After setting up separate house, my husband demanded
money to start a business and my parents gave him
nearly Rs.3lakhs in various sums ranging from
Rs.30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- at a time over a period of 3
years. He started doing business in automobile spare
parts in J.C. Road, Bangalore He failed in business and
since then he is not earning any money or providing for
the family expenses. My parents and my brother
financially helped me and paid the same to my husband
whenever he demanded only with a hope that he will
realize his folly and start taking good care of the family.
To-day
He also demanded for money. But, I didn't respond to it.
Later, he started hitting my two children and me very
badly. Please safe guards my family and me."
NC: 2025:KHC:44612
HC-KAR
12. On the basis of complaint, the concerned Police have
registered the case in Crime No.76/2001 on 21.03.2001
for the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code
and submitted First Information Report to the Court on
22.03.2001.
13. PW1 has deposed in her evidence as to the contents
of the complaint Ex.P1.
14. PW2 Miss Kanika, the daughter of the accused and
PW3 Master Pranav Vidhu the son of the accused, have
deposed in their evidence that their mother was working
as a Beautician and conducting Computer Classes and
their father was having an Automobile Shop. Their mother
was also earning, as such, their father always demanding
money. Whatever he earns, he does not give to them.
Their mother use to work by conducting Computer Classes
in the house. Whatever she earns, he would take the
same. He threatened their mother with knife in order to
take money. He used to insult their mother in front of
NC: 2025:KHC:44612
HC-KAR
students in computer class. Further, they have deposed
that on every night the accused use to come home drunk
and unnecessarily beat them. The accused troubled their
mother physically and mentally.
15. PW4 is the Police Officer has deposed regarding
arrest of the accused.
16. PW5 Technician has deposed regarding mahazar
conducted by the Police as per Ex.P2.
17. PW6 Rangaiah has deposed regarding investigation
conducted by him.
18. DW1 Sunil Jothwani-the accused, has deposed that
the PW1 after marriage was not in good terms with him.
She used to fight with his parents and his brother. She
demanded a separate house from her parents-in-law.
Father of the accused purchased a flat in Nandagokula
apartments in Sadashivanagara. He also invested to his
shop in J.C.Road which was purchased in the year 1983
NC: 2025:KHC:44612
HC-KAR
and thereafter shifted to Nandagokula apartments in the
year 1999 along with his family i.e. himself, PW1 and their
daughter. They stayed there for 4 years. She was not
satisfied with the flat in Nandagokula as it was single bed
room house. So, he sold it to PW1's brother Gulab-Hirani
for Rs.8,50,000/- which is very meager, out of which only
Rs.4,50,000/- was given through account payee cheque to
his name remaining Rs.4,00,000/- is still due. He has not
yet executed sale deed in favour of Gulab-Hirani due to
balance is not paid. Rs.4,50,000/- which was received was
deposited in the name of accused in Canara Bank. Later he
invested this to purchase a flat in Pearl Valley Apaprtment
in Malleshwaram. The accused had also availed loan from
CANFIN Homes, Jayanagar. The Pearl Valley apartment is
in the joint name of PW1 and him. PW1 has not invested
any amount to purchase flat in Pearl Valley Apartment.
Her name is inserted in the sale deed as her brothers
pressurized to include her name. He shifted with his family
to Pearl Valley apartment in year 1995. He used to pay
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44612
HC-KAR
Rs.3,500/- EMI towards Home loan. Till 18-07-2001 he
paid EMI, thereafter he did not pay since he was not
allowed to go to house.
19. After shifting to Pearl Valley apartment, the accused
spent Rs.4,00,000/- to furnish beauty parlour to PW-1 she
was not earning even 20-30 rupees a day. So she closed
parlour in the year 1999. Thereafter, she started computer
classes in the flat itself with one Mr. Mahesh Prasad who
was coming to teach his daughter Kanika. He do not know
the income of the computer class since PW1 never used to
share the details with accused. There were 4-5 students
every day. Time was not fixed for tuitions. Mahesh Prasad
used to come and go 4 to 5 times everyday. In the first
week of March 2001, at 11.00 am the accused had left the
house, as he had forgotten Bank documents, he came
back at about 12.00 noon and opened the door, went to
bed room to pickup Bank documents. There the accused
saw, PW1 and Mr. Mahesh Prasad in their bed room in
compromising position. When the accused questioned
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44612
HC-KAR
them, they threatened him. Thereafter the accused left the
house. When he came in the night PW1 did not open the
door and he spent whole night on staircase. Thereafter
she demanded for mutual divorce for which the accused
did not agree. Thereafter, she filed a case against him.
20. The trial Court has observed in the judgment that, in
Ex.P1 the complainant has not stated about how the
accused used to burn her hands with cigarette butts and
he used to splash water which he was drinking, and also
he was saying that she should commit suicide so that he
can marry again. She has further not stated about the
incident dated 21.03.2001 which is said to have happened
by 3.00 pm. She did not even stated about when her
children came to her rescue, accused also hit them and
told them that she was not bringing money from her
parents house, she was not giving the money which she
was earning. Therefore, accused was forcing PW1 to kill
herself. These allegations are improved version only in the
chief examination.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44612
HC-KAR
21. The trial Court has also observed that the case of
complainant is that, her brother met demands of accused
by paying upto Rs.3,00,000/- at Rs.30,000/- to
Rs.40,000/- often to establish his business, which also is
not supported by oral evidence of her brother or by any
documentary evidence. She says during her cross-
examination the documentary evidence is destroyed.
However, she is silent about how, under what
circumstances and who destroyed the said document.
22. The trial Court has pointed out the material
omissions and contradictions in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and also the contents of the
complaint. Accordingly, the trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law
and facts.
23. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I do
not find any error / illegality in the impugned judgment of
Acquittal. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44612
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Registry is directed to send a copy of this order
along with Trial Court records to the concerned
Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
DHA
