State of Karnataka vs Basavalingaiah and Others

B.V. Pinto

This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 18.9.03 passed by the 3rd Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No. 7302/96 acquitting the respondents of the offence under Secs. 498A and 506 r/w Sec. 34 IPC.

It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant by name Swarnagowramma was married to CW-1 on 2.6.85 and after the marriage while she was residing along with A-1 to A-5 it is alleged that the accused had illtreated her by giving mental and physical cruelty. Thereafter, A-1 started to keep illicit connection with other ladies, thereby the accused are alleged to have committed an offence under Sec. 498A r/w 34 IPC.

It is further alleged that on the above said date, time and place, the accused attempted to kill PW-1 the complainant, by putting pillow cover on her face and thereby, the accused are alleged to have committed an offence under Sec. 506 r/w 34 IPC.

The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all five witnesses Pws.1 to 5 and has got marked Ex.P-1 and 2. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the accused. The State has filed this appeal.

Heard Sri Sathish R. Girijl learned HGGP for the appellant - State and Sri C.N. Raju, learned counsel for the respondents.

The learned HCGP submits that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 who are complainant and the family members clearly indicates that the accused have illtreated the complainant and have caused physical and mental harassment to her. Further the evidence of the witnesses indicate that A-1 had attempted to kill PW-1 by pressing the pillow cover on her face and hence, he submits that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. He therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed.

The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that there are no independent witnesses examined in this case. PW-1 is the complainant, PW-2 is the mother of PW-1, PW-3 is the sister and PW-4 is the brother of the complainant. Therefore, he submits that the evidence of the witnesses is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that there are no materials to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate and submits that the appeal may be dismissed.

The prosecution in this case has been initiated at the instance of the complainant Swarnagowramma. She has filed a complaint before Cholurpalya Police Station on 24.5.96 which is registered as Crime No. 199/96 for the offence under Sec. 498A and 506 r/w 34 IPC. In the complaint itself, it is stated that her marriage took place with A-1 on 2.6.85 in Ambedkar Colony, Hosakote. After marriage, the accused viz., her husband, her father-in-law and mother-in-law and her sister-in-law and also her brother-in-law started ill treating her and harassing her. Therefore, she requested her husband to stay separately. When they stayed separately at Rajajinagar, there also, the accused gave untold suffering and they have insulted and assaulted her. It is also mentioned in the complaint that after staying in Rajajinagar for some time, they went to Cholurpalya where they stayed for three years. Even in that house also, they were giving illtreatment, and harassment to her and were giving mental and physical cruelty. She has stated that even colleagues of her husband by name Shaik Madar and Mohan also were ill-treating her and were supporting her'' husband in commission of the offence against her. PW-1 in the witness box has reiterated the said version given in the complaint. She has further stated that the accused was having illicit intimacy with one woman by name Pramila who was his colleague. She has also stated that A-6 and A 7 have also came to her house and made threats along with other accused She has identified her complaint. In the cross examination, she has stated that her son is mentally retarded and is being treated in the hospital. It is suggested to her that she wanted to get her brother married to Smt. Pramila who was a rich lady and since her husband was having friendship with Smt. Pramila, a false complaint has given against, him.

PW-2 is mother of PW-1. She has also stated that the accused were harassing and ill-treating her daughter. PW-3 is the sister of PW-1. She has also stated that accused were ill-treating and harassing her sister. PW-4 is the brother of PW-1. PW-5 is the Inspector of Police who has received the complaint and registered the case in Crime No. 199/96 and has investigated the case.

On a careful consideration of entire material on record, the learned Magistrate has held that there are no independent witnesses examined in this case and that the complaint and evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 does not indicate any specific overt-acts against any of the accused. The entire evidence of the witnesses is general in nature without giving any specific time, place and date of commission of offence by the accused. There are no specific allegations made against the accused to point out at what time and place, ill-treatment and harassment has taken place. Hence, the. Trial Court has held that in the absence of any independent evidence corroborating the version of PWs.1 to 4, it is not safe to rely on their evidence and hold them as true. It is further seen that the FIR was filed against A-1 to A-5 and the last sentence in the complaint appears to have been added subsequently naming A-6 and A-7 who are not family members of the complainant. PW-5 does not state as to why and how A-6 and A-7 are added in the case and the basis on which though they are not related, their names have been included in the charge sheet without any further evidence recorded by the investigating officer. Hence, it is obvious that A-6 and A-7 have been falsely implicated by the investigating officer though they are not members of the family of PW-1, Therefore offence under Sec. 498-A IPC could not have been alleged against them.

On a careful appreciation of the entire material on record, I do not find any material to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate and the grounds on which the accused are acquitted are sound and proper. They are based on evidence and there is nothing illegal or improper in the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

In that view of the matter, I hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.