on bail by the order dated 07-08-2019.
The accused No.2 to 4 were enlarged on bail by the
order dated14-12-2021.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required
U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the
accused No.1 to 4.
4
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and
counsel for accused No.1 to 4, charge for the offences
punishable U/Sec.498(A), 504, 506 read with Sec.34
of Indian Penal Code, 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. The case against accused No.2 is abated by
the order dated 21-03-2023 as she is reported to be
dead.
10. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in
order to establish its case cited 9 witnesses and
examined 7 witness and exhibited 6 documents and
closed their side. The examination of CW7 was
dropped out by order dated 07-07-2022 as he was
reported to be dead. Despite issuance of
proclamation, the prosecution has not secured the
CW2 and hence the examination of CW2 was
dropped out by the order dated 21-03-2023. The
examination of CW8 was given by the prosecution by
the order dated 06-10-2023.
11. Accused statement as per section 313 of
CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the
accused No.1, 3 and 4 were examined as per section
5
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all incriminating
evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution
witness and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
12. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on
the record.
13. The following point are arises for
consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on 27-07-2019 at
about 8.00 p.m. at Flat No.38,
situated at 5th Main Road,
Anandagiri Layout, within the
limits of Hebbala Police Station
the accused No.1, 3 and 4
along with abated accused No.2
with common intention ill-
treated CW1 by abusing her
with filthy language, beaten her
with hands and caused
bleeding injuries and subjected
her to both physical and mental
cruelty thereby resulted in
commission of the offences
6
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
punishable under Sec.498(A),
504 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on the above said
date, place and time, in
furtherance common intention
the accused No.1 threatened
CW1 with dire consequences
thereby resulted in commission
of an offence punishable
u/Sec.506 read with Sec.34 of
IPC?
3. What order?
14. The findings on the above points are as
under:
Point No.1-2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per final order
REASONS
15. Point No.1 & 2: These points are taken up
together for the purpose of common discussion in
7
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the
same part of transaction. In support of prosecution
case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for
consideration in paragraph 13 of this judgment, the
prosecution examined the following witnesses which
are as follows:
i. CW1 by name Smt. Ramya Krishna being
Informant examined as PW1 deposed that she
married accused No.1 in December 2017, after
marriage accused No.1 started ill-treating her under
the influence of alcohol, accused No.2 to 4 humiliate
her and insisted to bring money from her parental
house by stating that they have raised loans and they
have to pay rent of house. When she conceived, they
continued ill-treating and raised huge loan from
outsiders. Later, she delivered child and staying with
her parental house, then the accused No.1 told her
that the money lenders are insisting for repayment of
loans and asked her to join him by leaving the child
with her parents and also to do some job and assured
to arrange other separate house in Hebbal.
Therefore by raising loan from her sister, she
arranged a house in Hebbal, initially, accused No.1
assured to do some job and brought her child to the
said house, but he continued to consume alcohol and
harass her for money. She joined a job as
Receptionist in Aster CMI Hospital, on 27-07-2019,
the accused No.1 beaten her which caused severe8
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020bleeding injuries on her face and nose, immediately,
CW4, his father and driver took her to Bagepalli
Government Hospital and a Police Official of Hebbal
Police Station visited Hospital and recorded her First
Information Statement on 29-07-2019 as per Ex.P1,
police have conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 and
seized one blood stained top as per MO1. She
identified her signatures as per Ex.P1(a) and 2(a).
ii. CW2 by name Sri Franklin D’Souza, examined
as PW2 deposed that he knows PW1 through her
father and had been to their house after 2-3 years of
marriage of PW1. At that time there was some quarrel
between PW1 and her husband. On 27-07-2019 at
morning,the father of PW1 had called him over phone
and informed that some quarrel is going between PW1
and the accused, on the same day at about 5.30 PM,
he and elder sister of PW1 had been to house of PW1
situated at Hebbal, at that time, the accused beaten
and abused PW1 in filthiest language and then he left
the house. PW1 caused bleeding injuries, after
enquiry, he knew about the incident, they took her to
government hospital of Bagepalli for treatment. PW1
informed him that the accused and his family
members i.e. mother, sister and husband of sister are
ill-treating her for several days and they used to
provoke PW1 to quarrel with them.
9
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
iii. CW3 by name Smt. Padma examined as PW3
deposed that she knows CW1 since she was kid,
CW1 and accused No.1 had love marriage and they
were residing in Hebbal. On 27-07-2019 at 8 p.m.
she had been to CW1’s house, at that time accused
No.1 and CW1 were quarreling with each other,
accused was abusing CW1 in filthy language and also
beaten through his fist on her face, due to that there
was bleeding from her mouth, he also threatened her
with deadly consequences.
iv. CW7 by name Dr.Sri M.Madhusudhan
examined as PW4 and deposed that from 2018 to
2019 he was worked as Emergency Physician at
Bagepalli General Hospital. On 28-07-2019 he
examined CW1 at 4.30 a.m. with history of assault on
27-07-2019 and treated for the lacerated wound on
the left side of upper lip 1×0.5 cms, contusion on the
left side of lower lip 1×1 cm, tenderness in the upper
back, left lower jaw and in the frontal area of the
scalp and hence he issued wound certificate as per
Ex.P3 and the said injuries are simple in nature and
the same could be occur if anybody assaults by hand.
v. CW5 by name Sri Ravi examined as PW5
pleaded ignorance about the prosecution case and
deposed that he has not given any statement before
the police. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP cross10
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020examined this witness by treating him as hostile
witness but no favorable answer has been elicited
from him to support the prosecution case. His denial
of statement given before the police is marked as
Ex.P4.
vi. CW4 Smt. Thejaswini examined as PW6 and
deposed that CW1 is her sister and accused is
husband of CW1, in December 2017, CW1 married to
accused, without their knowledge. Later CW1
informed her about their marriage and she came to
know that she was not happy with accused as there
were quarrels between them, accused never used to
go to work and he used to ask money from them. In
the year 2018 CW1 gave birth to male child at Baptist
Hospital, she and her father took care of medical
expenditure of child of CW1, thereafter accused
requested her to help him financially to make
separate house, accordingly, they provided separate
house and basic necessities to accused. Inspite of
separate house accused again started ill treating CW1
and on 27-07-2019, when she went to CW1’s house
and saw that CW1 was bleeding as accused had
beaten her on face and mouth by fist, then she took
her for treatment to Government Hospital, Bagepalli
and she had given statement before police.
11
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
vii. Sri Rajesh.V.M., the then PSI of Hebbala PS
examined as PW7 and deposed that on 28-07-2019
at about 10.30 p.m. he recorded the statement of
CW1 at Bagepalli Government Hospital in the
presence of Doctor as per Ex.P1, on the basis of said
complaint he registered FIR as per Ex.P5, drawn spot
mahazar as per Ex.P2 on 30-07-2019 from 10 to 11
a.m., in the presence of CW2 and CW3 and seized one
blood stained top and subjected the same under PF
No.78A/2019 and on the same day he collected the
discharge summary from Baptist Hospital as per
Ex.P6. On 02-08-2019, police produced accused
No.1 before him, he recorded his voluntary statement.
He recorded the statements of CW3 to CW6. On 24-
09-2019 he secured wound certificate of CW1 as per
Ex.P7 from CW7 and submitted charge sheet against
accused. He identified his signatures as per Ex.P1(b),
2(b), 3(b), 5(a) and 6(a).
16. Evidence of Prosecution must be established
that the accused started torturing her either for bring
money from her parents or for any other reason. 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
12
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
reported in (2003) 12 SCC 368. Basing this decision,
the present cases are taken up for discussion.
17. 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 for13
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020any 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;
(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.
18. 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.
14
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
M. Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 15 SCC
582.
19. 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.
20. No doubt, this court cannot expect any
evidence for the matrimonial offences when it was
taken place within the four walls and hence cannot
expect any witnesses. It is not in dispute that the
PW1 is a Hindu and the accused No.1 is a Christian
and was a love marriage who got married in the
Church at Viveknagar Bangalore and the PW1 had
given birth to a boy baby on 14/09/2018 as per
Ex.P6. It appears from the Ex.P1 that the accused
and the PW1 had a cordial married life for one month
however PW1 deposed in the chief in examination
15
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
that the accused No. 1 used to come home under
influence of alcohol and abuse her in filthy language
after two to three days of marriage which is contrary
to her own complaint.
21. It appears from the cross examination of
PW1 that
ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಮದುವೆ ಪ್ರೀತಿಸಿ
ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿದ್ದು ನಮ್ಮ ಮದುವೆಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡನ ಕಡೆಯವರು
ಮಾತ್ರ ಬಂದಿದ್ದರು. ನನ್ನ ಸಹೋದರಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಮದುವೆ 1ನೇ
ಆರೋಪಿ ಜೊತೆ ಇಷ್ಟ ಇಲ್ಲದ ಕಾರಣ ನಮ್ಮ ಮದುವೆಗೆ
ಬಂದಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನಾವಿಬ್ಬರು ಪ್ರೀತಿಸಿ
ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿರುವ ವಿಚಾರ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು
ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ಮದುವೆಗೆ ಮೊದಲು ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ
ಗಂಡನ ನಡುವೆ ವರದಕ್ಷಿಣೆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ
ಮಾತುಕತೆಯಾಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ
ಬಾಗೇಪಲ್ಲಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೆಸರಾಂತ ವಕೀಲರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಹಾಗೂ
ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ತಾಯಿ ಬಾಗೇಪಲ್ಲಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
Thus, it is clear that there was no discussion of
dowry as it was a love marriage and more so, the PW1
had got married without knowing to her parents.
Hence the question of harassing the PW1 for fetching
money from her parents for clearing the loans and
payments of rents does not arise.
22. It appears from the complaint that the
accused No.1 did not go to work and was making the
PW1 to get the money from her parents for meeting
16
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
out his expenses and payments of rents and bills
and was not repaying the same. There is no itoa of
single piece of evidence that the PW1 had taken the
money from her father and the same was given to the
accused No.1.
23. It appears from the Ex.P1 complaint that the
accused No. 1 under the influence of alcohol used to
beat her day in day out and abused her in filthiest
language but IO-PW7 could have investigated from
the inhabitants of HAL where the PW1 was staying
with accused No.1 to 4 to ascertain the truthiness of
the said allegation. If the accused No.1 was indulged
in alcohol and was abused her in bad words and was
beating her day in day out, she could have informed
to her father, who is a well known advocate of
Bagepalli. If the PW1 was harassed day in day out,
the atmosphere would be knowing to the neighbours
however the best known reasons why the PW7-IO did
not take any attempts to investigate the
inhabitants/neighbours of in-laws house of HAL.
24. It is a custom in the Hindu family that the
delivery of first child has to be borne by the girl’s
family and hence such being the case, the father of
PW1 had taken care of medical expenses does not
amount to cruelty.
17
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
25. PW1 has given her evidence that she has
taken loans from her sister to make a separate house
at Hebbal but after making the separate house, the
accused No.1 did not mend his ways as he used to
take money from CW4 for buying milk rather he used
to buy alcohol but the said statement appears to be
unacceptable as one hand they claim that the
accused No.1 is an alcoholic person and such being
the case, how the CW4 could have given the money to
the accused No.1 and why not transferred the money
to the PW1.
26. It appears from the record that accused No.1
was an alcoholic person however no medical
certificate was produced to that effect to know about
his health condition to corroborate the statement of
prosecution witnesses.
27. According to the prosecution that the
accused no. 1 and the PW1 was staying separately at
Hebbal before the alleged incident almost from six (6)
months. It is case of prosecution that on 27/07/2019
at 8 pm, that the accused No.1 had mercilessly
beaten the PW1 and on account of she sustained
bleeding injuries on her face. PW1 deposed that PW1
and accused No.1 was present when the alleged
incident was taken place whereas on the other hand
PW2 and PW3 deposed that they were in the house of
18
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
PW1 at the time of alleged incident and further
appears from record that they are resident of Kolar. If
there were in the house of accused No.1, why they did
not prevent the accused No.1 from beating the PW1.
The narration of alleged incident dated 27/07/2019
seems to have foisted only for the purpose of lodging
this complaint.
28. PW6 is the sister of PW1 who stays at a
distance of 1 ½ km away from the house of PW1.
When such being the case, why the PW1 was not
taken to the nearby hospital in Hebbal, Bangalore for
giving the treatment on the alleged date of incident
and why they have to travel altogether to 90 km from
Hebbal for treatment.
29. It appears from the record that PW6 pleaded
ignorance about the salary of Rs.35,000/- being
earned by the accused No.1 which depicts that she is
not associated with the family of PW1 and the
accused No. 1. If the PW6 was given money to the
PW1 for establishing a separate house, no material
evidence was produced to that effect.
30. Added to which, it would be natural for any
prudent person to take the treatment if a person is
19
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
working in the hospital. It appears from the cross
examination of PW1 that
ನಾನು ಬಿಎಸ್ಸಿ ಪದವೀಧರಳಾಗಿದ್ದು ಎಂ ಎನ್ ಸಿ ಹಾಗೂ
ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಈ ಘಟನೆ ನಡೆದ
ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ASTER CMI ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ
ಸ್ವಾಗತಕಾರಳಾಗಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ. ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಮಗುವಿಗೆ
ಜನ್ಮವನ್ನು Baptist ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೀಡಿದ್ದು ಗರ್ಭಿಣಿ
ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲೂ ಸಹ ಅದೇ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆ ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
ಘಟನೆ ನಡೆದ ಮನೆಯಿಂದ Baptist ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ 10 ನಿಮಿಷ
ಮತ್ತು ASTER CMI ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ 20 ರಿಂದ 30 ನಿಮಿಷ
ತಲುಪಲು ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ.
ಘಟನಾ ದಿನ ನಾನು ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆ ತಪ್ಪಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ದಿ.27-07-2019 ರಂದು ಗಲಾಟೆ ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆಯಿಂದ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿತ್ತು
ಎಂದು ಬರೆದಿಲ್ಲ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಮುಂದುವರಿದು ಆ ದಿನ ರಾತ್ರಿ 08-00
ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಗಲಾಟೆ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಾನು
ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಚಾಲಕ ಬಂದು
ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೋ ಇಲ್ಲವೋ
ಎಂದು ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ, ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಭಯದಿಂದ ಹೇಳಿರಬಹುದು.
ಗಲಾಟೆ ಸುಮಾರು 2 -3 ಗಂಟೆಗಳವರೆಗೆ ನಡೆದಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಗಲಾಟೆ
ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು, 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಇದ್ದೆವು, ನಂತರ ನಾನು
ಗಲಾಟೆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದಾಗ ಚಾಸಾ 3, ನನ್ನ ಅಕ್ಕ, ಚಾಸಾ 6 ರವರು
ಬಂದರು. ನಾನು ಅವರಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡನ ಪೋನಿನಿಂದ ಕರೆ
ಮಾಡಿ ಗಲಾಟೆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದೆ. ನಾನು ಕರೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ಒಂದು
ಗಂಟೆಯ ನಂತರ ಅವರು ಬಂದರು.
Xxxxxxx ನನಗೆ ಹೊಡೆಯುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಮಂತ್
ಕುಮಾರ್, ಪದ್ಮ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಾಂಕ್ಲಿನ್ ರವರು ಬಂದರು. ಅವರು
ಜಗಳ ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿದರು. ಸದರಿ ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ
ಮೂರು ಜನರು ಹಾಜರಿದ್ದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಾಗಲೀ ಅಥವಾ ನನ್ನ
ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಾಗಲೀ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಇಲ್ಲವೋ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು
ಪೊಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಬಾರಿ ಮಾತ್ರ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೇನೆ, ಬೇರೆ ಎಲ್ಲೂ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
20
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
ರಕ್ತ ಕಾರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿದ್ದಿಲ್ಲ. ನನಗೆ ಹತ್ತಿರದ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಥಮ
ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆ ಪಡೆಯಲು ಅಥವಾ ದಾಖಲಾಗಲು ತೊಂದರೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ.
ಬಾಗೇಪಲ್ಲಿ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ ಬಂದು ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆ ಪಡೆಯಲು ಯಾರು
ಹೇಳಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿದಂತೆ ಯಾವುದೇ
ಗಲಾಟೆಯಾಗಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ 1ನೇ
ಆರೋಪಿ ನನಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ರೀತಿ ಹೊಡೆಬಡೆ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ ಹಾಗೂ
ನನಗೆ ರಕ್ತ ಬಂದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ
ಹೆಬ್ಬಾಳ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿಲ್ಲ.
and PW5 deposed in her cross examination
deposed that:
CW1 was residing about ½ km away
from my house. I could not take CW1
to hospital on the same day at
Bengaluru, because my husband was
also not there at that time, therefore
I took CW1 to Bagepalli hospital.
Bagepalli is 90 km away from
Hebbal. I could not give the
compliant, as I was alone. I do not
know whether are government
hospitals at Hebbal. There was an
impediment to give the complaint on
the next day. I told my father to give
the compliant.
Though the alleged incident was taken place on
27/07/2019 was taken place at 8 pm within a
distance of 20 minutes from her work place who is21
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020working as a receptionist but she has taken
treatment on 28/07/2019 at 4.30 am at Bagepalli
hospital. If the PW1 was bleeding profusely, then,
how the sister of PW1 namely CW6 was injured how
she could have taken to Bagepalli without treating
her. All these aspects raises doubt about the alleged
incident dated 27/07/2019.
31. It appears from the cross examination of
PW1 that
ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಮರುದಿನ ನಿಪಿ.2 ಮಹಜರನ್ನು
ಸುಮಾರು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10-00 ರಿಂದ 11-00/11-15
ಗಂಟೆವರೆಗೆ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ
ಮೇಲುಡುಪನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಆ ಬಟ್ಟೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ
ಪೊಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ಬಾಗೇಪಲ್ಲಿ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದೆವು.
ಅದನ್ನು ಬಾಗೇಪಲ್ಲಿ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ
ಇಟ್ಟುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೆವು. ಹೆಬ್ಬಾಳ ಪೊಲೀಸರು
ಬಾಗೇಪಲ್ಲಿ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ ಬಂದಿದ್ದರು. ನಾನು ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಆ
ಬಟ್ಟೆಯನ್ನು ಪೊಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಆದರೆ
ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ.
Thus, PW1 was having the blood stained clothes
at the time of giving the treatment to the PW7, why
she did not give the same rather given other black
colour top to the PW7 at the time of drawing the
mahazar on 30/07/2019.
22
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
32. PW4 doctor deposed in her cross
examination that some of the injuries mentioned in
the Ex.P3 may be caused if the person fells down and
Ex.P3 does not disclose the age of the injury. When
the age of injury was not mentioned, then, how this
court come to a conclusion that the accused No.1 has
assaulted the PW1.
33. The accused No.2 to 4 were visiting the
house of the PW1 and accused No.1 but that does not
mean that they subjected the PW1 to mental cruelty.
The PW1 has arrayed the in-laws (accused No.2 to 4
at the time of alleged incident dated 27/07/2019 that
they were not residing together. The alleged acts
during her stay with them at HAL is part and parcel
of marital life as they are of trivial in nature.
34. Thus, the evidence of PW7 is post complaint
procedure and does not require any detailed
discussion except collection of statement. Thus, the
prosecution failed to prove that the willful conduct of
accused led the PW1 to undergo/suffer mental and
physical cruelty rather appears from the case on
record, that there was differences of opinion as to the
inter faith. Every matrimonial conduct, which may
cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to
cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between
spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life,
23
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
may also not amount to cruelty. Thus, it is safe to
hold that, the prosecution failed to prove the charges
against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt
thereby this court answers the above point No.1 in
the negative.
35. Point No.2: The next offence alleged is
section 504 of IPC comprises of the following
ingredients viz.
(a) intentional insult,
(b) the insult must be such
as to give provocation to the
person insulted, and
(c) the accused must intend
or know that such provocation
would cause another to break the
public peace or to commit any
other offence.
The intentional insult must be of such an extent
that should provoke a person to break the public
peace or to commit any other offence. The person who
intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be
likely that it will give provocation to any other person
and such provocation will cause to break the public
peace or to commit any other offence, in such a
situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied.
One of the essential elements constituting the offence
24
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
is that there should have been an act or conduct
amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact
that the accused persons abused the PW1 is not
sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under
Section 504 IPC and the said principle is appreciated
in the case of FIONA SHRIKHANDE v. STATE OF
MAHARASTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2013) 14
SCC 44.
36. It is not the law that the actual words or
language should figure in the complaint. One has to
read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, in
order to a conclusion that there has been an
intentional insult so as to provoke any person to
break the public peace or to commit any other
offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint
within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not the law
that a PW1 should verbatim reproduce each word or
words capable of provoking the other person to
commit any other offence. The background facts,
circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which
they are used, the person or persons to whom they
are addressed, the time, the conduct of the person
who has indulged in such actions are all relevant
factors to be borne in mind while examining a
complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under
Section 504 IPC but on perusal of evidence, the PW1
has not deposed about the ingredients of Section 504
25
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
of the IPC. Therefore, in the case on hand, ingredients
of Section 504 of the IPC are not made out.
37. Point No. 3: There is no single averment that
the accused persons have threatened the PW1 with
deadly consequences in the complaint. On perusal of
the above provisions, it is clear that in order to satisfy
the ingredients of criminal intimidation, there has to
be a threat of injury to person, reputation or property
to PW1 by the accused persons, which should be with
an intention to cause alarm to that person or cause
that person to do any act which he is not legally
bound to do, or to omit to do so as to avoid the
execution of such threat.
38. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for
the offence of criminal intimidation. “Criminal
intimidation” as defined in Section 503 IPC is as
under:
“503.Criminal intimidation.–
Whoever threatens another with any
injury to his person, reputation or
property, or to the person or
reputation of any one in whom that
person is interested, with intent to
cause alarm to that person, or to26
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020cause that person to do any act which
he is not legally bound to do, or to
omit to do any act which that person
is legally entitled to do, as the means
of avoiding the execution of such
threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.–A threat to injure the
reputation of any deceased person in
whom the person threatened is
interested, is within this section.” A
reading of the definition of “criminal
intimidation” would indicate that
there must be an act of threatening to
another person, of causing an injury
to the person, reputation, or property
of the person threatened, or to the
person in whom the threatened
person is interested and the threat
must be with the intent to cause
alarm to the person threatened or it
must be to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do or omit to do an
act which he is legally entitled to do.”From the foregoing proposition of law, it is clear
that in order to constitute offence of criminal
intimidation, there must be threat with intention to
cause alarm to the PW1 or to do any act which is not
legally bound to do and the said principle is27
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020appreciated in the case of MANIK TANEJA AND
ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
reported in (2015) PART 7 SCC 423.
39. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence
placed by prosecution, the accused persons cannot
be held guilty for the alleged offences as unproved
beyond reasonable doubt thereby this court answer
the above point No.2 and 3 in the negative.
40. Point No.4:- In view of the above findings
and reasons given on point No.1 to 3, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1, 3 and 4 are
found not guilty and acquitted
from the offences punishable
under Sec.498(A), 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
28
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be
in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After the expiry of appeal
period, MO1 being worthless shall
be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in
my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this
the 22nd day of January, 2025)
(Deepa.V.),
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Smt. Ramya Krishna
PW2 : Sri Franklin D'Souza
PW3 : Smt. Padma
PW4 : Dr.Sri M.Madhusudhan
PW5 : Sri Ravi
PW6 : Smt. Thejaswini
PW7 : Sri Rajesh.V.M.
29
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P3 : Wound Certificate Ex.P4 : Statement of PW4 Ex.P5 : FIR
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1 : Blood stained one top
Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the defence:Nil
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
30
KABC030035282020 CC No.868/2020
22-01-2025
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1, 3 and 4 are
found not guilty and acquitted
from the offences punishable
under Sec.498(A), 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be
in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After the expiry of appeal
period, MO1 being worthless shall
be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B’luru City.
31
[ad_1]
Source link