Bangalore District Court
Smt. Chethan Lakshmi vs Yogesh on 4 August, 2025
KABC030181282009
Presented on : 12-08-2009
Registered on : 12-08-2009
Decided on : 04-08-2025
Duration : 15 years, 11 months, 23 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.17589/2009
(Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence -----------
Complainant State by Subramanyapura 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.17589/2009
R/at. Rameshwara Village,
Palya, Hobli,
Halur Taluk,
Hassan District.
Offences U/s.498-A, 506 of IPC & Sec., 3
& 4 of DP Act.
Plea/Charge Recorded where in Accused is
Pleaded not guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On26.06.2025
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 Subramanyapura Police
Station has filed charge sheet against accused for the offences
punishable U/s.498-A, 506 of IPC & Sec., 3 & 4 of DP Act.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.17589/2009
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as
follows:-
It is alleged that, the accused and Cw.1 love marriage had
been solemnized on 19.12.2007 at Janardhana Swamy
Temple, Hassan. Further on 23.01.2008 their got registered
the said marriage in Hassan Sub Registrar Office. After the
marriage they both lived in Koramangala and later they shifted
to House No.37, 1st Main, 5th Cross, Krishna Nagar. After some
month of marriage, the accused used come home late drinking
alcohol and used to pick up the quarrel with Cw.1 by asking
Rs. 10 lakhs dowry for house and car, when the Cw.1 refused
the same, from that time the accused started harassing the
Cw.1 for silly reasons used to abuse her in filthy language and
used to threat by saying he will pour the Acid on her and given
mental and physical torture to Cw.1 and thereby the accused
Judgment 4 C.C.No.17589/2009has committed the above offences punishable U/s.498-A, 506
03. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for
the offence punishable U/s.498-A, 506 of IPC & Sec., 3 & 4 of
DP Act against the accused. The accused was released on bail.
Copy of the prosecution papers furnished to the accused as
required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has
been framed and read over to the accused wherein he has
denied the same and claim to be tried.
04. In order to secure the Cw.2, 8 to 10 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,
Judgment 5 C.C.No.17589/2009
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:
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.
Judgment 6 C.C.No.17589/2009
3. In all these appeals, the learned
Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section
255(1) Cr. P. C., on the ground that even though
the cases had been posted for hearing on
various dates and summons had been issued
to the witnesses for all the hearings, the
witnesses were not produced on any of the
hearing dates and in spite of a notice issued
that the case would be disposed of without
examining the witnesses if they are not
produced the prosecution did not choose to let
in any evidence and as such the Magistrate
found that the prosecution had no evidence to
let in.
15. In State of Madh. Pra. v. Kaluthawar,
1972 Cri LJ 1639, a Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as
follows: “It was the duty of the prosecution to
make necessary arrangements for the
production of its witnesses…. The Police must
always remember that it has got a duty to the
court and they cannot just send a challan and
think that the rest will be done by the court.
When nobody appeared in t he court to inform
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
Judgment 7 C.C.No.17589/2009
minor one. Under Section 245, the Magistrate
can record an order of acquittal if there is no
evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the
prosecution did not take proper steps to
produce the witnesses, or ask the court to give
them time to do the same, or to issue fresh
summons, the court was not bound to fix
another date. The police has a duty towards
the citizen. When the accused is brought before
the court and the prosecuting department does
not take any steps it will be an abuse of the
process of the court to continue the trial.
Bringing a person before the court accusing him
of some offence is a serious matter and
however petty the offence may be, the
prosecuting department, must do its duty
towards the accused as well as the court. When
once the accused is challaned there is no
privilege given to the police to remain absent”.
16. There are quite a number of decisions in
which it had been held that an acquittal of the
accused on the failure of the prosecution to
produce the witnesses is not legal. (Vide State
v. Kaliram Nandlal, ), the State of Mysore v.
Ramu, 1973 Mad LJ (Crl.) 116: (1973 Cri LJ
1257) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Kalilulla Ahmed
Sheriff. AIR 1971 Mys 60; Kanduri Misra v.
Sabadev Kunda, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 295; State of
Judgment 8 C.C.No.17589/2009
Orissa v. Sibcharan Singh, ; State of Mysore v.
Somala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 476: (1972 Cri LJ
1478) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Shanta, 1972
Mad LJ (Cri) 589 (Mys); State v. Nagappa, 1973
Cri LJ 548 (Mad); Public Prosecutor v.
Sambangi Mudaliar, ; State of Kerala v.
Kunhiaraman, 1964 Mad LJ (Cri) 330 (Ker);
State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda, AIR 1965
Mys 167; State of Gujarat v. Thakorbhai
Sukhabhai, , State of U.P. v. Ramjani, All LJ
1126; Lakshmiamma Kochukuttiamma v.
Raman Pillai, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 268; State v.
Madhavan Nair, 1959 Mad LJ (Cri) 633 (Ker);
Emperor v. Varadarajulu Naidu, AIR 1932 Mad
25 (2); State of Kerala v. Desan Mary, 1960
Mad LJ (Cri) 378 (Ker); Kesar Singh v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir, 1963-1 Cri LJ 765: (AIR
1963 J & K 23); R. K. V. Motors and Timbers
Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority,
Trivandrum, ; K. K. Subbier v. K. M. S.
Lakshmana Iyer, 1942 Mad WN (Cri) 64: (AIR
1942 Mad 452 (1)); State of Tripura v. Niranjan
Deb Barma, 1973 Cri LJ 108 (Tripura); Apren
Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri)
10: (1972 Cri LJ 1162) (Ker). As against these
decisions, there are the following decisions in
which it has been held that acquittal on the
Judgment 9 C.C.No.17589/2009
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
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
Judgment 10 C.C.No.17589/2009there 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
at all diligent as the non-bailable warrants
issued to the witnesses had neither been served
nor returned to the court by the concerned police
and it was therefore held that where the
prosecution was not diligent in producing its
witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable
warrants on the witnesses and return the same
the Magistrate would be justified in refusing to
grant an adjournment and to proceed to acquit
the accused on the material on record. We may
note here that in State of Karnataka v.
Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138 the Division
Bench was dealing with a24. After carefully
considering all the aforesaid decisions and the
views expressed therein, we are of the view that
if the prosecution had made an application for
the issue of summons to its witnesses either
under Section 242(2) or 254(2) of the Criminal
Procedural Code it is the duty of the court to
issue summons to the prosecution witnesses
Judgment 11 C.C.No.17589/2009and to secure the witnesses by exercising all the
powers given to it under the Criminal Procedure
Code, as already indicated by us and if still the
presence of the witnesses could not be secured
and the prosecution also either on account of
pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does not
produce the witnesses after the Court had given
it sufficient time and opportunities to do so, then
the Court, being left with no other alternative
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, 8 to 10 are dropped.
Further, Cw.4, 6, 7 and 12 are given up as prayed by the
Ld.Sr.APP. Further, the Pw.3 not secured since long time for
his cross examination. Hence, this court discarded his
evidence. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the
Judgment 12 C.C.No.17589/2009prosecution has examined 06 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6 and
11 documents got marked as Ex.P.1 & P.11.
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.
07. The following points would arise for my
consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, the
accused and Cw.1 love marriage had been
solemnized on 19.12.2007 at Janardhana
Swamy Temple, Hassan. Further on
23.01.2008 their got registered the said
marriage in Hassan Sub Registrar Office.
After the marriage they both lived in
Judgment 13 C.C.No.17589/2009Koramangala and later they shifted to
House No.37, 1st Main, 5th Cross, Krishna
Nagar. After some month of marriage, the
accused used come home late drinking
alcohol and used to pick up the quarrel
with Cw.1 by asking Rs. 10 lakhs dowry
for house and car and thereby committed
an offence punishable U/sec., 3 & 4 of DP
Act?
2. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, further
the accused, when the Cw.1 refused to get
the money from her parental house from
that time the accused started harassing
the Cw.1 for silly reasons used to abuse
her in filthy language and given mental
and physical torture to Cw.1 and thereby
committed an offence punishable U/sec.,
498-A of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, further
the accused used to threat by saying he
will pour the Acid on Cw.1 and thereby
committed an offence punishable U/sec.,
506 of IPC?
Judgment 14 C.C.No.17589/2009
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 : 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
appreciate 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,
Judgment 15 C.C.No.17589/2009hence 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, On 19.12.2007,
the accused kidnapped her and got her married. After the
marriage, he took her to his hometown, Rameshwaram. She
did not know the accused. Later, when she was in the town,
the accused did not allow her to call her parents. Later, the
accused took her to a rented house in Koramangala,
Bengaluru. Without taking proper care of her, he burned her
all over her body with cigarettes, beat her and harassed her to
bring money from her mother’s house. Later, due to the
accused’s behavior, the owner of the house asked her to vacate
the house. Later, we stayed at her parents’ house. At that time,
the accused came drunk and threatened her that if she did not
Judgment 16 C.C.No.17589/2009bring 10 lakhs from her father to buy a car and build another
house, he would not take good care of her. When she asked her
father for money, he said that he had two more daughters and
could not give her money. On this issue, the Cw.1 had given
complaint against the accused in Subramanyapura police
station and the accused was called to the Subramanyapura
police station and in police station they compromised the
matter between them. Even after that, the accused beat her,
abused her in filthy language and threatened to kill her with
acid, if she did not bring money from her father’s house. The
accused then sent her to her father’s house. She then filed a
complaint against the accused. The police came and conducted
the mahazar and taken her signature on the same.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused had cross
examined the said witness, where in she stated that, on the
pressure of the police she had written in her compliant, that
Judgment 17 C.C.No.17589/2009
the accused and she was loving each other and the accused
had kidnapped her for marriage. Further their marriage
solemnized in Lakshmi Janardhana Temple Hassan and the
parents of the accused were present at the time of marriage
and further she do not remember who else where present at
the time of marriage, the parents of her had given complaint
against the accused for kidnapping her, further she did not
mentioned in her complaint that, the accused had involved in
half murder case, further she had filed a case against the
accused in Family Court for divorce, due to incompatibility and
not willing to stay with the accused, she had filed a case for
divorce 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
Judgment 18 C.C.No.17589/2009
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 her like wound certificate
or any medicals documents regarding the allegations is made
in her complaint Ex.P1. Further, the Pw.1 has given this
complaint after the alleged incident laps of more than two
months but, in this regard she has not given any valid
reasons. On the other hand, IO also did not examined or
investigate in this regard.
Hence, in the absence of proving the allegations made in
the Ex.P1, with cogent and believable evidence this witness
evidence is not helpful to the 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 07 months
delay in filing the complaint. However, in the absence of such
Judgment 19 C.C.No.17589/2009
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
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
Judgment 20 C.C.No.17589/2009
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
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. ”
Judgment 21 C.C.No.17589/2009
(2008) 15 SC 582 State of Andhra Pradesh N
Madhusudan Rao. In the said judgment also it may be
noted that the learned Court has mentioned as follows
“30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt
lodging of the first information report has been highlighted.
Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than
not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a
creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets
bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the
introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account
of the incident or a concocted story as a result of
deliberations and consultations, also creeps. In casting a
serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the
delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.
31. In the present case, as noted supra, the first information
report in regard to the alleged occurrence on 19.04.1996 was
lodged on 22.05.1996. Admittedly, after her discharge from
the hospital on 22.04.1996, the complainant went to her
parents house and resided there. In her testimony, the
complainant has deposed that since no one from the family
of the accused came to en-quire about her welfare, she
decided to lodge the first information report. No explanation
Judgment 22 C.C.No.17589/2009
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, Cw-1 has not
given adequate and credible reasons for lodging the complaint
more than two months late and under the conflicting and
overwhelming testimony of other relevant evidences in the said
case. It is clear that a lot of doubt has been raised about the
complaint lodged after thinking and about the points in the
said complaint and the inconsistency evidences of the Pw.1
also lends sufficient support to the said suspicion.
Judgment 23 C.C.No.17589/2009
14. The Cw.5 Smt. Hemarathna, who is examined as
Pw.2 and incident witness in this case, in her evidence she
deposed before the court that, When she was in town, her
daughter’s mother-in-law used to harass her daughter. Later,
the accused and his daughter lived in Koramangala for two
months at that time, the accused would not take proper care
of her daughter and would harass her, burn her with
cigarettes, and beat her. When she asked him the reason, he
would ask her to pay him Rs. 10 lakh. Later, a case was filed
against the accused under Section 307 of the IPC. Then, he
came to our house and took shelter. While staying at our
house, the accused would come home late drunk, scold and
harass her daughter. Later, on 20.09.2008, her husband and
daughter went to the police station and filed a complaint
against the accused in the Mahila Helpline and the Police
Commissioner. At that time, the accused wrote a letter of
Judgment 24 C.C.No.17589/2009
apology promising to take good care of her daughter. However,
the accused, unable to control his temper, assault her
daughter and left the house. The police recorded her statement
on 04.11.2008.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused had cross
examined the said witness, where in she stated that, she did
not seen that, the accused used to burn the Cw.1 with cigar
and further she do not remember when the incident took place
and further she had denied the suggestions put by the learned
counsel for the accused.
15. I have carefully perused the oral evidence of the
Pw.2 who is the incident witness and complainant mother,
where in she did not seen the incident directly and she is the
hearsay witness. According the Sec., 60 of the Indian Evidence
Act., the oral evidence must be direct. As such, her evidence is
not helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
Judgment 25 C.C.No.17589/2009
beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand, in the
absence of cogent and believable evidence regarding the
allegation of Pw.1 and also allegation of material evidence, this
Pw.2 evidence is not proved one.
16. The Cw.3 Anil, who is examined as Pw.3 and mahazar
witness in this case. The said witness after his chief
examination not turned up for cross examination even after so
many times, this court given warrant and proclamation, the
prosecution has not secured this witness even after given
sufficient time. Hence, this court discarded the said witness
evidence.
17. The Cw.11 Sundar Rao ,who is examined as Pw.4, in
his evidence he deposed before the court that, On 4.11.2008,
the police station officer assigned him and Cw-12 to find the
accused in this case. Accordingly, while we were patrolling
within the police station limits, at 11.00 am, with the help of
Judgment 26 C.C.No.17589/2009
the informant, we caught the accused in this case on the
Chunchaghatta main road and asked for his name and
address. He said that his name was R.J. Yogesh. Since he was
the accused in this case, he caught him and brought him to
the police station, produced him before the police station
officer and giving his report, regarding the same.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused had cross
examined the said witnesses, where in they have stated
that,the Cw.14 had not given the written notice to him to find
out the accused and nor given any identification of the
accused further he had denied the suggestions put by the
learned counsel for the accused.
18. The Cw.13 M.S.Bolthin, who is examined as Pw.5 and
IO in this case, in his evidence he deposed before the court
that, On 09-11-2008, he had transferred the case file of JP
Nagar Police Station No. 549/2008 to Subramanyapura Police
Judgment 27 C.C.No.17589/2009
Station, registered the said case and submitted the report to
the Honorable Court and the superiors. Then on 10-08-2008,
he had transferred case file to Cw-15.
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.
19. The Cw.14 S.K.Umesh, who is examined as Pw.6 and
IO in this case, in his evidence he deposed before the court
that, On 03-11-2008, he had received and examined the file
from the investigating officers of the said case. On the same
day, he had conducted a panchanama in the presence of Cw-2
and 3 from 02-30 to 03-15 in the afternoon at the place shown
by Cw-1. On the same day, he had received the wedding
invitation letter, marriage registration certificate and
photographs taken during the wedding presented by Cw-1 and
attached them to the file. Later, he verbally assigned his staff,
Judgment 28 C.C.No.17589/2009
Cw-11, to find out the accused. The said staff found the
accused on 04-11-2008 and produced him before him. On the
same day, he recorded the statements of Cw-4 to 10 and 12.
Later, I took action against the accused and produced him
before the Honorable Court. Further, on 08-11-2008, he wrote
a letter to the Honorable Court seeking permission to transfer
the said case to the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura Police
Station. On 09-11-2008, he obtained permission from the
Honorable Court for the transfer and transferred the entire file
of the said case to Subramanyapura SHO, Cw-15.
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.
20. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Judgment 29 C.C.No.17589/2009
Unless the guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt,
the accused can not be held guilty of the alleged offenses.
21. 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 more then two
months for delay filed complaint against the said accused and
not given the sufficient reasons for delay of the complaint.
Further, Pw.2 who is the mother of complainant and she is the
hearsay witness to the case. Further the IO’s Pw.4 to 6, they
deposed as per their investigation of the case and the Pw.4, IO
has not taken any material proof of evidence regarding the life
threat and assaulted to the Cw.1 by the accused regarding the
physical torture to the complainant ie., Pw.1 as alleged in her
complaint and oral evidence as discussed supra. Hence, in his
investigation lacuna is there. Therefore, his evidence is not
Judgment 30 C.C.No.17589/2009
helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
with regard to Ex.P1. Under such circumstances, it is difficult
to believe the version of the the Pw.1 to 6 regarding the
offences committed by the accused as alleged by the Pw.1.
Moreover, in the non availability of the evidence of independent
and eye and material witnesses regarding the spot mahazar, it
is not safe to rely on the evidence of PW.1 to 6 in proving the
guilt of the accused, without any corroborative and material
evidence as discussed supra. On the other hand, as
contemplated U/sec., 498(A) of Cr.P.C., ingredients is not
proved by the prosecution at any point of time. 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:
Judgment 31 C.C.No.17589/2009
”56. It is a trite proposition of law, that
suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of
proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a
criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the
realm of ”may be true”’ but has to essentially elevate it
to the grade of ”must be true”. In a criminal
prosecution, the court has 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.”
22. 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
Judgment 32 C.C.No.17589/2009
would be entitled to benefit of the doubt, since no
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.
23. 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 offence punishable
U/s.498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec., 3 & 4 of
DP Act.
The bail bond of Accused and surety
extended for further 6 months in order
Judgment 33 C.C.No.17589/2009to comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter,
this bail bond automatically stands
cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and after corrections made by
me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 04th day of August-2025)
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 A.C.J.M., B’lore.
th
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Smt. Chethana Lakshmi
P.W.2 : Smt. Hemarathna
P.W.3 : Sri. Anil
P.W.4 : Sri.Sundar Raj
P.W.5 : Sri. M.S.Bolthin
P.W.6 : Sri. Umesh
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Judgment 34 C.C.No.17589/2009
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of Pw.6
Ex.P.3 : C/c of Marriage Certificate
Ex.P.4 to 8 : Photos
Ex.P9 : Requisition
Ex.P.9(a) : Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P.9(b) : Signature of Pw.6
Ex.P.10 : FIR
Ex.P.11 : Reply letter
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
NIL THIMMAIAH
THIMMAIAH G
G Date:
2025.08.12
11:06:57
+0530
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
Judgment 35 C.C.No.17589/2009