Bangalore District Court
R.T.Nagara Ps vs A1 Syed Mustaf on 20 May, 2026
KABC010212442021
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MAY, 2026
PRESENT:
Sri E. RAJEEVA GOWDA, L.L.M.
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.1164/2021
BETWEEN
State by R.T.Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru. .... COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
1.Syed Mustaf
S/o Late Syed Ahamed
Aged about 28 Years,
2.Smt. Khursheeda Begaum
C/o Late Syed Ahamed,
Aged about 55 Years,
2 S.C.No.1164/2021
3.Syed nawaz
S/o Late Syed Ahamed,
Aged about 32 Years,
4.Smt.Sameera
C/o Syed Nawaz,
Aged about 25 years,
All are r/at No.65, 3rd cross,
5th Main, Mattadahalli,
R.T.Nagar,
Bengaluru-32.
(Advocate By Sri.MBR for A1)
(Advocate By Sri.GR for A2 to A4)
... ACCUSED
* * * * *
J U D G M E N T
The ACP, J.C.Nagar Sub Division has submitted charge
sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence
punishable U/s.304(B), 302, 498A r/w.34 of IPC and
Section.3 and 4 of D.P.Act in Crime No.322/2020 of
R.T.Nagara P.S.
3 S.C.No.1164/2021
2. The brief story of the prosecution are as under:
The marriage between the accused No.1 and deceased
Salma was solemnized on 23.08.2019 at Ramasamudram,
Andhra Pradesh, as per the customs prevailed in their
community. At the time of marriage, accused demanded and
received cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and 50 grams of gold
ornaments as dowry from the parents of deceased. After the
marriage, they started to reside along with deceased at
house No.65, situated at 3rd Cross, 5th Main, Matadhalli,
within the limits of RT Nagar P.S.. When deceased residing
along with accused persons, accused started to demand
additional dowry in terms of motorcycle and site from the
parents of the deceased and thereby subjected the deceased
to physical and mental cruelty. When the deceased was
pregnant, sent her to her parental house and she gave birth
to a male child on 06.09.2020. After lapse of 3½ months,
accused No.1 on 26.12.2020 went to the house of
4 S.C.No.1164/2021complainant i.e. parents house of the deceased and
demanded for motorcycle. On 27.12.2020 at 6.30 p.m.,
accused No.1 took the deceased to Bangalore and picked up
quarrel with the deceased by demanding motorcycle and
returned to Bangalore. On next day i.e. on 28.12.2020 at
about 10.30 p.m., accused No.1 picked up quarrel with the
deceased for additional dowry and at the instigation of
other accused persons, given fist blow on her face, when
deceased fell on the bed, accused No.1 with intention to
kill her, strangulated her neck and committed murder of
deceased. Thereafter, intimated the same to the complainant
over phone and told to collect the dead body of the
deceased and thereby the accused have committed the
offences as alleged against them.
3. The concerned police have submitted charge sheet
before the concerned ACMM., Bangalore. The learned
5 S.C.No.1164/2021
Magistrate has took cognizance of the offences and
committed the case to the Sessions Court by complying
Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. after furnishing copies of charge sheet to
the accused persons. The same was numbered as SC
No.1164/2021.
4. The prosecution has examined twenty four
witnesses as PW.1 to PW.24 and got exhibited documents at
Ex.P1 to P37 and M.O.1 to 6. The learned PP has given up
C.W.21, 22, 33 to 35. The court has issued summons,
warrant against C.W.9, 19, 20, 26 to 32, 36, 37. Inspite of
issue of summons, warrant and proclamation, the police
failed to execute warrant and produce them before the court
to record their evidence, as such the prayer of the learned
PP was rejected and the witnesses C.W. 9, 19, 20, 26 to 32,
36, 37 were dropped. However liberty has been given to the
prosecution for examination of the said witnesses, if the said
6 S.C.No.1164/2021
witnesses brought before the court by the concerned police
before conclusion of trial.
5. After completion of prosecution side evidence, this
Court has recorded the statements of accused persons, as
provided U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused have denied
incriminating evidence present against them and not claimed
any defense evidence nor submitted anything to the Court.
The accused have complied application u/s.437A of Cr.PC by
executing personal bonds and surety bonds.
6. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the
materials on record.
7. The following points that arises for consideration of
this court:
7 S.C.No.1164/2021
1. Whether the prosecution proves that the
marriage of deceased-Smt.Salma was
solemnized with accused No.1 on
23.08.2019 at Ramasamudram, Andhra
Pradesh, as per the customs prevailed in
their community, and at the time of
marriage, accused No.1 being husband,
accused No.2 to 4 are the mother-in-law,
brother-in-law and co-sister of deceased-
Smt.Salma on demand received cash of
Rs.1,50,000/- and 50 grams of gold as
dowry from the parents of deceased and
thereby accused No.1 to 4 have committed
the offence punishable U/s.3 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that
accused No.1 being husband, accused No.2
to 4 are the mother-in-law, brother-in-
law and co-sister of deceased-Smt.Salma,
and after the marriage, when the deceased
started to reside along with accused at
house No.65, situated at 3rd Cross, 5th
8 S.C.No.1164/2021
Main, Matadhalli, within the limits of RT
Nagar P.S., accused No.1 to 4 subjected
the deceased to physical and mental
cruelty by demanding additional dowry in
terms of motorcycle and site from parents
of deceased and thereby accused No.1 to 4
have committed the offence punishable
U/s.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961?
3. Whether the prosecution proves that
accused No.1 being husband, accused No.2
to 4 are the mother-in-law, brother-in-
law and co-sister of deceased-Smt.Salma,
and after the marriage, when the deceased
started to reside along with accused at
house No.65, situated at 3rd Cross, 5th
Main, Matadhalli, within the limits of RT
Nagar P.S., accused No.1 to 4 subjected
the deceased to physical and mental
cruelty by demanding additional dowry in
terms of motorcycle and site from her
parental home, and thereby accused No.1
to 4 with common intention have
9 S.C.No.1164/2021
committed the offence punishable
U/s.498A r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860?
4. Whether the prosecution proves that
accused No.1 being husband of deceased-
Smt.Salma, and after the marriage, when
the deceased started to reside along with
accused No.1 at house No.65, situated at
3rd Cross, 5th Main, Matadhalli, within
the limits of RT Nagar P.S., and deceased
had been to her parental home on and
6.9.2020 she gave birth a male child, and
after lapse of three and half months
accused No.1 on 26.12.2020 went to the
house of complainant, demanded for
motorcycle, and on 27.12.2020 at 6.30
p.m. accused No.1 took the deceased to
Bangalore, and picked up quarrel with the
deceased in demanding motorcycle, and on
the next day reached Bangalore, i.e.,
28.12.2020 at about 10.30 p.m. accused
No.1 picked up quarrel with regard to
10 S.C.No.1164/2021
additional dowry, fist blow on her face,
and when deceased fell on the bed,
accused No.1 with knowledge and
intention to kill her, pressed her neck
and murdered her by strangulating and
over phone intimated to the complainant,
that he has killed his daughter, and asked
him to collect the dead of body deceased,
and when complainant came to Bangalore
it is noticed that her daughter had been
murdered by accused No.1 and accused
No.1 being the husband of deceased-Smt.
Salma, killed her within a period of seven
years of marriage, subjected her to cruelty
and harassment for all in connection with
the demand for dowry and thereby
accused No.1 has committed the offence of
dowry death punishable U/s.304B r/w.34
of Indian Penal Code,1860?
5. Whether the prosecution proves that
accused No.1 being husband of deceased-
Smt.Salma, and after the marriage, when
11 S.C.No.1164/2021
the deceased started to reside along with
accused No.1 at house No.65, situated at
3rd Cross, 5th Main, Matadhalli, within
the limits of RT Nagar P.S., and deceased
had been to her parental home, on
6.9.2020 she gave birth a male child, and
after lapse of three and half months
accused No.1 on 26.12.2020 went to the
parental house of deceased of complainant,
demanded for motorcycle, and on
27.12.2020 at 6.30 p.m. accused No.1
took the deceased to Bangalore, and
picked up quarrel with the deceased in
demanding motorcycle, and on the next
day of reached Bangalore, i.e., 28.12.2020
at about 10.30 p.m. accused No.1 picked
up quarrel with regard to additional
dowry, fist blow on her face, and when
deceased fallen on the bed, accused No.1
with knowledge and intention to kill her,
pressed her neck and killed her by
strangulating and accused No.1 committed
12 S.C.No.1164/2021
murder, and thereby accused No.1 has
committed the offence punishable U/s.302
r/w.34 of of Indian Penal Code,1860?
6. What order?
8. This Court has answered the above above points
are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3: In the Negative
Point No.4: In the Negative
Point No.5: In the Negative
Point No.6: As per final order
for the following:
R E A S O N S
9. Points Nos.1 to 5: These points are taken up
together as they are related to each other and to avoid
repetition in the discussion.
13 S.C.No.1164/2021
The prosecution has examined 24 witnesses as referred
above to establish the guilt against the accused persons. In
this case, the owner of the building and residents of the
house, mother and relatives of the deceased, panchas,
inquest pancha have been examined by the prosecution. The
building is belongs to P.W.3/C.W.4 Mr.Ashmath Ahmed,
where these accused persons were residing alongwith the
deceased Salma. It is the specific allegations against the
accused persons that the accused persons tortured the
deceased for the purpose of additional dowry and the
accused No.1 killed the deceased by strangulation. Such
being the case, the witness P.W.1 Zarina Taj and P.W.2
Shafiq Pasha being the residents of the same building not
supported the case of the prosecution by deposing that they
do not know who has killed the deceased Salma. According
to P.W.1, she does not know how the death of Salma was
occurred. She has not given statement before the police why
14 S.C.No.1164/2021
and how Salma was died. So far as the evidence of P.W.2 is
concerned, he does not know either the accused persons nor
the complainant or deceased Salma. Further he does not
know how the deceased was died and who has killed her
and he has also not given statement before the police.
Similarly, the owner of the building Mr.Ashmath Ahmed not
aware, who has killed the deceased. According to him, he
does not know the deceased and he being the owner of the
house received phone call from C.W.3 about the death of
deceased Salma, immediately he went and saw the dead
body. As the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 not in accordance with
their respective statements, hence, the learned PP treated
them as hostile and cross-examined. Unfortunately, not able
to get any supporting evidence through the witnesses P.W.1
to P.W.3. Hence, the evidence given by P.W.1 to P.W.3 is
not helpful for the prosecution to establish the guilt against
the accused persons.
15 S.C.No.1164/2021
10. It is obvious to note that the mother of the
deceased by name Kairon.B who has lodged the complaint
as per Ex.P.4 also failed completely to support the
prosecution story. She has failed to depose according to the
recitals of the complaint marked at Ex.P.4. Admittedly, the
marriage between the accused No.1 and deceased performed
on 24.08.2019 at the village of the complainant. It is the
specific evidence of P.W.4 that they have not given
anything as dowry to the accused persons. The accused
No.1 and deceased were residing happily after their
marriage. Due to the marital relationship, the deceased and
accused No.1 got a male child, even after the marriage, the
accused No.1 and deceased were leading happy married life
and the accused persons never and ever gave any type of
torture either physically or mentally to bring additional
dowry such as site and motor cycle from her parental
16 S.C.No.1164/2021
house. According to P.W.4, when she was in grief due to
the death of her daughter, at that time, the police have
obtained her signature on the complaint. She has not aware
anything about the contents of the complaint. At the request
of the Investigation Officer, she has produced marriage
photos and the documents issued from Masjid related to the
marriage between accused No.1 and the deceased. The
witness P.W.5 Moula is being the relative of the
complainant and P.W.6 is being the brother of the
complainant though deposed about the date of marriage
between the accused No.1 and deceased, but failed to
support the prosecution story about the demanding of dowry
to the deceased by the accused persons and giving of dowry
by the complainant to the accused persons and about the
mental and physical harassment given by the accused
persons for the purpose of additional dowry. As such, the
learned PP has treated P.W.1, P.W.5 and P.W.6 as hostile
17 S.C.No.1164/2021
and cross-examined with the permission of the court. The
said witnesses not admitted the suggestions of the learned
PP. The said witnesses P.W.5 and P.W.6 failed to admit the
statements given before the IO and Special Tahsildar. As
such, the statements of P.W.5 and P.W.6 have been marked
at Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.7 respectively. So, it is very clear that the
evidence given by P.W.1, P.W.5 and P.W.6 also not helpful
for the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused
persons.
11. The witness C.Maksad being the signatory to the
inquest report examined as P.W.7, the witnesses P.W.11
Syed Basha, P.W.12 Muzamil Basha and P.W.13 another
witness Chembukar Syed Basha have been examined as
P.W.7, P.W.11 to P.W.13. Even though the witness P.W.7
admitted his signature present on inquest Mahazar Ex.P.8,
but he has denied the contents of inquest Mahazar marked
18 S.C.No.1164/2021
at Ex.P.8. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the
Special Tahasildar P.W.15 B.R.Manjunatha has recorded
statements of P.W.11 to P.W.13 at the time of conducting of
the inquest Mahazar, but the said witnesses P.W.11 to
P.W.13 completely denied giving of statements before the
Tahsildar and any evidence related to the physical and
mental torture given by the accused persons to the deceased
for the purpose of dowry and killing of the deceased by
accused No.1 by strangulation. As such, the learned PP has
treated the witness P.W.7, P.W.11 to P.W.13 as hostile and
cross-examined with the permission of the court. Perhaps,
the learned PP has failed to elicit any evidence to believe
the inquest Mahazar has been conducted in the presence of
P.W.7 and Special Tahsildar has recorded the statements of
P.W.11 to P.W.13 respectively. It is no doubt the then
Tahsildar Mr.Manjunatha examined as PW.15. The evidence
of P.W.15 clearly discloses that he has conducted inquest
19 S.C.No.1164/2021
Mahazar as per Ex.P.8 and taken the photos of the dead
body as per Ex.P.22, but during the cross-examination, it is
very clear that the said Tahsildar has not endorsed or
written anything in the inquest Mahazar about handing over
the ornaments present on the dead body of the deceased. So
also, the said Tahsildar mentioned date as 31.12.2020
instead of 30.12.2020. It appears the said document might
have been created in support of the investigation, as
because according to the say of P.W.15 on 30.12.2020, he
has conducted inquest Mahazar and accordingly sent the
report to the police mentioning the date as 30.12.2020, but
as already discussed above, the date present beneath the
signature of P.W.15 indicate differently, which certainly
creates doubt about the conducting of the inquest Mahazar
by the witness P.W.15 in the presence of the witness.
However, the death is not in dispute. The evidence of
P.W.14 Dr.S.K.Karthik clearly discloses that the presence of
20 S.C.No.1164/2021
abrasions over front upper third of left side of neck and
contusion over front of right side of neck and also present
on left mandible, after dissection of neck and after
completion of procedure, the said doctor is of the opinion
that death was due to Asphyxia as a result of manual
strangulation i.e. throttling neck. The prosecution has got
marked the clothes of the deceased at M.O.1 to M.O.4
through this witness. The date of the conducting of the P.M
and date of submitting of the report and the date of
conducting of inquest Mahazar varies with each other and
creates lot of doubts. However, it is very clear that the
death of the deceased was due to the throttling. The date
and time deposed by the witness P.W.14 Dr.Karthik is
contrary to the date and time deposed by the witness
P.W.15 Manjunath i.e. Tahsildar.
21 S.C.No.1164/2021
12. It is obvious to note that the sisters of the
accused Nos.1 and 3 by name Faizunnisa, Ayesha Siddique
have been examined by the prosecution. The statements of
the said witnesses show that the Investigation Officer has
produced them before the concerned Magistrate alongwith a
requisition. The statement of P.W.10 recorded u/s.164 of
Cr.PC by the concerned Magistrate. So also, the
Investigation Officer has recorded the statements of said
witness P.W.9 as per Ex.P.12. Such being the case, during
the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.9, the both witnesses failed
to depose before the court according to their respective
documents and she do not remember the contents of
statement given before the court. According to the said
witnesses P.W.8 and P.W.9, the accused persons never
harassed the deceased physically and mentally for the
purpose of additional dowry. According to the said witnesses
P.W.8 and P.W.9, after marriage between the deceased and
22 S.C.No.1164/2021
accused No.1, the accused persons and deceased were living
happily, after coming to know about the death of Salma,
they went to the Ambedkar hospital and saw the dead body
of the deceased Salma. To the particular suggestion of
learned PP about the killing of the deceased by the accused
persons for the purpose of dowry has completely denied by
both the witnesses. As such, the statements of the said
witnesses have been marked at Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.13
respectively.
13. The another witness P.W.10 Mohammed Mazar
also not able to give supporting evidence in favour of the
prosecution story. Even though he has well acquainted with
the accused persons and deceased, but he does not know
how the deceased was died and he has never saw killing of
deceased by the accused No.1 and he does not know
anything about this accused. As such, the learned PP has
23 S.C.No.1164/2021
treated the said witness as hostile and made suggestions
about the harassment by the accused persons towards the
dowry and killing of the deceased by the accused No.1. The
said suggestions have been completely denied by the said
witness P.W.10 and thereby not supported the story of the
prosecution. As such, the evidence given by the witness
P.W.10 is also not helpful for the prosecution in any
manner to establish the guilt against the accused persons.
14. It is necessary to note that the panchas by name
Taj Ahmed Shariff and Sharjil examined as P.W.16 and
P.W.17 respectively though identified their signatures
present on panchanama marked at Ex.P.23, but failed to
support the prosecution story by becoming hostile. The
evidence of P.W.16 and P.W.17 not in favour of the
prosecution and not discloses anything about the conducting
of Mahazar by the Investigation Officer in their presence. So
24 S.C.No.1164/2021
also, the witness P.W.18 Afzal Pasha and P.W.19 Imran
Shariff being the signatories to the spot Mahazar Ex.P.24,
though identified their respective signatures present on the
Mahazar, but they does not know the contents of the
Mahazar and about the contents of Ex.P.24. As such, the
learned PP has treated the said witnesses P.W.16 to P.W.19
as hostile and cross-examined. Inspite of the efforts of the
learned PP not able to get any admissions through the said
witnesses P.W.16 to P.W.19 to prove the contents of the
Mahazar. As such, the evidence given by the panchas
P.W.16 to P.W.19 not helpful for the prosecution to prove
the conducting of Mahazar by the Investigation Officer.
15. It is necessary to note that the witness P.W.21
Pitambarswamy being the AEE, P.WD. Department received
the requisition from the police as per Ex.P.24 and instructed
AE by name Mr.Ramanjaneya examined as P.W.22, who
25 S.C.No.1164/2021
prepared the sketch of the spot. The evidence of P.W.22
discloses that he has visited the place of the incident and
prepared the sketch as per Ex.P.26 in view of the
requisition of the concerned IO and thereafter handed over
said sketch to C.W.25/P.W.21, the then AEE, in turn the
same was sent to the concerned police. The cross-
examination of P.W.22 reveals that when he reached the
spot at 12.00 noon noticed the said house where spot of
incident is present was locked. The witness C.W.32 police
staff also accompanied him to the place of incident. After
opening the lock by the owner reached the spot and verified
and thereafter prepared the sketch as per Ex.P.26. There is
no much contradictions exists in between the evidence of
P.W.21 and P.W.22 i.e. the officials of the PWD
department. As already discussed above, the murder of the
deceased Salma is an admitted fact, but who has killed the
said Salma is doubtful in view of the evidence of above
26 S.C.No.1164/2021
independent witnesses. However, it is the specific case of
the prosecution that the deceased Salma was killed by her
own husband i.e. accused No.1 by name Syed Mustafa. Such
being the case, the another witness P.W.20 Ashwath Gowda,
the Police Inspector who has received the Memo from the
Investigation Officer P.W.23 Smt.Reena Suvarna ACP to
trace the accused persons. The evidence of said witness
P.W.20 discloses that inspite of his sincere efforts not able
to trace the accused Nos.2 to 4 and accordingly given
statement before the Investigation Officer P.W.23.
16. It is obvious to note that the witness P.W.24
Smt.Yellavva Manannanavar PSI has specifically given
evidence before the court that on 28.12.2020, received MLC
from Dr.Ambedkar Hospital. On 29.12.2020, she has secured
the mother of the deceased i.e. complainant P.W.4/C.W.1 by
name Kairon and received written complaint as per Ex.P.4
27 S.C.No.1164/2021
and registered FIR vide Cr.No.322/2020. She has sent the
complaint and FIR marked at Ex.P.37 to the court and
superior officers and thereafter handed over further
investigation to the another IO P.W.23 Smt.Reena Suvarna.
The further evidence of said witness P.W.24 discloses that
during the course of investigation by the witness P.W.23,
she has assisted in the investigation to take the photographs
as per the instructions of P.W.23 through her mobile phone
got printed and handed over the said photos to the witness
P.W.23 alongwith certificate as required u/s.65B of Evidence
Act. The said certificate has been identified by the said
witness marked at Ex.P.35. The said evidence has been
completely denied by the counsel for the accused persons.
17. In this case, as already discussed above, no
independent witness has supported the story of the
prosecution. However, the witness P.W.23 Reena Suvarna
28 S.C.No.1164/2021
who has received further investigation from the witness
P.W.24 i.e. PSI on 30.12.2020 visited the spot and
conducted spot Mahazar as shown by P.W.6 in the presence
of panchas C.W.15 and C.W.16 between 8.00 a.m to 9.30
a.m and taken the photographs and thereafter prepared
rough sketch map with the aid of C.W.37 and accordingly,
prepared Mahazar and obtained the signatures of the
witness. The said Mahazar, photos and rough sketch map
have been marked at Ex.P.23, 27 and 28 respectively. She
has submitted requisition to C.W.23 to conduct inquest
Mahazar. The said C.W.23 has prepared inquest Mahazar as
per Ex.P.8 and taken photographs as per Ex.P.22 and on the
same day she has recorded statements of C.W.8 and C.W.9.
She has issued Memo to the PI C.W.41/P.W.20 to trace the
accused persons. On 31.12.2020, submitted requisition to the
concerned ACP for the purpose of CDR and CAF, on
01.01.2021 she has recorded statements of C.W.37 and
29 S.C.No.1164/2021
C.W.38 related to preparing of rough sketch and Mahazar as
per her instructions. On the same day, submitted requisition
to the witness C.W.25 i.e. AEE to visit spot and prepared
sketch map. On 02.01.2021, she has recorded further
statement of complainant, she has also recorded statement
of C.W.2 and C.W.3, C.W.5 to C.W.7 and C.W.21. She has
recorded statement of CW.31 for having received of the
death Memo. She has collected CDR and CAF and the said
documents i.e. Ex.P.29 kept in the record for investigation.
On 04.01.2021 at 7.00 a.m accused No.1 was traced and
produced before her in the office by C.W.33 and submitted
report as per Ex.P.30. She has carried out arrest procedure
against the accused No.1 and recorded his further statement.
After his medical examination produced before the court
alongwith remand application and received custody of
accused No.1 for 4 days, on the same day, she has collected
P.M.Report as per Ex.P.21 from the doctors C.W.32 and also
30 S.C.No.1164/2021
the clothes present on the dead body. The said clothes of
the deceased brought into P.F.No.1/2021. On 05.01.2021 she
has recorded statement of C.W.33 to C.W.35 who were
traced the accused No.1. On 06.01.2021, the further
statement of accused No.1 was recorded and took him to
the place of incident as per his statement and conducted
Mahazar in the presence of accused No.1, C.W.17 and
C.W.18 and taken photographs through PSI C.W.40/P.W.24
and also received certificate u/s.65B from P.W.24. The said
photographs have been marked at Ex.P.31. At the time of
said Mahazar, prepared rough sketch map as per Ex.P.32
and obtained the signatures of the witness. She has seized
one mattress and 2 pillows at the time of conducting
Mahazar and brought the said M.Os into P.F.No.3/2021. On
07.01.2021, she has recorded statement of the said witness
C.W.37 for having prepared rough sketch map and Mahazar.
The witness C.W.39 also recorded for having acted as LG
31 S.C.No.1164/2021
and accused is in police station. On 08.01.2021, the said
accused after medical examination produced alongwith
remand application through police escort C.W.39 and others
before the court for judicial custody. On the same day, she
has recorded statements of C.W.10 and C.W11 who were
none other than the children of accused No.2. On
09.01.2021, she has recorded statement of C.W.41, on
11.01.2021, she has submitted requisition to the court to
record statements of C.W.10 and C.W.11. On 13.01.2021,
she has collected statements of C.W.10 and C.W.11,
recorded u/s.164 of Cr.PC, on the same day, traced accused
Nos.2 to 4, she has issued notice, Memo to the witness
C.W.42 to trace the accused Nos.2 to 4 and produced before
her. On 18.01.2021, she has recorded statement of C.W.4
and collected rental agreement as per Ex.P.33. On
02.02.2021 she has issued notice to the concerned to
produce marriage document related to the marriage between
32 S.C.No.1164/2021
accused No.1 and deceased from Jamia Masjid situated at
Ramasamudra, Chittoor District. On the same day, issued
notice to C.W.28 and his statement was recorded and
collected documents at Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.20 related to the
marriage of accused No.1 and deceased. On 08.02.2021,
she has collected sketch map from C.W.25 and C.W.26. On
25.02.2021, she has submitted requisition to the Victoria
hospital to produce medical documents for having treated
the deceased. On 28.02.2021, she has collected medical
records from Victoria hospital as per Ex.P.34. On
04.03.2021, she has received the photographs and certificate
u/s.65B submitted by C.W.40 as per Ex.P.35. She has also
recorded statement of C.W.42 i.e. PI for not tracing of the
accused inspite of sincere efforts. On 07.03.2021, she has
collected documents as per Ex.P.36 pertaining to the
building on the basis of request given by C.W.26. She has
identified the mattress and 2 pillows marked at M.O.5 and
33 S.C.No.1164/2021
M.O.6, on 09.03.2021, as the investigation was completed
and as the accused No.1 is in judicial custody and as the
other accused persons absconding, hence she has submitted
charge sheet against the accused persons accordingly.
18. The entire chief-examination of the witness
P.W.23 has completely denied by accused counsel. The
evidence given by none of the independent witness
corroborate with the evidence of IO P.W.23 and P.W.24. So,
it is very clear that the prosecution has failed to believe at
the instigation of the accused Nos.2 to 4 and for further
dowry accused No.1 has strangulated the deceased with the
intention to kill her and accordingly killed the deceased. So,
it is very clear that the prosecution has placed very scant
evidence to believe the allegations made against the accused
persons and there is no material evidence placed on record
to prove the allegations against the accused persons. Hence,
34 S.C.No.1164/2021
this court has answered the Point Nos.1 to 5 in the
Negative.
19. Point No.6: In view of answer of this court on
points No.1 to 5, this court proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused Nos.1 to 4 are
hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under
Sections 304(B), 302, 498A r/w.34 of IPC and
Section.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Nos.1
to 4 stands cancelled.
The M.O.1 to M.O.4 being clothes of deceased and
M.O.5 and M.O.6 being one mattress and two pillows
are being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after
expiry of appeal time.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected by me and then
pronounced in open Court on this the 20 th day of May, 2026)(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
35 S.C.No.1164/2021ANNEXURE
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Zarina Taj
P.W.2: Shafiq Pasha
P.W.3: Ashmath Ahmed
P.W.4: Kairan
P.W.5: Moula
PW.6: Hussain Sab
P.W.7: C.Maksad
P.W.8: Faizunnisa
P.W.9: Ayesha Siddique
P.W.10: Mohammed Mazar
P.W.11: Syed Basha
P.W.12: Muzamil Basha
PW.13: Chembvukar Syed Basha
P.W.14: Dr.S.K.Karthik
P.W.15: B.R.Manjunatha
P.W.16: Taj Ahmed Shariff
P.W.17: Sharjin
P.W.18: Afzal Pasha
P.W.19: Imran Shariff
36 S.C.No.1164/2021
P.W.20: Ashwath Gowda
P.W.21: Pitambar swamy
P.W.22: Ramanjaneya
P.W.23: Reena Suvarna
P.W.24: Yellavva Manannanavar
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: statement of P.W.1
Ex.P.2: statement of P.W.2
Ex.P.3: statement of PW.3
Ex.P.4: statement of P.W.4
Ex.P.5: statement of P.W.5
Ex.P.6: statement of P.W.6
Ex.P.7: further statement of P.W.6
Ex.P.8: inquest Mahazar by P.W.7
Ex.P.8(a): signature of PW.7
Ex.P.9: further statement of P.W.7
Ex.P.10: statement of P.W.8
Ex.P.11: 164 statement of P.W.8
Ex.P.12: statement of P.W.9
Ex.P.13: 164 statement of P.W.9
Ex.P.14: statement of P.W.10
Ex.P.15: statement of P.W.11
37 S.C.No.1164/2021
Ex.P.16: statement of P.W.12
Ex.P.17: statement of P.W.13
Ex.P.18, 19, 20: marriage certificates
and NOC marked with consent
Ex.P.21: P.M.Report
Ex.P.21(a): signature of PW.14
Ex.P.22: death photos
Ex.P.23: spot Mahazar
Ex.P.23(a): signature of PW.16
Ex.P.23(b): signature of PW.17
Ex.P.24: Mahazar
Ex.P.24(a): signature of PW.18
Ex.P.24(b): signature of PW.19
Ex.P.25: letter
Ex.P.26: sketch
Ex.P.26(a): signature
Ex.P.27: spot Mahazar
Ex.P.27(a): signature of PW.23
Ex.P.28: sketch
Ex.P.28(a): signature of PW.23
Ex.P.29: CDR Phone call
Ex.P.30: statement of HC 9301 by P.W.23
38 S.C.No.1164/2021Ex.P.31: Photos
Ex.P.32: sketch
Ex.P.32(a): signature of PW.23
Ex.P.33: lease cum rental agreement by P.W.23
Ex.P.34: V-Care hospital letter
Ex.P.35: statement of PSI
Ex.P.36: tax paid receipt
Ex.P.37: FIR
Ex.P.37(a): signature of PW.24List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
NIL
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:
NIL
List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
M.O.1: Black colour chudidhar top M.O.2: green colour leggings pant M.O.3: Blue colour underwear M.O.4: green colour bra M.O.5: mattress 39 S.C.No.1164/2021 M.O.6: two pillows Digitally signed by E RAJEEVA E RAJEEVA GOWDA GOWDA Date: 2026.05.21 13:39:51 +0530 (E. RAJEEVA GOWDA)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
