Ms. A.Sudha Rani

1 of 8CC.No. 468 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I­ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM 

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT 

MANTHANI

PRESENT:­ Smt. Arra Sudha Rani I­Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani. Monday, on this the 18th day of May, 2026

CALENDARCASENo.468 of 2024 in ( Cr.No. 121 of 2024 ) 

Between:

... Complainant

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Ramagiri

AND

Gandra Srikesh, S/o. B ha s ka r Ra o , Age: 35 years, C a s t e : K a p u , Occ: P ri v a t e J o b , R/o.H.No. 7­1­251/1, laxmipuram, Hanamakonda.

...Accused

* * * This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst.Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Mada Ramesh, Advocate for the accused; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:­ ::J U D G M E N T::

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, R a m a g i r i Police Station, laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.

85 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (hereinafter referred to as “BNS”) and 2 of 8CC.No. 468 of 2024

Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as “D.P. Act”).

2.Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that: The de­facto complainant, Smt. Rendla Pavani (LW1) is the wife of

Accused and their marriage was solemnized o n 2 7 . 1 1 . 2 0 2 1 . At the time of marriage, the parents of the complainant gave Rs.

16,00,000/­ cash, as dowry to the Accused. Later, they blessed with a baby after that the accused harassed the Complainant physically and mentally for an additional dowry of Rs.5 Lakhs. By this continuous harassment, the Complainant narrated this incident to her parents. Thereafter, Panchayath was held by elders on 30.03.2023, as per the decision of Panchayath elders the

Complainant went to the house of her husband i.e., accused. The behaviour of the accused did not change and again harassed her physically and mentally for additional dowry of 5 lakhs and for registration of plot on his name which is located at Peddapalli. Due to unbearable harassment of her husband on 06­09­2024 the complainant came to her parental house at Centenary Colony and staying along with her parents. So, she is requesting to take necessary action as per law.

3.Basing on the said report, LW9/Sub Inspector of Police

Ramagiri registered a case in Cr.No.12 1 / 2 0 2 4 for the offences 3 of 8CC.No. 468 of 2024

U/Sec.85 B N S and Sec.3 & 4 D.P. Act and took up the investigation. During the course of the investigation, the

Investigating Officer examined the witnesses LW1 at PS and recorded her statement in part II CD. Further, Lw1 submitted marriage card,

Marriage photos to Lw9. Further, Lw9 summoned the Lws2 to 5 examined them and recorded their statements in part II CD. Based on the complainant, panchayath elders the offence was established against the accused person. Further, Lw9 visited the scene of the offence located at Nizamabad then the Lw9 summoned the Lws 7 and 8 and draw the rough sketch map before the Lws 7 and 8 and examined and recorded the statement of Lw6. Thereafter, on the same day on 05.10.2024, Lw9 served 35(3) BNSS notice to the accused Gandra Srikesh with instructions to appear

before the investigation agent on 05.10.2024 at 17.00

hours for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, on 05.10.2024 the accused Gandra Srikesh has been appeared

before Lw9 in Ramagiri PS. On interrogation, the accused

admitted the guilt of the offence and a fter collecting the evidence and concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused finding a prima facie case.

4.This court took cognizance for the offences punishable under

Sections 85 BNS and Sec 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against Accused.

4 of 8CC.No. 468 of 2024

5.On appearance of accused, the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to the them u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. the accused examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Charges under Secs. 85 BNS and Sec 3 & 4 of D.P. Act against Accused framed, read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lws.3 to 9. Hence, prosecution evidence was closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused person is not examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. in view of Hostile Witnesses, the 313 of Cr.P.C examination is dispensed with.

8.Heard the learned APP and learned counsel for accused persons and perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused persons for the offences punishable U/Sec.85 BNS and Sec 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against accused beyond reasonable doubt? 

POINT:

10.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the 5 of 8CC.No. 468 of 2024 de­facto complainant/victim as PW.1 and her father as PW.2.

11.PW.1/Rendla Pavani, deposed that there were small disputes between Pw1 and her husband/accused, as such, she approached elders and there they obtained her signature on some white paper in panchayath. Further, she deposed that she did not lodge any complaint with the police and she do not know any thing about this case. Pw1 identified her signature on the complaint. Ex.P1 is her signature. Pw1 turned hostile and nothing has been elicited during the cross of Pw1. Further in the cross of Pw1, she deposed that she do not know the contents of Ex.P1 and Police never examined her and recorded her statement.

12.PW.2/Rendla Srinivas who is the father of PW.1 deposed that

Pw1 is his daughter and Lw3/Rendla Pushpalatha is his wife.

Accused is his son­in­law. Pw2 also turned as hostile and stated that he do not know any thing about this case. Further he deposed that

Police never examined him and recorded his statement. 

13.Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence, the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions and lack of specific details.

14.Firstly : PW.1 explicitly denied that she did not give any complaint to the police. Similarly, PW.2 the father of PW1 deposed 6 of 8CC.No. 468 of 2024 they do not know anything about the case and the police did not record any statement.

15.Secondly, regarding Cruelty (Sec 85 BNS): The allegations made by PW.1 are vague and omnibus. She stated a c c u s e d ha r r a s s e d h e r p h y s ic a ll y a n d m e n t a ll y f o r a d d i t i o na l d o w r y o f 5 l a k hs , bu t a d m i t t e d i n c r o s s ­ e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t s he d o n o t k n ow a n yt h i n g a b o u t t h e c a s e . The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs.

State of Bihar (2022)  held that “general and omnibus allegations without specific instances are not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 498­A IPC”.

16.Thirdly, regarding Dowry (Sec 4 DP Act): There is no documentary proof (such as bank withdrawals) to prove the initial dowry or the subsequent demand. No document was executed at the time of marriage regarding the dowry transaction. In the absence of cogent evidence, the demand cannot be presumed. A conviction cannot be based on mere oral assertions which are prone to exaggeration in matrimonial disputes.

17.Furthermore, the prosecution failed to examine any 7 of 8CC.No. 468 of 2024 independent witnesses or neighbors from the accused's village (Ramagiri) to corroborate the alleged harassment at the matrimonial home. The Lws.3 to 9 were given up. 

18.In view of the above discussion, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 suffers from material improvements and lacks consistency. The prosecution has failed to establish specific instances of cruelty or the demand for dowry with cogent evidence. The benefit of doubt must naturally flow to the accused. 

19.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 85 BNS and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. Accordingly, he is ACQUITTED U/Sec.265 of BNSS.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/Sec.485 of BNSS. 

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18 th day of May 2026.

Sd/­ I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, M a n t h a n i .

8 of 8CC.No. 468 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1 – Rendla Pavani­ Nil ­ 

PW2 ­ Rendla Srinivas

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1­Signature of PW.1

Ex.P2­180 BNSS Statement of PW.1. Ex.P3­180 BNSS Statement of PW.2.

FOR THE DEFENCE:

­ Nil ­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­ Nil ­ 

Sd/­ I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, M a n t h a n i .

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MANTHANI.

PRESENT:- SMT. ARRA SUDHA RANI, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Manthani.

TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 18 th DAY OF MAY, 2026

CC.No. 13/2025

Between:-

The State through SHO. PS Kamanpur.

...Complainant.

AND

Narige Sathish, S/o. Veeramallu, Age. 39 yrs. Caste. Kurma, Occ.

General Masdoor, R/o. H.No. 1-98, B1.No. 56, Qr.No. 779, Pothana

Colony, 8 incline colony.

…Accused.

-:: O R D E R ::-

This case is suo moto advance from 20-05-2026 to 18-05-2026. Accused called present. He examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C/274 BNSS by stating the accusation for the offence punishable under section 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) BNS levelled against him. Accusation against him for the said offences read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language, having understood the accused voluntarily pleaded guilty for the offences under section 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) BNS. The plea of guilty appears to be voluntary without any coercion or force from any corner. Accordingly, the accusedfound guilty for the offence under Section 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) BNS. Heard accused on quantum of sentence. Accused submitted that he has family and his family is depend upon him for livelihood and if he is sentenced to imprisonment his family will face financial hardship. Hence requested for lenient view. Considering the nature of offence and submissions of the accused, his admission is accepted. In the result the Accused is convicted under section 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) BNS and he is sentenced to pay Rs. 1,000/ (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence U/Sec. 296(b), Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence U/Sec.115(2) and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence U/Sec.351(2) BNS and in default of he shall suffer Simple

Imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Thus total fine amount is of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only.)

Pronouncedby me in the open Court on this the 18TH day of May, 2026.

SD/-

I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF F.C., MANTHANI.