[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Sikandar Pasha vs State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No.669 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.669 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
SRI. SIKANDAR PASHA
S/O MOHAMMAD ABBAS
AGED 30 YEARS
R/AT NEAR VALLABA GANAPATHI
TEMPLE, NEHRU NAGAR,
CHIKKAMAGALUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ZAMEER PASHA, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BASAVANAHALLI POLICE
CHIKKAMAGALUR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP.)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.06.2013 PASSED BY THE I
ADDL. S.J., CHIKKAMAGALURU IN S.C.NO.98/2010 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498A OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED
TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 2 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.75,000/-,
IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 6
MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC.
IN THIS APPEAL ARGUMENTS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.11.2025, COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-2-
CRL.A No.669 of 2013
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is against the judgment of conviction and
order on sentence dated 26th June 2013 passed in Sessions
Case No.98 of 2010 by the I Additional Sessions judge a
Chikkamagaluru (for short "the trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Circle
Inspector of Police, Chikkamagaluru Town Circle has filed
charge-sheet against accused 1 to 7 for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 498A, 506, 149, 342, 307 read with
Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. It is alleged by the prosecution that the
marriage between PW1-Fatima Begum was solemnized with
accused No.1-Sikandar Pasha on 27th September, 2009. After
the marriage, they led marital life in the House of accused 1 to
3 at Chikkamagaluru. It is stated that the accused have
received gold jewelry and cash as dowry by way of demand.
While leading marital life, accused 1 to 7 used to give physical
and mental harassment to PW1 by demanding money. On 27th
March, 2010, at 7:30 pm, in the house of accused 1 to 3, all
the accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common
object and wrongfully confined PW1 in a room. At that time,
accused No.1 the appellant herein attempted to commit murder
of PW1 by smothering. Further, the accused failed to return
the jewelry and articles received from the parents of PW1.
Thereby, accused committed the offence punishable under
Sections 143, 498A, 506, 149, 342, 307, read with Section 149
of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
4. After filing of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken
by the learned Magistrate and case was registered in CC
No.814 of 2010. Upon committal to Sessions Court, case came
to be registered in SC No.98 of 2010. Accused were on bail.
Upon hearing on charge, the trial Court framed charges for the
commission of alleged offences. The same was read over and
explained to the accused in the language known to them.
Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused,
prosecution has examined 12 witnesses as PWs1 to 12,
fourteen documents marked as Exhibits P1 to14 and 26
material objects got marked as MOs1 to 26. On closure of
prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under
section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded.
Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution
witnesses but did not choose to lead any defence evidence on
his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial
Court has acquitted accused 2 to 7 for offences punishable
under Sections 143, 342, 498A, 506, 307 read with Section 149
of Indian Penal Code and Section 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. The trial Court has also acquitted accused No.1
for the offences under Sections 307 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. However,
the trial Court has convicted the accused No.1 for the offence
punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and
passed sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of two years under section 498A of Indian Penal Code and to
pay fine of Rs.75,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment
of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court,
the appellant/accused No.1 has preferred this appeal.
5. Sri Zameer Pasha, learned Counsel appearing for
the appellant would submit that the judgment of conviction
passed by the learned Sessions Judge is opposed to law, facts
and probabilities of the case. He would submit that the trial
Court having disbelieved the entire prosecution case as against
accused 2 to 7 and having disbelieved the major part of the
prosecution case against appellant/accused No.1, should have
disbelieved the entire prosecution case as against appellant
herein. The trial Court, having disbelieved the prosecution case
in respect of demand of dowry in its entirety, should also have
disbelieved the prosecution case insofar as offence under
section 498A of Indian Penal Code as regards the appellant. He
would further submit that the trial Court having been
disbelieved the case of prosecution with regard to demand of
dowry and there being no evidence of PW1 having been
subjected to cruelty of such nature which could have driven her
to commit suicide, the appellant should have been acquitted for
the charge under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. All the
material prosecution witnesses i.e. PWs3 to 6 are close
relatives of PW1. Even PW2-Dharma Kumar is an employee of
CW6, who is the relative of parents of PW1. PW2 not only
speaks of alleged incident, but is also a witness of spot
mahazar-Exhibit P2 and recovery mahazar-Exhibit P3. This
would clearly show that he is an interested witness. The
learned Counsel would further submit that accused 4 to 7 were
staying in different houses. Accused No.1 and PW1 were
staying at Chennagiri, whereas accused No.2 and 3 were
staying at Chikkamagaluru. This would show that a false case
has been filed deliberately against accused. He would submit
that no dowry or jewelry were either demanded or accepted by
any of the accused at the time of marriage or at subsequence
stages. No receipts for purchase of jewels worth Rs.3.00 lakh,
is produced. There is an enormous delay in lodging the
complaint. The alleged act of smothering is done with an
intention of murdering PW1 on 27th March 2010, but in the
complaint lodged on 28th March 2010, there is no whisper about
this significant and important incident. This theory is put
forward for the first time after a delay of seven days when the
further statement of PW1 was recorded. This circumstance
alone is sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case as
false. PW8 is a retired Head Constable, who is the brother of
PW3 and he appears to be behind this case. The allegation of
PW1 that she was being harassed for a Site, is all embarrassing
and cannot be acted upon. Exhibit D17 is the Talaknama which
has been issued by accused No.1 to PW1. Because of this
reason, a false complaint has been lodged on 28th March, 2010,
against the appellant and others as a counter case. The
learned Counsel would submit that the trial court has failed to
appreciate the evidence on record, and on all these grounds it
is sought to allow the appeal.
6. As against this, Sri B. Lakshman, learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State,
would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the
evidence on record in accordance with law and facts.
Absolutely, there are no materials to interfere with the
impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence
passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of
the appeal.
7. Having heard the argument on both sides and on
perusal of material on record, the following points would arise
for my consideration:
i) "Whether the trial Court has committed an
error in convicting the accused No.1/appellant, for
offence punishable under section 498A of Indian
Penal Code?"
ii) " Whether the appellant has made out a ground
to interfere with the impugned judgment of
conviction and order on sentence passed by trial
court?"
8. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage
between accused and PW1-Fathima Begum was solemnized
with accused No.1-Sikandar Pasha on 27th September, 2009.
After the marriage, they led marital life in the House of accused
1 to 3 at Chikkamagaluru. It is stated that the accused have
received gold jewelry and dowry by way of cash. Again while
leading marital life, accused 1 to 7 used to give physical and
mental harassment to PW1 by demanding money. That, on
27th March, 2010 at 7:30 pm, in the house of accused 1 to 3,
all the accused formed and unlawful assembly with a common
object and wrongfully confined PW1 in a room. At that time,
accused No.1, the appellant herein, attempted to commit
murder of PW1 by smothering. Further, the accused failed to
return the jewelry and articles received from the parents of
PW1. Thereby, accused committed the offence punishable
under Sections 143, 498A, 506, 149, 342, 307, read with
Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. To prove its case, prosecution has in all,
examined twelve witnesses as PWs1 to 12, marked fourteen
documents as Exhibit P1 to P14 and got marked 26 material
objects as MOs1 to 26. The accused have adduced evidence of
DWs1 to 3 and marked documents as Exhibits D1 to D24. The
trial Court has acquitted accused 2 to 7 for offence punishable
under Sections 143, 342, 498A, 506, 307 read with Section 149
and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial
Court has also acquitted the accused No.1-Sikandar Pasha for
offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of Indian
Penal Code and Section 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
However, the trial Court has convicted accused No.1/appellant
for the offence punishable under section 498A of Indian penal
code. The State has not preferred any appeal against acquittal
of the appellant and other accused for the offence punishable
under Sections 143, 342, 498A, 506, 307 with section 149 of
Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition
Act.
9. As regards to the question as to whether the
prosecution has proved its case against the appellant for
offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, as alleged by
the prosecution, in the case on hand, in Exhibit P1-complaint, it
is stated that on 27th March 2010 at 7:30 pm when the PW1
was in her father-in-law's House, her husband came and told as
under:
" ೕನು ನ ಅಪ ಂದ ºÀt ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಾ ಎಂದರೂ ಸಹ ೕನು ಹಣ ತಂ ಲ ನ
ಮುಖ ೋಡ ಾ ಗಲ ಎಂದು ನನ dqÉ "#ದು $ೊ%ೆಯ ೊಡ'ದರು."
10. To substantiate this, the complainant-Fathima
Begum is examined as PW1. She has deposed on the same
lines in her evidence. In addition, she has deposed that the
- 10 -
accused-Sikandar Pasha assaulted her with hand and belt.
Further, she has deposed that accused No.1 attempted to
commit her murder by smothering, then she escaped from the
hands of accused No.1 and ran. The above act of the accused
has not been shown in the complaint Exhibit P1. Only during
the course of examination-in-chief, PW1 has exaggeratedly
deposed as to the assault made by the accused which is not
shown in the complaint. For the first time in her evidence
before the Court, she has stated that the accused has
attempted to kill her by smothering and also assaulted her with
hand and belt. The alleged incident took place on 27th March
2010 at 7:30 pm; complaint came to be filed on 28th March
2010 at 18.00 hours. First Information Report was submitted
to the court on 01st June 2010.
11. I have examined the materials placed before this
court. The investigating officer has submitted the charge-sheet
against accused 1 to 6 for commission of offence punishable
intersection 143, 498A, 506, 149, 342, 307 of Indian Penal
Code and sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against
the accused. The trial court has acquitted the accused 2 to 7
for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 342, 498A, 506,
307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3,
- 11 -
4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court has also
acquitted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under
Sections 307 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4
and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the trial court has
convicted the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under
section 498A Indian Penal Code and passed sentence to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to
pay fine of Rs.75,000/-. The State has not preferred any
appeal against the acquittal of accused 2 to 7 for offence
punishable under section 143, 342, 498A, 506, 307 read with
Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
12. It is alleged by the complainant in the complaint-
Exhibit P1 as under:
" ಾನು ಾಂ(ನಗರದ )ಾ* ಶ,ೕ- ಆಹಮ/ ರವರ ಮಗ1ಾ'ದು2, ನನ ನು ಾ:
27-9-2009 ರಂದು 3ಕ ಮಗಳ67ನ ಾಯ89 ಕ:ಾ;ಣ ಮಂಟಪದ= ಉಭಯತ9ರ @ೕಷಕರ
ಮತುB ಸಂಬಂ(ಕರ ಸಮುDಖದ= 3ಕ ಮಗಳ6ರು ನಗರದ EಜಯಪGರ ಬ%ಾವHೆ )ಾ*,
*ಖಂದI Jಾಶ KL: ಮಹಮ/ ಅ ಾMN ರವOೊಂ ೆ ಗುರು "7ಯರು E)ಾಹ
Pಾ# ೊQRರು ಾBOೆ.
E)ಾಹ)ಾಗುವ ಮುನ ನನ ಗಂಡ *ಖಂದI Jಾಶ, ಇವರ ತಂTೆ ಮಹD/
ಅ ಾMN, ಇವರ ಾU 7$ಾ ಾ ಪEVL, ನನ ಗಂಡನ ತಂ' ಅಂಜುಂ $ಾಗೂ ಇ ೊ ಬMಳW
ತಂ' ಶK9L ಮತುB ಇವರ ಗಂಡಂ Oಾದ vÀ©æøï ಮತುB Xಾರೂ- ರವರು ವರದYHೆZಾ'
2,00,000-00 ರೂ ೇ ೆಂದು ೇ# ೆUತುB ನಮD ಖ3Vನ:ೇ ಅದೂ27Zಾ' E)ಾಹ
Pಾ# ೊಡ ೇ ೆಂದು ೇ[ದ2ರು. ನನ ತಂTೆಯವರು ನನ ಗಂಡ *ಖಂದI Jಾಷ $ಾಗೂ
\ೕಲ ಂಡವರ ವಶ ೆ ವರದYHೆZಾ' 2 ಲ] ರೂ.ಗಳನು ನಮD ಸಂಬಂ(ಕರ ಮುಂTೆ ೊಟುR
ನನ ೆ 3 ಲ] ರೂ.ಗಳ 3ನ ದ ಒಡ)ೆ Pಾ#* ೊಟುR ಅದೂ27Zಾ' ನನ ಮದು)ೆ
- 12 -
Pಾ# ೊಟRರು. ಸಂ_ಾರ ೆ ೇ ಾಗುವಷುR Jಾ ೆ9 `ೕaೋಪಕರಣ $ಾಗೂ ವಸbಗಳನು
ೊQRದ2ರು. ಇ)ೆಲವನು ನನ ಗಂಡ *ಖಂದI $ಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಮ ೆಯವರ ¨ÉÃrPÉAiÀÄAvÉ
Pಾಡ:ಾಯುB. ಮದು)ೆಯ ಒಟುR ಖಚುV ರೂ.5,00,000-00 ಆ'ರುತBTೆ.
ಮದು)ೆZಾದ ವಸ)ೇ EಜಯಪGರದ ೆಹರುನಗರದ=ರುವ ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆ ೆ
ನನ ನು ಕOೆದು ೊಂಡು $ೋದರು, ಅ= ಸುPಾರು ಮೂರು 8ಂಗಳ ಾಲ Pಾತ9 ಗಂಡ
ನ ೊ ಂ ೆ ಅ ೋನ;)ಾ'ದು2, ನನ ಗಂಡ ಚನ '7ಯ ಎd.ಐ.*. ಕfೇ7ಯ= ಅ*_ೆRಂg
ಆ' ೆಲಸ Pಾಡು8Bದು2, ಅವರು ಅ=ಂದ )ಾರ ೆ ಒಂದು ಾ7 3ಕ ಮಗಳ67ನ ಮ ೆ ೆ
ಬಂದು $ೋಗು8Bದ2ರು. ಈ ೆi ಸುPಾರು 3 8ಂಗ[ಂದ ನನ ಗಂಡ $ಾಗೂ ಅವರ ತಂTೆ
ಮಹಮ/ ಅ ಾMN, ನನ ಗಂಡನ ಾU 7$ಾ ಾ ಪEVL, ಅಂಜುಂ, ಶKೕL, Xಾರೂ-,
ತ ೆ9ೕN ರವರುಗಳW ನ ತಂTೆUಂದ ಇನೂ $ೆ3jನ ವರದY ೆ ತರ ೇ ೆಂದು 60 EAlÄ 40
Cr E*BೕಣVದ ಒಂದು )ೇಶನ ೊಂಡು ೊಡ ೇ ೆಂದು ಪ9 ೆ;ೕಕ)ಾ' )ಾಸ)ಾ'ರಲು ಮ ೆ
ಕQR ೊಡ ೇ ೆಂದು ನನ ಗಂಡ ಮತುB Pಾವ ಅ ೆB kರುಕುಳ ೊಡಲು Jಾ9ರಂl*ದರು. ಾನು
ಈ ಾಗ:ೇ ನನ ತಂTೆ $ಾಗೂ ನನ ಕ%ೆಯವ7ಂದ ತುಂ ಾ ವರದYHೆ PÉÆlÄÖ ತುಂ ಾ ಖಚುV
Pಾ#Tಾ2Oೆ. ನನಗೂ ತುಂ ಾ ಒಡ)ೆ $ಾkರು ಾBOೆ ಇನು ಾನು $ೋ' ಹಣ
ೇಳWವG ಲ)ೆಂದು $ೇ[Tೆನು. CA¢¤AzÀ ನನ ೆ ಪTೇ ಪTೇ ನಡ ೆ ೆಟRವಳW ಮುಸ:ಾDನ
mಾ8 ೆ ಕಳಂಕ ೕನು ಮ ೆಯ=ದ2Oೆ ನಮಗೂ ದ7zÀæ §AzÀÄ ©qÀÄvÀÛzÉ ಎಂದು $ೇ[
"ೕ ಾPಾನ)ಾ' ೈದು ೈಗ[ಂದ $ೊ%ೆಯು8Bದ2ರು. ನನ vÀ¯ÉPÀÆzÀ®£ÀÄß »rzÀÄ
$ೊ%ೆಯು8Bದ2ರು.
ೆಲವG ನ ನನ ಗಂಡ ನನ ನು ಚನ '7 ೆ ಕOೆದು ೊಂಡು $ೋ' ಅ=ಯೂ
kರುಕುಳ ೊಟುR ¥ÀÄ£À: 3ಕ ಮಗಳ6ರುನ=ರುವ ಅವರ ಾU ಮ ೆ ೆ ಕOೆತಂದು KಟRರು.
ಇ=ಯೂ kರುಕುಳ ಾಳ:ಾರTೇ £Á£ÀÄ ನನ ತಂTೆ $ಾಗೂ ಸಂಬಂ(ಕ7 ೆ Eಷಯ
8[*Tಾಗ, ಅವರು ಬಂದು ನನ ಗಂಡ $ಾಗೂ \ೕ:ೆ 8[*ದ ಎಲ7ಗೂ ಬು p)ಾದ $ೇ[
$ೋ'ದು2, ಅವರು $ೋದ ಬ[ಕ ಪGನಃ ನನ ಗಂಡ ಮತುB \ೕಲ ಂಡವರು ನನ ೆ $ೆ3jನ
kರುಕುಳ ೕಡಲು Jಾ9ರಂl*ದರು. ನನ ೆ ಊಟ-8ಂ# ಸಹ ೊಡು8Bರ=ಲ.
ಾ: 27-3-2010 ರಂದು Oಾ89 ಸುPಾರು 7-30 ಗಂsೆ ೆ ಾನು ನನ Pಾವನ
ಮ ೆಯ=ರು)ಾಗ ನನ ಗಂಡ ಚನ '7Uಂದ ಬಂದು ೕನು ನ ಅಪ ಂದ ºÀt
ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಾ ಎಂದರೂ ಸಹ ೕನು ಹಣ ತಂ ಲ ನ ಮುಖ ೋಡ ಾ ಗಲ ಎಂದು ನನ
dqÉ "#ದು $ೊ%ೆಯ ೊಡ'ದರು. ಆಗ ಮ ೆಯ=ದ2 ಅ ೆB Pಾವ ನನ ಾ ಯವರು
ಇವಳನು ಮ ೆUಂದ $ೊರ ೆ $ಾಕು ಬು 2 ಬರು ೆBಂದು $ೇ[ ನನ ೆ ಅ)ಾಚ; ಶಬ2ಗ[ಂದ
ೈದರು. ನನ ೆ ನನ ಮದು)ೆಯ= ನನ ತಂTೆಯವರು ೊQRದ2 ಸುPಾರು 3 ಲ-ಷ ರೂ.
ೆ:ೆಯ 3ನ ದ ಒಡ)ೆಗಳನು ಅವರ ಮ ೆಯ=ಟುR ೊಂ#ದು2, ನನ ನು ಅವರ ಮ ೆUಂದ
$ೊರ ೆ $ಾkTಾ2Oೆ. ಾನು ನನ ತಂTೆ ಮ ೆ ೆ ಬಂದು ನ%ೆದ Etಾರ 8[* ಈ ನ ತಡ)ಾ'
ದೂರು ೕಡು8BTೆ2ೕ ೆ.
- 13 -
\ೕಲ ಂಡ ವ;kBಗ1ೆಲರೂ _ೇ7 ವರದYHೆ ಪ%ೆದು ನಂತರ ನನ ೆ Tೈ"ಕ $ಾಗೂ
Pಾನ*ಕ "ಂ_ೆ ೕ# ೊ:ೆ Pಾಡಲು ಯ8 *Tಾ2Oೆ. ಇವರ Eರುದp ಾನೂನು 7ೕ8ಯ ಕ9ಮ
ೈ ೊಳu ೇ ಾ' ನನ ೆ ಸೂಕB ಾ;ಯ ಒದ'* ೊಟುR, ನನ ಒಡ)ೆ, ವಸುBಗಳW ೆಲವG
3ಕ ಮಗಳ67ನ ನನ ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆಯ= ಮತುB ೆಲವG ಚನ '7ಯ ಮ ೆಯ=Tೆ, ಅವರು ಕದು2
Pಾರುವ ಮುಂtೆ ವಶಪ#*, ನನ ೆ ೊ#ಸ ೇ ೆಂದು ತಮD= Jಾ9ಥV ೆ."
13. The complainant-Fathima Begum has been
examined as PW1. She has deposed in her evidence as the
contents of the complaint. During the course of cross-
examination of PW1, Exhibits D1 to D24 were marked. She has
clearly admitted the photos-Exhibits D1 to D9 taken at the time
of reception of the marriage. She has further admitted that
accused No.1 has put bracelet on her hand as per the photo-
Exhibit D9. She has also admitted that the photo-Exhibit D10
reveals that accused No.1 has given gold ornaments to PW1 at
the time of marriage. She has admitted the Photo-Exhibit P1
and also admitted Exhibits D12 and D13-wedding cards.
Further, she has admitted that her parents have spent towards
meals for marriage and accused 1 to 3 have spent towards
meals of marriage reception. Further, she has also clearly
admitted that there is a custom in their religion for providing
food from Groom's side. However, she has clearly admitted that
there is receipt for having purchased gold worth of
Rs.3,00,000/- and she has given it to the police. But the same
- 14 -
was not produced by the prosecution. During the course of
cross-examination, she has clearly admitted postal receipt-
Exhibit D15 and her signature on it.
14. During the course of cross-examination, Exhibits D1
to D9 were marked. In the cross-examination, PW.1 has stated
that PW.3 is her father, PW.4 is her mother, PW.5 and 6 are
her relatives. It seems that except PW.2 and the investigating
officer all other witnesses are relatives of PW.1 Smt. Fathim
Begum. As per the evidence of PW.1, the marriage expenses
were borne out by the parents of PW.1 and expenses during
the time of reception were borne out by the accused Nos. 1 to
3. As per the admission of PW.1, generally they used to give
jewellery by way of gift to the bride at the time of nikah.
Similarly, as per the customs, the parents of bride used to give
jewellery to the bridegroom at the time of the marriage. When
there is a custom in the family of both parties, about giving and
taking of jewellery, it is not proper to hold that accused have
received jewellery by way of demand. As per the evidence of
PW.1, they have purchased jewellery worth Rs.3,00,000/-, but
they have not produced any kind of receipts or bill. In the
absence of such records, it is not proper to believe the version
of PWs. 1, 3 and 4. Admittedly, marriage has been taken place
- 15 -
at Gayathri Kalyana Mantapa at Chikkamagaluru and it has
been registered in a nika register. To that effect, marriage
certificate has been issued as per Ex.D.14. Further, as per the
admission of PW.1, accused No.7-Farooq is the husband of
accused No.4-Smt. Anjuman and they are residing at Uppalli in
Chikkamagaluru City. Similarly, accused No.5 Smt.Asiya Kousar
@ Shabrin Taj married to accused No.7-Farooq Ahamed and he
is an electric Contractor at Chikkamagaluru City. Accused No.6-
Thabreez is doing welding work at Chikkamagaluru. It seems
that accused Nos. 4 to 7 are residing in some other place in
their respective houses and they are not permanently residing
at Neharu Nagara, Uppalli in Chikkamagaluru City. PW1 has
stated that accused No.1 hit her with belt. However, she has
not taken any treatment in the hospital. The exact date, time
and place has not been disclosed by PW1 as to assault made by
the accused with belt. Mere oral evidence of PW1 is not
sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused has
assaulted PW1 with belt as alleged by the prosecution. The
accused has produced Talaknamas Exhibit D17 and Exhibit D24
which was addressed to PW1-Fathima Begum. During the
course of cross-examination of Investigating Officer, PW12 is
marked. These Talaknamas reveal that accused No.1 has
decided to give talak to PW1 and he has given talak accordingly
- 16 -
as per Exhibits D17 and D24 and he has pronounced the same
in the presence of two witnesses who have attested the
talaknama. Along with the talaknama, the accused has also
sent a Demand Draft bearing No.359737 dated 22nd March,
2010 drawn on Canara Bank in favour of PW1. The name of
the witnesses to talaknama are shown as Habeebullah and
Mohammed Razak. During the course of cross-examination of
PW1, she has admitted that she has received the Talanknama
by RPAD and she has put her signature, which is marked as
Exhibit D15. The accused has also produced Exhibit D19-postal
acknowledgement sent by accused, which is addressed to
Superintendent of Police, Chikkamagaluru, which reveals that
on 10th February, 2010, prior to filing of complaint, he has filed
complaint against PW1 and others. The postal
acknowledgement is also produced. Only after receipt of
talaknama notice, PW1 has lodged this complaint. A perusal of
all these materials placed before me makes it clear that, the
prior to alleged incident, the accused has lodged complaint
against PW1 and others for physical and mental harassment
given by PW1 and others and also sent talaknama to PW1, prior
to the alleged incident. On perusal of these materials, it
appears that, only after filing complaint by the accused against
PW1 and others, PW1 has lodged the complaint against the
- 17 -
accused. The trial Court has acquitted all the accused for the
alleged offences and convicted the accused No.1/appellant only
for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. On
re-appreciation, reconsideration and re-examination of the
entire evidence on record, I do not find any legal and factual
evidence to prove the offence under Section 489A of Indian
Penal Code. The evidence placed before this Court will create
reasonable doubt as to the alleged commission of offence by
this appellant. Therefore, in view of principle of criminal law, it
is just and proper to acquit the accused No.1/appellant herein,
by giving benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I answer the point that
arose for consideration, in the affirmative.
15. For the aforestated discussion and reason, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed;
ii. The judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 26th June, 2013 passed in
Sessions Case No.98 of 2010 by I Additional
Sessions Judge at Chikkamagalur is set aside;
- 18 -
iii. Appellant/accused No.1 is acquitted of the
offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal
Code;
iv. Deposited fine amount, if any, shall be refunded
to the accused No.1/appellant, in accordance
with law;
v. Registry is directed to send copy this judgment
along with the trial Court records to the
concerned Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
