MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

498a acquittal – Accused Not found guilty




Serial   Number   of   the    C.C.27293/2011

Name   of   the State by Police Inspector, complainant  R.T.Nagar Police station

(Reptd.   by   Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor )

Name   of   the   accused

1) Shivakumar
person  S/o.Venkataramadu,Aged about 32 years,

2). Venkataramadu,
S/o.late. Narasappa,Aged about 70 years,

3). Smt.Nagamma,
W/o.Venkataramadu,Aged about 65 years,

4). Pavan Kumar,
S/o.Anjinappa,Aged about 30 years,

W/o.Mahesh,Aged about 34 years,

6). Murthy,
S/o.Venkataramadu,Aged about 27 years,

7). Nagaraju,
Aged about 23 years,
All are R/a.No.8, 1st cross,
Christian Colony, Srirampura,Bangalore-21

(Reptd. by Sri.SMG… Adv.,

Date of commencement   In between  02.07.2003 and of offence 02.07.2009

Offences complained of U/Secs.   498(A)   of   the   IPC and Sec. 3 and 4  of D.P.Act.

Date   of   arrest   of A2 to 7 are not arrested,   accused  Accused   no.2   to   7   are   on anticipatory   bail   in Crl.Misc.2880/2011­
Date   of   release   of accused on bail 19.07.2011

Date of commencement 10.10.2012 of recording evidence
Date   of   closure   of 12.06.2018
recording evidence Offences Proved Nil

Plea of the accused and Not guilty his examination :

Final Order : Accused Not found guilty

Date of final order  03.10.2018


U/Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C I. The facts which are necessary to decide this case are as under:­  1 .

The allegations against the accused :   That the accused no.1  married C.W.1­Smt.Kalavathi on 14.02.2011 in accordance with the customs and at the time of marriage received gold and cash  as dowry and  at the   instigation   of   accused  no.2   to   7,     the   accused   no.1 extended   physical   and   mental   cruelty   to   C.W.1   by demanding   additional   dowry   and   and   thereby     the accused   no.1   to   7     committed   the   offences   punishable U/Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and Sec. 498(A)  of IPC.

2.   After   submitting   the   charge   sheet,   criminal   case against accused came to be registered. Section  207 Cr.P.Ccomplied.  Accused   no.2  to 7 were on bail. Accused no.1 remained   absconding   and   as   split   up   charge   sheet   was registered   against   accused   no.1   in   C.C.4447/2014   and later   on   23.05.2017 accused no.1 appeared and the split 4 C.C.27293/2011 up C.C.4447/2014 was merged with this case. Charge sheet copy furnished to  the accused no.1 to 7.

The charge framed and read over to the accused no.1 to 7 .  Accused no.1 to 7  denied the charges leveled against them  as false and pleaded not guilty.

3. On   behalf of prosecution,   evidence of P.W.1 to 5 adduced  and documents at Ex.P.1  to 4  are got marked.

4. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused no.1 to 7 are examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C, the accused no.1 to   7   denied   each   and   every   incriminating   circumstances found against them,  as false. No defence evidence on behalf of accused.

5. Heard both sides,

6. Now the point that arises for the determination of this court is:

“Whether   the   prosecution   proves   the alleged guilt of the accused no.1 to 7   for the  offences  punishable U/Sec. 3 and  4 of 5 C.C.27293/2011 D.P.Act and Sec.498(A) of the IPC,   beyond all reasonable doubt?

My finding on the above point is in the  Negative    for the reasons stated below:

See also  Constantly watching Girl child comes under prosecution under POCSO Act?

II. Brief statement of reasons

1.   In   support   of   the   case   of   the   prosecution,     the informant   of   crime   C.W.1­Smt.Kalavathi   who   is   wifeof accused no.1 Shivakumar is  examined as P.W.2.  Father of C.W.1   by   name   Krishna   (C.W.2)     is   examined   as   P.W.3. C.W.3   who   is   mother   of     C.W.1   is   examined   as   P.W..4. C.W.4 one Sri. Babu is examined as P.W.5 claiming to be circumstantial witness. C.W.5 one Sri.Ranjith is examined as P.W.1 claiming to be circumstantial witness.

2. P.W.2, 3 and 4 deposed supporting the case of the prosecution.     P.W.1   one   Sri.Ranjith   turned   hostile   to   the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 one Sri. Babu in his evidence deposed that accused no.1 used to  inform him that there is problem   in   his   home   for   lack   of     understanding   between himself and C.W.1.

3.   The   prosecution   failed   to   secure   other   witnesses inspite of giving sufficient opportunities.

4.     During course of trial, the defence of the accused is that the C.W.1 failed to adjust in the matrimonial home and she insisted for setting up a separate house in order to avoid   household   work.   Further   it   is   contention   of   the accused that  C.W.1 was not interested to  lead matrimonial life with accused no.1 for that she used to make allegation of illicit relationship of accused no.1 with one Shashikala. Further   it   is   contention   of   the   accused   that     at   the instigation of  C.W.1 and  her parents, separate house was set up, but the C.W.1 made the accused no.1 to leave the house and accordingly accused no.1 left the house for long period.   It   is   contention   of   the   accused     that     when panchayath was conveyed   relating to   the dispute of illicit relationship, the relatives  of C.W.1 assaulted accused no.1 and thereafter   under the apprehension  that accused no.1 would initiate legal action , a false complaint is filed.

5.  During cross examination of P.W.2 to 4 suggestions are   posed   as   per   defence   of   the   accused.     During examination   of   the   accused     also   accused   no.1   and   2 explained   that   they   are   poor   persons   and   C.W.1   failed   to adjust with   them and she voluntarily left the matrimonial home.

6. During course of arguments, learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor   argued     that   the   evidence   of     P.W.   2   to   4   is sufficient to establish the alleged guilt of the accused and he prayed to convict the accused.

7. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of accused that   the   admissions   given   by   P.W.2   to   4   as   to   conveying  panchayath     and   as   to   abscondance   of   accused   no.1, coupled   with   the     circumstances   explained   by   them   is sufficient to establish the defence of the accused. Further  it is argued that the accused are innocent and not committed any offences and prosecution also failed to  bring home the guilt of the accused.

See also  Guidelines of Bombay HC for Grant of Three Days Interim Protection From Arrest to accused After Rejection of Anticipatory Bail

8.     This court observed that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily   establish   the   fact   of   giving   dowry   by   way   of cash etc., by adducing specific evidence. Who gave cash to which   accused,   on   which   date   cash   was   given   and   other particulars are not explained.   Particularly   demand   of dowry     is   not   explained.     It   is   allegation   against   accused that   all accused demanded dowry and taken dowry.  In the cross examination   it is categorically admitted that all the accused  are not residing together. Admittedly  the accused are   relatives   of   C.W1   to   3     prior   to   the   marriage.     Under these   circumstances,     this   court   comes   to   the   conclusion that  the evidence placed on record is not sufficient to hold that  accused demanded dowrt and taken dowry as alleged.

9.     Coming   to   the   question   of   demanding   additional dowry and cruelty for the purpose of procuring   additional dowry,   this   court     observed   that   the   P.W.2   to   4   deposed before   court     that   there   is   serious   dispute     relating   to alleged illicit relationship of accused no.1 with Shashikala. The P.W.4 in the cross examination   categorically admitted that  after conveying panchayath relating to   allegations of illicit relationship, separate house was set up  for C.W.1 and accused no.1.  Further P.W.4 categorically admitted that in the said separate house the accused no.1 and C.W.1 lived separately.   Further   this   court   observed   that     there   is   no specific   explanation     on   the   part   of   the   accused       as   to demanding   additional   dowry   by   particular   accused.     No specific allegation is made out as to  harassment or cruelty at the hands of  accused by demanding additional dowry. It is   undisputed   fact   that   the   accused     and   C.W.1   failed   to adjust with   each other and panchayath was conveyed and accused   no.1   left   the   house   and   he   was   absconding. Further   this   court     observed   that   the     split   up   case   was registered against  accused no.1 and subsequently split up case  is merged in this case.


10. Under these circumstances,   I would like to   rely on the decision reported in   AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3363­Preeti Gupta  Anr. Vs.State of Jharkand  Anr­ wherein   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   of   India,  wherein   it   is held that­ 10 C.C.27293/2011 “Penal   code.   S.   498A   Ss.3,4­Harassment     and demand   of   dowry­complaint   filed   by   the   wife against   husband   and   his   relatives

­No   specific allegations   in   the   complaint   against   appellants, sister   in   law   and   unmarried   brother   in   law   of complainant­Appellants   residing   at   different place­Neither   visited   the   place   of   incident­Nor lived   with   complainant   and   her   husband­Their implication in complaint is meant to harass   and humiliate   husband’s   relative­permitting complainant to pursue complaint would be abuse of   process   of   law­complaint,   held   liable   to   be quashed”

11. After going through the law laid down in the above said   decision   and   after   considering   the   facts   and circumstances,   of   the   present   case   on   hand,     this   court comes to the conclusion that  the evidence placed on record is not sufficient to  establish that  accused extended cruelty towards the  C.W.1 relating to  additional dowry. Hence this court   held   that   necessary   ingredients     U/Sec.498A   of   the IPC  is not satisfactorily proved by the prosecution.

11 C.C.27293/2011

12.   Under these circumstances, this court comes to the conclusion that   it is not safe and proper to convict the accused  for the alleged offences. Accordingly this court held that     prosecution   failed   to     bring   home   the   guilt   of   the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly I answer the   above   point   in   the  Negative  and   proceed  to   pass  the following order…

III. Final Order:

Acting   U/Sec.248(1)   of   Cr.P.C     I hereby acquit the accused no.1 to 7   for the   offences punishable U/Sec.498(A) of the IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of the D.P.Act.

Accused no.1 to 7 are   set at liberty forthwith   and  the bail  bonds of  accused and that of surety stand canceled.

(Judgment   dictated   to     the   Stenographer,   typed   by   her computerized copy corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03rd day of October 2018).

(Hattikal Prabhu .S)  LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.


1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the  prosecution:

P.W.1: Sri.S.Ranjith P.W.2: Smt.Kalavathi P.W.3: Sri.Krishna.C P.W.4: Smt.Vasanthamma P.W.5: Sri.Babu

2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the  prosecution:­  Ex.P.1:-Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: Complaint Ex.P.2(a): ­Signature Ex.P.3­Wedding card Ex.P.4: 06 wedding photos

3.:­ List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf  of the accused NIL

4. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the  prosecution:

Nil                                         (Hattikal Prabhu.S)  LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.


CopyRight @ MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Whether party can be permitted to give evidence after evidence of his power of attorney?
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation