A.Srinivas Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF VIDEO PIRACY CASES, HYDERABAD

Present: Sri.A.Srinivas Kumar, XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the Fifteenth day of February, 2016.

CC No.861/2010

Between: The state through Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Begumpet, North Zone, Secunderabad. …. Complainant

And

1)G.Lokesh Yadav, S/o Late G.Hari Dhananjayulu, Occupation: Assistant Lineman, R/o 16-621/C/C2, Seshappa Thota, Madanapalli, Chittoor District.

2)G.Kanthamama, W/o Late G.Hari Dhananjayulu, Occupation: Housewife, R/o 16-621/C/C2, Seshappa Thota, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. …. Accused Nos.1 and 2 (Police have not filed charge sheet against Accused No.3 Smt Komala)

This case is coming on today for the final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Daniel Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri P.V.Anand Mudaliar, Advocate for the accused nos. 1 and 2 and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) One Sujatha who is the complainant in this case had preferred a complaint before the Predecessor of this Court on 13th May, 2010 with a request to prefer the matter to the police station concerned under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation on the crimes charged against Accused Nos. 1 to 3. Accordingly, the investigating officer after due investigation filed charge sheet, but against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 only and by deleting the name of Accused No.3 on the reason that she could find no evidence against Accused No.3. However, the investigating officer has opined in her charge sheet that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have not only subjected the complainant to cruelty for an additional dowry, but also misappropriated her gold jewellery and therefore, they are liable for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and Section 6 of Dowry 2

Prohibition Act. However, the case of the prosecution as one could peruse from the contents of the said complaint, dated 13th May, 2010 and also from the contents of the charge sheet that the marriage of the complainant with the first accused was performed on 2nd April, 2008 at Madanapalli, Chittoor

District, Andhra Pradesh. It has been further alleged in the complaint that prior to the marriage; the first accused pestered the complainant to marry him and also threatened her that he would commit suicide in case she does not accept his proposal. However, after the marriage, the complainant joined the house of first accused at Madanapalli and there was also a marriage reception arranged at the instance of the parents of the first accused, wherein, Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 demanded the parents of the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and also the gold ornaments worth of twenty tulas. Apart from the said demand, they also demanded the parents of the complainant to give money for purchasing clothes.

(a) It is the further case of the prosecution that Accused Nos.2 and 3 also demanded the parents of the complainant to transfer their house which was situated at Tirupathi on the name of the first accused but, the parents of the complainant could not transfer the house and promised them that they would transfer the house in near future on the name of the first accused.

Subsequently, the complainant could happily live with Accused Nos. 1 and 2 only for one month and thereafter Accused Nos. 1 and 2 started harassing her both mentally and physically to such an extent, where the complainant felt that her life was in danger in the hands of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. It has been further alleged against Accused No.1 that he was a drunkard, who used to abuse the complainant in a filthy language and also used to insist her parents to transfer the said house in his name and also insisted her to bring a motor cycle for him. The parents of the complainant, however, purchased a Hero Honda motor cycle on 6th June, 2008 and handed over the same to the first accused, but, subsequently, pledged the said motor cycle to an unknown person. While the complainant was pregnant in the month of July, 2008, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are said to have insisted her to go for abortion and accordingly, the complainant went for abortion in the month of

September, 2008.

2) In pursuance of the summons issued by this Court, Accused nos. 1 and 2 have made their appearance on 15th November, 2011 and they were furnished with copies of this case as per the procedure contemplated under 3

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code and the Accused nos.1 and 2 were examined on 23rd January, 2013 as per the procedure contemplated under

Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Accused nos. 1 and 2 have pleaded not guilty and after due consideration, this Court framed charges against the Accused under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition

Act.

3) The prosecution has examined the complainant/victim namely

G.Sujatha, as Pw1, father of Pw1 namely, A.Venkat Ramana as Pw2 and the

Sub-Inspector of Police namely, K.Sridevi as Pw3 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked on its side.

4) After completion of the trial, this Court has examined Accused nos. 1 and 2 as per the procedure contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by drawing the attention to the incriminating part of the evidence spoken by

Pws 1 to 3. Accused have replied that whatever the incriminating part of the evidence spoken by Pw1 to Pw3 against. Even Accused nos. 1 and 2 did not prefer to lead any evidence in this case, but, they marked Exs.D1 to D4 in their defence.

5) Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and also the Learned

Advocate for the accused.

6) The Learned Assistant Prosecutor while drawing the attention of this

Court to the entire case record, particularly the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 have vehemently contended that there is sufficient evidence to punish the

Accused nos. 1 and 2 for the above said offences.

7) On the other hand the learned Advocate for the Accused nos. 1 and 2 while drawing the attention of this Court to Exs.D1 to D4, which are improvements made by Pws 1 and 2 in their examinations in chief to the material facts, has vehemently contended that the statements which have not been stated by them before the investigating officer cannot be taken into consideration. He further contended that most of the allegations made by

Pw1 in her Ex.P1 complaint and also in her evidence have not been established by the prosecution as admittedly, the prosecution failed to examine any other person except Pw1 and Pw2 and therefore, it is one of the grounds urged by the learned Advocate seeking acquittal of Accused

Nos. 1 and 2 in this case.

4

8) The Court has perused the entire case records very carefully and also taken into consideration the rival contentions of the APP and also the

Advocate for the Accused nos. 1 and 2 and formulated the below mentioned points for consideration.

(1) Whether the prosecution could establish the charge under Section 498-

A IPC against the Accused?

(2) Whether the prosecution could establish the charge under Section 406

IPC against the Accused?

(3) Whether the prosecution could establish the demand of dowry by

Accused Nos.1 and 2 from the parents of Pw1 and therefore, liable for the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act?

(4) To what relief?

9) POINT NO.1:- Whether the prosecution could establish the charge under Section 498-A IPC against the Accused? As already stated by this Court in the above paragraphs, it is the case of the prosecution that the

Accused have subjected the complainant i.e., Pw1 to cruelty both mentally and physically and therefore, they are liable for punishment under Section 498-A IPC. Now the question would arise as to how far the prosecution could establish the charges offences against Accused in this case. Before, going into the crux of the matter, it is apropos to have a glance at the circumstances under which a person can be punished for the offence under

Section 498-A IPC.

10) To establish the guilt under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution inevitably establish the ingredients that the husband or the relative of the husband of the complainant subjected the complainant to cruelty. According to Section 498-A IPC cruelty means any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical and such harassment is with a view to compel the complainant to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security etc. Unless, these ingredients are satisfied and proved, a person cannot be held for the offence under

Section 498-A IPC.

5

11) This Court also has placed reliance on a judgement rendered by our

Honourable Apex Court in a case decided between State of Andhra Pradesh

Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao, reported in 2009(2) ALT (Crl.) 271 (SC), wherein it has been held the real definition of cruelty in 11th paragraph, which is as follows:

Thus, providing a new dimension to the concept of cruelty, Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A IPC, postulates that any willful conduct which is of such a nature as it likely to drive a woman to commit suicide would constitute cruelty. Such willful conduct, which is likely to commit grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman would also amount to cruelty. Clause (b) of the Explanation provides that harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her to any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand, would also constitute cruelty for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC. It is plain that as per Clause

(b) of the Explanation, which, according to learned counsel for the State, is attracted in the instant case, every harassment does not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be with a definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand. In other words, for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC harassment simpliciter is not cruelty and it is only when harassment committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc., that is amounted to cruelty punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

12) Now we have to see as to whether the prosecution has complied with the said law laid down by our Honourable Apex Court.

13) The complainant as Pw1 gave her evidence stating that her marriage with Accused No.1 was performed on 2nd April, 2008 at Madanapalli and it was a love marriage. On the next day of the marriage, according to Pw1, her parents and the parents of Accused No.1 came to know about the marriage and on 3rd April, 2008, her parents came to Madanapalli and there was an altercation between them and the parents of Accused No.1 regarding the love marriage and more over, the parents of Accused No.1 made a demand for gold, cash and the house from her parents. She further alleged in her evidence that her parents gave Accused Nos. 1 and 2 the gold ornaments worth of twenty tulas, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.15,000/- to purchase clothes. So far as the said house demanded by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, it is the evidence of Pw1 that her parents promised them that they would give the house in near future. Thereafter she could live happily with Accused No.1 for one month and later Accused Nos. 1 and 2 6 started harassing her for more dowry. It is her further evidence that

Accused No.1 also demanded her to bring two-wheeler from her parents and accordingly, her parents gave him a motor cycle. According to her, Accused

No.1 pledged the said motor cycle for money without her knowledge and

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 also retained her gold ornaments with them. Here also Pw1 has deposed about the insistence of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for abortion and also about the termination of her pregnancy. She further alleged that Accused No.1 having addicted to the consumption of alcohol used to beat her every day and accordingly he used to made calls to her parents and forced them to transfer their house. Pw1 has further alleged in her evidence that Accused No.1 also developed an illicit intimacy with one woman namely Jasmine at Madanapalli and stopped coming to the house in the nights. When she questioned him about such attitude, he used to give replies that he was in his friend’s house. Even she observed several messages sent by the said Jasmine to Accused No.1. In the month of April, 2010, Accused No.1 left her in her parent’s house and put a condition that her parents should transfer the said house in his name and also to give a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is her further evidence that subsequently her sister committed suicide in Hyderabad and Accused Nos. 1 and 2 started spreading rumors among her relatives stating that her elder sister committed suicide having come to know about her (Pw1) illicit intimacy with her husband.

Even Accused Nos. 1 and 2 also did not attend funeral of her sister. Apart from the said evidence, Pw1 also marked Exs.P1 to P9 in this case.

14) Pw2, namely A.Venkata Ramana, who is the father of Pw1, gave his evidence that the marriage of Pw1 with Accused No.1 was a love marriage and therefore, they went to the house of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and enquired about the said fact. He further alleged that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 also demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the gold ornaments worth of twenty tulas at the time of the marriage-reception. He would further state that he gave Rs.1,00,000/- and also the gold ornaments worth of twenty tulas to Accused Nos. 1 and 2 according to their demand. It is his further evidence that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 also demanded Pw1 to bring a motor cycle for Accused No.1 and he gave a sum of Rs.80,000/- to Accused

No.2 for purchasing of the vehicle. Pw2 also alleged in his evidence that

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 insisted him to transfer the said house at Tirupathi in the name of Accused No.1. It is his further evidence that after four months 7 and on one day, he received a telephone call from an unknown person, who informed him about the illicit intimacy of Accused No.1 with another woman and further informed him that Accused No.1 and the said woman used to meet regularly in a lodge namely Vijaya Lodge at Madanapalli. So, he went to Madanapalli and to the said Vijaya Lodge and enquired with the

Receptionist namely Ramana, who identified the person shown in the photograph as Accused No.1. It is his further evidence that the said Ramana confirmed that Accused No.1 and the said woman regularly meet in the said

Lodge. So, he (Pw2) went to a police station situated infront of RTC Bus

Stand, Madanapalli and gave a complaint against Accused No.1 and the police summoned Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and warned them. It is his further evidence that in the month of April, 2010, Accused No.1 came to his house at Secunderabad and left Pw1 in his house with a condition that he should transfer the said house in his favour. Immediately he caught hold the legs of Accused No.1 and requested him not to do injustices to Pw1.

15) Pw3, namely, K.Sridevi, who investigated into the matter gave her evidence stating that on 13th May, 2010 at about 12.30 pm, she received

Ex.P1 from XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad for investigation and accordingly, she registered the same as crime number 52 of 2010 against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and after investigation she filed charge sheet against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 only. Now the second question would arise as how far the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 is helpful to the case of the prosecution to establish the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal

Code against Accused Nos. 1 and 2?

16) As rightly contended by the learned advocate for the accused nos. 1 and 2, there are several improvements made by Pw1 and Pw2 in their examinations in chief regarding the material facts, which have not been stated by them before the investigating officer in their statements recorded as per the procedure contemplated under Sections 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Normally, a Criminal Court would never entertain the facts, which have not been stated by the witnesses before the investigating officer regarding the material. Of course, it is also a well established principle of law that all the omissions are not important to negative the veracity of the evidence of witnesses. At the same time, it also a law as stated by our Honourable Apex Court and also our Honourable High Court in 8 several judgements that a Court should concentrate on material facts which are spoken by a witness for the first time before the Court in his evidence.

In this case also such omissions made by Pw1 and Pw2 are regarding the material facts, which lead to disbelieve their evidence also. For the first time in their evidence, Pw1 and Pw2 have spoken about the illicit intimacy of

Accused No.1 with another woman namely Jasmine. Such an improvement made by the witnesses cannot be taken into consideration in this case.

Moreover, it is the evidence of Pw2 that he also went to Madanapalli and enquired with Receptionist of Vijaya Lodge and came to know that Accused

Nos. 1 and another woman used to come to the said Lodge and he further deposed that he also went to the nearby police station and gave a complaint against Accused No.1. Admittedly, Pw2 has not stated the said facts before the investigating officer. Such improved version made by Pw1 and Pw2, would rather come to a conclusion that they were cruel towards Accused

Nos. 1 and 2 with their odd behavior. Moreover, the investigating officer also failed to establish such illicit intimacy of Accused No.1 with the said woman namely Jasmine. All these facts put together, leads to a conclusion that Pw1 and Pw2 have not spoken truth in this Court.

17) Pw1 also alleged in her complaint that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 forced her to go for abortion and accordingly it was terminated in the month of

September, 2008. Pw1 has stated the said fact in such a manner as if the said abortion had taken place in a hospital. But, in the cross examination, she has admitted that the said abortion had taken place in the house of

Accused No.1 itself in Madanapalli. It is her further evidence that on the insistence of Accused No.1, her father purchased motor cycle for him and she further alleged that Accused No.1 also pledged the said vehicle for money. But, in the cross-examination she has frankly admitted about her failure to file any documentary evidence to show about such purchase of a vehicle for Accused No.1. She further admitted about her failure to file any documentary evidence to show about such giving of money and the gold ornaments to Accused No.1 at the time of marriage-reception. When we go through the evidence of Pw1 juxtaposition the improvements made by her, it would lead a conclusion that she did not speak truth in this Court. Even Pw2 also admitted in his cross examination about his failure to file any documentary evidence to show about such giving of motor cycle, cash of

Rs.1,00,000/- and the gold ornaments.

9

18) When we carefully peruse the entire case record and also the evidence of Pws1 to Pw3, it is crystal clear that the investigation done by the investigating officer is not at all satisfactory and the investigating officer filed her charge sheet in a routine way. Pw3 who is the investigating officer has admitted in her cross examination about her failure to collect any documentary evidence to show about such purchase of motor cycle for

Accused No.1 by Pw2 and also about such giving of Rs.1,00,000/- and the gold ornaments to Accused No.1 by Pw2 etc. It is a surprise to note that even the investigating officer failed to visit Madanapalli to investigate into the allegation made by Pw1 and Pw2 about the illicit intimacy of Accused

No.1 with another woman. Therefore, the investigation of Pw3 is not at all satisfactory.

19) Apart from the oral evidence, prosecution also has marked Exs.P2 to

P9. Exs.P2 to P4 are the photographs only disclosing some jewellery.

Exs.P2 to P4 are not at all helpful to establish any fact in this case. The remaining documents are the legal notices, and the case filed by Pw1 against Accused No.1 etc., and those documents are not at all helpful to the issue involved n this case. Therefore, when we peruse the evidence of Pws1 to Pw3 juxtaposition the findings of our Honourable Apex Court in the above quoted judgement, a fact is clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the ingredients of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code against

Accused Nos. 1 and 2.

20) POINT NO.2:-Whether the prosecution could establish the charge under Section 406 IPC against the Accused? The prosecution has made an allegation against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 that they have also criminally misappropriated the gold jewellery of Pw1 and therefore, they are liable for the offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code. Except the bald statement, there is no proof put forward by the investigating officer to establish the said offence. As already stated by this Court in the first point, the prosecution has failed to collect any documentary evidence in this case to show about such purchase of motor cycle and also about such giving of gold ornaments to Accused No.1 by Pw2. When, it is an admitted fact by Pws 1 to Pw3, there is no meaning to insist for the conviction of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 406 IPC. When there is no entrustment 10 of property by Pw1 to Accused Nos. 1 and 2, there is no offence under

Section 406 Indian Penal Code.

21) POINT No.3: Whether the prosecution could establish the

demand of dowry by Accused Nos.1 and 2 from the parents of Pw1

and therefore, liable for the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act? Apart from the above said penal provisions, the

Accused persons are also charged for the offences under Section 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. The opening words of Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act would indicate that if any person demands, dowry or other property directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives of a bride shall be punishable. Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would indicate that a person who received any dowry shall transfer it to the woman within a particular period. Therefore, the prosecution before establishing Section 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act shall establish Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, particularly the demand made by a particular person from the parents of the bride. But, in this case, except the bare statement of Pw1, the investigating officer did not produce any documentary evidence to show about such demand made by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and from the parents of Pw1 for the alleged reasons. In the absence of any such positive evidence, this Court is not in a position to believe the case of the prosecution.

22) Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that the prosecution also failed to establish the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act in this case.

23) POINT No.4: To what relief? : In the result, the accused nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offenses under sections 498-A and 406 IPC and

Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused nos.1 and 2 shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over as per Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected,

pronounced and signed by me in the Open Court on this the 15th day of

February, 2016.

XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Spl. Court for the trial of Video Piracy Cases, Hyderabad.

11

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined for:

Prosecution: Defence: Pw1- G.Sujatha, Complainant and victim. Nil Pw2- A.Venkata Ramana, father of Pw1. Pw3- K.Sridevi, Sub-Inspector of Police.

Exhibits marked on Behalf of

Prosecution: Ex.P1 - Complaint of Pw1. Ex.P2 - Photograph showing jewellery. Ex.P3- Photograph showing jewellery. Ex.P4- Photograph showing jewellery. Ex.P5 Photograph showing jewellery. Ex.P6- Compact Disc containing Exs.P2 to P4. Ex.P7- Photo copy of Visitor Admission Register of Sri Vijaya Lodge. Ex.P8- Photo copy of Visitor Admission Register of Sri Vijaya Lodge. Ex.P9- Certified copy of Order in F.C.O.P.No.599/2010, dated 13.2.2012. Ex.P10 First Information Report.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence:

Ex.D1- Certain portion marked in the chief evidence of Pw1. Ex.D2- Certain portion marked in the chief evidence of Pw2. Ex.D3- Certain portion marked in the chief evidence of Pw2. Ex.D4- Certain portion marked in the chief evidence of Pw2.

M.Os. Marked.

Nil

XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Spl. Court for the trial of Video Piracy Cases, Hyderabad.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF VIDEO PIRACY CASES, HYDERABAD

Present: Sri.A.Srinivas Kumar, XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the Eleventh day of February, 2016.

CC No.309/2012

Between:

The state through Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Begumpet, North Zone, Secunderabad. …. Complainant

And

E.Shiva Kumar, S/o Late E.Satyanarayana, Age 46 years, Occupation: Railway Employee, R/o 872/1, Railway Quarters, North Lalaguda, Secunderabad. …. Accused No.1 1)Burige Susheela alias B.Susheela, W/o Late Narsing Rao, Aged 40 years, Occupation: Railway Employee, R/o Mahca Bollaram, Secunderabad. 2)Kasturi Bai, W/o Late Satyanarayana, Aged 65 years, Occupation: Housewife, R/o 12-32, New Mirjalguda, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad.

….. Accused Nos. 2 and 5

(As per the orders of this Court dated 2nd August, 2013, Accused Nos.2 and 5 were discharged in this case.) (Police has filed charge sheet against Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5, by deleting the names of Accused Nos. 3 and 4. Hence, the present case is against Accused no.1 only)

This case is coming on today for the final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Daniel Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri U.Venu Gopal, Advocate for the accused no. 1 and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) At the instance of the complainant namely E.Suvarna Latha, the investigating officer based on her complaint dated 18th June, 2011 filed charge sheet against Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 for the offences alleged to have been committed them under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC and Sections 2 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. But, this Court at the time of framing of charges as per the procedure contemplated under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has discharged the Accused Nos. 2 and 5 vide separate order. Neither the prosecution nor the complainant challenged the said order and therefore, this case is now remained against the first accused only. However, the case of the prosecution as one could peruse from the contents of the said complaint dated 18th June, 2011 and also from the contents of the charge sheet that the marriage of the complainant with

Accused No.1 was performed on 26th December, 1997 and at the time of the marriage, her parents gave Accused No.1 the gold ornaments worth of five and half tulas, the silver ornaments worth of twenty tulas and the household articles worth of Rs.15,000/-. The prosecution would contend that the said articles given were on the demand made by Accused No.1. The further case of the prosecution would disclose that after the marriage, the complainant could happily live with Accused No.1 till she gave birth to a son and a daughter. Subsequently, Accused No.1 started harassing the complainant for an additional dowry and when she expressed her inability to arrange the said money, he also beat her and scolded her in a filthy language. However, the mother of the complainant is said to have given Accused No.1 a sum of

Rs.50,000/- in the year 2002, Rs.50,000/- in the year 2003 and Rs.80,000/- in the year 2005. (Since Accused Nos. 2 and 5 have already been discharged by this Court and since such order of the Court has not been challenged by the prosecution, this Court restricted its view only to the allegations made against Accused No.1 in this case).

(a) It is the further contention of the prosecution that the Accused No.1 used to come late in the night in a drunken state and harassed the complainant and her children. On 7th November, 2011 there was a mediation held in the presence of elders wherein, the Accused No.1 promised that he would look after the complainant in a proper way. It is not out of context to mention that the complainant has alleged in her complaint that Accused No.1 had an illicit intimacy with Accused No.2 and continued to live with her. As already stated by this Court, the investigating officer filed her charge sheet against Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 for the above said offences.

3

2) In pursuance of the summons issued by this Court, Accused nos. 1, 2 and 5 have made their appearance on 11th June, 2013 and they were furnished with copies of this case as per the procedure contemplated under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. Accused Nos. 2 and 5 were discharged as per the orders of this Court dated 2nd August, 2013 and the

Accused no.1 was examined on the same day as per the procedure contemplated under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Accused no. 1 has pleaded not guilty and after due consideration, this Court framed charges against the

Accused No.1 under Sections 498-A IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

3) The prosecution has examined the complainant/victim namely

E.Suvarnalatha as Pw1, younger brother of Pw1 namely S.Ravindranath as Pw2, neighbour of Pw1 Puja Kamalay as Pw3, another neighbour of Pw1 namely D.Saroja as Pw4, and the then Sub-Inspector of police namely

N.Shreya as Pw5 and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked on its side.

4) After completion of the trial, this Court has examined Accused no.1 as per the procedure contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by drawing the attention to the incriminating part of the evidence spoken by Pws 1 to 5.

Accused No.1 has replied that whatever the incriminating part of the evidence spoken by Pw1 to Pw5 against him was a falsehood and he stated that he never subjected the complainant to cruelty at any point of the time.

Even Accused no. 1 did not prefer to lead any evidence in this case, but marked Exs.D1 to D7 in his defence.

5) Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and also the Learned

Advocate for the accused.

6) The Learned Assistant Prosecutor while drawing the attention of this

Court to the entire case record, particularly the evidence of Pws 1 to 5 have vehemently contended that there is sufficient evidence to punish the

Accused no. 1 for the above said offences.

7) On the other hand the learned Advocate for the Accused no. 1 while drawing the attention of this Court to Exs.D2 to D7 has vehemently contended that Pw1 and Pw4 have made several improvements in their evidence regarding the material facts, which have not been stated by them 4

before the investigating officer in their statements recorded under Sections

161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, their evidence cannot be believed by this Court and consequently Accused No.1 is entitled to acquittal in the matter. He further contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the alleged illicit intimacy of Accused No.1 with

Accused No.2 and therefore, it is an important fact for consideration that

Pw1 was cruel towards Accused No.1 to make such baseless allegations.

The learned Advocate has requested the Court to acquit the Accused No.1 also.

8) The Court has perused the entire case records very carefully and also taken into consideration the rival contentions of the APP and also the

Advocate for the Accused no. 1 and formulated the below mentioned points for consideration.

(1) Whether the prosecution could establish the charges under Section 498-A IPC against the Accused No.1?

(2) Whether the prosecution could establish the demand of dowry by

Accused No.1 from the parents of Pw1 and therefore, liable for the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act?

(3) To what relief?

9) POINT NO.1:- Whether the prosecution could establish the charges under Section 498-A IPC against the Accused No.1? As already stated by this Court in the above paragraphs, it is the case of the prosecution that the Accused have subjected the complainant i.e., Pw1 to cruelty both mentally and physically and therefore, they are liable for punishment under Section 498-A IPC. Now the question would arise as to how far the prosecution could establish the charges offences against Accused in this case. Before, going into the crux of the matter, it is apropos to have a glance at the circumstances under which a person can be punished for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

10) To establish the guilt under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution inevitably establish the ingredients that the husband or the relative of the husband of the complainant subjected the complainant to cruelty. According to Section 498-A IPC cruelty means any willful conduct which is of such a 5 nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical and such harassment is with a view to compel the complainant to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security etc. Unless, these ingredients are satisfied and proved, a person cannot be held for the offence under

Section 498-A IPC.

11) This Court also has placed reliance on a judgement rendered by our

Honourable Apex Court in a case decided between State of Andhra Pradesh

Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao, reported in 2009(2) ALT (Crl.) 271 (SC), wherein it has been held the real definition of cruelty in 11th paragraph, which is as follows:

Thus, providing a new dimension to the concept of cruelty, Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A IPC, postulates that any willful conduct which is of such a nature as it likely to drive a woman to commit suicide would constitute cruelty. Such willful conduct, which is likely to commit grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman would also amount to cruelty. Clause (b) of the Explanation provides that harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her to any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand, would also constitute cruelty for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC. It is plain that as per Clause

(b) of the Explanation, which, according to learned counsel for the State, is attracted in the instant case, every harassment does not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be with a definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand. In other words, for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC harassment simpliciter is not cruelty and it is only when harassment committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc., that is amounted to cruelty punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

12) Now we have to see as to whether the prosecution has complied with the said law laid down by our Honourable Apex Court.

13) The complainant as Pw1 gave her evidence that her marriage with

Accused No.1 was performed on 26th December, 1997 and at the time of the marriage and on the demand made by Accused No.1, her parents gave him the gold ornaments worth of five and half tulas, the silver ornaments worth of twenty tulas and the household articles. After the marriage, according to Pw1, she could happily live with Accused No.1 only for four years and she also gave birth to a son and daughter out of the marriage wedlock. Later according to her Accused No.1 started harassing her mentally 6 and physically for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and her mother also gave a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the year 2002, Rs.50,000/- in the year 2003 and Rs.80,000/- in the year 2005. She further alleged in her evidence that

Accused No.1 used to burn away her clothes and on one occasion, he also broken the telephone and television. She further alleged that Accused No.1 used to beat her and on one occasion, he also dragged her out of the house by holding the tuft of her hair. Even Accused No.1 beat her aunty who came to her rescue by causing bleeding injuries to her. She further alleged that

Accused No.1 also developed illicit intimacy with a woman namely Susheela (Accused No.2) and even she caught hold of Accused No.1 and the said

Susheela red-handed with the help of the police while they were together.

According to Pw1, the police also arrested Accused No.1 and the said

Susheela and held conciliation proceedings, wherein, Accused No.1 gave a written undertaking stating that he will never behave in such a manner in future. According to Pw1, the said incident took place on 4th January, 2011.

14) Pw2, namely S.Ravindranath, who is the younger brother of Pw1 gave his evidence stating that after two years of the marriage, Accused No.1 developed illicit intimacy with a woman and further started harassing Pw1 both mentally and physically. According to Pw2, Accused No.1 used to set fire to the clothes of Pw1 and also damage the household articles and neglect Pw1 and her children by all means.

15) Pw3, namely Puja Kamalay, who is the neighbour of Pw1 gave her evidence that Accused No.1 was drunkard and who used to consume alcohol and beat Pw1 ever day. She further alleged that Accused No.1 used to bring his friends to the house and force Pw1 to cook food for them and when Pw1 refused to do so, he used to beat her. She too would allege in her evidence that Accused No.1 used to burn clothes and damage household articles and neglected Pw1 and her children by all means. On one day, according to

Pw3, Pw1 came to her house and told her that she was sent out by Accused

No.1 from the house forcibly. Pw1 informed her about the illicit intimacy of

Accused No.1 with another woman.

16) Pw4, namely D.Saroja who is the neighbour of Pw1 gave her evidence that Accused No.1 used to beat Pw1 in drunken state and she came to know through Pw1 about the alleged harassment of Accused No.1 towards her. It 7 is her further evidence that on one occasion, she accompanied Pw1 to

Begumpet police station where she observed a woman namely Susheela in the police station. It is her further evidence that on one occasion Accused no.1 beat Pw1 with a stone which has struck and sustained injury.

17) Pw5, namely N.Shreya, who is the investigating officer gave her evidence that after investigation she filed charge sheet against Accused

Nos.1, 2 and 5 for the above said offences. Now the second question would arose as to how far the evidence of Pws 1 to 5 is helpful to the case of the prosecution in this case?

18) It is the prime contention of the advocate for Accused No.1 that Pw1 since made several improvements in her examination in chief regarding the material facts, which are marked as Exs.D2 to D4, her evidence cannot be believed. Such contention of the learned counsel for accused no.1 has a force in the present facts and circumstances of this case, wherein, Pw1 has made Exs.D2 to D4 improvements in her evidence, which are absent in her statement made before the investigating officer and the investigating officer as Pw5 also admitted in her cross examination about such improvements made by Pw1. It is not at all the case of Pw1 in her Ex.P1 complaint about

Accused No.1 burning away clothes and damaging telephone and television in the house and also about Accused No.1 demanding a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- as additional dowry and also Accused No.1 beating her and dragging her out of the house by holding the tuft of her hair. But, Pw1 in her examination in chief for the first time has disclosed the said instances which cannot be taken into consideration. Normally, a Criminal Court will not entertain the facts which are deposed for the first time in the Court and which are absent in the statement made by such witnesses under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure before the investigating officer. Moreover, such improvements made by Pw1 regarding Exs.D2 to D4 facts are material in nature and therefore, inadmissible in evidence.

19) The learned Advocate for the Accused No.1 has cross examined Pw1 at length and suggested to Pw1 about her illicit relationship with one Naresh and also suggested to the fact that she was caught red-handed while she was with the said Naresh in the house of Accused No.1 and also further suggested her about Accused No.1 bringing the elder brother of Pw1 namely 8

Joginder to the house and also informed him about such illicit relationship of

Pw1 with the said Naresh and also about the said Joginder warning Pw1 not to do so. Of course, Pw1 has denied those suggestions as false and further however admitted to the fact that she knows the said Naresh as friend of

Accused No.1. She further admitted that the house of her brother i.e.,

Joginder is situated in the same Railway Quarters, in which she used to reside with Accused no.1. She further admitted in the same cross examination that Accused No.1 and her elder brother i.e., the said Joginer are Railway employees. When it is the admitted fact by Pw1, a question would arise as to why the investigating officer failed to examine the elder brother of Pw1 i.e., Joginder in this case? As rightly contended by the learned advocate for Accused No.1 the investigating officer has suppressed the truth in this case. Moreover, the investigating officer failed to establish the illicit intimacy between Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 except arresting

Accused No.2. In the absence of a proof regarding the illicit relationship between Accused No.1 and Accused No.2, it would amount to cruelty on the part of Pw1 to make such baseless allegations regarding the illicit intimacy of

Accused No.1 with Accused No.2. Therefore, the evidence of Pw1 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution to establish the charged offences.

20) When we consider the evidence of Pw2, he too has made a baseless allegation about the illicit intimacy of Accused No.1 with another woman. It is unfortunate on the part of Pw2, to give at least the name of woman with whom Accused No.1 has illicit intimacy. Therefore, such a baseless allegation of Pw2 would amount to cruelty. Pw3, who is the neighbour of Pw1 gave her evidence stating that Accused No.1 used to bring friends to the house of Pw1 and force Pw1 to cook food for them and in case Pw2 refuses to do so, he used to beat her. But, in the cross examination, Pw3 has frankly admitted that she is residing in Mirzalguda since the day of her marriage. When that is the admitted evidence of Pw3, a question would arise as to how far it is probable on her part to witness the said things spoken by her in her examination in chief. However, Pw3 has admitted in her cross-examination about the said Naresh visiting the house of Accused No.1 frequently and such admission would probabalize the theory of Accused No.1 about his finding Pw1 with said Naresh in the house. The failure on the part of the investigating officer to examine the elder brother of Pw1 namely Joginder 9 who went to the house of Accused No.1 and warned Pw1 not to continue her relationship with the said Naresh would further add to such theory of

Accused No.1.

21) So far as the evidence of Pw4 is concerned, she also has made several improvements in her evidence to the material facts which are marked as

Exs.D5 to D7 and therefore, her evidence also is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. Pw4 has expressed her ignorance to the material facts in her cross examination. Pw5 who is the investigating officer has admitted in her cross examination about the improvements made by Pw1 and Pw4 in their evidence and also about her failure to examine the elder brother of Pw1 ie., Joginder. She further admitted in her cross examination about her failure to investigate regarding the illicit intimacy of Accused No.1 with

Accused No.2 and also about her failure to get any documentary evidence to show about such giving of money and other articles to Accused No.1 by the mother of Pw1.

22) The prosecution has marked Exs.P2 to P12 in this case. This Court has carefully perused Exs.P2 to P12 and found that those documents are related to the complaints made by Pw1 to the Railway Department and also about her DVC case filed before the Family Court etc. The said documents are not at all helpful to the case of the prosecution, particularly to establish the charged offences against Accused No.1 in this case. When we peruse the evidence of Pw1 to Pw5, juxtaposition findings of our Honourable Apex Court in the above quoted judgement, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the charged offences against Accused No.1.

23) POINT No.2: Whether the prosecution could establish the

demand of dowry by Accused No.1 from the parents of Pw1 and

therefore, liable for the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry

Prohibition Act? Apart from the above said penal provisions, the Accused persons are also charged for the offences under Section 4 and 6 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. The opening words of Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would indicate that if any person demands, dowry or other property directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives of a bride shall be punishable. Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would indicate that a person who received any dowry shall transfer it to the woman within a 10 particular period. Therefore, the prosecution before establishing Section 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act shall establish Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, particularly the demand made by a particular person from the parents of the bride. But, in this case, except the bare statement of Pw1, the investigating officer did not produce any documentary evidence to show about such demand made by Accused No. 1 and from the parents of Pw1 for the alleged reasons. In the absence of any such positive evidence, this Court is not in a position to believe the case of the prosecution.

24) Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that the prosecution also failed to establish the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act in this case.

25) POINT No.3: To what relief? In the result, the accused no.1 is found not guilty for the offenses under sections 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected,

pronounced and signed by me in the Open Court on this the 11th day of

February, 2016.

XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Spl. Court for the trial of Video Piracy Cases, Hyderabad.

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined for:

Prosecution: Defence:

Pw1- E.Suvarnalatha, complainant/victim Nil Pw2- S.Ravindranath, younger brother of Pw1. Pw3- Puja Kamalay, neighbour of Pw1. Pw4- D.Saroja, neighbour of Pw1. Pw5- N.Shreya, Sub Inspector of police.

11

Exhibits marked on Behalf of Prosecution:

Ex.P1- Complaint. Ex.P2- Health Book of Pw1 issued by Railway Hospital. Ex.P3- Copy of undertaking given by Accused No.1. Ex.P4- Copy of complaint given by Pw1 to Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. Ex.P5- Copy of another complaint dated 3.5.2011. Ex.P6- Copy of the letter dated 8.11.2011 given to Always Police Station. Ex.P7- Copy of the letter dated 30.11.2011. Ex.P8- Copy of complaint dated 12.12.2011 given to Chief Medical Superintendent. Ex.P9- Copy of the order dated 6.1.2012 of Court of IV Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.no.47/2012 in DVC 1/2012.

Ex.P10- Copy of petition in CRl.M.P.No.47/2012 in DVC 1/2012. Ex.P11 Ex.P11 is letter dated 23.11.2012 given to Divisional Railway Manager. Ex.P12- Copy of letter dated 13.12.2012 from Learned IV Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Ex.P13- First Information Report.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence:

Ex.D1- Certified copy of deposition of Pw1 in DVC 1/2012. Ex.D2- Certain portion marked in the chief evidence of Pw1. Ex.D3- Certain portion marked in the chief evidence of Pw1. Ex.D4- Certain portion marked in the chief evidence of Pw1. Ex.D5- Certain portion marked in the chief evidence of Pw4. Ex.D6- Certain portion marked in the chief evidence of Pw4. Ex.D7- Certain portion marked in the chief evidence of Pw4.

M.Os. Marked.

Nil

XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Spl. Court for the trial of Video Piracy Cases, Hyderabad.

Page 1 of 4

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SPL. COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF VIDEO PIRACY CASES, HYDERABAD

Present: Sri.A.Srinivas Kumar, B.A., LL.B., XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Dated this the 15th day of February, 2016.

CC No. 244 of 2013

Between: The state through Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, South Zone, Hyderabad. …. Complainant.

And

A1 Shaik Khaja Faheemuddin Chisti Quadri S/o Late Shaik Raheemuddin Quadri Sahab Age : 29 years, Occ : Electrician A2 Shazaed, W/o Late Shaik Raheemuddin Quadri Sahab Age : 50 years, Occ : Housewife A3 Shaik Khaja Naseeruddin @ Rafi S/o Late Shaik Raheemuddin Quadri Sahab Age : 34 years, Occ : Business A4 Shaik Khaja Moinuddin @ Moin S/o Late Shaik Raheemuddin Quadri Sahab Age : 32 years, Occ : Business A5 Md. Raheem, S/o Md. Fasal, Age : 35 years, Occ : Business A6 Nasreen, W/o Md. Raheem Age : 22 years, Occ : Housewife All are R/o H.No.19-4-279/D/201, Teegalkunta, Hyderabad. … Accused No.1 to A6.

This case is coming on today for the final hearing before me in

the presence of APP for the state and of Sri Mohd Shoeb Akbar,

Advocate for the accused persons and having stood over the matter

for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The case of the prosecution as one could peruse from the contents of the charge sheet filed by Sub Inspector of Police of Woman Police Station,

South Zone, Hyderabad and also from the contents of the referred complaint

dated 13th May 2014, made by one Smt. Naziyaunnisa, who is wife of A1 and

that the marriage of the complainant with A1 was performed on 4th July 2013 with defer dower of Rs.11,000/- and at the time of the marriage, on the demand made by the accused persons her parents gave them a sum of

Rs.50,000/- towards jode ki rakham, the gold ornaments worth of 5 tulas and complete jahez articles. After the marriage, she has joined in the

Page 2 of 4 company of A1 at her matrimonial house situated at Teegalkunta, Hyderabad along with all her jahez articles including gold ornaments. Thereafter, the accused persons harassed her both mentally and physically and abused in filthy language and beat her mercilessly on one pretext and other. Further, the accused persons regularly came to her parent’s house and passed remarks that, they are not given sufficient jahez articles and also forced her not to talk with her parent’s even phone also. On one occasion the A1 and

A2 taken all the jahez articles from her including gold ornaments and they did not allowed her to use the said articles, further the A1 to A6 threatened that they will sell away all the belongings of her to meet their demands.

Finally, on 14th February, 2014 all the accused persons quarrel with her and bet her mercilessly and also drover her out of the house with only wearing apparel. Later, on several times she has requests to them to give her all belongings, but the accused persons did not give the said articles to her.

Even her parents and elders also tried to specify the matter amicably, but in vain. So, she gave the said complaint against them.

The investigating officer after due investigation filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence under section 406 r/w 34 IPC and with her findings that the accused persons subjected to misappropriate all her belongings.

The accused persons are appeared before this court in pursuance of summons served on them and also they are examined by this Court on 15th

February, 2016 as per the procedure contemplated under section 239 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, but the accused persons pleaded not guilty and preferred to be tried.

This court after due consideration of this case, framed charge against them for the offence under section 406 r/w 34 IPC. To establish the guilt against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined the complainant as PW1 and Ex.P1 is marked on 15th February, 2016. The Learned Assistant

Page 3 of 4

Public Prosecutor with the leave of this court has given up LW2 to LW6, as the complainant turned hostile and not stated anything against the accused persons and particularly for the offence under section 406 r/w 34 IPC.

Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and also the learned

Advocate for the accused persons.

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons have subjected to misappropriate the jahez articles along with gold ornaments of the complainant (PW1). To establish the said facts, the prosecution examined only PW1. PW1 in her examination in chief conducted on 15th

February, 2016 has stated in her evidence that she never gave any complaint against the accused person on 13th May, 2014 and further added that she was not even examined by the investigating officer. Even APP could not elicit any information from the Cross Examination of PW1 in support of the case of prosecution. When such evidence of PW1, accused persons are entitled to acquittal in the matter.

In the opinion of this court, the evidence of PW1 in her examination in chief cannot be taken into consideration because of her admission in the cross examination regarding the matter as compromised. Therefore, this court did not believe the sole testimony of PW1 in this case.

In the result, accused persons found not guilty for the offense under section 406 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of the Judgment as per section 437-A Cr.PC.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, pronounced and signed by me in the Open Court on this the 15th day of February, 2016.

XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Spl. Court for the trial of Video Piracy Cases, Hyderabad.

Page 4 of 4

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined for:

Prosecution:

PW1- Smt. Naziyaunnisa, Defacto Complainant

Exhibits marked on Behalf of

Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the complaint made by Defacto Complaint.

M.O’s Marked. Nil

XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Spl. Court for the trial of Video Piracy Cases, Hyderabad

Page 1 of 4

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SPL. COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF VIDEO PIRACY CASES, HYDERABAD

Present: Sri.A.Srinivas Kumar, B.A., LL.B., XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 15th day of February, 2016.

CC No. 73 of 2013

Between:

The state through Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, South Zone, Hyderabad. …. Complainant.

And

A1 Mohd Masood, S/o Qasim Ali, Age : 38 years, Occ : Business

A3 Mehroom, W/o Qasim Ali, Age : 55 years, Occ : Housewife

A4 Mohd Ahmed, S/o Qasim Ali Age : 35 years, Occ : Electrician

All are R/o H.No.5-125, Sreerangapur Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District. … Accused No.1, A3 and A4.

This case is coming on today for the final hearing before me in

the presence of APP for the state and of Sri MD. Ismail, Advocate for

the accused persons and having stood over the matter for

consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The case of the prosecution as one could peruse from the contents of the charge sheet filed by Sub Inspector of Police of Woman Police Station,

South Zone, Hyderabad and also from the contents of the written complaint

dated 22nd March 2012, made by one Smt. Asma Begum, who is wife of A1

and that the marriage of the complainant with A1 was performed in the month of September 2004 at Garden Plaza Function Hall, Santoshnagar,

Hyderabad. At the time of the marriage on the demand made by the accused persons her parents gave them a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards jode ki rakham, the gold ornaments worth of 5 tulas, the silver ornaments, one

Hero Honda motorcycle and costly jahez articles. After the marriage, she along with her entire jahez articles joined the company of A1 at

Page 2 of 4

Sreeramnagar, Wanaparthy Mandal, Mahaboob Nagar District. During their wedlock, she was blessed with two daughters, but since the birth of her two daughters the accused persons have become unhappy and have been passing remarks that she blessed with daughters. Further, theA1 stating that he is unable to bear the expenses of her daughters, as such, the accused persons have been demanding her to bring an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- and to deposit the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of each daughter and on this issue they have tortured her both mentally and physically without providing proper food and basic necessities. Since last two years, she took shelter along with her daughters at the house of her parents. Even her parents and elders also tried to specify the matter amicably, but in vain. So, she gave the said complaint against them.

The investigating officer after due investigation filed charge sheet against the accused person for the offence under section 498-A IPC and with her findings that the accused persons subjected the complainant to cruelty both mentally and physically.

The accused persons are appeared before this court in pursuance of summons served on them and also they are examined by this Court on 01st

October, 2015 as per the procedure contemplated under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, but the accused persons pleaded not guilty and preferred to be tried.

This court after due consideration of this case, framed charge against them for the offence under section 498-A IPC and also sections 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. To establish the guilt against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined the complainant as PW1 and Ex.P1 is marked on 15th February, 2016. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor with the leave of this court has given up LW2 to LW4, as the complainant turned hostile and not stated anything against the accused persons and particularly

Page 3 of 4 for the offence under section 498-A IPC and also sections 4 and 6 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and also the learned

Advocate for the accused persons.

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons have subjected PW1 to cruelty both mentally and physically. To establish the said facts, the prosecution examined only PW1. PW1 in her examination in chief conducted on 15th February, 2016 has stated in her evidence that she never gave any complaint against the accused person on 22nd March, 2012 and further added that she was not even examined by the investigating officer.

Even APP could not elicit any information from the Cross Examination of PW1 in support of the case of prosecution. When such evidence of PW1, accused persons are entitled to acquittal in the matter.

In the opinion of this court, the evidence of PW1 in her examination in chief cannot be taken into consideration because of her admission in the cross examination regarding the matter as compromised. Therefore, this court did not believe the sole testimony of PW1 in this case.

In the result, accused persons found not guilty for the offense under section 498-A IPC and also sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of the Judgment as per section 437-A Cr.PC.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, pronounced and signed by me in the Open Court on this the 15th day of February, 2016.

XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Spl. Court for the trial of Video Piracy Cases, Hyderabad.

Page 4 of 4

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined for: Prosecution: PW1- Smt. Asma Begum, Defacto Complainant

Exhibits marked on Behalf of

Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the complaint made by Defacto Complaint.

M.O’s Marked. Nil

XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Spl. Court for the trial of Video Piracy Cases, Hyderabad

Page 1 of 3

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SPL. COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF VIDEO PIRACY CASES, HYDERABAD

Present: Sri.A.Srinivas Kumar, B.A., LL.B., XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 11th day of February, 2016.

CC No. 268 of 2015

Between: The state through Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, South Zone, Hyderabad. …. Complainant.

And

A1 Mohammed Shahzad S/o Late Mohammed Ibrahim Age : 32 years, Occ : Business R/o H.No. 648, Raza Manzil, RC Nagar, Nagpur, Maharastra State. … Accused No.1.

This case is coming on today for the final hearing before me in

the presence of APP for the state and of Sri K.V.Verma, Advocate for

the accused persons and having stood over the matter for

consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The case of the prosecution as one could peruse from the contents of the charge sheet filed by Sub Inspector of Police of Woman Police Station,

South Zone, Hyderabad and also from the contents of the written complaint

dated 23rd May 2012, made by one Smt. Aliya Begum, who is wife of A1 and

that the marriage of the complainant with A1 was performed on 28th

November, 2004 for a differed dower of Rs.11,786/-. On the demand of the accused her parents have gave a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 25th October, 2004 towards Ghoda Joda, the gold ornaments worth of 10 tulas, the silver ornaments worth of 10 tulas and jahez articles and also spent a sum of

Rs.3,50,000/- towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, the accused took her to his residence situated at Nagpur, Maharashatra and lived there happily for a short period. Thereafter, the accused harassed her both mentally and physically and also demanding her to get additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Even her parents also paid the said additional dowry of

Page 2 of 3

Rs.1,00,000/- with great difficulty. But, the accused did not stop harassment towards her and also beat her mercilessly. Finally, on 25th

September, 2011 the accused beat her mercilessly without any reason and drove her out of the house along with her children. Even her parents and elders also tried to specify the matter amicably, but in vain. So, she gave the said complaint against him.

The investigating officer after due investigation filed charge sheet against the accused person for the offence under section 498-A IPC and with her findings that the accused person subjected the complainant to cruelty both mentally and physically.

The accused persons are appeared before this court in pursuance of summon served on him and also he is examined by this Court on 11th

February, 2016 as per the procedure contemplated under section 239 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, but the accused person pleaded not guilty and preferred to be tried.

This court after due consideration of this case, framed charge against him for the offence under section 498-A IPC. To establish the guilt against the accused person, the prosecution has examined the complainant as PW1 and Ex.P1 is marked on 11th February, 2016. The Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor with the leave of this court has given up LW2 to LW8, as the complainant turned hostile and not stated anything against the accused person and particularly for the offence under sections 498-A IPC.

Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and also the learned

Advocate for the accused person.

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused person has subjected

PW1 to cruelty both mentally and physically. To establish the said facts, the prosecution examined only PW1. PW1 in her examination in chief conducted on 11th February, 2016 has stated in her evidence that she never gave any complaint against the accused person on 23rd May, 2012 and further added

Page 3 of 3 that she was not even examined by the investigating officer. Even APP could not elicit any information from the Cross Examination of PW1 in support of the case of prosecution. When such evidence of PW1, accused person is entitled to acquittal in the matter.

In the opinion of this court, the evidence of PW1 in her examination in chief cannot be taken into consideration because of her admission in the cross examination regarding the matter as compromised. Therefore, this court did not believe the sole testimony of PW1 in this case.

In the result, accused person found not guilty for the offense under section 498-A IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused person shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of the Judgment as per section 437-A Cr.PC.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, pronounced and signed by me in the Open Court on this the 11th day of February, 2016.

XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Spl. Court for the trial of Video Piracy Cases, Hyderabad.

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined for: Prosecution: PW1- Smt. Aliya Begum, Defacto Complainant

Exhibits marked on Behalf of

Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the complaint made by Defacto Complaint.

M.O’s Marked. Nil

XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Spl. Court for the trial of Video Piracy Cases, Hyderabad