STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE WOMEN POLICE STATION MANGALORE. D.K Vs. MOHAMMED AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.06.2005 passed by the J.M.F.C. II Court, Mangalore, in C.C. No. 236/2004, acquitting the respondent -accused Nos. 1 to 7 of the charges levelled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A, 504, 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC. P.W.1 -Noor Jahan is the wife of accused No. 1. Respondent No. 2/accused No. 2 - Smt. Pathunza is the mother -in -law. respondent No. 3/accused No. 3 Ibrahim is the brother -in -law, while respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are sisters -in -law of P.W.1 and relatives of accused No. 1.

(2.) THE marriage of P.W.1 and accused No. 1 was solemnized on 04.02.2002. At the time of the marriage, according to the case of the prosecution, P.W.3 elder brother of P.W.1 gave a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - in cash and 25 pavans of gold to the accused No. 1. After the marriage, P.W.1 started leading matrimonial life with accused No. 1 in the marital home. For about five months, she was looked after well and later the accused No. 1 started subjecting her to cruelty by coercing her to bring further money from her parental home and also threatened her with injury to her life. In respect of the acts committed by the accused, P.W.1 lodged a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate, which was referred to Police for investigation. After completing the investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 498 -A, 504, 506 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. After the prosecution led its side of evidence the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, during their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The defence was one of total denial and that of false implication.

(3.) I have heard Sri P. Karunakar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State and Sri K. Rahul Rai, learned counsel for the respondents -accused and perused the records secured from the Courts below as well as the judgment under appeal.