SC. 19/2021 1 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT
KAMAREDDY
Present: Smt. B. Sridevi ,
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Kamareddy
Friday, the 22nd day of September, 2023
S.C. No. 19 of 2021
1. Name of the ComplainantThe State represented by S.I of :Police of P.S. Nagireddypet.
2. Name of accused:A1-UbbuNarayanaS/o. Ramaiah, Age: 50 years, Caste: Mudhiraj, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Dhrmareddy village.
A-2-Ubbu Mangavva W/o. Narayana, Age: 45 years, Caste: Mudhiraj, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Dharmareddy village.
A-3- Ubbu Raju S/o. Narayana, Age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/ o. Dharmareddy village
3. Charges:U/Sections 498-A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against A-1 and A-2 U/sections 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against A-3
4. Plea of the accused:Not guilty
5. Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty
6. Sentence or order :The accused Nos 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 498-A and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and the accused No.3 is found not guilty for the offences under sections 498-A IPC and sections 3
SC. 19/2021 2 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
and 4 of D.P.Act accordingly they are acquitted for the same, under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos 1 to 3 are ordered to be cancelled after appeal time. MO.1 vide CPR.No.227/2019 are ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal time.
7. Prosecution conducted by:Sri N. Damodhar Reddy
Additional Public Prosecutor
8. Accused defended by:Sri. Angraj and Shabana Begum, Advocates for Accused.
This case coming before me for hearing on 08-09-2023 in the presence of N. Damodhar Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Angraj and Shabana Begum, Advocates for Accused Nos 1 to 3, and having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This is a case of ‘subjecting a married women to cruelty and attempted to commit murder’, for which the Sub-Inspector of
Police, P.S. Nagireddypet, filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused Nos 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A r/w 34 of
IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused No.3.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:
SC. 19/2021 3 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
On 14-11-2019 at 4-30 p.m, PW-1/Ubbu Swaroopa filed complaint before the P.S. Nagireddypet stating that her marriage has been taken place with accused No.3/Ubbu Raju about 9 years back, at the time of her marriage, her parents presented 3 thulas of gold to her husband towards dowry. Since about one month her husband Raju/A-3 and her in laws/A-1 and A-2 harassed her for getting the additional dowry of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her parents. In this connection her parents talked about issue with her in laws and husband and her parents promised that the amount which is required by her husband and in laws will be arranged within 2 days. On 13-11-2019 during the night at about 9-00 p.m, her husband after having meals went to watch nearby
Raghavalli gate at the paddy purchased center. Later, she along with her in laws had their meals and slept. Afterwards on the same night at about 11-00 p.m, her in laws came to her room where she was sleeping. Then, her father in law removed his white towel from his neck and tucked in her neck and tried to kill her by her in laws by the tying towel and they also tried to Asphyxia. Afterwards they both slept. Immediately, she removed their house doors came out and went to the house of her younger father namely
Dasari Bhumaiah/PW-2 which is situated nearby their house but she is unable to talk thrown small stones into the house of her
SC. 19/2021 4 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
younger father through window, wherein her younger father
Bhumaiah and her aunt Dasari Laxmi came out from their house and removed the towel which was tucked by her in laws around her neck.
3.Basing on the same, LW-14/PW-8 has registered a case vide
Crime No. 89/2019 for the offences u/sec. 498-A and 307 r/w 34
IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the accused persons and investigation into the matter. During the course of investigation, PW-8 has examined and recorded the statements of
Pws 1 to 3 and referred the PW-1 to the Government hospital,
Yellaredy for treatment and medical certificate. On the next day,
PW-9 took the charge from PW-8 and investigated the matter.
During the course of investigation, PW-9 proceeded to
Dharmareddy village and examined and recorded the statements of Pws 3 to 5, LW-6/Dasari Balavva, LW-7/Ubbu Shanker,
LW-8/Ubbu Laxmi and mother, grand mother, younger brother, sister in law and father of the complainant and one other witness.
Then, PW-9 proceeded to the scene of offence i.e., house of the accused situated at Dharmareddy villager bearing H. No. 80/8 and secured the panchas LW-10/Dasari Anjaiah, LW-11/Gullapalli
Kistaiah and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and also
SC. 19/2021 5 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
drawn rough sketch and took photographs of the scene. Then, along with above panchas proceeded to the house of PW-2 where the complainant is present and seized the towel belongs to the A-1 with which the A-1 and A-2 tried to kill the PW-1 in their house at
Dharmareddy on the night of 13-11-2019 in the absence of A-3 from the possession and instance of the complainant under the cover of seizure panchanama. PW-10/S.I of police perused the CD filed of the case and found it correct and re examined the witnesses and collected the medical certificate of PW-1 and searched for the accused persons. On 03-12-2019 the PW-10 issued and served notice u/sec. 41(A) Cr.P.C to the accused No. 3 for produced sureties but he did not produce the sureties. Hence, on 16-12-2019 on receipt of reliable information about the presence of A-1 to A-3 at their house at Dharmareddy, PW-10 proceeded to Dharmareddy to the house of accused and apprehended the accused persons and interrogated them. On interrogation, the accused persons are confessed to have committed this offence. Hence, PW-10 brought the accused persons to the police station and effected their arrest by issuing arrest forms. On 17-01-2020 as per the requisition of PW-10, LW- 13/R. Raj Kumar, Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Spl. Mobile,
Kamareddy, recorded 164 Cr.P.C statements of PW-1. After
SC. 19/2021 6 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
completion of investigation, PW-10 filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 307 r/w 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4.D.P.Act and against accused No.3 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy has taken the case on file for the offense punishable u/sec. 498-A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, against accused Nos 1 and 2 and for the offence u/sec. 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against accused No.3 and committed the case in PRC
No. 01 of 2020 to the Court of Sessions, Nizamabad. The Hon’ble
Prl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad took the case on file for the offense punishable u/sec. 498-A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of
D.P.Act, against accused Nos 1 and 2 and for the offence u/sec.
498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against accused No.3 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.
5.After appearance of the accused Nos 1 to 3, based on the material available on record, as well as the allegations leveled in the charge sheet, for the offense punishable u/sec. 498-A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, against accused Nos 1
SC. 19/2021 7 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
and 2 and for the offence u/sec. 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against accused No.3 are framed and explained to the accused, for which they denied and claimed to be tried.
6.In order to prove the case of prosecution, it has examined
PWs.1 to 10 out of 16 cited witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 documents and MO.1 are marked. The prosecution given up the evidence of witnesses namely LW4/Dasari Laxmi, LW-6/Dasari
Balavva, LW-7/Ubbu Shanker, LW-8/Ubbu Laxmi, LW-11/Gullapalli
Kistaiah, LW-13/Sri R. Raj Kumar/Judl. Magistrate of F.c.,(Spl.
Mobile), Kamareddy.
7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos 1 to 3 were examined U/sec 313 Cr.P.C. explaining them incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.
8.Heard arguments on both sides.
9.Now the point for determination is :
“Whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to convict the accused for charged offense punishable u/sec. 498-A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, against the accused Nos 1 and 2 and for the offence u/sec. 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against accused No.3 ?”
SC. 19/2021 8 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
10. Point:-
As per the report of investigation officer the accused in the present case alleged to have committed offences under section 498-A and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the Accused Nos 1 and 2 and section 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the Accused No.3. The prosecution alleged that the accused No.1 being father in law of victim/Ubbu Swaroopa, the accused No.2 being mother in law of victim/Ubbu Swaroopa, the accused No. 3 husband of the victim/Ubbut Swaroopa, committed charged offences.
11.PW-1/defacto complainant cum victim deposed that she is resident of Dharmareddy village of Nagireddypet mandal. LW-2/D.
Bhumaiah, is her father, LW-3/Dasari Laxmi is wife of LW-2/D.
Bhumaiah, LW-4/Dasari Laxmi and LW-5/Dasari Balaiah are her parents. Accused No.3 is her husband. Accused Nos 1 and 2 are her in laws. Her marriage was performed with accused No.1 about 12 years back out of wedlock she is having one son presently aged about 11 years, after 7 or 8 years of marriage, Accused Nos 1 to 3 started harassed her demanding dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Her father promised to the accused that he will pay Rs. 50,000/- and requested two or three days time, later, he failed to pay. Her
SC. 19/2021 9 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
parents are residents of Hyderabad, they are going to labour work, about two and half years back, for said dowry amount the accused
Nos 1 to 3 quarreled with her, the accused No. 3 went to fields to guard the paddy at that time she and accused Nos 1 and 2 were present during night hours at about 11-00 p.m, when she was slept, the accused Nos 1 and 2 tried to kill her by tying white color towel around her neck at that time she was sleeping. She woke up and went to her junior paternal uncle’s house, due to the acts of accused Nos 1 and 2 she was unable to take breath and speak.
PW-1 further deposed that she had thrown small stones and pelted on the window of her junior paternal uncles house then they came out by that time she lost conscious and fell down. PW-2/Dasari
Bhumaiah and PW-3/Dasari Laxmi have come to her they have seen towel around her neck, removed it, applied their hands to make her to breath, after that they shifted her to hospital, later, she went to police station police have referred her to Yellareddy government hospital for better treatment, Ex.P-1 is the report lodged by her it bears her signature, Mo-1 is the white color towel used by the accused, it belongs to accused No.1, the police examined her and recorded her statement, she was also referred to ENT specialist for better treatment. Her statement also recorded by the Court under section 164 Cr.P.C.
SC. 19/2021 10 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
12.Now coming to the cross examination of PW-1 she categorically stated that their house consists of two rooms and slab also and that in the second room she was sleeping at the time of incident. PW-1 further stated that when she was going to the house of PW-2(LW-2) then A-1 and A-2 were sleeping in the first room. PW-1 further stated that herself and her parents presently residing at Hyderabad after the incident. However, as seen from the entire evidence of PW-1 she is none otherthan the defacto complainant in this case and hence, her evidence cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of corroboration from independent witness evidence.
13.PW-2/Younger father of PW-1 deposed that he is resident of
Dharmareddy village, he know Pws 1 and 2, PW-2 is his brother, he know the accused, accused No. 3 is husband of PW-1. About three years back on one day night he, his wife/PW-3/Dasari Laxmi and his son were present in their house after dinner they slept, at 11- 00 p.m, PW-1 came to their house and pelted some stones to wake up them on that he woke up and seen PW-1 outside the house, he open the door brought her inside the house, he had seen her neck tied with a white colour towel and there was a knot she was unable to speak out, he and his wife had removed a towel and enquired
SC. 19/2021 11 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
PW-1, on that she informed to them on the day night her in laws tied towel and tried to kill her while she was sleeping in a room as such, she woke up and come to their house, then they called to the parents of PW-1 who are residing at Hyderaabd. On the next day, police examined him and recorded his statement.
14.PW-2 in his cross examination categorically stated that he does not know the house number of A-1 and A-2 and that there are number of houses surrounding to house of the A-1 and A-2. PW-2 further stated that no panchayaths were conducted between the accused and PW-1. PW-2 further stated that accused No.3 and PW- 1 were living happily. PW-2 further stated that A-1 and A-3 were residing in one house. Thus, as seen from the entire evidence of
PW-2 he categorically stated that A-3 and PW-1 were living happily, and this statement of PW-2 goes against the case of the prosecution.
15.PW-3 deposed that she is resident of Dharmareddy village.
She know Pws 1 and 2. PW-2 is her husband, she know the accused No. 3 is husband of PW-1, about three years back on one day they slept during night. At 11-00 p.m, PW-1 came to their house she pelted small stones from window of their house to wake up them, they opened the door seen PW-1 neck tied with a towel
SC. 19/2021 12 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
unable to speak then she and her husband had removed said towel on enquiry PW-1 informed them that accused Nos 1 and 2 tried to kill her by a towel, they informed about the incident to parents of
PW-1 who are residing at Hyderabad, police examined her and recorded her statement.
16.Now coming to the evidence of PW-3 she stated in her cross examination and admitted that it is true prior to this case there are no disputes between the accused and PW-1. This statement of PW- 3 also goes against the case of the prosecution and tilts the entire case of the prosecution.
17.PW-4 deposed that he is resident of Dhramareddy village, he know Pws 1 to 3 and LW-4/D. Laxmi and LW-5/D. Balaiah. He know the accused Nos 1 to 3. The accused No.3 is husband of PW-1.
About three years back on one day he was present near
Raghavapally gate paddy heep during night hours then Balaiah called him on phone and informed that at his house quarrel took place and requesting him to go his house then he informed him he is present near paddy heep, the Accused No.3 is also present with him and given phone accused No. 3 to talk with Balaiah. PW-4 further deposed that accused No. 3 gave phone to him, on the next day morning, he came to know that accused Nos 1 and 2 tried to
SC. 19/2021 13 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
kill Pw-1 with a towel, police examined him and recorded his statement.
18.Now coming to the evidence of PW-4, he categorically stated in his cross examination that he do not know what happened at the house of accused. Thus, as seen from the evidence of PW-4 it categorically shows that he has no knowledge of what is alleged to have happened at the house of PW-1 and accused. Therefore, PW- 4 evidence is not of much use to the case of the prosecution.
19.PW-5 deposed that he is resident of Dharmareddy village, presently he is working as Labour at Hyderabad, PW-1 is his daughter, PW-2 is his younger brother, PW-3 is his sister in law, he know the accused, Accused No. 3 is husband of PW-1, accused Nos 1 and 2 are parents of accused No. 3 and in laws of PW-1, about 3 years back accused No. 2 called him and asked for Rs. 1,00,000/-, he informed that he can give Rs. 50,000/- after sometime, on the same day night the accused no. 3 went to the fields at that time accused nos 1 and 2, PW-1 were present in the house, accused Nos 1 and 2 tried to kill PW-1, his brother PW-2 called him and informed about the incident at that time he was at Hyderabad. PW-2 informed him that PW-1 came their house and thrown stones, stated that accused Nos 1 and 2 tried to kill her with a towel on
SC. 19/2021 14 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
such information, he had came to Dharmareddy village during earlier morning by that time PW-1 was taken to Government hospital for treatment, PW-1 was unconscious unable to speak out.
They went to police station and gave complaint. Police examined him and recorded his statement after treatment of PW-1 at
Nizamabad.
20.Now coming to the evidence of PW-5, he categorically stated in his cross examination and admitted that it is true that he does not know what happened in the house of accused and PW-1 on that day night. PW-5 further stated that PW-1 was speaking slowly but there were no injury marks around her neck. Still further PW-5 stated that and admitted that it is true PW-5 requested A-3 and
PW-1 to come to Hyderabad for livelihood and A-3 refused for that.
PW-5 further stated that it is true accused and PW-1 lived happily prior to the incident. Thus, as seen from the entire evidence of
PW-5 it goes against the case of prosecution because the allegations made by the prosecution are not made out and the alleged harassment or cruelty as contemplated by law under section 498-A of IPC is not made out.
21.PW-6 deposed that he is resident of Dharmareddy village. He know LW-11/Gullapalli Kistaiah, he know the accused, Pws 1 and 2.
SC. 19/2021 15 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
About 3 to 4 years back on one day police called him to the house of PW-1 and the accused No. 3 there they have conduct scene of offence and thereafter on the next day police took him to the house of PW-2 there they have conduct seizure panchanama in his presence and also in the presence of LW-11. They had seized one white colour towel from the house of Dasari Bhumaiah(PW-2). Mo.1 is the same towel, he can identify his signature. Ex.P-2 is signature on crime details form. Ex.P-3 is seizure panchanama.
22.Now coming to the evidence of PW-6, the important aspect that was elicited during the cross examination of PW-6 is that PW-6 categorically stated that the towel(MO-1) was in the hands of PW-1 and she gave to the police. PW-6 further stated that MO-1 like towels are fully available in the market. Thus, as seen from the evidence of PW-6 the alleged seizure itself is in question and doubtful since the same was alleged tobe given by PW-1 to the police. Even PW-6 in his cross examination categorically admitted that A-3 and PW-1 are lived at Armoor after marriage. Still further
PW6 categorically stated police have taken the signatures on four or five white papers. This statement of PW-6 tilts the alleged seizure panchanama and alleged crime details form and also the
SC. 19/2021 16 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
alleged seizure of MO-1, since PW-6 categorically stated that his signatures were taken on blank papers.
23.PW-7 deposed that he is working as Medical Officer, at
Government hospital, Yellareddy from 20th July, 2018 onwards. He received the requisition from SHO P.S. Nagireddypet on 14-11- 2019 to examine the injured person/U.Swarupa. Accordingly, he examined her and found no external injuries but there was mild tenderness over neck for which she was advised to take ENT
Surgeon opinion, ENT surgeon examined her at Nizamabad Govt.
Hospital and was normal and they advised upper G I endoscopy, accordingly, he issued medical certificate under Ex.P-4.
24.As seen from the evidence of PW-7, there were no external injuries except mild tenderness. Therefore, the alleged injuries as alleged by the prosecution are not made out. Therefore, PW-7 evidence is formal in nature.
25.PW-8 deposed that on 14-11-2019 at 4-30 p.m, he received a complaint from PW-1 and basing on the strength of the same, he registered a case in crime No. 89/2019 u/sec. 498-A, 307 r/w 34
IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and took up the investigation, during the investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Pws 1, 2 and 3, he referred PW-1 to Government
SC. 19/2021 17 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
hospital, Yellareddy for treatment and medical certificate, later on on the next day the investigation was handed over to Lw-15/K.
Bala Subramanya chary, A.S.I of police for further investigation,
Ex.P-5 is the F.I.R.
26.As seen from the evidence of PW-8 he categorically denied the suggestions put forth to him. However, as seen from the evidence of PW-8 he is one of the Investigating officer in this case.
Therefore, his evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witness and the same cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of corroboration from independent witness evidence.
27.PW-9 deposed that on 14-11-2019 at 4-30 p.m, PW-8 received a complaint from PW-1 and basing on the strength of the same PW-8 registered a case in Cr. No. 89 of 2019 u/sec. 498-A, 307 r/w 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and took up the investigation, during the investigation, PW-8 examined and recorded the statements of Pws 1 , 2 and 3, PW-8 referred PW-1 to
Government hospital, Yellareddy for treatment and medical certificate, later on the next day the investigation was handed over to him, during the course of investigation, he visited the villager i.e., Dharmareddy village and examined the remaining witnesses i.e., Lws 4 to 9, he visited the scene of offence and secured the
SC. 19/2021 18 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
mediators i.e., PW6 and LW-11 and conducted scene of offence panchanama by way of crime details form, thereafter, he visited the house of PW-2 and seized one towel and conducted seizure panchanama in the presence of same witnesses, thereafter, he handed over the case files to their S.I of police i.e.,
LW-16/C.Mohan, for further investigation. Ex.P-6 is the crime details form, Ex.P-7 is the seizure panchanama.
28.As seen from the evidence of PW-9 he categorically denied the suggestions put forth to him. However, as seen from the evidence of PW-9 he is one of the Investigating officer in this case.
Therefore, his evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witness and the same cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of corroboration from independent witness evidence.
29.PW-10 deposed that he received CD files from PW-9 for further investigation on 19-11-2019. He verified the investigation done so far and found the same tobe on proper lines. That on 03- 12-2019 he served section 41A Cr.P.C notice against accused No. 3 but the accused No.3 did nto oblige to the notice and as such, he searched for accused No.1 to 3. That on 06-12-2019 on receiving the reliable information about the presence of accused No.1 to 3 at their house at Dharmareddy, he along with sufficient force went
SC. 19/2021 19 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
there and apprehended the accused Nos 1 to 3 and brought them to the police station and effected their arrest as per law and produced before the concerned Court. Thereafter, he collected the medical certificate of PW-1.
30.As seen from the evidence of PW-10 he categorically denied the suggestions put forth to him. However, as seen from the evidence of PW-10 he is one of the Investigating officer in this case. Therefore, his evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witness and the same cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of corroboration from independent witness evidence.
31. In the result, the accused Nos 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offenses punishable u/sec. 498-A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against the accused Nos 1 and 2, and for the offences punishable u/sec. 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against the accused No. 3 and accordingly they are acquitted, under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos 1 to 3 are ordered to be canceled after appeal time.
MO.1 is ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal time.
Typed by Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of September, 2023.
Asst. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy
SC. 19/2021 20 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
F or Prosecution : PW.1 : Ubbu Swaroopa. PW-2 : Dasari Bhumaiah. PW-3 : Dasari Laxmi. PW-4 : U. Vittal. PW-5 : Dasari Balaiah. PW-6 : Dasari Anjaiah. PW-7 : Dr. Ch. Sravan Kumar. PW-8 : S. Narsaiah PW-9 : K. Balasubramanya Chary PW-10 : C. Mohan. F or Defence: - None -
OCUMENTS MARKED D
F or Prosecution : Ex.P1 Complaint lodged by PW1.
Ex.P2Signature of PW-6 on crime details form.
Ex.P3 Seizure panchanama. Ex.P4 Medical certificate of PW-1. Ex.P5F.I.R.
Ex.P6Crime details form. Ex.P7Seizure panchanama
For Defence : - NIL -
Material Object :
MO.1 : White colour towel.
Asst. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy
SC. 19/2021 21 of 21 Dtd.22-09-2023
C A L E N D A R
IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT KAMAREDDY
Present: Smt B. Sridevi,
Assistant Sessions Judge, Kamareddy
Friday, the 22nd day of September, 2023
SC.No. 19 of 2021
Between:- The State represented by SHO of P.S., Nagireddypet.
... Complainant
AND A1-Ubbu Narayana S/o. Ramaiah, A-2- Ubbu Mangavva W/o. Narayana, A-3- Ubbu Raju S/o. Narayana,
... Accused Nos.1 to 3.
Offence/s U/Section 498-A and 307 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against A-1 and A-2 and sections 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against A-3.
Date of occurrence of offence 13-11-2019
Date of complaint 14-11-2019 Date of apprehension of accused 06-12-2019
Date of commencement of trial28-06-2022 Date of closure of trial 08-09-2023 Finding Found not guilty Sentence / Order The accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 498-A and 307 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against Accused Nos 1 and 2 and for the offences u/sec. 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against the accused No.3 and accordingly they are acquitted for the same, under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be cancelled after appeal time. MO-1/towel shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time Explanation for the delay --
Asst. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy. To: The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Kamareddy.