1
CC No.594 of 2016
IN THE COURT OF XXII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL
Wednesday, 21st day of August, 2019
Present: Sri A. Nagaraju, B.A., LL.B., XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal
CC No. 594 of 2016
Between:- The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Medchal
...Complainant
AND
Chinnolla Babu S/o. Late Sudharshan, Age: 28 yrs, Occ: Private Job, R/o. H.No.3-68, Nuthankal (V), Medchal (Mdl), RR District …Accused
This case came up before me for final hearing on 07-08-2019 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri C. Krishna, Sri D. Santosh Rao, Advocates for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Medchal, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.209/2016 for the offences U/s 498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the marriage of
Pw.1 was performed with accused about four years ago and at that time her parents presented 61/2 tulas gold, net cash of Rs.80,000/- as dowry. Three months after the marriage, the accused started demanding additional dowry and harassed her both physically and mentally. As he does not like her, he also used to beat her insisting her to stay with her parents. On 20.05.2016 at 8.00 a.m., when Pw.1 asked the accused to bring provisions, he kicked on her stomach, hit her to wall by caught holding the tuft and necked her out from the house without considering that she was pregnant. Later he locked the house and went away to attend duty. The accused even did not give
Rs.10/- or wearing clothes to her for three days for the last four years. He always used to beat her mercilessly with the support of his sister and brother in law. He also used to insist her to work in the field and did not allow her parents whenever they came to see her and even did not allow her to talk with them over phone. In this regard, on receipt of complaint, a case in the above crime number was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Notice U/s 41-A
Cr.P.C. was issued to the accused, but as he did not comply, he was arrested 2
CC No.594 of 2016
on 23.05.2016 and sent to Court for remand. After completion of investigation, SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.
3.On appearance of the accused, he was examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C.
Charges U/secs 498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.In support of its case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 6 and exhibited
Exs.P1 to P3.
5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined
U/s 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same, reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidence was closed.
6.Now the Point for consideration is:
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the Offences U/s 498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?
Point:-
7.Pw.1 is the defacto complainant, Pws.4 and 5 are her parents.
Pws.2 and 3 are the elders and Pw.6 is Investigation Officer.
8.Pw.3 one of the elder and independent witness has turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. She stated that she does not know anything about the family affairs of accused and Pw.1. She is a coolie and go for coolie work in the morning and return in the nights. She also stated that her statement was not recorded by the police. Pw.3 is the resident of Nuthankal, native of accused.
9.Pw.2 is also resident of Nuthankal and Junior Paternal uncle of accused.
He deposed that there were disputes between accused and Pw.1 due to family issues and in May 2017, accused might have beaten Pw.1 and she came out weeping. On enquiry, she revealed that accused beat her and in the scuffle she received injury to her hand due to breakage of bangles. Pw.1 informed to her parents, on that her parents came. He also stated that he admonished accused and Pw.1, as she also talked adversely to the accused.
Later he came to know that Pw.1 lodged complaint. In the cross examination, he also stated that he does not know about registration of case on the 3
CC No.594 of 2016
complaint of Pw.1. He volunteered that when he visited police station in other case, he requested the SI of Police to give counseling to Pw.1 as Pw.1 and accused quarreled in a matrimonial issue. In further cross examination,
Pw.2 admitted that Pw.1 is not interested to live at Nuthankal and used to demand and quarrel with the accused to shift from Nuthankal. He further stated that the mother of accused is unable to move and she is bedridden.
He also admitted that only to shift from Nuthankal, leaving the mother of accused alone, Pw.1 filed complaint.
10.Pw.2 further stated that the disputes arose only for the demand made by Pw.1 to shift from Nuthankal. He further stated that he did not see whether accused beat Pw.1 or not. He also stated that he requested Pw.1 and her parents for four times to live amicably with the accused in the interest of family, but they did not hear. The evidence of Pw.2 is not in support of the case of the prosecution, though he stated that about coming of Pw.1 by weeping out of the house in May 2017, he has not stated anything about locking the house by the accused and left the Pw.1 due to harassment as contended in the case of the prosecution. Pw.2 has given a different version to that of the case of the prosecution stating that disputes arose only for the demand made by Pw.1 to shift from Nuthankal by the accused leaving his bedridden mother in the village.
11.When the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 is kept aside, now there remains the evidence of Pws.1, 4 and 5. Pw.1 deposed about her marriage and presentation of dowry of 61/2 tulas gold and Rs.80,000/- cash at the time of marriage. She further stated that after marriage, she joined the accused at
Nuthankal and lived happily for 2 or 3 months. Later the accused tortured her on trivial issues and also used to beat her with the object whatever he hold at the time of beating. He also did not allow her to take food. Out of wedlock, she gave birth to one son and daughter. She further stated that her daughter was in womb when the accused beat her and even after delivery he did not visit, except on 21st day ceremony. After nine months of birth of her daughter, a panchayat was held before the elders at Nuthankal and in the panchayat the accused did not agree to take care of her. She joined the accused and stayed with him till filing of complaint for a period of four years.
During this period, again she conceived, then the accused beat her, due to which her pregnancy was aborted. She further stated that accused used to beat her in the night on each and every issue and also suspect her. On 4
CC No.594 of 2016
21.05.2016 at 8.00 a.m. she asked the accused to bring provisions, then he beat her by caught holding the tuft and hit her head to a wall and necked out her from the house along with her daughter and by locking the house he went away without considering that she was 5 months pregnant. She further stated that accused used to beat her by closing the windows and doors and even he did not allow her to talk with her parents over phone for a period of 4 years and used to beat her at the instance of his sister and brother in law. In this regard, she filed complaint.
12.Pw.4 deposed about the marriage and presentation of dowry. He further stated that after marriage Pw.1 joined the accused at Nuthankal and lived happily for 4 or 5 months, thereafter the accused tortured Pw.1 demanding additional dowry and also used to beat her. Though a panchayat was held before the elders, the accused did not change his attitude. He further stated that on 20.05.2016, the accused beat Pw.1 indiscriminately without considering that Pw.1 was pregnant and necked her out from the house along with three years old daughter and locked the house. On receiving the said information, his son Ravinder went and brought Pw.1 to
Medchal and got treated in a government hospital and thereafter she filed complaint before the police.
13.Pw.5 also deposed about the marriage of Pw.1 and accused and presentation of dowry. According to her, Pw.1 lived at Nuthankal for 5 or 6 months, thereafter the accused started harassing her on each and every domestic issue. He also used to beat Pw.1 and panchayat was held before the elders and looked after her for 5 months and then she got abortion. In the year 2016, one day the accused beat Pw.1, necked out her from the house, locked the doors and left the house. She along with his son went there and brought Pw.1 and her daughter. Since then she is residing with them only. The accused did not come and take her. None of the witnesses among Pws.1, 4 and 5 have stated that the alleged presentation of dowry of 61/2 tulas gold and Rs.80,000/- cash was presented to the accused on demand. They have also not stated that the said dowry was given to the accused. They all stated that it was only presented at the time of marriage and also did not say anything that it was given on demand of the accused.
Though Pw.4 has stated that accused tortured Pw.1 demanding additional dowry, neither Pw.1 nor Pw.5 have stated that accused demanded additional dowry. According to Pw.1, accused used to beat her with hands on each and 5
CC No.594 of 2016
every issue and used to suspect her, but as per Pw.5, accused used to beat
Pw.1 on each and every domestic issue. Hence the evidence of Pws.1, 4 and 5 is contradicting with each other, and they have not deposed that dowry was presented on demand of the accused. They have also not deposed about quantum of additional dowry. Hence there is not evidence to attract the Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
14.Coming to the offence U/s 498-A IPC, the evidence of Pws.1, 4 and 5 is to be scrutinized. In the cross examination, Pw.1 admitted that accused used to go to duty in the morning and return in the evening. She further admitted that accused has no bad habits like chewing tobacco, smoking, alcohol and playing cards etc. She also admitted that she was brought up in Jeedimetla area and her in laws village Nuthankal is a very small village and there is no market or cinema hall. She also stated that her father regularly takes alcohol in the evenings every day. She denied the suggestion that when her father visited their house and he asked to provide alcohol, the accused refused to provide the same as he is not interested, as such she developed grouse against the accused. When a question is posed to Pw.1 that accused is always ready to take care of her and children by giving whatever undertaking she wants, she bluntly refused stating that she do not want to live with the accused and will not go along with him. She also stated that she does not want the Company of accused. She denied the suggestion that she used to abuse her mother in law in most filthy language to avoid service to her, as such she attempted to commit suicide. In further cross examination, she admitted that she has not given any medical record to the police or filed into the Court about the alleged abortion or alleged sustaining of injuries when the accused alleged to have beaten her. She also denied the suggestion that she left the accused as she is not interested to live at the village fascinated to city life and to avoid service to old aged mother in law, but on the other hand, she clearly stated that she do not want to live with the accused and she will not go with him, though he is ready to give whatever the undertaking that she wants. She has not given any specific reason of threat to her life in the hands of accused. Admittedly no complaint is filed till 21.05.2016, though her marriage took place in May 2011. According to her, on 21.05.2016 the accused beat her indiscriminately and she sustained injuries, but she has not filed any medical records or she was referred to hospital by the SI of Police, though she filed complaint on the very next day of alleged incident. Even according to her, after panchayat she joined the accused and 6
CC No.594 of 2016
stayed with him for a period of four years and during that period when accused beat her, she got abortion, she did not file any complaint at that time or no medical record is also filed to show that her pregnancy was aborted.
15.Pws.4 and 5 have not stated anything about the alleged abortion caused to Pw.1, they only stated about the alleged incident occurred on 20.05.2016 and on the information given by Pw.1, brother of Pw.1 went and brought her to their house, but the said brother of Pw.1 Ravinder is not examined by the SI of Police for the reasons best known to him. Even as per the statements of Pws.4 and 5 before the police, they have not stated anything about beating of Pw.1 on 20.05.2016. Pw.4 only stated that accused quarreled with her and sent her out. The evidence of Pws.1, 4 and 5 is not consistent and corroborating with each other with regard to the material particulars of the incident.
16.The learned counsel for accused further argued that in DVC 8/2017 filed by Pw.1, which was dismissed by this Court observing that the evidence of
Pws.1 and 5 herein is also totally contradicting with each other in the said case. In the said case, as per the evidence of Pws.1 and 5 herein, it was elicited that due to harassment of Pw.1, mother of accused consumed poison and she was hospitalized. Even in this case also, Pw.2 clearly deposed that the disputes may be only for the reason to shift from Nuthankal by leaving the mother of accused alone. Hence he requested to consider the material placed in DVC 8 / 2017 which was disposed on 04.07.2019.
17.It is the evidence of Pw.1 that accused had no bad habits like chewing tobacco, smoking, consuming alcohol and playing cards and mother of accused is old aged and suffering from ill health and she also unable to stand and walk. When the said evidence is read along with her complaint and refusal to live with accused without giving any proper reason; would strength the defence taken by the accused that in order to avoid service to the mother of accused, who is alone and unable to walk, Pw.1 filed this complaint.
Further the evidence of Pw.2 also supports defence to the extent that the disputes arose for shifting of family from Nuthankal leaving the mother in law alone. Hence, I find that the evidence of Pws.1, 4 and 5 is not consistent and not believable. Hence, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt 7
CC No.594 of 2016
of the accused for the offence U/s 498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt.
18.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/s 498-A and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and he is acquitted U/s 248(1)
Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for six months as required U/s 437-A Cr.P.C.
Dictated to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open
Court this the 21st day of August 2019.
XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution
Pw.1 Ch. Swapnalatha, Defacto complainant Pw.2 Ch. Prabhakar, elder of panchayat Pw.3 Smt G. Narsamma, elder of panchayat Pw.4 P. Shivaiah, Father of Pw.1 Pw.5 Smt P. Swaroopa, mother of Pw.1 Pw.6 Veerabrahmam, IO
For DefenceNone
Exhibits Marked for Prosecution
Ex.P1 Complaint dt 21.05.2016 Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3 before the police Ex.P3 FIR dt 21.05.2016
Exhibits Marked for Defence
Nil
Material Objects marked
Nil
XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal