Sri. A.varaprasada Rao B.sc,ll.m

1

In The COURT OF The SPECIAL JUDGE For Trial Of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA)

ACT – Cum - 10th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At Rajahmundry PRESENT: SRI A.VARA PRASADA RAO,

Special Judge, SCs & STs Court – cum - 10th

Addl. District Judge. Friday, the 20th day of March, 2015 C.A.No.106 of 2014

From which Court, this appeal isJudicial Magistrate of The First preferred Class, Alamuru

Number of the case in that Court CC 302 of 2014

Name and description of the1. Meka Kalavathi, Appellant.W/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Aged 53 years, R/o.Yeditha Village.

2. Meka Nageswara Rao, S/o.Buli Venkaiah, Hindu, Aged 61 years, R/o.Yeditha Village.

3. Karati Veera Naga Pavani, W/o.Venkatesh, Hindu, Aged 27 years, R/o.Yeditha Village. (A2 to A4) Name and description of the The State (through S.H.O., respondent Mandapeta Rural) rep. by P.P. Section of law under which the Appellants were found guilty for the appellants were convicted in the lower offence under Section 498-A IPC court :and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Appellants / A2 to A4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default in payment of fine, they further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

A2 to A4 are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 3 of D.P. Act and they are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-each in default of payment of fine amount, they furtherundergosimple imprisonment for a period of two month. All the sentences were to concurrently.

The remand period undergone by A2 to A4 shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

2

If confirmed, reversed or modifiedAllowed by setting aside the If modified, what is the modification:calendar and judgment

DATE ON WHICH : Presentation of appeal 27.05.2014 Filing 27.05.2014 Hearing 27.06.2014 Judgment 20.03.2015

This appeal coming on 09.03.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.V.V.Satyanarayana , Advocate for appellant and Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution in the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1This appeal is filed by the appellant 1 to 3/accused 2 to 4 against the Calendar and Judgment dated 08.05.2014 passed by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru in C.C. No. 103 of 2014. 2The appellants are accused 2 to 4 and respondent is complainant in CC No.302 of 2014. Originally, charge sheet was filed under Section 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against not only appellants, but also against one more person and he was shown as accused No.1 in CC No. 103 of 2014 and it was disposed off on 11.06.2014.

3. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The Criminal Law was set into motion upon type written report dated 06.02.2013 lodged by Meka Devika (defacto-complainant, P.W1) that marriage between 1st accused and herself was celebrated on 17.05.2009 and dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and Adapaduchu Lanchanam of Rs.20,000/-, besides Rs.50,000/- worth articles were given by P.W1’s parents. 1st accused and P.W1 were blessed with a boy namely Sai, aged 3 years by the date of report. For five months after marriage, P.W1 was looked after properly, thereafter, P.W1’s husband, parents-in- laws had harassed her to bring additional dowry. 1st accused, in drunken state used to beat her and P.W1’s parents-in-laws stated that if she brings additional dowry, 1st accused would stop beating her. Sister-in-law of P.W1 also instigated her husband (1st accused) to harass her. 4That by way of instalments, a total of Rs.20,000/- was paid by P.W1’s father during 2009-2010. 1st accused had beaten P.W1 even at her parents’ house and even beaten P.W1’s mother and grand-parents. When the matter was placed

before the elders, 1st accused took her to his house promising before the elders that

he would look after her properly. 1st accused, his parents and sister again used to harass her. The matter was placed before the elders several times, but harassment did not stop against P.W1. Ultimately, on 01.02.2013, 1st accused beat P.W1 and driven her out of his house. Parents of 1st accused and his sister had instigated him to neck out P.W1 from their house.

5. The learned Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru, had framed charges for the offences under Sections 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry and Prohibition Act against the appellants/accused 2 3 to 4, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, P.Ws 1 to 10 were examined and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were marked on behalf of prosecution.

7. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellants-accused 2 to 4 found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and appellants were convicted under Section 248(2) of

Cr.P.C. Appellants were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment of fine, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 8Appellants were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 3 (it shall be under Section 4) of Dowry Prohibition Act and they were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default payment of fine amount, they have to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 10Heard arguments advanced by counsel for appellants and Special Public Prosecutor. 11Now the points that arise for determination are: Whether the appellants being the relatives of husband (1st accused)of Meka 1. Devika had subjected her to cruelty? Whether the appellants being the relatives of husband(1st accused) of Meka 2. Devika had driven her to commit suicide or to make injury to life, limb or health? Whether the appellants being relatives of husband(1st accused) of Meka 3. Devika, coerced her to meet unlawful demand of additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and if he had subjected her to harassment for her failure to meet such demand and thereby committed an offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code? Whether the prosecution could prove that appellants had demanded Meka 4. Devika and her father to pay additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and thereby committed an offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961? 12Points4: It is the case of the prosecution that 1st accused along with appellants had subjected P.W1 to physical cruelty by beating her in the state of intoxication and demanded her to pay Rs.50,000/- towards additional dowry. Even though, Rs.20,000/- was paid by P.W2 (father of PW1), but he continued to harass P.W1. That in spite of mediation before elders, 1st accused and appellants did not 4 mend their behaviour, but continued to subject P.W1 to physical and mental cruelty.

3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry:-* [(1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than * [five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than * [five years].

[(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to--

(a) presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made in this Act:

Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.] [4. Penalty for demanding dowry:-If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

13A perusal of evidence of P.Ws 1 to 8 shows that P.Ws 1 to 7 are closely related and P.W8 is the only independent witness. P.W8 during his cross- examination admitted that he is not a caste elder and his house is situated beside the house of P.W1’s parents. He further admitted that the distance between his house and house of 3rd accused is at long distance. It clearly shows that there was no possibility for P.W8 to witness physical or mental harassment of P.W1 by 1st accused . Since he is not a caste elder, he being associated in any mediation, negotiation or settlement between aggrieved parties is also of remote chance. Even otherwise, P.W8 admitted that he was not present when alleged dowry amount was paid to 1st accused or his parents(appellants 1 and 2). He also admitted that he was not present when Panchayat was held between P.W1 and 1st accused. It clearly shows that the evidence of P.W8 is of no help to prosecution. 14The interested testimony of P.Ws 1 to 7 has to be thoroughly scrutinized to know truth or otherwise of 1st accused and appellants subjecting P.W1 to physical or mental cruelty demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. It is also incumbent 5 upon the prosecution to prove that dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by P.W1’s parents and if it was a condition precedent for marriage between P.W1 and 1st accused and that unless such amount is paid, there shall not be marriage between 1st accused and P.W1. It is for the prosecution to prove that such demand was made by 1st accused or his parents (appellants 1 and 2) and upon such demand, P.W1’s parents paid such amount towards dowry to 1st accused and/or his parents (appellants 1 and 2). 15P.W1 during her chief examination did not specifically state that upon demand by 1st accused or his parents (appellants 1 and2), dowry was paid to her parents-in-law (appellants 1 and 2). P.W1 also did not state that cash of

Rs.20,000/- was paid to sister (3rd appellant) of 1st accused towards Adapaduchu Lanchanam. Even P.W2 has deposed that he gave Rs.2,00,000/- to 1st accused towards dowry and Rs.20,000/- to 1st accused sister (3rd appellant) towards Adapaduchu Lanchanam. He did not state in his chief examination that there was demand for payment of dowry by 1st accused or his parents (appellants 1 and 2). Even P.Ws 3 to 7 had failed to depose that upon demand by 1st accused or his parents (appellants 1 and 2), dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- , Adapadachu Lanchanam of Rs.20,000/-, house hold articles worth Rs.50,000/- and Gold Jewelry were delivered to 1st accused or his parents (appellants 1 and 2). Since P.W2 is father of P.W1, he would naturally support his daughter. 16P.W3 in her chief examination admitted that P.W1 is grand-daughter of her co-daughter-in-law. P.W3 during her cross-examination, admitted that she could not say the date on which 1st accused and his parents demanded additional dowry from her parents. P.W4 is cousin of P.W2. P.W5 is close relative of P.Ws 1 and 2 as admitted by him in his cross-examination. In their cross-examination P.Ws 4 and 5 stated that dowry was paid to parents of 1st accused, but not to appellants 1 and 2, where as P.W2 deposed that he paid Rs.2,00,000/- to “the accused”. He did not specifically state to which accused person (1st accused or appellants 1 to 3). Hence, there is any amount of discrpenacy regarding payment of dowry either to the 1st accused or his parents (appellants 1 and 2) or both.

17Even P.W6 also deposed in his chief examination as if the amount was paid to accused and he did not specifically state to whom said amount was paid. P.W6 is also close relative of P.Ws 1 and 2. Even P.W7 also deposed similarly regarding payment of dowry. But, during his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not examined by police at any time and that parents of accused and P.W1 are his relatives. 18In Madan Lal Vs. Amarnath 1wherein it was held that “The offence is founded in the relationship of property demanded as abettor with the nature of demand. It should not bear a mere connection with marriage”.

1(1984) 2 Rec Cr.581 6 19In Muthummal Vs. Maruthal 2, Madras, wherein it was held that “abetment is a preparatory Act and connotes active complicity on the part of the abettor at a point of time prior to actual commission of the offence”. 20As can be seen from the evidence adduced by the respondent/prosecution, it is apparent that there was no demand by either 1st accused or his parents (appellants 1 and 2) to P.Ws 1 and 2 or their relatives. 21However, the learned Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru, did not go through the evidence given by P.Ws 1 to 8 with reference Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Hence, findings arrived by learned Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru are liable to be set aside. This point is answered in favour of appellants. 22Points 1 to 3: In Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand 3 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the Legislature. It is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over- implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases”. 23In Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. UOI2 4 the Hon’ble Supreme Court lamented that in many instances, complaints under s.498A were being filed with an oblique motive to wreck personal vendetta and observed. “It may therefore become necessary for the Legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be 1 AIR 2010 SC 3363 2 2005 6 SCC 281 4 appropriately dealt with”. It was also observed that “by misuse of the provision, a new legal terrorism can be unleashed”. Judicial Decisions: In the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand 3 (supra) decided in 2010, the Supreme Court observed that a serious relook of the provision is warranted by the Legislature. The Court said: “It is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incidents are reflected in a large number of complaints”. The Court took note of the common tendency to implicate husband and all his immediate relations. The Supreme Court directed the Registry to send a copy of judgment to the Law Commission and Union Law Secretary so that appropriate steps may be taken in the larger interests of society. In an earlier case also - Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. UOI2 (2005), the Supreme Court lamented that in many instances, complaints under s.498A were being filed with an oblique motive to wreck personal vendetta and observed. “It may therefore become necessary for the Legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be 1 AIR 2010 SC 3363 2 2005 6 SCC 281 4 appropriately dealt with”. It was also observed that “by misuse of the provision, a new legal terrorism can be unleashed”. 2.2 Various High Courts in the country have also noted that in several instances, omnibus allegations are made against the husband and his relations and the complaints are filed without proper justification. The need to exercise caution in the 21981 Crl.L.J 833 3AIR 2010 SC 3363 4 2005 6 SCC 281 7 case of arrest of the husband and his relatives has been stressed while observing that by such a step, the possibility of reconciliation becomes remote and problematic. In some of the cases, directions were given by the High Courts for regulating the power of arrest and for taking necessary steps to initiate conciliatory effort at the earliest point of time. Reference may be made in this context to the decision of Delhi High Court in Chandrabhan Vs. State (order dated 4.8.2008 in Bail application No.1627/2008) and of the Madras High Court in the case of Tr. Ramaiah Vs. State (order dated 7.7.2008 and 4.8.2008 in MP No.1 of 2008 in Crl. O.P. No.10896 of 2008). In the former case, it was observed that “there is no iota of doubt that most of the complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trifling fights and ego clashes. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in their tussle and ongoing hostility, the hapless children are the worst victims”. 24In the light of principles laid down in the above decisions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is to be thoroughly scrutinized to know the truth or otherwise of harassment if any by appellants committed against P.W1. 25In the report it was alleged that P.W1 was beaten during night and her health was damaged. However, P.W1 did not file even a single document (medical record) to show deteriorated condition of her health. But, admissions made by P.W1 in her cross-examination show something else. “It is true, my husband’s mental condition is bad during wedlock and now and then we arranged treatment for my husband’s health condition. Doctor advised my husband not to work in summer time and also doctor advised my husband to stop consuming alcohol. My husband (was) treated (in) number of hospitals in entire East Godavari and Vizag District(s). It is true when my husband (was) treated from (by) doctors temporarily he lived with me well and after that his health condition is (was) not well and disputing with me. It is true myself my husband along with Accused 2 to 4 lived together as joint family at Yedida village. It is true, my parents and my in laws advised me, my husband to live separately for some time”. 26According to P.W4, 1st accused was suffering from mental ill-health. From the above evidence, it is apparent that mental health condition of 1st accused was not sound and medical treatment was given to him not only in East Godavari District, but also in Visakhapatnam District in several hospitals. Hence, a mentally sick person taking liquor or beating P.W1 appears to be improbable and incredible. Perhaps, P.W1’s father was asked to pay for medical expenses of 1st accused and some disputes might had cropped up. It was clarified by P.W2 that he also gave amounts for medical expenses to his son-in-law. 27The learned Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru, ought to have noticed the evidence of P.W1 that 1st accused was suffering from mental health and he ought to have invoked the provisions under Mental Health Act and he ought to have proceeded as per the provisions mentioned therein. 28In fact, a mentally ill person does not know whether the acts committed by him are intentional or not. In those circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru, ought to have referred 1st accused to Superintendent, 8

Government General Hospital, Kakinada (A Teaching Medical Hospital) for evaluation of his mental faculties. 29Even though, 1st accused , P.W1 and appellants 1 to 3 lived together as joint family at Yedida Village, it was parents of P.W1 and her in laws advised her and her husband to live separately for some time. P.W4 also deposed that after marriage, 1st accused and P.W1 lived together for some period. Since, 1st accused and P.W1 lived separately, there could not be any harassment by parents and sister of 1st accused i.e., Appellants 1 to 3. If that be the case, 1st accused at the instigation of appellants 1 to 3 beating or necking out P.W1 from her matrimonial house appears to be doubtful and unbelievable. Said probability is apparent from the admission made by P.W2 that his daughter (P.W1) and his son- in-law (1st accused ) lived separately at Yedida after family disputes had cropped up. Another admission made by P.W2 cuts the case of respondent/prosecution. He made this categorical admission as “My daughter deserted my son-in-law for the last one year”. 30Even though, P.W1 admitted that 1st accused was not having sound mental health, P.W3 went on to say that 1st accused was having sound health, led marital life with P.W1, ‘recently’ he was having habit of consuming alcohol and harassed P.W1 and beat her. The evidence of P.W3 is contrary to the evidence of P.W2, for the reason that, it was P.W1 who had deserted 1st accused . When they lived separately, in the recent past as per evidence of P.W3, how could 1st accused subject P.W1 to physical cruelty. Hence, the evidence of P.W3 regarding physical cruelty to P.W1 at the hands of the Appellants 1 to 3 can be safely ruled out. P.W4 even in his chief examination did not state specific instances or overt acts of Appellants 1 to 3 in harassing P.W1 to bring additional dowry. During his cross- examination, P.W4 admitted that he did not directly witness harassment to P.W1.

31P.W5 is also a close relative of P.Ws 1 and 2. But, she lives at a distance of 1 km to the house of 1st accused . Hence, possibility of P.W5 to witness Appellants 1 to 3 harass P.W1 is a remote chance. She did not state that she was present at the time of such harassment by Appellants 1 to 3 to P.W1. She denied the suggestion that 1st accused did not harass P.W1. Even P.W6 is also a close relative of P.Ws 1 and 2. House of P.W6 is also at a distance of 1 km. Even though, PW6 gave evidence before Trial Court on 12.03.2014, she contended that one year prior to her evidence, matter was placed before the elders for settlement. If that be the case, P.Ws 1 and 2 ought not have continued the litigation. 32P.W10 Investigation Officer during his cross-examination admitted that the incident took place at the house of 1st accused and he did not examine witnesses at the house of Appellants 1 and 2. It clearly shows that SI of Police had filed charge sheet only to washout his hands without examining independent witnesses in and around the house of 1st accused . The people around the house of 1st accused (scene of offence) are natural witnesses, who would have opportunity to know harassment, if any or physical or mental cruelty by 1st accused against 9

P.W1. In the absence of any independent evidence, interested testimony of P.Ws 1 to 7 cannot be accepted as a true and correct one. 33The learned Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru, had pickup stray sentences from here and there in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and hurriedly came to a conclusion that offence under Section 498-A was proved against the 1st accused and Appellants 1 to 3. But, the learned Magistrate has failed to thoroughly examine and discuss the material facts in this case to come to correct conclusion regarding truth or otherwise of harassment by 1st accused or by Appellants 1 to 3 demanding additional dowry. 34P.W2 did not file any record to show that he was in possession, custody of cash of Rs.2,00,000/- by the date of marriage and that he delivered such cash to 1st accused and his parents (Appellants 1 and 2) and that there was subsequent demand and he paid Rs.20,000/- during 2009-2010. In the absence of such documentary evidence, mere oral testimony of interested witnesses cannot be accepted as true and correct one. Under all these circumstances, I am of the considered view that P.Ws 3 to 7 being closely related to P.Ws 1 and 2 had deposed in their favour, though they were not personally aware of harassment, if any, by Appellants 1 to 3 against P.W1. 35In the above set of circumstances, the findings arrived by the learned Judicial

Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru are liable to set aside. These points are

answered against the prosecution. 36In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the calendar and Judgment dated 08.05.2014 in CC No. 302 of 2014 passed by Additional Judicial

Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru and conviction and sentence passed against

appellants 1 to 3 is set aside and the appellants 1 to3 are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The fine amount, if any, paid by appellants 1 to 3 shall be refunded to them after expiry of revision time. The bail bonds of the appellants 1 to 3 shall stand cancelled subject to revision, if any. Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Grade-II) corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 20th day of March, 2015.

Sd/-A.Vara Prasada Rao

Special Judge

SCs & STs Court – cum- 10th Addl.

District Judge, Rajahmundry.

There is additional oral or documentary evidence on either side

Sd/-A.Vara Prasada Rao

Special Judge

SCs & STs Court – cum- 10th Addl.

District Judge, Rajahmundry.

Copy to the Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of Andhra Pradesh Copy to the Principal District Court, Rajahmundry Copy to the Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru.

1

In The COURT OF The SPECIAL JUDGE For Trial Of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA)

ACT – Cum - 10th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At Rajahmundry PRESENT: SRI A.VARA PRASADA RAO,

Special Judge, SCs & STs Court – cum - 10th

Addl. District Judge. Friday, the 20th day of March, 2015 C.A.No.394 of 2014

From which Court, this appeal isJudicial Magistrate of The First preferred Class, Alamuru

Number of the case in that Court CC 103 of 2014

Name and description of theMeka Srinivasu, So.Nageswara Rao, Appellant.Aged 28 years, Yedida Village.

Name and description of the The State (through S.H.O., respondent Mandapeta Rural) rep. by P.P. Section of law under which the Appellant was found guilty for the appellants were convicted in the lower offence under Section 498-A IPC court :and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

Accused was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 3 of D.P. Act and he was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two month. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

The remand period undergone by A1 i.e., from 12.03.2013 to 22.03.2013 and from 23.01.2014 to till date was govem set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

If confirmed, reversed or modifiedAllowed by setting aside the If modified, what is the modification:calendar and judgment

DATE ON WHICH : Presentation of appeal 24.10.2014 Filing 29.10.2014 Hearing 03.12.2014 Judgment 20.03.2015 2

This appeal coming on 09.03.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.V.V.Satyanarayana , Advocate for appellant and Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution in the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused against the Calendar and Judgment dated 11.06.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru in C.C. No. 103 of 2014. 2The appellant is 1st accused and respondent is complainant in CC No.103 of 2014. Originally, charge sheet was filed under Section 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against not only appellant, but also against three more persons. In the first instance, the three persons i.e., Meka Kalavathi, Meka Nageswara Rao and Karati Veeranaga Pavani were tried in CC No. 302 of 2013 and it was disposed off on 08.05.2014. The present appellant was shown as accused No.1 in CC No. 103 of 2014 and it was disposed off on 11.06.2014.

3. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The Criminal Law was set into motion upon type written report dated 06.02.2013 lodged by Meka Devika (defacto-complainant, P.W1) that marriage between appellant and herself was celebrated on 17.05.2009 and dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and Adapaduchu Lanchanam of Rs.20,000/-, besides Rs.50,000/- worth articles were given by P.W1’s parents. Appellant and P.W1 were blessed with a boy namely Sai, aged 3 years by the date of report. After marriage for five months, P.W1 was looked after properly, thereafter, P.W1’s husband, parents-in- law had harassed her to bring additional dowry. 1st accused, in drunken state used to beat her and P.W1’s parents-in-laws stated that if she brings additional dowry, 1st accused would stop beating her. Sister-in-law of P.W1 also instigated her husband (1st accused) to harass her. 4That by way of instalments, a total of Rs.20,000/- was paid by P.W1’s father during 2009-2010. 1st accused had beaten P.W1 even at her parents’ house and even beaten P.W1’s mother and grand-parents. When the matter was placed

before the elders, 1st accused took her to his house promising before the elders that

he would lookafter her properly. 1st accused, his parents and sister again used to harass her. The matter was placed before the elders several times, but harassment did not stop against P.W1. Ultimately, on 01.02.2013, 1st accused beat P.W1 and driven her out of his house. 1st accused, parents and sister had instigated him to neck out P.W1 from their house.

5. The learned Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru, had framed charges for the offences under Sections 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry and Prohibition Act against the appellant, read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6. During the course of trial, P.Ws 1 to 10 were examined and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were marked on behalf of prosecution. A glaring error was committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru, that no separate evidence was recorded in CC No.103 of 2014. Further, no opportunity was given to appellant to further cross-examine P.Ws 1 to 10. Hence, great prejudice was caused to appellant.

7. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant-accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and appellant was convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

8Appellant was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 3 (it shall be under Section 4) of Dowry Prohibition Act and he is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default payment of fine amount, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

9.The remand period undergone by Appellant/A1 i.e., from 12.03.2013 to 22.03.2013 and from 23.01.2014 to till the date of Judgment was given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 10Heard arguments advanced by counsel for appellant and Special Public Prosecutor. 11Now the points that arise for determination are: Whether the appellant being the husband of Meka Devika had subjected her 1. to cruelty? Whether the appellant being the husband of Meka Devika had driven her to 2. commit suicide or to make injury to life, limb or health? Whether the appellant being husband of Meka Devika, coerced her to meet 3. unlawful demand of additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and if he had subjected her to harassment for her failure to meet such demand and thereby committed an offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code? Whether the prosecution could prove that appellant had demanded Meka 4. Devika and her father to pay additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and thereby committed an offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961?

12Points4: It is the case of the prosecution that appellant along with his parents and sister had subjected P.W1 to physical cruelty by beating her in the state of intoxication and demanded her to pay Rs.50,000/- towards additional dowry. Even though, Rs.20,000/- was paid by P.W2 (father of PW1), but he 4 continued to harass P.W1. That in spite of mediation before elders, appellant and his parents and sister did not mend their behaviour, but continued to subject P.W1 to physical and mental cruelty.

3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry:-* [(1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than * [five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than * [five years].

[(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to--

(a) presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made in this Act:

Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.] [4. Penalty for demanding dowry:-If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

13A perusal of evidence of P.Ws 1 to 8 shows that P.Ws 1 to 7 are closely related and P.W8 is the only independent witness. P.W8 during his cross- examination admitted that he is not a caste elder and his house is situate beside the house of P.W1’s parents. He further admitted that the distance between his house and house of 3rd accused is at long distance. It clearly shows that there was no possibility for P.W8 to witness physical or mental harassment of P.W1 by appellant. Since he is not a caste elder, he being associated in any mediation, negotiation or settlement between aggrieved parties is also of remote chance. Even otherwise, P.W8 admitted that he was not present when alleged dowry amount was paid to appellant or his parents. He also admitted that he was not present when Panchayat was held between P.W1 and appellant. It clearly shows that the evidence of P.W8 is of no help to prosecution.

5 14The interested testimony of P.Ws 1 to 7 has to be thoroughly scrutinized to know truth or otherwise of appellant subjecting P.W1 to physical or mental cruelty demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. It is also incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by P.W1’s parents and if it was a condition precedent for marriage between P.W1 and appellant and that unless such amount is paid, there shall not be marriage between appellant and P.W1. It is for the prosecution to prove that such demand was made by appellant or his parents and upon such demand, P.W1’s parents paid such amount towards dowry to appellant and/or his parents. 15P.W1 during her chief examination did not specifically state that upon demand by appellant or his parents, dowry was paid to her parents-in-law. P.W1 also did not state that cash of Rs.20,000/- was paid to sister of appellant towards Adapaduchu Lanchanam. Even P.W2 has deposed that he gave Rs.2,00,000/- to appellant towards dowry and Rs.20,000/- to appellants sister towards Adapaduchu Lanchanam. He did not state in his chief examination that there was demand for payment of dowry by appellant or his parents. Even P.Ws 3 to 7 had failed to depose that upon demand by appellant or his parents, dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- , Adapadachu Lanchanam of Rs.20,000/-, house hold articles worth Rs.50,000/- and Gold Jewelry were delivered to appellant or his parents. Since P.W2 is father of P.W1, he would naturally support his daughter. 16P.W3 in her chief examination admitted that P.W1 is grand-daughter of her co-daughter-in-law. P.W3 during her cross-examination, admitted that she could not say the date on which appellant and his parents demanded additional dowry from her parents. P.W4 is cousin of P.W2. P.W5 is close relative of P.Ws 1 and 2 as admitted by him in his cross-examination. In their cross-examination P.Ws 4 and 5 stated that dowry was paid to parents of appellants, but not to appellant, where as P.W2 deposed that he paid Rs.2,00,000/- to “the accused”. He did not specifically state to which accused person (appellant or his parents or his sister). Hence, there is any amount of discrpenacy regarding payment of dowry either to the appellant or his parents or both. 17Even P.W6 also deposed in his chief examination as if the amount was paid to accused and he did not specifically state to whom said amount was paid. P.W6 is also close relative of P.Ws 1 and 2. Even P.W7 also deposed similarly regarding payment of dowry. But, during his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not examined by police at any time and that parents of accused and P.W1 are his relatives. 18In Madan Lal Vs. Amarnath 1wherein it was held that “The offence is founded in the relationship of property demanded as abettor with the nature of demand. It should not bear a mere connection with marriage”.

1(1984) 2 Rec Cr.581 6 19In Muthummal Vs. Maruthal 2, Madras, wherein it was held that “abetment is a preparatory Act and connotes active complicity on the part of the abettor at a point of time prior to actual commission of the offence”. 20As can be seen from the evidence adduced by the respondent/prosecution, it is apparent that there was no demand by either appellant or his parents to P.Ws 1 and 2 or their relatives. 21However, the learned Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru, did not go through the evidence given by P.Ws 1 to 8 with reference Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Hence, findings arrived by learned Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru are liable to be set aside. This point is answered in favour of the appellant. 22Points 1 to 3: In Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand 3 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the Legislature. It is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over- implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases”. 23In Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. UOI2 4 the Hon’ble Supreme Court lamented that in many instances, complaints under s.498A were being filed with an oblique motive to wreck personal vendetta and observed. “It may therefore become necessary for the Legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be 1 AIR 2010 SC 3363 2 2005 6 SCC 281 4 appropriately dealt with”. It was also observed that “by misuse of the provision, a new legal terrorism can be unleashed”. In the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand 3 (supra) decided in 2010, the Supreme Court observed that a serious relook of the provision is warranted by the Legislature. The Court said: “It is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incidents are reflected in a large number of complaints”. The Court took note of the common tendency to implicate husband and all his immediate relations. The Supreme Court directed the Registry to send a copy of judgment to the Law Commission and Union Law Secretary so that appropriate steps may be taken in the larger interests of society. In an earlier case also - Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. UOI2 (2005), the Supreme Court lamented that in many instances, complaints under s.498A were being filed with an oblique motive to wreck personal vendetta and observed. “It may therefore become necessary for the Legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be 1 AIR 2010 SC 3363 2 2005 6 SCC 281 4 appropriately dealt with”. It was also observed that “by misuse of the provision, a new legal terrorism can be unleashed”. 2.2 Various High Courts in the country have also noted that in several instances, omnibus allegations are made against the husband and his relations and the complaints are filed without proper justification. The need to exercise caution in the 21981 Crl.L.J 833 3AIR 2010 SC 3363 4 2005 6 SCC 281 7 case of arrest of the husband and his relatives has been stressed while observing that by such a step, the possibility of reconciliation becomes remote and problematic. In some of the cases, directions were given by the High Courts for regulating the power of arrest and for taking necessary steps to initiate conciliatory effort at the earliest point of time. Reference may be made in this context to the decision of Delhi High Court in Chandrabhan Vs. State (order dated 4.8.2008 in Bail application No.1627/2008) and of the Madras High Court in the case of Tr. Ramaiah Vs. State (order dated 7.7.2008 and 4.8.2008 in MP No.1 of 2008 in Crl. O.P. No.10896 of 2008). In the former case, it was observed that “there is no iota of doubt that most of the complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trifling fights and ego clashes. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in their tussle and ongoing hostility, the hapless children are the worst victims”. 24In the light of principles laid down in the above decisions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is to be thoroughly scrutinized to know the truth or otherwise of harassment, if any, by appellant committed against P.W1. 25In the report it was alleged that P.W1 was beaten during night and her health was damaged. However, P.W1 did not file even a single document (medical record) to show deteriorated condition of her health. But, admissions made by P.W1 in her cross-examination show something else. “It is true, my husband’s mental condition is bad during wedlock and now and then we arranged treatment for my husband’s health condition. Doctor advised my husband not to work in summer time and also doctor advised my husband to stop consuming alcohol. My husband (was) treated (in) number of hospitals in entire East Godavari and Vizag District(s). It is true when my husband (was) treated from (by) doctors temporarily he lived with me well and after that his health condition is (was) not well and disputing with me. It is true myself my husband along with Accused 2 to 4 lived together as joint family at Yedida village. It is true, my parents and my in laws advised me, my husband to live separately for some time”. 26According to P.W4, appellant was suffering from mental ill-health. From the above evidence, it is apparent that mental health condition of appellant was not sound and medical treatment was given to him not only in East Godavari District, but also in Visakhapatnam District in several hospitals. Hence, a mentally sick person taking liquor or beating P.W1 appears to be improbable and incredible. Perhaps, P.W1’s father was asked to pay for medical expenses of appellant and some disputes might had cropped up. It was clarified by P.W2 that he also gave amounts for medical expenses to his son-in-law. 27The learned Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru, ought to have noticed the evidence of P.W1 that appellant was suffering from mental health and he ought to have invoke the provisions under Mental Health Act and he ought to have proceeded as per the provisions mentioned therein. 28In fact, a mentally ill person does not know whether the acts committed by him are intentional or not. In those circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate 8 of The First Class, Alamuru, ought to have referred appellant to Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Kakinada (A Teaching Medical Hospital) . 29Even though, Appellant, P.W1 and appellant’s parents and sister lived together as joint family at Yedida Village, it was parents of P.W1 and her in laws advised her and her husband to live separately for some time. P.W4 also deposed that after marriage, appellant and P.W1 lived together for some period. Since, Appellant and P.W1 lived separately, there could not be any harassment by parents and sister of appellant. If that be the case, appellant at the instigation of his parents and sister beating or necking out P.W1 from her matrimonial house appears to be doubtful and unbelievable. Said probability is apparent from the admission made by P.W2 that his daughter (P.W1) and his son-in-law (appellant) lived separately at Yedida after family disputes had cropped up. Another admission made by P.W2 cuts the case of respondent/prosecution. He made this categorical admission as “My daughter deserted my son-in-law for the last one year”. 30Even though, P.W1 admitted that appellant was not having sound mental health, P.W3 went on to say that appellant was having sound health, led marital life with P.W1, ‘recently’ he was having habit of consuming alcohol and harassed P.W1 and beat her. The evidence of P.W3 is contrary to the evidence of P.W2, for the reason that, it was P.W1 who had deserted appellant. When they lived separately, in the recent past as per evidence of P.W3, how could appellant subject P.W1 to physical cruelty. Hence, the evidence of P.W3 regarding physical cruelty to P.W1 at the hands of the appellant can be safely ruled out. P.W4 even in his chief examination did not state specific instances or overt acts of appellant in harassing P.W1 to bring additional dowry. During his cross-examination, P.W4 admitted that he did not directly witness harassment to P.W1. 31P.W5 is also a close relative of P.Ws 1 and 2. But, she lives at a distance of 1 km to the house of appellant. Hence, possibility of P.W5 to witness appellant harass P.W1 is a remote chance. She did not state that she was present at the time of such harassment by appellant to P.W1. She denied the suggestion that appellant did not harass P.W1. Even P.W6 is also a close relative of P.Ws 1 and 2. House of P.W6 is also at a distance of 1 km. Even though, PW6 gave evidence

before Trial Court on 12.03.2014, she contended that one year prior to her

evidence, matter was placed before the elders for settlement. If that be the case, P.Ws 1 and 2 ought not have continued the litigation. 32P.W10 Investigation Officer during his cross-examination admitted that the incident took place at the house of appellant and he did not examine witnesses at the house of appellant. It clearly shows that SI of Police had filed charge sheet only to washout his hands without examining independent witnesses in and around the house of appellant. The people around the house of appellant (scene of offence) are natural witnesses, who would have opportunity to know harassment, if any or physical or mental cruelty by appellant against P.W1. In the absence of any independent evidence, interested testimony of P.Ws 1 to 7 cannot be accepted as a true and correct one.

9 33The learned Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru, had pickup stray sentences from here and there in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and hurriedly came to a conclusion that offence under Section 498-A was proved against the appellants. But, the learned Magistrate has failed to thoroughly examine and discuss the material facts in this case to come to correct conclusion regarding truth or otherwise of harassment by appellant demanding additional dowry. 34P.W2 did not file any record to show that he was in possession or custody of cash of Rs.2,00,000/- by the date of marriage and that he delivered such cash to appellant and his parents and that there was subsequent demand and he paid

Rs.20,000/- during 2009-2010. In the absence of such documentary evidence, mere oral testimony of interested witnesses cannot be accepted as true and correct one. Under all these circumstances, I am of the considered view that P.Ws 3 to 7 being closely related to P.Ws 1 and 2 had deposed in their favour, though they were not personally aware of harassment if any by appellant against P.W1. 35In the above set of circumstances, the findings arrived by the learned Judicial

Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru are liable to set aside. These points are

answered against the prosecution. 36In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the calendar and Judgment dated 11.06.2014 in CC No. 103 of 2014 passed by Additional Judicial

Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru and conviction and sentence passed against

appellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The fine amount if any paid by appellant shall be refunded to him after expiry of revision time. The appellant shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any case.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-II), transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 20th day of March, 2015.

Sd/-A.Vara Prasada Rao

Special Judge

SCs & STs Court – cum- 10th Addl.

District Judge, Rajahmundry.

There is additional oral or documentary evidence on either side

Sd/-A.Vara Prasada Rao

Special Judge

SCs & STs Court – cum- 10th Addl.

District Judge, Rajahmundry.

Copy to the Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of Andhra Pradesh Copy to the Principal District Court, Rajahmundry Copy to the Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Alamuru.

// T.C.F.B.O.//

Chief Administrative Officer

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs &

STs (POA) ACT, EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAHMUNDRY

PRESENT:- SRI A.VARAPRASADA RAO, Special Judge SC & ST Court – Cum –10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry Tuesday, the 17th day of March, 2015

A.S.61/2014

Between: Kolukuluri Seetha Maha Lakshmi, W/o J. Kaleswara Rao, Hindu, Male, Age 53 years, Teacher, R/o D.No.20-20-29, Tummalava, Sambhasiva Rao Peta, 4th Cross Street, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

…. Appellant/Plaintiff.

And

Pilleda Durga Prasada Naga Korma Chari (died)

1.Pilleda Komala Prasad, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 36 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiah Peta, Rajahmundry, E.G District.

2.Pilleda Hari Naga Bhushanchari, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 35 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E. G. District.

3.Pilleda Sai Rama Naga Srinivasa Chari, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, age 34 years, D.No.6-1, Main road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

4.Pilleda Hayagrevachari, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 29 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaihpeta, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

5. Pilleda Maha Lakshmi @ Baby, W/o P.D.P.N.K. Chari, Hindu, Age 55 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E. G. District.

6.Pilleda Hemasundari, D/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 32 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaihpeta, Rajahmundry, E. G. District

7. Pilleda Venakta Naga Durga, D/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 30 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E.G District.

… Respondents/defendants

On the appeal against the decree and judgment dated 02.07.2014 in

O.S.No.106/2006 passed by the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Rajahmundry.

Between: Kolukuluri Seetha Maha Lakshmi, W/o J. Kaleswara Rao, Hindu, Male, Age 53 years, Teacher, R/o D.No.20-20-29, Tummalava, Sambhasiva Rao Peta, 4th Cross Street, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

…. Appellant/Plaintiff.

And

Pillada Durga Prasada Naga Korma Chari (died)

1.Pilleda Komala Prasad, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 36 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiah Peta, Rajahmundry, E.G District.

2.Pilleda Hari Naga Bhshanchari, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 35 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E. G. District.

3.Pilleda Sai Rama Naga Srinivasa Chari, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, age 34 years, D.No.6-1, Main road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

4.Pilleda Hayagrevachari, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 29 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaihpeta, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

5. Pilleda Maha Lakshmi @ Baby, W/o P.D.P.N.K. Chari, Hindu, Age 55 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E. G. District.

6. Pilleda Hemasundari, D/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 32 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaihpeta, Rajahmundry, E. G. District

7. Pilleda Venakta Naga Durga, D/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 30 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E.G District.

… Respondents/Defendants

This appeal is coming on 17.03.2015 before me for compromise in the presence of Sri P.O.S.N.Murthy, advocate for appellant/plaintiff and Sri Ch.Prabhakara Rao, advocate for respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Appellant, respondents 1 to 7/defendants 2 to 8 and Sri Ch.Prabhakara Rao, counsel for respondents/defendants are present.

2.Terms of the compromise are read over and explained to the parties and admitted by them to be true and correct and are recorded.

3.Plan is attached to the compromise memo. Memo is recorded.

4.Appeal is disposed in terms of compromise memo.

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 17th day of March, 2015.

Special Judge,

SCs and STs Court – Cum – 10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

No additional, oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Special Judge,

SCs and STs Court – Cum – 10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs &

STs (POA) ACT, EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAHMUNDRY

PRESENT:- SRI A.VARAPRASADA RAO, Special Judge SC & ST Court – Cum –10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry Tuesday, the 17th day of March, 2015

A.S.61/2014

Between: Kolukuluri Seetha Maha Lakshmi, W/o J. Kaleswara Rao, Hindu, Male, Age 53 years, Teacher, R/o D.No.20-20-29, Tummalava, Sambhasiva Rao Peta, 4th Cross Street, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

…. Appellant/Plaintiff.

And

Pillada Durga Prasada Naga Korma Chari (died)

1.Pilleda Komala Prasad, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 36 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiah Peta, Rajahmundry, E.G District.

2.Pilleda Hari Naga Bhshanchari, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 35 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E. G. District.

3.Pilleda Sai Rama Naga Srinivasa Chari, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, age 34 years, D.No.6-1, Main road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

4.Pilleda Hayagrevachari, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 29 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaihpeta, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

5. Pilleda Maha Lakshmi @ Baby, W/o P.D.P.N.K. Chari, Hindu, Age 55 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E. G. District.

6. Pilleda Hemasundari, D/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 32 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaihpeta, Rajahmundry, E. G. District

7. Pilleda Venakta Naga Durga, D/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 30 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E.G District.

… Respondents/Defendants

On the appeal against the decree and judgment dated 02.07.2014 in

O.S.No.106/2006 passed by the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Rajahmundry.

Between: Kolukuluri Seetha Maha Lakshmi, W/o J. Kaleswara Rao, Hindu, Male, Age 53 years, Teacher, R/o D.No.20-20-29, Tummalava, Sambhasiva Rao Peta, 4th Cross Street, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

…. Appellant/Plaintiff.

And

Pillada Durga Prasada Naga Korma Chari (died)

1.Pilleda Komala Prasad, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 36 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiah Peta, Rajahmundry, E.G District.

2.Pilleda Hari Naga Bhshanchari, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 35 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E. G. District.

3.Pilleda Sai Rama Naga Srinivasa Chari, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, age 34 years, D.No.6-1, Main road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

4.Pilleda Hayagrevachari, S/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 29 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaihpeta, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

5. Pilleda Maha Lakshmi @ Baby, W/o P.D.P.N.K. Chari, Hindu, Age 55 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E. G. District.

6. Pilleda Hemasundari, D/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 32 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaihpeta, Rajahmundry, E. G. District

7. Pilleda Venakta Naga Durga, D/o P.D.P.N.K.Chari, Hindu, Age 30 years, D.No.6-1, Main Road, Mallaiahpeta, Rajahmundry, E.G District.

… Respondents/defendants

Appeal is presented on 13-08-2014 and filed on 26-08-2014

The appeal is preferred against the decree and order dated 02.07.2014 in O.S.No.106/2006 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

Value of appeal: Appeal is valued Rs.2,24,139/- as valued in suit a court fee of Rs.4,726/- is paid as per Section 24 (a) Sch – I, Art 1(c) of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

This appeal is coming on 17.03.2015 before me for compromise in the presence of Sri P.O.S.N.Murthy, advocate for appellant/plaintiff and Sri Ch.Prabhakara Rao, advocate for respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, , the court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. that the appeal be and the same is hereby disposed in terms of compromise memo.

2. that there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 17th Day of March, 2015.

Special Judge,

SCs and STs Court – Cum – 10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

Particulars of Costs. No cost memo is filed on either side.

Special Judge,

SCs and STs Court – Cum – 10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

In The COURT OF The SPECIAL JUDGE For Tr ial Of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(POA) ACT – Cum - 10th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At Rajahmundry PRESENT:- SRI A.VARAPRASADA RAO

Special Judge, SC & ST Court – Cum – 10 Addl. District Judge,

Rajahmundry Wednesday, the 01st day of April, 2015

O.S 114/2010

Between:

1. Beera Veera Venkata Satyanarayana (died)

2. Beera Bramarambica

3. Beera Chakravarthi

4. Prathipati Lavanya (2 to 4 are added as L.Rs of Deceased 1st plaintiff As per orders in I.A.No.285/2014, dt. 23.04.2014).

....Plaintiffs.

And

1. Beera Syamala Rao

2. Beera Gouri Sankara Rao

3. Beera Padmanabha Apparao

4. Beera Surya Mallamba

5. Beera Kanaka Ratnam ( 4 and 5 respondents are added as per orders in I.A.No.285/2014, dt. 23.04.2014).

...Defendants.

The plaint is coming before me on 01.04.2015 for trial in the presence of Sri G.S.S.Murali Mohan, advocate for plaintiff, Sri B.S.Srinivas, advocate for defendants 1,3 and 5 and defendants 2 and 4 are set exparte the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Costs of Rs.500/- are not paid. The plaintiffs are called absent several times till 04.25 p.m. But there is no representation for plaintiff. Costs are not paid.

2.The plaintiff is not evincing interest to proceed with the mater though notices were issued on several occasions and though costs are also imposed.

3.The plaintiffs are not at all approaching the District Registrar, Rajahmundry to fulfil the procedural formalities.

4.I do not find any reason to keep this old matter pending.

5.The suit is dismissed for default with costs.

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 01st day of April, 2015.

Special Judge,

SCs and STs Court–Cum– 10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

Appendix of Evidence

No additional, oral or documentary evidence is a dduced on either side.

Special Judge,

SCs and STs Court–Cum– 10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

In The COURT OF The SPECIAL JUDGE For Tr ial Of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(POA) ACT – Cum - 10th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At Rajahmundry PRESENT:- SRI A.VARAPRASADA RAO

Special Judge, SC & ST Court – Cum – 10 Addl. District Judge,

Rajahmundry Wednesday, the 01st day of April, 2015

O.S 114/2010

Between:

1. Beera Veera Venkata Satyanarayana (died), S/o Late Basava Raju, Hindu, Age 55 years, D.No.28-27-2,3, Gobbaka Veedhi, Jampeta, Rajahmundry.

2. Beera Bramarambica, W/o Late Satyanarayana, Hindu, Age 50 years, R/o D.No.28-27-2, Gobbakaveedhi, Jampeta, Rajahmundry.

3. Beera Chakravarthi, S/o Late Satyanarayana, Hindu, Employment, Age 30 years, R/o D.No.28-27-2, Gobbakaveedhi, Jampeta, Rajahmundry.

4. Prathipati Lavanya, W/o T.Vijaya Dheer, Hindu, Employment, Age 27 years, R/o Kukatpalli Housing Complex, Hyderabad. (2 to 4 are added as L.Rs of Deceased 1st plaintiff As per orders in I.A.No.285/2014, dt. 23.04.2014).

....Plaintiffs.

And

1. Beera Syamala Rao, S/o Late Basava Raju, Hindu, Age 63 years, Business, C/o Syamala Enterprises, Opposite to Bommana Rajkumar Cloth Shop, Main Road, Rajahmundry.

2. Beera Gouri Sankara Rao, S/o Late Basava Raju, Hindu, Age 58 years, Business, Chandana Complex, Jagadamba Center, Visakhapatnam.

3. Beera Padmanabha Apparao, S/o Late Basava Raju, Hindu, age 52 years, Business, M/s Syamalamba Bag Works, Main Road, Rajahmundry.

4. Beera Surya Mallamamba, W/o Gourishankara Rao, Surya Enclave, Balayya Sastry Layout, 2nd floor, Flat No.31, Visakhapatnam.

5. Beera Kanaka Ratnam, W/o B.Syamala Rao, D.No.28-27-5, Jampeta, Gubbaca Veedhi, Rajahmundry. (4 and 5 respondents are added as per orders in I.A.No.285/2014, dt. 23.04.2014).

...Defendants.

Plaint presented on 01-11-2010 and filed on 11-11-2010

This plaint is filed by the plaintiff U/Sec 26, Or. VII, R.1 of C.P.C for partition of the Plaint Schedule Properties into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and for future profits and for costs.

Value of the suit is Rs.23,25,150-00/- on which Court fee of Rs.200/- is paid U/ Sec 34(2) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

The cause of action arose when 1st plaintiff’s father Basavaraju and the parties of the suit exerted their efforts for improvement and commencement of the business by names Syamala Bag Works, Syamala Traders, Syamala

General Stores, M/s Syamala Enterprises etc., on all dates when the plaint schedule items were purchased from out of the profits of the above referred joint family business concerned in the names of members of the joint family, on 22.08.2009 when 1st plaintiff and defendants entered into family arrangement in the presence of elders with regard to the joint family properties for partition, subsequently pursuant to the said arrangement some of the terms were acted upon all the dates when 1st plaintiff requested and also demanded for implementation of the term of the family arrangement finally on 14.07.2010, when 1st plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the defendants 1 to 3 who failed to comply with the 1st plaintiff’s demands, on 19.07.2013, when 1st plaintiff died intestate leaving behind plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his legal representatives, who succeeded to the estate of 1st plaintiff, at Rajahmundry where the schedule properties are situated, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

The plaint is coming before me on 01.04.2015 for trial in the presence of Sri G.S.S.Murali Mohan, advocate for plaintiff, Sri B.S.Srinivas, advocate for defendants 1,3 and 5 and defendants 2 and 4 are set exparte the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court DOTH ORDER AND

DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default with costs.

2.that the plaintiff do pay Rs.15.560/- as costs to defendants 1,3 and 5.

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 1st day of April, 2015

Special Judge,

SCs and STs Court – Cum – 10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

Particulars of Costs.

Plaintiff Defendants -- Stamp on vakalat Rs. 55.00 Stamp on petitions Rs. 05.00 Advocate fee Rs. 15,500.00 15,560.00

Special Judge,

SCs and STs Court – Cum – 10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

In The COURT OF The SPECIAL JUDGE For Trial Of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(POA) ACT – Cum - 10th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At Rajahmundry PRESENT:- SRI A.VARAPRASADA RAO

Special Judge, SC & ST Court – Cum – 10 Addl. District Judge,

Rajahmundry

Friday, this the 10th day of April, 2015

O.S 10/2014

Between: Ch. Veerababu

.... Plaintiff.

And

1.Barla Satyanarayana.

2.Pothuri Subbaraju

... Defendants

The plaint is coming before me on 10.04.2015 for compromise in the presence of Sri K.Bhadrinath, advocate for plaintiff and Sri D.Appa Rao advocate for 1st defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Plaintiff and 1st defendant are present.

2.1st defendant filed a memo stating that he paid Rs.7,15,000/- without prejudice to his rights pertaining to green belt and memo is recorded.

3.Plaintiff filed memo signed by plaintiff and 1st defendant and their counsel stating that 1st defendant paid Rs.7,15,000/- towards full and final settlement of suit claim and suit may be dismissed without costs.

Memo is recorded.

4.Suit is dismissed without costs as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 10th day of April, 2015.

Special Judge,

SCs and STs Court–Cum– 10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: P.W 1: Chelluboina Veerababu. Nil

Documents Marked For Plaintiff:

Ex A1: Dt.07.01.2011 Memorandum of Understanding executed in between Defendants and plaintiffs

Ex A2: Dt.04.07.2011 Office Copy of Legal Notice issued by plaintiff to 1st defendant.

Ex A3: Dt.19.07.2011 Reply notice issued by 1st defendant.

Ex A4: Office Copy of Complaint in C.C.No.61/2012 filed against 1st defendant On the file of III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajahmundry.

For Defendants: Nil.

Special Judge,

SCs and STs Court–Cum– 10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

In The COURT OF The SPECIAL JUDGE For Trial Of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(POA) ACT – Cum - 10th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At Rajahmundry PRESENT:- SRI A.VARAPRASADA RAO

Special Judge, SC & ST Court – Cum – 10 Addl. District Judge,

Rajahmundry

Friday, this the 10th day of April, 2015

O.S 10/2014

Between: Chelluboina Veerababu, S/o Apparao, Hindu, age 42 years, Business, R/o D.No.20-7-1, 3rd Street, Ramachandraraopeta, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

.... Plaintiff.

And

1. Barla Satyanarayana, S/o Appa Rao, Hindu, age 46 years, Real Estate Business, R/o D.No.72-23-1/1, Beside Narayanapuram, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

2. Pothuri Subbaraju, S/o Venkata Rao, Hindu, age 50 years, Business, R/o D.No.79-7-4, Official Colony, Syamala Nagar, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

... Defendants

Plaint presented on 02-01-2014 and filed on 29-01-2014

This plaint is filed by plaintiffs U/Sec 26, Or. VII, R.1 of C.P.C for recovery of Rs.10,39,182/- as on 31.12.2013 on the foot of memorandum of understanding dt.07.01.2011, costs of the suit.

Value of the suit is Rs.10,39,182/- on which Court fee of Rs.12,846/- is paid U/ Sec 20 r/w Art 1.C of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

The cause of action arose for on 07.01.2011 when the Memorandum of

Understanding was entered into on the same day when 1st defendant issued a cheque for Rs.8,00,000/-, on 01.03.2011 when plaintiff’s sister withdraw her claim in A.P. High Court and obtained orders and subsequently the plaintiff informed about withdrawal to 1st defendant and on 25.06.2011 when the plaintiff presented the cheque issued by the 1st defendant in S.B.I.

Kambalacheruvu Branch, Rajahmundry and on 04.07.2011 when the plaintiff got issued legal notice, when reply was given on 19.07.2011 and at

Rajahmundry where the suit transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this Court.

The plaint is coming before me on 10.04.2015 for compromise in the presence of Sri K. Bhadrinadh, advocate for plaintiff and Sri D.Appa Rao, advocate for 1st defendant and 2nd defendant have been forfeited and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court DOTH

ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed without costs as not pressed.

2.that they shall be no order as to costs.

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 10th day Of April, 2015.

Special Judge,

SCs and STs Court – Cum – 10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

Particulars of Costs. No cost memo is filed on either side.

Special Judge,

SCs and STs Court – Cum – 10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

As per order in Office Note dated: 15.05.2015 Appendix of Evidence was included.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: P.W 1: Chelluboina Veerababu. Nil

Documents Marked For Plaintiff:

Ex A1: Dt.07.01.2011 Memorandum of Understanding executed in between Defendants and plaintiffs

Ex A2: Dt.04.07.2011 Office Copy of Legal Notice issued by plaintiff to 1st defendant.

Ex A3: Dt.19.07.2011 Reply notice issued by 1st defendant.

Ex A4: Office Copy of Complaint in C.C.No.61/2012 filed against 1st defendant On the file of III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajahmundry.

For Defendants: Nil.

Special Judge,

SCs and STs Court–Cum– 10th Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry