1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
SULTHANABAD.
PRESENT: SRI B.THIRUPATHI,
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
SULTHANABAD.
Monday, the 20th day of August, 2018
C.C.No.151 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Pothkapalli PS … PROSECUTION AND
Annaldasu Bhumaiah, S/o. Ramchandram, 46 years, Caste:Padmashali, R/o. Manakondur. … ACCUSED
This case coming up before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned A.P.P., for the State and Sri A.Satyanarayana, Counsel
for the accused and after having stood over for consideration till this day,
the court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Pothkapalli PS, laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.31/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition. Act.
2.The brief facts set out by the prosecution is that on 14.04.2015, PW1/ complainant by name Annaladasu @ Bandi Shobharani lodged a report to the police by stating that the marriage of PW1 with the accused was performed on 17.05.2002 and at the time of marriage, the parents of PW1 had given an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs, 10 tulas of gold and other household articles and after two years of their marriage, the accused harassed the PW1 for
additional dowry of Rs.2 Lakhs and that panchayaths were held before the
village elders and in that panchayath, the accused promised to look after the
PW1 well and the accused again started harassment by beating PW1 2 indiscriminately and while the accused and PW1 leading happy marital life, they adopted a female baby in the year 2012 and the accused again harassed the PW1 and beat her by stating to bring bank loan amount of Rs.5
Lakhs as additional dowry to construct a shopping complex in his parents land.
3.Basing on the report, PW7/SI of Police, registered a case in
Cr.No.31/2015 for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, issued FIR and recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.
4.This court has taken cognizance for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him U/s.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., by explaining charges framed for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It is a matter of record that as per the orders passed in Cr.M.P.No.563 of 2018, dated 15.06.2018, the section of law under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act was added and charge has been framed for the said offence and explained to the accused, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 and D2 are marked.
3
6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined
U/s.313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.
7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned counsel for accused.
8.Now the point for determination is:-
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the
offence U/s. 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?
Point:
9.The specific case of the prosecution is that the accused, who is the husband of PW1, received dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of Gold at the time of marriage and after the marriage, the accused harassed the PW1 physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry and used to beat her.
10.In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has to prove that the PW1 was subjected to cruelty by the accused by demanding additional dowry.
11.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Pws.1 to 7. PW1 is the complainant and victim. PW2 is the father of PW1. Pws.3 to 6 are the panchayath elders. PW7 is the
Investigation Officer, who registered the case and filed charge sheet against the accused.
4
12.Before going to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is just and necessary to reproduce the provision of law under section 498-A of
Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code:
“Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman, to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years and shall also be liable to fine”.
Explanation: For the purpose of this section “cruelty” means —
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) Harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act:
Section 3 Penalty for giving or taking dowry:- If any person after commencement of this act gives or abates the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than five years and with fine which shall be not less than 5 Rs.15,000/- or the amount of the value of such dowry which ever is more;
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act:
Section 4 penalty for demanding dowry:- If any person after commencement this act, demands directly from the parents or guardian of a bride or bridegroom as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extent of to six months or fine which may extends for Rs.5,000/-,.
13.It is submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the
Pws.1 to 6 categorically stated against the accused about harassment made by him against the PW1 by demanding additional dowry and that the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused.
14.Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 regarding the alleged harassment and that their evidence is inconsistence with that of report lodged by the PW1 under Ex.P1 and that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that since the PW1 is the Government employee, working as Teacher and the accused is not doing any job, as such, PW1 is not willing to lead marital life with the accused, and that she demanded him to give divorce, for which, the accused refused, as such, PW1 voluntarily left the society of the accused, and after receiving the notices in the O.P.No.10/2015, then, PW1 lodged false report to the police against the accused.
6
15.It is not in dispute that the first marriage of PW1 was performed with one Bura Rajesham and they obtained divorce and subsequently, she married with the accused. It is also not in dispute that the PW1 is working as a Government Teacher. It is also not in dispute that the accused filed O.P vide O.P.No.10/2015 before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar against the PW1 for restitution of conjugal rights.
16.So far as the charge for the offence U/s.3 of Dowry Prohibition
Act is concerned, as per the report lodged by the PW1 under Ex.P1, basing on which, the criminal law was set into motion, wherein, PW1 stated that her marriage was performed with the accused, and at the time of marriage, her parents gave dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of Gold. But, it is not specifically mentioned in the report that PW1 and her parents gave alleged dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of Gold to the accused on his demand.
As per the evidence of PW1 that at the time of her marriage, her parents gave Rs.5,00,000/-, 10 tulas of gold to the accused as dowry. But, the evidence of PW1 did not reveal that on demand of the accused only, her parents gave the alleged dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused. It is also not stated by the PW1 in her evidence that at the time of marriage alliance of PW1 with accused, her parents agreed to give the cash
Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused on his demand. It is also not specifically stated by the PW1 in her evidence that at the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold, as such, her parents gave Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused. Even, the evidence of PW1 is also silent as to source of income of alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold, which were said to have been given to the accused at the time of marriage.
7
17.As per the testimony of PW2, who is the father of the PW1 that he performed the marriage of PW1 with the accused in the year 2002 and at the time of marriage of PW1 with the accused, they gave cash of
Rs.5,00,000/-, 10 tulas gold to the accused. It is not the evidence of PW2 that the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold were given to the accused towards dowry. The evidence of PW2 also did not reveal that on demand of the accused only, they gave the alleged dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused. It is not the evidence of PW2 that at the time of marriage alliance of PW1 and accused, they agreed to give the cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused on demand of the accused only. It is also not the evidence of PW2 that at the time of marriage of PW1 with accused, they agreed to give the alleged dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused on demand of the accused only, as such, they gave Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused. Even, the evidence of PW2 is also silent as to source of amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold, which were said to have been given to the accused at the time of marriage.
18.As per the version of PW3, who is the panchayath elder that the marriage of PW1 with the accused was performed about 15 years back and at the time of marriage of PW1 with the accused, parents of the PW1 gave cash of Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry and 10 tulas gold to the accused. But, the evidence of PW3 did not reveal that he was present at the time of marriage of PW1 and accused and in his presence only, parents of the PW1 gave the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold to the accused.
Moreover, the evidence of PW3 also did not reveal that he was present at the time of marriage alliance of PW1 and accused, and the parents of the
PW1 agreed to give the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold 8 to the accused on demand of the accused only, as such, the parents of the
PW1 gave the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused.
19.The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 also did not disclose about the presence of PW3 at the time of marriage or at time of marriage alliance of PW1 with the accused. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is also silent that at the time of marriage of PW1 with the accused, the parents of the PW1 gave the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused in the presence of PW3. Since, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 did not reveal about the presence of PW3 at the time of marriage or at the time of marriage alliance of PW1 with the accused, as such, it clearly appears that the evidence of
PW3 is hearsay evidence. As per the testimony of PW3 that he acted as elder in the panchayath regarding dispute between the PW1 and the accused. But, it is not the evidence of PW3 that in the said panchayath, parents of the PW1 informed him that they had given cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused at the time of marriage.
20.According to the testimony of the PW4, who is another panchayath elder that the marriage of PW1 with the accused was performed about 15 years back, and at the time of marriage of PW1 with the accused, parents of the PW1 gave cash of Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry and 10 tulas gold to the accused. But, the evidence of PW4 did not reveal that he was present at the time of marriage of PW1 with accused, and in his presence only, parents of the PW1 gave the alleged Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold to the accused.
Moreover, the evidence of PW4 also did not reveal that he was present at the time of marriage alliance of PW1 and accused and the parents of the
PW1 agreed to give the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold 9 to the accused on demand of the accused only, as such, the parents of the
PW1 gave the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused.
21.The evidence of Pws.1 to 3 also did not disclose about the presence of
PW4 at the time of marriage or at time of marriage alliance of PW1 with the accused. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is also silent that at the time of marriage of PW1 with the accused, the parents of the PW1 gave the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused in the presence of PW4. Since, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 did not reveal about the presence of PW4 at the time of marriage or at the time of marriage alliance of PW1 with the accused, as such, it clearly appears that the evidence of
PW4 is hearsay evidence. As per the testimony of PW4 that he acted as elder in the panchayath regarding the dispute between the PW1 and the accused. But, it is not the evidence of PW4 that in the said panchayath, parents of the PW1 informed him that they had given cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused at the time of marriage.
22.As per the evidence of PW5, who is another panchayath elder that the marriage of PW1 with the accused was performed about 16 years back and at the time of marriage of PW1 with the accused, parents of the PW1 gave
Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold to the accused. But, the evidence of PW5 did not reveal that the parents of the PW1 gave alleged amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold to the accused towards dowry. The evidence of PW5 also did not reveal that he was present at the time of marriage of
PW1 and accused, and in his presence only, parents of the PW1 gave the alleged Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold to the accused. Moreover, the evidence of PW5 also did not disclose that he was present at the time of 10 marriage alliance of PW1 and accused, and the parents of the PW1 agreed to give the alleged Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold to the accused on demand of the accused only, as such, the parents of the PW1 gave the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused on demand of the accused only. It is also not the evidence of PW5 that at the time of marriage of PW1, the accused demanded the alleged amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold, as such, the parents of the PW1 gave the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused. As per the testimony of PW5 that he acted as elder in the panchayath regarding the dispute between the PW1 and the accused. But, it is not the evidence of PW5 that in the said panchayath, parents of the PW1 informed him that they had given cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused at the time of marriage. Moreover, the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 did not reveal about the presence of PW5 at the time of giving alleged cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused.
23.According to the evidence of PW6, who is another panchayath elder that the marriage of PW1 with the accused was performed about 16 years back and at the time of marriage of PW1 with the accused, parents of the
PW1 gave Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold to the accused. But, the evidence of PW6 did not reveal that the parents of the PW1 gave the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold to the accused towards dowry. The evidence of PW6 also did not disclose that he was present at the time of marriage of PW1 and accused and in his presence only, parents of the PW1 gave the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold to the accused.
Moreover, the evidence of PW6 also did not reveal that he was present at the time of marriage alliance of PW1 and accused, and that the parents of the
PW1 agreed to give the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold to 11 the accused on demand of the accused only, as such, the parents of the PW1 gave the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused on demand of the accused only. It is also not the evidence of PW6 that at the time of marriage of PW1, the accused demanded the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold, as such, the parents of the PW1 gave the alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused. As per the testimony of PW6 that he acted as elder in the panchayath regarding the dispute between the PW1 and the accused. But, it is not the evidence of PW6 that in the said panchayath, parents of the PW1 informed him that they had given cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused at the time of marriage.Moreover, the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 did not reveal about the presence of PW6 at the time of giving the alleged cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused. It is also not stated by the Pws.1 and 2 that at the time of marriage of PW1 with the accused, they had given the alleged cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused in the presence of Pws.3 to 6. Therefore, there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 as to the alleged amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold which were said to have been given to the accused towards dowry.
24.Admittedly, the prosecution did not produce any documentary evidence to show that the parents of the PW1 agreed to give the alleged cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused on demand of accused only and the same was given to the accused at the time of marriage. Admittedly, the prosecution did not produce any receipts regrading the alleged 10 tulas of gold, which was said to have been given to the accused to show that the parents of the PW1 purchased the said gold for the marriage of PW1 with the accused and they gave the same at the time of 12 marriage. Moreover, it is well settled law that mere presentation of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, cannot be termed as dowry.
25.As seen from the evidence of Pws.1 to 6, there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 as to the giving of alleged cash of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused towards dowry only, and the prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence with regard to giving of alleged cash of
Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold to the accused, as such, the evidence of
Pws.1 to 6 is not trustworthy, not convincing and that their evidence cannot be believed in the absence of corroborating evidence. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused received dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold at the time of marriage. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 3 of Dowry
Prohibition Act against the accused.
26.So far as the charge for the offence U/s.4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code are concerned, as per the report lodged by the PW1 under Ex.P1, wherein, PW1 stated that after the marriage, she led happy marital life for a period of two years and thereafter, the accused harassed her by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, though the PW1 is a Government employee and due to un-bearable torture, she went to her parents house and staying at her parents house and thereafter, the accused took her by promising to look after her well, but the accused did not change his attitude and started harassing her, as such, she placed the matter before the elders in Odela and in the said panchayath also, accused promised that he will look after the PW1 well and after one month, the accused beat her with belt and hit her head to the cot.
13
27.As per the testimony of PW1 that after their marriage, they lead happy marital life for a period of two years and thereafter, the accused used to beat her and harassed her by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, then, she informed the same to her parents, then, her parents asked the accused as to why he harassed the PW1, then, the accused promised that he will look after her well, but, the accused did not change his attitude and used to harass her, used to take money from her and subsequently, accused beat her by demanding additional dowry for construction of shopping complex and used to take money from her. But, the evidence of PW1 did not reveal that due to un-bearable torture by the accused, she went to her parents house and staying at her parents house and thereafter, the accused went to her parents house and took her by promising her to look after her well. It goes to show that the evidence of PW1 is inconsistence with that of report under
Ex.P1.
28.It is also the evidence of PW1 that the accused harassed her, then, the parents of PW1 placed the matter before the elders i. e. Pws.3 to 6 and in the said panchayath, the accused promised to look after the PW1 well and agreed to stay with the PW1 at Odela and after 15 days, the accused harassed her by demanding additional dowry and hit her head to the wall and cot and beat her with belt, as such, they placed the matter before the elders, and in the said panchayath, accused admitted his guilty and promised that he will look after her well, then, she joined with the society of accused society.
29.But, the evidence of PW1 during her cross-examination reveals that she stated to the police at the time of recording her statement that when the 14 accused harassed her physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry, due to un-bearable torture, she went to her parents house. Whereas, the evidence of PW7, who is the Investigation Officer reveals that PW1 had not stated to him at the time of recording her statement that when the accused harassed her physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry, due to un-bearable torture, she went to her parents house. The evidence of PW7 also reveals that PW1 had not stated to him at the time of recording her statement that the accused harassed her, then, she informed the same to her parents, then, her parents asked the accused, for which, the accused promised that he will look-after the PW1 well. The evidence of PW7 also discloses that PW1 had not stated to him at the time of recording her statement that the parents of PW1 placed the matter before the elders i. e.
Pws.3 to 6 and in the said panchayath, the accused promised to look after the PW1 well and agreed to stay with the PW1 at Odela and after 15 days, the accused harassed her by demanding additional dowry and hit her head to the wall and cot and beat her with belt. It goes to show that there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW1 and PW7, and the evidence of PW1 is full of omissions.
30.As per the report under Ex.P1 which was lodged by the PW1 that the accused harassed her by demanding to take bank loan and also demanded for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- in order to construct a shopping complex in the land of her parents, failing to provide the same, he would kill her, then, he beat her in the house of her parents. Whereas, the evidence of
PW1 did not reveal that the accused demanded her to take bank loan and also demanded for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- in order to construct a shopping complex in the land of her parents, failing which, he would kill her 15 and the accused beat her in the house of her parents. It goes to show that the evidence of PW1 is inconsistence with that of report under Ex.P1.
31.According to the evidence of PW1 that in the year 2012, they adopted one daughter with consent of the accused as they have no issues, but, the family members of the accused refused to take adoption in order to get property of the accused to an extent of Ac.5.00 of land and that the accused used to harass her at the instance of his family members and forced her to leave his company by demanding her to take loan or to bring an amount from her parents and dropped her at her parents house in the year 2014.
Whereas, the evidence of PW7, who is the Investigation Officer reveals that
PW1 had not stated to him at the time of recording her statement that the family members of the accused refused to take adoption of a daughter in order to get property of the accused to an extent of Ac.5.00 of land and the accused used to harass at the instance of his family members and forced her leave his company and dropped her at her parents house to bring amount.
Therefore, it clearly goes to show that there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.1 and 7 and the evidence of PW1 is full of omissions.
32.It is also the testimony of PW1 that the accused used to come to her school and demanded her to take loan. Whereas, the evidence of PW7, who is the Investigation Officer reveals that PW1 had not stated to him at the time of recording her statement that the accused used to come to her school and demanded her to take loan. It is also the evidence of PW1 during her cross-examination that she had not stated to the police that the accused used to come to her school and demanded her to take loan. It goes to show that there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.1 and 7 and the evidence of PW1 is full of omissions.
16
33.It is also the evidence of PW1 that when they lodged the report to the
Women Police Station at Karimnagar, and the concerned police made counsellings to her and accused and admonished the accused. Whereas, the evidence of PW7, who is the Investigation Officer reveals that PW1 had not stated to him at the time of recording her statement that when they lodged the report to the Women Police Station at Karimnagar and the concerned police made counsellings to her and accused, and admonished the accused. It is also the evidence of PW1 during her cross-examination that she had not stated to the police that they lodged the report to the Women
Police Station at Karimnagar and the concerned police made counsellings to her and accused and admonished the accused. It also goes to show that there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.1 and 7 and the evidence of
PW1 is full of omissions.
34.According to the evidence of PW1 that the accused filed petition vide
O.P.No.10/2015 before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar against her for restitution of conjugal rights on 13.12.2014. The prosecution also relied on Ex.P3, which is the Certified copy of order in H.M.O.P.No.10/2015 on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, goes to show that said OP was dismissed on 25.10.2017. The evidence of PW1 reveals that on 13.12.2014, the accused filed O.P vide O.P.No.10/2015
before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar against her for restitution
of conjugal rights and thereafter, she lodged report to police, Pothkapalli on 14.04.2015. Therefore, the suggestion put by the learned counsel for the accused that since the PW1 is the Government employee and the accused is not doing any job and that she is not willing to lead marital life with the accused and she voluntarily left the society of the accused, as such, the 17 accused filed O.P vide O.P.No.10/2015 before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge,
Karimnagar against her for restitution of conjugal rights and after receiving the notices in the said O.P.No.10/2015, then, PW1 lodged the report, cannot be ruled out.
35.As per the evidence of PW2, who is the father of the PW1 reveals that
PW1 and the accused lead happy marital life for a period of two years and on one day, the accused dropped his daughter/PW1 in his house and went away, then, he asked the PW1 as to why the accused dropped her at his house, then, she informed that the accused beat her in the market at
Karimnagar by demanding her to bring amount from PW2 in order to construct a shopping complex and also demanded her to take loan for construction of shopping complex and that he dropped her at the house of
PW2. Whereas, the evidence of PW1 did not reveal that after two years of their marital life, on one day, the accused beat the PW1 in the market at
Karimnagar by demanding her to bring amount from PW2 in order to construct a shopping complex and also demanded her to take loan for construction of shopping complex, as such, the accused dropped her at the house of PW2. It goes to show that the evidence of PW2, who is the father of the PW1 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW1 as to the accused beat the PW1 in the market at Karimnagar by demanding her to bring amount from PW2 in order to construct a shopping complex and also demanded her to take loan for construction of shopping complex and dropped her at the house of PW2 as stated by the PW2.
36.If really, the accused beat the PW1 in the market at Karimnagar by demanding her to bring amount from PW2 in order to construct a shopping complex and also demanded her to take loan for construction of shopping 18 complex and dropped her at the house of PW2 as stated by the PW2, then, the PW1 who is the daughter of PW2 would have stated the same in her evidence, but, she has not deposed the same as stated by PW2. Therefore, it shows that there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, who are daughter and father as to the alleged harassment by the accused.
37.According to the evidence of PW1 that in the year 2014, the accused harassed her at the instance of his family members and forced her to leave his company by demanding to bring amount from her parents and to take loan and dropped her at her parents house. Whereas, the evidence of PW2 did not reveal that the accused harassed the PW1 at the instance of his family members and forced her to leave his company by demanding to bring amount from him and to take loan, as such only, the accused dropped the
PW1 in his house in the year 2014. In this regard also, the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW2, who is the father of the PW1 as to the accused dropped the PW1 in the year 2014 by demanding her to bring amount from PW2 and to take loan, as stated by the PW1.
38.If at all the accused harassed the PW1 at the instance of his family members and forced her to leave his company by demanding to bring amount from the PW2 and to take loan, as such only, the accused dropped the PW1 in the house of PW2 in the year 2014, as stated by PW1, then, the
PW2 who is the father of PW1 would have stated the same in his evidence, but, he has not deposed the same. Therefore, it goes to show that there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, who are daughter and father as to the alleged harassment by the accused.
19
39.As per the version of PW1 that the accused harassed her and hit her head to the wall and cot and beat her with belt by demanding additional dowry. Whereas, the evidence of PW2 did not disclose that the accused harassed the PW1 and hit her head to the wall and cot, and beat her with belt. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by the evidence of
PW2 as to the accused beat the PW1 with belt and hit her head to the wall and cot, as stated by the PW1. If really, the accused beat the PW1 with belt and hit her head to the wall and cot, as stated by PW1, then, PW2, who is the father of the PW1 would have stated the same in his evidence, but, he has not deposed the same as stated by PW1. It also goes to show that the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW2.
40.According to the version of PW1 that the accused used to come to school of PW1 where she was working and demanded her to take loan and also on one day, the accused came to the school of PW1 along with his friends and demanded her to take loan. But, the evidence of PW2 did not reveal that the accused used to come to school of PW1 by demanding her to take loan and also on one day, the accused came to the school of PW1 along with his friends and demanded her to take loan. It goes to show that the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW2 as to the accused used to come to school of PW1 where she was working by demanding her to take loan. If really, the accused harassed the PW1 at school where she was working by demanding her to take loan, as stated by the PW1, then, PW2 who is the father of the PW1 would have stated in his evidence, but, he has not deposed the same. Therefore, it goes to show that there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.1 and 2.
20
41.As per the testimony of PW1 that the accused harassed her, then, they placed the matter before the elders i. e., Pws.3 to 6 and in the said panchayath, the accused promised that he will look after her well and agreed to stay with her at Odela. Whereas, the evidence of PW2, who is the father of the PW1 did not reveal that when the accused harassed the PW1, then, they placed the matter before the elders i. e., Pws.3 to 6 and in the said panchayath, the accused promised the PW1 that he will look after her well and agreed to stay with her at Odela. If at all, PW1 placed the matter before the elders i. e., Pws.3 to 6 when the accused harassed the PW1, then, they placed the matter before the elders i. e., Pws.3 to 6 and in the said panchayath, the accused promised the PW1 that he will look after her well and agreed to stay with her at Odela, as stated by the PW1, then, PW2 who is the father of the PW1 would have stated the same in his evidence, but, he has not deposed the same. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.1 and 2.
42.Furthermore, as per the version of PW2, who is the father of the PW1 that he placed the matter before the elders namely Veerla Komuraiah, then, he called the accused and advised him not to harass the PW1 by demanding amount and her salary, but the accused did not take back the PW1 in to his society. But, the evidence of PW1 did not reveal that when the accused harassed the PW1 and dropped her at parents house, then, they placed the matter before the elders namely Veerla Komuraiah, then, he called the accused and advised him not to harass the PW1 by demanding amount and her salary, but the accused did not take back the PW1 in to his society. It also goes to show that the evidence of PW2 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW1 as to placing of matter before the elders namely Veerla
Komuraiah, who advised the accused as to not to harass the PW1 as stated 21 by the PW2. If at all, Pws.1 and 2 placed the matter before the elders namely Veerla Komuraiah, when the accused harassed the PW1 and dropped her at her parents house, the said Veerla Komuraiah advised the accused not to harass the PW1 by demanding amount and her salary and in-spite of the same, the accused did not take back the PW1, as stated by PW2, then, PW1 who is the daughter of PW2 and victim would have stated the same in her evidence, but, she has not deposed the same as stated by PW2. Therefore, it shows that there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.1 and 2.
43.It is also the evidence of PW2 during his cross-examination that the accused filed O.P.No.10/2015 on the file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge,
Karimnagar for restitution of conjugal rights against the PW1. But, it is denied by the PW2 during his cross-examination that since the accused filed
O.P.No.10/2015 on the file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar for restitution of conjugal rights against the PW1, as such, PW1 lodged a false report against the accused. However, the evidence of PW1 goes to show that after filing of the said O.P.No.10/2015 for restitution of conjugal rights against the PW1 by the accused, thereafter, PW1 lodged the report to the police against the accused. Therefore, the suggestion put by the learned counsel for the accused to the PW2 that since the PW1 is the Government employee and she is not willing to lead marital life with the accused, as such when she demanded the accused to take divorce, for which, the accused refused for the same, as such, PW1 filed the false report against the accused, cannot be ruled out.
44.Moreover, the evidence of PW2 did not reveal that the accused demanded the PW1 for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. The evidence of
PW1 also did not disclose that the accused demanded the PW1 for additional 22 dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- in order to construct a shopping complex in the land of the PW2. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW2, and, also inconsistence with that of report lodged by the
PW1 under Ex.P1.
45.According to the evidence of PW3, who is the panchayath elder that after the marriage of PW1 with the accused, they lead happy marital life for a period of two years and thereafter, PW2 informed that the accused beat the PW1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, as such, PW2 placed the matter before the elders and the elders advised the accused, then, the accused took away the PW1 into his conjugal society and after 15 days, PW2 informed him that the accused beat the PW1 by demanding
additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, as such, PW1 came to his house, then,
again PW2 placed the matter before the elders and as per the advise of elders, the accused took away the PW1 into his conjugal society and later, he came to know that the accused again harassed the PW1, as such, she came to her parents house. But, the evidence of PW3 did not reveal that the accused beat the PW1 with belt and hit her head to wall and cot by demanding additional dowry as stated by the PW1. The evidence of PW3 also did not reveal that the accused harassed the PW1 at the instance of accused family members and forced her to leave the company of accused by demanding her to take loan or to bring an amount from her parents and the accused dropped her at her parents house in the year 2014 as stated by the
PW1. The evidence of PW3 also did not disclose that the accused used to come to school of PW1 where she was working and demanded her to take loan. If at all, the accused harassed the PW1 as stated by the PW1, in her evidence, then, she ought to have stated the same in the panchayath before the elders, and that, PW3 would have stated the same in his evidence, but, 23 the PW3 has not deposed the same, as stated by PW1 before this court.
Therefore, it clearly goes to show that the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW3, who is the elder.
46.According to the version of PW3 that the accused beat the PW1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was informed to him by the PW2, who is the father of the PW1. Whereas, the evidence of PW2 did not reveal that the accused demanded the PW1 for additional dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/-. The evidence of PW3 also did not reveal that the accused beat the PW1 in the market at Karimnagar and dropped her at the house of
PW2 by demanding the PW1 to bring additional amount and to take loan in order to construction of shopping complex as stated by the PW2. If really, the accused beat the PW1 in the market, Karimnagar and dropped her at the house of PW2 by demanding the PW1 to bring additional amount and to take loan in order to construction of shopping complex as stated by the PW2, in his evidence, then, he ought to have stated the same before the elders in the panchayath, and that, PW3 would have stated the same in his evidence, but, the PW3 has not deposed the same before this court as stated by PW2.
Moreover, the evidence of PW2 did not disclose that he placed the matter
before the elders i.e., Pws.3 to 6. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that
there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.2 and 3. Therefore, the version of PW3 that PW2 informed him that the accused harassed the PW1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, as such, they placed the matter before him, cannot be believed.
47.As per the evidence of PW4, who is another panchayath elder that after the marriage of PW1 with the accused, they lead happy marital life for a period of two years and thereafter, PW2 informed that the accused beat 24 the PW1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, as such, PW2 placed the matter before the elders and the elders advised the accused, then, the accused took away the PW1 into his conjugal society and after one to two months, PW2 informed him that the accused beat the PW1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, as such, PW1 came to his house, then, again PW2 placed the matter before the elders and as per the advise of elders, the accused took away the PW1 into his conjugal society and later, he came to know that the accused again harassed the PW1, as such, she came to her parents house. But, the evidence of PW4 did not reveal that the accused beat the PW1 with belt and hit her head to wall and cot by demanding additional dowry as stated by the PW1. The evidence of
PW4 also did not reveal that the accused harassed the PW1 at the instance of accused family members and forced her to leave the company of accused by demanding her to take loan or to bring an amount from her parents and the accused dropped her at her parents house in the year 2014 as stated by the PW1. The evidence of PW4 also did not disclose that the accused used to come to school of PW1 where she was working and demanded her to take loan. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW4, who is the elder. If at all, the accused harassed the PW1 as stated by the PW1, in her evidence, then, she ought to have stated the same in the panchayath before the elders, and that, PW4 would have stated the same in his evidence, as stated by PW1, but, the PW4 has not deposed the same before this court.
48.According to the version of PW4 that the accused beat the PW1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was informed to him by the PW2, who is the father of the PW1. Whereas, the evidence of PW2 did not reveal that the accused demanded the PW1 for additional dowry of 25 Rs.2,00,000/-. The evidence of PW4 also did not reveal that the accused beat the PW1 in the market at Karimnagar and dropped her at the house of
PW2 by demanding the PW1 to bring additional amount and to take loan in order to construction of shopping complex. If really, the accused beat the
PW1 in the market, Karimnagar and dropped her at the house of PW2 by demanding the PW1 to bring additional amount and to take loan in order to construction of shopping complex as stated by the PW2, in his evidence, then, he ought to have stated the same before the elders in the panchayath, and that, PW4 would have stated the same in his evidence, but the PW4 has not deposed the same before this court as stated by PW2. Moreover, the evidence of PW2 did not disclose that he placed the matter before the elders i.e., Pws.3 to 6. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.4 and 2. Therefore, the version of PW4 that PW2 informed him that the accused harassed the PW1 by demanding
additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, as such, they placed the matter before
him, cannot be believed.
49.As per the testimony of PW5, who is another panchayath elder that after the marriage of PW1 with the accused, they lead happy marital life for a period of four years and thereafter, PW2 informed that the accused beat the PW1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, as such, PW2 placed the matter before the elders and the elders advised the accused, then, the accused took away the PW1 into his conjugal society and after 10 months, PW2 informed him that the accused beat the PW1 by demanding
additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, as such, PW1 came to his house, then,
again PW2 placed the matter before the elders and as per the advise of elders, the accused took away the PW1 into his conjugal society and later, he came to know that the accused again harassed the PW1, as such, she 26 came to her parents house. But, the evidence of PW5 did not reveal that the accused beat the PW1 with belt and hit her head to wall and cot by demanding additional dowry as stated by the PW1. The evidence of PW5 also did not reveal that the accused harassed the PW1 at the instance of accused family members and forced her to leave the company of accused by demanding her to take loan or to bring an amount from her parents and the accused dropped her at her parents house in the year 2014 as stated by the
PW1. The evidence of PW5 also did not disclose that the accused used to come to school of PW1 where she was working and demanded her to take loan. If at all, the accused harassed the PW1 as stated by the PW1, in her evidence, then, she ought to have stated that same in the panchayath
before the elders, and that, PW5 would have stated the same in his
evidence, but, the PW5 has not deposed the same before this court as stated by PW1. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW5, who is the elder.
50.According to the version of PW5 that the accused beat the PW1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was informed to him by the PW2, who is the father of the PW1. Whereas, the evidence of PW2 did not reveal that the accused demanded the PW1 for additional dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/-. The evidence of PW5 also did not reveal that the accused beat the PW1 in the market at Karimnagar and dropped her at the house of
PW2 by demanding the PW1 to bring additional amount and to take loan in order to construction of shopping complex. If really, the accused beat the
PW1 in the market, Karimnagar and dropped her at the house of PW2 by demanding the PW1 to bring additional amount and to take loan in order to construction of shopping complex as stated by the PW2, in his evidence, then, he ought to have stated the same before the elders in the panchayath, 27 and that, PW5 would have stated the same in his evidence, but, PW5 has not deposed the same before this court as stated by PW2. Moreover, the evidence of PW2 did not disclose that he placed the matter before the elders i.e., Pws.3 to 6. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.5 and 2. Therefore, the version of PW5 that PW2 informed him that the accused harassed the PW1 by demanding
additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, as such, they placed the matter before
him, cannot be believed.
51.According to the version of PW6, who acted as panchayath elder regarding the dispute between the PW1 and accused that PW1 and accused lead happy marital life for a period of two years, thereafter, PW1 came to her parents house, and that the PW2 informed him that the accused beat the
PW1, as such, they placed the matter before the elders and in the said panchayath, elders advised the accused by stating that not to beat the PW1 and lead happy marital life, then, the accused promised that he will look after the PW1 and after 10 or 15 days, again PW1 came to her parents house and PW2 informed him that the accused harassed the PW1 by demanding 5 Tulas of gold and again a panchayath was held before the elders and again the accused promised that he will look after the PW1 and took her and thereafter, PW1 came to her parents house as the accused did not change his attitude.
52.But, the evidence of PW6 did not reveal that the accused harassed the
PW1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Moreover, the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 did not reveal that the accused harassed the PW1 by demanding 5 Tulas of gold. If at all, the accused demanded the PW1 for 5
Tulas of gold, then, Pws.1 and 2, who are the daughter and father would 28 have stated the same in their evidence as to the alleged demanding of 5
Tulas of gold by the accused. Therefore, the evidence of PW6 is not corroborated by the evidence of Pws.1 to 5.
53.Moreover, the evidence of PW6 did not reveal that the accused beat the PW1 with belt and hit her head to wall and cot by demanding additional dowry as stated by the PW1. The evidence of PW6 did not disclose that the accused harassed the PW1 at the instance of family members of accused and forced her to leave the company of accused by demanding her to take loan or to bring an amount from her parents and the accused dropped her at her parents house in the year 2014 as stated by the PW1. The evidence of PW6 also did not reveal that the accused used to come to school of PW1 where she was working and demanded her to take loan. If at all, the accused harassed the PW1 as stated by the PW1 in his evidence, then, she ought to have stated that same in the panchayath before the elders, and that, PW6 would have stated the same in his evidence, but, the PW6 has not deposed the same before this court as stated by PW1. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW6, who is the elder.
54.According to the version of PW6 that the accused beat the PW1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was informed to him by the PW2, who is the father of the PW1. Whereas, the evidence of PW2 did not reveal that the accused demanded the PW1 for additional dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/-. The evidence of PW6 also did not reveal that the accused beat the PW1 in the market at Karimnagar and dropped her at the house of
PW2 by demanding the PW1 to bring additional amount and to take loan in order to construction of shopping complex. If really, the accused beat the 29 PW1 in the market, Karimnagar and dropped her at the house of PW2 by demanding the PW1 to bring additional amount and to take loan in order to construction of shopping complex as stated by the PW2 in his evidence, then, PW2 ought to have stated the same before the elders in the panchayath, and that, PW6 would have stated the same in his evidence, but, the PW6 has not deposed the same before this court as stated by PW2.
Moreover, the evidence of PW2 did not disclose that he placed the matter
before the elders i.e., Pws.3 to 6. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that
there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.6 and 2. Therefore, the version of PW6 that PW2 informed him that the accused harassed the PW1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, as such, they placed the matter before him, cannot be believed.
55.As per the evidence of PW5 during his cross-examination that he had not stated to the police that the accused sent the PW1 by demanding
additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and threatened her that he will kill her,
which is marked as in Ex.D1. Whereas, the evidence of PW7, who is the
Investigation Officer goes to show that PW5 had stated to him as in Ex.D1. It goes to show that there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.5 and 7 as to Ex.D1.
56.As per the testimony of PW6 during his cross-examination that he had not stated to the police that the accused sent the PW1 by demanding
additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and threatened her that he will kill her,
which is marked as in Ex.D2. Whereas, the evidence of PW7, who is the
Investigation Officer goes to show that PW6 had stated to him as in Ex.D2. It goes to show that there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.6 and 7 as to Ex.D2.
30
57.It is also stated by the PW3 during his cross-examination that PW5 is his brother, PW4 is son of PW5. It shows that the Pws.4 to 6, are blood relatives and neighbours to PW2. Moreover, the evidence of PW6 reveals that he does not know the accused and the PW2 is the neighbour to the
PW6. The evidence of PW7, who is the Investigation Officer goes to show that he had not examined and recorded the statements of neighbours where the Pws.1 and 2 have resided. Therefore, the suggestion put by the learned counsel for the accused that at the instance of Pws.1 and 2 only, Pws.3 to 6 has deposed falsely against the accused as to the alleged harassment by the accused, cannot be ruled out.
58.As seen from the entire evidence of Pws.1 to 7, the evidence of PW1 is inconsistence with that of her report under Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by the evidence of Pws.2 to 6 and the evidence of PW2 is not corroborated by the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 to 6 and there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 as to the alleged harassment by the accused by demanding additional dowry, as such, the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 is not trustworthy, not convincing, and that their evidence cannot be believed. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused harassed the PW1 by demanding additional dowry.
Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence U/s. 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused.
59.In view of the above discussion held supra, this Court is of the opinion that, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to fasten the criminal liability against the accused with which he stood charge and that the 31 prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such, the accused deserved to be acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt.
60.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and that therefore, the accused is acquitted as per the section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated
U/s.437-A Cr.P.C.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open
court, on this the 20th day of August, 2018.
Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sulthanabad
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1Annaldasu @ Bandi Shobha RaniComplainant and victim PW2B.RamaswamyFather of the PW1 PW3D.ShankaraiahPanchayath Elder PW4D.SwamyPanchayath Elder PW5D.PochaluPanchayath Elder PW6I.RamachandramPanchayath Elder PW7SK.JanipashaInvestigation Officer
FOR DEFENCE: -None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is the Report Ex.P2 is the First Information Report Ex.P3 is the Certified copy of order in H.M.O.P.No.10/2015 on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar 32
FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 is the Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.D2 is the Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6
MATERIAL OBJECTS :- -Nil-
Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sulthanabad