Bangalore District Court
Rashmi Tallami vs Sandeep B R on 3 May, 2025
KABC030756262016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
AT BENGALURU CITY.
PRESENT: Sri.Vinod Balnaik
B.A. LL.B (Spl.)
IX Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 03rd DAY OF MAY 2025
C.C.No.27509/2016
COMPLAINANT:
The State of Karnataka,
through PSI of Hulimavu Police Station.
(By Asst. Public Prosecutor)
// Versus //
ACCUSED:-
1. Pradeep.B.R.,
S/o B.K.Rajagopal,
Age 40 Years,
2. Smt.Purnima,
W/o B.K.Rajagopal,
Age 60 Years,
2
C.C.No.27509/2016
Both are R/at No.205, CRR Residency,
Arakere Grama, IIM Post,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.P.K.V./ B.K. Advocate)
1. Date of Commencement of : 28.02.2016
Offence.
2. Date of Report of Offence : 28.02.2016
3. Name of Complainant : Smt.Rashmi Tallami
4. Offence Complained U/sec. : 498-A R/W 34 of IPC
5. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No. 1 & 2 are found
not guilty.
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet filed by the PSI of Hulimavu police
police station against the accused No.1 & 2 for the offence
punishable U/Sec.498-A R/W 34 of IPC.
02. It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused No.1 is
the husband of CW.1 and their marriage was solemnized on
01.11.2004 and accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1. They
are resided at NGV Quarters, Koramangala, Bengaluru. After two
months from the date of marriage, the Doctor has advised her to
take rest as she is pregnant and she is suffering from blood
pressure. The accused persons have not allowed her to take rest and
they have forced and insisted her to go for job even knowing the facts
3
C.C.No.27509/2016
of her ill health. The accused persons were picked up quarrel with
her in respect of silly reasons and harassed mentally and physically
and not paid the advance amount and also the rent in which they
were residing as tenant. Further, after the birth of their child, the
CW.1 shifted to Ahamadabad along with the accused persons. Later,
in April 2014 they returned to Bengaluru and started to stay along
with accused No.1 in Flat No.G 3, Prabhavathi Shadows Apartment
situated at Arakere. The accused No.2 used to visit their house,
during that time, both the accused tortured her by saying as she
will not do house hold works, sit idol and forced to go for job and on
06.03.2015 at 9.30 pm., both the accused assaulted her with their
hands among whom, the accused No.1 left the house without
paying the rent and without providing any maintenance amount to
her child. Thereby the accused No.1 & 2 have committed the offence
03. Prior to filing of charge sheet, the accused persons were
secured anticipatory bail. After filing of charge sheet, this court took
cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A R/W 34 of IPC
and issued summons to the accused No.1 & 2. Accordingly, the
accused persons have appeared before the court through their
counsel. Later on, charge sheet copies and prosecution papers were
furnished to the accused persons under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
4
C.C.No.27509/2016
04. Heard both side on framing of charge, perused the
prosecution papers. As there are sufficient materials to frame the
charge against the accused persons, the charges has been framed
and the same were read over to them, but they pleaded not guilty
and claimed for trial. Hence the case was posted for prosecution
evidence.
05. In furtherance of the charges leveled against the
accused, the following points are arisen for my consideration.
POINTS
01. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that, The accused No.1 & 2
subjected CW.1 cruelty by mentally and physically
since after two months of her marriage by saying
that, accused No.1 got married only for the reason
that, CW.1 is working lady and thus they forced to
go for job even in her ill health and pregnancy and
thereby the accused No.1 & 2 have committed the
offence punishable offences U/Sec.498-A of IPC &
323 of IPC. ?
02. What order or Sentence ?
06. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined two
witnesses i.e., CW.1 as PW.1 and CW.5 as PW.2 and got marked
documents Ex.P.1 to 5 and during the cross examination of PW.2
Ex.D.1 to 3 marked as confront documents. CW.2 & 3 are dropped
from the evidence with the request of CW.1 herself with the
submission of learned Sr.APP and CW.4 reported as died. After
completion of evidence of prosecution, the incriminating
5
C.C.No.27509/2016
circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution is read over to the
accused persons and statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C.
recorded. The accused persons have denied the incriminating
circumstances as false and not chosen to lead their side defence
evidence.
07. Heard the arguments and perused the written
arguments filed by the counsel for accused persons. My findings on
the above said points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
08. POINT No.1 :- The prosecution has been launched on the
basis of complaint lodged by the CW1 for the offence punishable
U/Sec.498-A R/W 34 of IPC and investigation was taken place on
the allegation made by the complainant/CW1. It is pertinent to
note here that, in criminal cases the measure of scale tilts
or the amount of evidence require to prove the guilt of the
accused persons are based on the principle of beyond all
reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove the chain of
events without any missing link, which contributes to the
commission of the offences. In the back drop of the above
6
C.C.No.27509/2016
principle, now let me analysis the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses.
09. To prove the case, prosecution has examined CW-1 as
PW-1 who being the victim has deposed that, at the time of
engagement, her parents given Rs.7,00,000/- cash, a gold
chain and a ring to the father of accused No.1 and spent
huge amount as marriage expenses. After one month of
marriage, she become pregnant, at that time, she suffered a
lot from high blood pressure and severe vomiting, inspite of
knowing the said situation, the accused persons forced her
to go for job. The accused persons quarreled with her for
silly reasons on each and every day. She given birth to a
baby boy in her 8th Month of Pregnancy. The hospital
expenses provided by her parents and her company
authority. The accused No.1 used to visit her when she was
in her parental house. But, he has not took her to his
house even after completion of six months. Her parents only
took her and her child to the house of accused persons and
advised them to take care of her and her child. The accused
No.2 threatened her as she will commit suicide by
consuming poison and by writing death note in her name.
Thereafter, the accused No.1 made a separate rented house
7
C.C.No.27509/2016
where they reside for four months happily. Meanwhile, he
got job in Ahamedabad in Gujarath Gas. He went there
first, thereafter took her to there. She provided medical
treatment for her child for his mental health and he
recovered little bit. In Ahamedabad also, the quarrel took
place between her and accused No.1 for silly reasons on
several times. The accused No.1 was in illicit relation with
a women residing at Gujarat and there is no physical
contact with him in that period. He admitted the said fact
and assured her to take care of her thereafter. Her mother
was in ICU as her health condition was very critical. When
she taking care of her, at that time the accused persons
tortured her like anything. Her mother was died on
17.01.2015. When she brought her father to their house,
the accused quarreled with her and sent back her father
within a week. On 06.03.2015, they assaulted her, for that,
her father -in-law took the accused persons along with him,
the accused persons left her and her child in a rented
house, for that, she lodged complaint against them on
28.02.2016. The owner of the house was residing in USA,
he forced her to vacate the house, for that, she sent e-mail
to him. The accused No.1 resided in opposite house
8
C.C.No.27509/2016
separately without paying the rent of the house wherein she
resided. Thereby, she supported the case of prosecution.
10. Further, CW.5 is examined as PW.2 who being
the Investigation Officer has deposed about receiving of
complaint, registering crime, conducting of panchanama,
obtaining the statement of CW.2 to 4, releasing of accused
persons on bail, obtaining the marriage invitation card and
photo of accused No.1 and CW.1 and receiving print out of
e-mail copy and deposed about submitting of charge sheet.
Thereby, he supported the case of prosecution and
discharging of his official duty.
11. Here it is pertinent to note that, complainant / CW.1 in
her examination in chief she deposed that, “…..ದಿನಾಂಕ
01.11.2004ರಂದು ಮಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಸಿ ವಿ ನಾಯಕ್ ಹಾಲ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಮದುವೆಯಾಯಿತು.
ನಿಶ್ಚಿತಾರ್ಥದ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ರೂ.7 ಲಕ್ಷ ನಗದು, 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಚೈನ್, ಉಂಗುರ
ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದರಿಂದ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ತಂದೆಯವರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟೆವು ಹಾಗೂ
ಮದುವೆಯ ಖರ್ಚನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ ತಾಯಿ ಮಾಡಿ ಮದುವೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಟ್ಟರು…..” But the
said fact is not at all mentioned in Ex.P.1. Which clearly reveals
about improved version of complainant. Further, she herself
admitted in her cross examination dated 19.10.2024 as ” ……ದಿ.06-
04-2024 ರಂದು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಮುಖ್ಯ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಯ ಮೊದಲನೆಯ ಪ್ಯಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿರುವ
ಸಂಗತಿಯನ್ನು ನಿಮ್ಮ ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ. ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ ಮಗು
9
C.C.No.27509/2016
ಹುಟ್ಟಿದ ನಂತರ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಅವರ ಮನೆಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ
ಎಂದು ನನ್ನ ಮುಖ್ಯ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದು ಸದರಿ ಸಂಗತಿಯನ್ನು ಸಹ ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ. ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಗುಜರಾತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಬೇರೆ
ಹೆಣ್ಣು ಮಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಅನೈತಿಕ ಸಂಬಂಧವನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿದ್ದನು ಎಂದು ನುಡಿದಿದ್ದು ಸದರಿ
ಸಂಗತಿಯನ್ನು ಸಹ ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ……. ” which also
clearly reveals that, PW.1 deposed all other false facts which were
not mentioned in her complaint i.e., Ex.P.1. Further, in her chief
examination has deposed that, the accused persons sent back her
father within one week when she brought him after the death of her
mother. But in her cross examination has admitted as ” …….ನನ್ನ
ಮುಖ್ಯ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯವರನ್ನು ಒಂದೇ ವಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಮನೆಯಿಂದ
ಕಳಿಸಿಬಿಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿದು ಸದರಿ ಸಂಗತಿಯನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ……. ” which also clearly reveals about
improved version of complainant. Apart from that, PW.1 in her
examination in chief as deposed that, the accused No1 & 2 started
to harass her physically and mentally soon after she come to their
matrimonial home. But in her cross examination has deposed that,
“….. ನಂತರ ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡನ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದ ಮೇಲೆ ನೀವು ಮತ್ತು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಗಂಡ ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿದ್ದೀರಿ
ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ. ನಂತರ ನಾವು ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯ ಮಗುವಿನೊಂದಿಗೆ ಉತ್ತರಹಳ್ಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ
ಒಂದು ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಮನೆಗೆ ಸ್ಥಳಾಂತರಗೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ. ಅಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಸಹ ನನ್ನ
ಗಂಡನೊಂದಿಗೆ ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿದ್ದೆನು ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ…..”. Hence, the duel version of
complainant not helpful to the case of prosecution.
10
C.C.No.27509/2016
12. Further, PW.1 in her examination in chief has
deposed that, the accused persons were assaulted her on
06.03.2015 and she lodged the complaint against them on
28.02.2016 almost after 11 months 6 days, there is
inordinate delay to file the complaint. But, the reasons for
the said delay not at all mentioned by the SHO in his
endorsement. Which also creates doubt about the case of
prosecution. For this, this court has gone through the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in 1973 AIR 501 decided
in the matter of Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
wherein it is held that;
” The first information report in a criminal
case is an extremely vital and valuable piece
of evidence for the purpose of corroborating
the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The
object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the
report to the police in respect of commission of
an offence is to obtain early information
regarding the circumstances in which the crime
was committed, the names of the actual
culprits and the part played by them as well as,
the names of eye witnesses present at the
scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first
information report quite often results in
embellishment which is a Creature of after
thought. It is therefore essential that the
delay in lodging the report should be
satisfactorily explained.”
11
C.C.No.27509/2016
13. Further, PW.2 who being the Investigation
Officer in his examination in chief has deposed that, “….ದಿಃ
29.02.2016 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10 ಗಂಟೆ ಸುಮಾರಿಗೆ ಕೃತ್ಯ ನಡೆದ ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ
ಹೋಗಿದ್ದೆವು. ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ಹಾಜರಿದ್ದು ಕೃತ್ಯ ನಡೆದ ಸ್ಥಳವನ್ನು
ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದು. ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಯನ್ನು ಚಾಸಾ 1 ಮತ್ತು 2 ರವರು
ಸಮಕ್ಷಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಯನ್ನು ಜರುಗಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಗೆ ಚಾಸಾ 1
ಮತ್ತು 2 ರವರ ಸಹಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ….” where as PW.1 in her
cross examination dated 19.10.2024 deposed that,
ನಿಪಿ.2ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನನ್ನ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ನಾನು ಪೋಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
Which also creates doubt about the panchanama i.e.,
Ex.P.2. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the
panchanama. Furthermore, the CW.2 is the neighbor and
CW.3 is the own sister of CW.1 has not appeared before the
court to depose their versions with respect to alleged
allegations and panchanama. The CW.1 herself voluntarily
insisted to drop them from the evidence as she has not in
good terms with CW.3. For this, this court is relied upon
the decision passed by Hon’ble Supre Court of India in
Crl. Appeal No(s). 793 – 794 /2022 in the matter of
Rajesh and Another Vs. State of Madhyapradesh with
Crl.Appeal No.795/2022, Wherein Para No.28 it is held as
under;
12
C.C.No.27509/2016
“28. That apart, the manner in which the
Investigating Officer (PW-16) went about
drawing up the proceedings forms an
important issue in itself and it is equally
debilitative to the prosecution’s case. In
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of
Maharashtra through CBI, Bombay 12, this
Court noted that the primary intention behind
the ‘panchnama’ is to guard against possible
tricks and unfair dealings on the part of the
officers entrusted with the execution of the
search and also to ensure that anything
incriminating which may be said to have been
found in the premises searched was really
found there and was not introduced or planted
by the officers of the search party. It was
further noted that the legislative intent was to
control and check these malpractices of the
officers, by making the presence of
independent and respectable persons
compulsory for search of a place and seizure of
an article. It was pointed out that a
panchnama can be used as corroborative
evidence in the Court when the respectable
person who is a witness thereto gives evidence
in the Court of law under Section 157 of the
Evidence Act. This Court noted that Section
100(4) to Section 100(8) Cr.P.C. stipulate the
procedure with regard to search in the
presence of two or more respectable and
independent persons, preferably from the
same locality, so as to build confidence and a
feeling of safety and security amongst the
public. The following mandatory conditions
were culled out from Section 100 Cr.P.C. for
the purposes of a valid panchnama:
(a) All the necessary steps for personal
search of officer (Inspecting officer) and panch
witnesses should be taken to create
confidence in the mind of court as nothing is
implanted and true search has been made and
things seized were found real.
13
C.C.No.27509/2016
(b) Search proceedings should be recorded
by the I.O. or some other person under the
supervision of the panch witnesses.
(c) All the proceedings of the search should
be recorded very clearly stating the identity of
the place to be searched, all the spaces which
are searched and descriptions of all the
articles seized, and also, if any sample has
been drawn for analysis purpose that should
also be stated clearly in the Panchanama.
(d) The I.O. can take the assistance of his
subordinates for search of places.
If any superior officers are present, they
should also sign the Panchanama after the
signature of the main I.O.
(e) Place, Name of the police station,
Officer rank (I.O.), full particulars of panch
witnesses and the time of commencing and
ending must be mentioned in the Panchnama.
(f) The panchnama should be attested by
the panch witnesses as well as by the
concerned IO.
(g) Any overwriting, corrections, and
errors in the Panchnama should be attested by
the witnesses.
(h) If a search is conducted without
warrant of court Under Section 165 of the
Code, the I.O. must record reasons and a
search memo should be issued. It was held
that a panchnama would be inadmissible in a
Court of law if it is recorded by the
Investigating Officer in a manner violative of
Section 162 Cr.P.C. as the procedure requires
the Investigating Officer to record the search
proceedings as if they were written by the
panch witnesses themselves and it should not
be recorded in the form of examining
witnesses, as laid down in Section 161 Cr.P.C.
14
C.C.No.27509/2016
This Court concluded, by stating that the
entire panchnama would not be liable to be
discarded in the event of deviation from the
procedure and if the deviation occurred due
to a practical impossibility, then the same
should be recorded by the Investigating
Officer so as to enable him to answer during
the time of his examination as a witness in
the Court of law.
Further, PW.1 in her cross examination deposed that, the
owner of the house by name Rakesh has forced her to
vacate the house for the reasons that, the accused No.1
has not paid the rent. For that, he sent her a mail. The said
e-mail copy is marked as Ex.P.5, wherein page No.3 dated
25.02.2016 it is written as ” I am in a situation that, I have
no other place to go. As I informed I am planning to stay in
my house once I am in Bengaluru. Please as understand my
situation and vacate home at earliest, once your sons
exams are over”. The said portion is marked as Ex.D.3 as
confronted portion, which also reveals that, the owner of
the said house not forced her to vacate the house for non
payment by the accused No.1. Furthermore, the
Investigation Officer has not at all made him as a witness to
the case and further the Investigation Officer has not filed
the 65-B Certificate with respect to Ex.P.5, which is
mandatory to prove the same. For this, this court has relied
15
C.C.No.27509/2016
upon the decision passed by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru reported in 2013 (5) Kar. L.J. 493 (Kant) in the
matter of B.Uma Maheshwari (Mrs.) Vs. Raj Ganesh, wherein it is
held that;
” Mere filing of the document is not
sufficient, it must be proved in
accordance with the provisions of Indian
Evidence Act, more particularly section
65-B of the Act”.
Further, it is pertinent to note here that, PW.2 also mentioned
the several facts in Ex.P.2, which were not at all mentioned in
Ex.P.1 by the complainant and he admitted about the same in his
cross examination. Further, the Investigation Officer has written the
wrong name of accused No.1 in the charge sheet and he has not
taken any steps to rectify the same by filing additional charge sheet,
but he simply deposed in his cross examination that, the said
mistake is brought to the notice of this court during his
examination in chief by simply deposing that, “… ಸದರಿಯದ ಬಗ್ಗೆಯೂ
ಸಹ ಮುಖ್ಯ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಯ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿಯದು ತಪ್ಪಾಗಿ ನಮೂದಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು
ಅರಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನಡಿದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ…..”, which clearly reveals
that, he has registered the crime and filed the charge sheet against
the accused persons only for the name sake. Hence, the prosecution
has utterly failed to prove the alleged offences against the accused
16
C.C.No.27509/2016
persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answered the Point
No.1 in the negative.
14. POINT NO.2: In view of reasons stated above on points
No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
By exercising powers conferred U/sec. 248(1) of
Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted for the
offence punishable U/Sec.498-A R/W 34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused
No.1 & 2 shall continue in force for a period of 6
months for the purposes of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The accused No.1 & 2 are set at liberty.
(Dictated
Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected
and then pronounced by me in the open court this 3rd day of May
2025).
2025
(Sri Vinod Balnaik)
IX Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangaluru City.
17
C.C.No.27509/2016
ANNEXURE
List of witness examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
PW-01 : Rashmi Talhani PW-02 : Sri.B.K.Nageshaiah
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:-
——–NIL———–
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.2 : Panchaname Ex.P.3 : Marrige Invitation card Ex.P.4 : Marriage Photo Ex.P.5 : e-mail copy
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Portion of e-mail copy Ex.D.2 : Notice Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of private complaint
Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
——–NIL——–
IX ADDL.C.J.M.
Bengaluru.
18
C.C.No.27509/2016
Judgment pronounced in the open court
(Vide separate order)
ORDERBy exercising powers conferred U/sec. 248(1) of
Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted for the
offence punishable U/Sec.498-A R/W 34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused
No.1 & 2 shall continue in force for a period of 6
months for the purposes of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The accused No.1 & 2 are set at liberty.
IX ADDL.C.M.M.
Bengaluru.