Ms.Bommathi Bhavani

Page No. 1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VIII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT KUKATPALLY

Present: Bommathi Bhavani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally.

Dated this on 22nd of July, 2022

C.C No. 2380 of 2018

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Miyapur. ...Complainant

AND

Manga Lakshmikanth Goud, S/o. Kishan Goud, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Software Engineer, R/o. B9 NSK Bliss Lands, Near Pranam hospital,

Madinaguda, Miyapur.... Accused

This case is coming up before me on 13-07-2022 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri. B. Suresh Goud, learned Counsel for the accused, and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

Section of Law:U/S. 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found guilty Sentence or Order :In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC and convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C with a sentence with an imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.4000 for the offence U/S 420 IPC, an imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence U/S 468 and an imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence U/s 471 IPC, total imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine he has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Further accused is found not guilty for the offence Under sec: 201 IPC and acquitted U/sec: 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. Accused is informed his right of appeal on quantum of sentence and his right to get legal aid

before the appellate court. As there is

no property deposited, no property order passed. All the sentences run consecutively

Page No. 2

J U D G M E N T

1.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 10-08-2017 at 1430 hours received a report from the complainant Smt. M. Swarupa Rani, W/o.

Lakshmikanth Goud, R/o. Madinaguda, Miyapur, in which she stated that she got married with Lakshmikanth goud on 29-08-2013 in the presence of all elders at Shahi Gardens in Tolichowki, Hyderabad, further stated that last year they got disturbance and her husband and her mother-in-law harassed whole night for extra dowry and her husband warned her that he is going to kill her and as well as her family within an hour. Further stated, that in the past also, he sent many mails saying that he is going to kill her and her family. As she has filed U/S 498-A IPC case in the Miyapur Police Station on 16th June, 2016, while 498-A case was pending, he moved to USA without any information on 31-08-2016 and he came back to India on 02-03-2017 and got married to Thallapalli Varalaxmi on 05-03-2017 secretly without any intimation and not obtaining divorce from her. She put her maximum efforts for three months with the help of CP and other officials and requested to file

LOC on his passport No. N-8551407 and LOC is opened. Then she came to know that he has given old passport for LOC and cheated the entire police department by wasting three months time. Her husband got new passport from regional passport office and changed her name from his wife status and included his illegal wife name Thallapalli Varalaxmi vide passport No. P- 9287561 with all fake documents. Further without her involvement her husband created fake mutual divorce document from Chennai court and forged her signature and trying to flee with the current passport. Further stated to seize the passports of her husband and his illegal wife to stop them to move USA until the cases decided. Hence requested SHO Miyapur to take action against the said person as per the law prescribed.

2.Basing on the report, the SI of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.893/2017, U/s 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC and issued FIR to concerned.

During the course of investigation, LW10/K. Lingya Naik, SI examined and

Page No. 3 recorded the statement of LW1 viz., Smt. M. Swarupa Rani and visited the scene of offence and caused enquires about the incident. Subsequently he recorded the statements of LW2 to LW4 viz., Sri. M. Yadagiri, Smt. M.

Shashirekha and Sri. M. Srinivas. During the course of investigation LW10 served the notice U/S 41-A Crpc to accused on 10-08-2017 and instructed the accused to co-operate the investigation, but the accused absconded.

Thereafter the accused was arrested on 14-08-2017 and recorded his confessional cum seizure panchanama by LW10 in the presence of LW5 and

LW6 viz., Sri. A. Naresh and Sri. M. Arjun. Later LW10 has taken the accused into police custody vide Crl.Mp.No. 3382/2017, dated: 17-08-2017 and recorded the confessional panchanama and seized the original passport

Br.No. P-9287561 in the presence of LW5 and LW6. After completion of investigation, the SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s. 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC.

3.This court has taken cognizance for the offence U/s. 420, 468, 471, 201

IPC against accused.

4.After receiving of the summons accused was present before this court and copies furnished as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Later accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, and the contents of the charge sheet are explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he denied and not pleaded guilty and claimed to try the case. Then the charges are framed for the offence U/S 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC against the accused.

6.On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW5 are examined and Exhibit

P1 to P13 were marked.

7.After completion of trial, accused was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

Page No. 4

8. Heard both sides.

9.Point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the offence U/s. 420, 468,

471, 201 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it relies on the oral evidence of PW1 to PW5, EX.P1 to P13.

11.PW1 testified in her evidence that, she got married with accused on 29-08-2013 at Shahi gardens, Hyderabad, at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.12lakhs dowry, 30 tulas gold and house hold articles.

Further stated herself and accused led happy marital life for six months.

Later she took personal loan with instance of accused, as accused purchased car with the said amount and she and accused took the plot in Miyapur.

Thereafter accused went to USA and returned back after ten months. Further stated in June, 2016 accused bet her and harassed whole night, then her parents came, even accused bet her parents. As such she filed 498-A IPC against the accused. While 498-A IPC was pending accused went USA.

Thereafter accused was in contact with her through Whatsapp and mails, on 02-03-2017 she met her father-in-law, then her father-in-law assured that the matter will be settle by 4th March as accused is returning from USA. Further she contended that accused married a woman named Varalakshmi in March, 2017 and made efforts to move USA along with the said women. After knowing the said information she applied to seize the passport, then she came to know that accused obtained second passport to move USA, as such she met DGP and filed the present case before SHO, Miyapur EX.P1. During the investigation she came to know that accused has created the fake divorce order from Chennai court and furnished the same before passport authority and deleted her name in the passport and added name of

Varalakshmi as his wife. Further contended that police obtained her specimen signature and send to FSL along with the divorce decree of

Page No. 5

Chennai family court. In cross examination defence counsel put the suggestion that accused not married a women named Varalakshmi and he not applied for the passport on name of Varalakshmi, for which PW1 denied.

12.PW2 testified in his evidence that PW1 is his sister. Accused returned from USA in March 2017 and married another women named Varalakshmi at

Yadagirigutta and planned to move USA with her. Then they applied for seize of passport, at that time he came to know that accused obtained second passport to go USA by creating decree of divorce given by Chennai court by deleting the name of PW1 from the Passport and added the name of

Varalakshmi as the wife of accused. In cross examination defence counsel put the suggestion that accused not married a women named Varalakshmi and he not applied for the passport on name of Varlakshmi, for which PW1 denied.

13.PW3 testified in his evidence that he do not know accused. Police did not conduct confession cum seizure panchanama before him. APPO with consent of the court cross examined the witness and marked his signature

EX.P2 on confession cum seizure panchanama.

14.PW4 testified in his evidence that at present he was working as

Assistant Director, TSFSL, Hyderabad. On 31-01-2018 received requisition to

TSFSL from the Hon’ble court fort the examination of certain documents and to furnish opinion. The documents received are mutual consent divorce paper (five sheets) containing questioned signatures EX.P3 and also received standard signatures of M. Swarupa Rani (PW1) i.e., 10 sheets. Thereafter he marked questioned signature as ‘Q’ series and standard signatures as ‘S1 to

S10’, EX.P4. Further System Soft Technology letter head containing of standard signature EX.P5 marked by him as ‘S11’ and four specimen sheets containing EX.P6 marked by him as ‘S12 to S51’. Further stated that on careful and through examination of questioned marked ‘Q’ with standard

Page No. 6 signature marked with ‘S1 to S51’, he opined that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked ‘S1 to S51’ did not write the red enclosed signatures marked ‘Q’ and furnished his opinion in file Doc/42/2018, dated:

13-03-2018 EX.P7.

15.In cross examination defence counsel put the suggestions to PW4 that he not followed the proper method, only with the influence of police issued

EX.P7 without examination of questioned and standard signatures, the same were denied by PW4.

16.PW5 Investigation Officer testified in his evidence that on 10-08-2017 at 1430 hours, LW9 received a report from PW1, considering the same registered a case in Crime No. 803/2017 U/S 420, 468, 471 IPC EX.P8.

Thereafter CD file was handed over to him, he verified the investigation and found it in proper lines. Thereby recorded the statements of PW1, PW2, LW2 and LW3. As a prima facie allegation noticed against the accused, he issued 41-A Crpc notice to accused, as accused not complied with the said notice, he was apprehended and arrested on 14-08-2017 and sent to Judicial custody. Further addressed a letter to Chennai court to know that divorce petition was filed by PW1 or not. For which he received reply from Chennai court on 16-11-2017 along with OP Petition No.1039/2016 EX.P9. Thereafter he prayed the Hon’ble Family court, Chennai to confirm the genuineness of

EX.P9 by sending requisition on 19-11-2017, for which Principal Family court,

Chennai sent a letter to SHO, Miyapur, 17-11-2017 vide Dis.No. 2660/2017 by stating that, on verification of suit register of Family Court, Chennai, after verification the Family Court, Chennai found that O.P.No. 1039/2016 was filed by one Miss. R. Ramalakshmi against A. Satish Kumar and the case was pending before II Addl. Family Court, Chennai. Further mentioned that the order of EX.P9 discloses that it is fabricated to cheat the person concerned and signature of Family court is manipulated and it is abuse process of law and fraud committed against the judicial system and refereed for necessary

Page No. 7 action by sending EX.P10. During the course of the investigation PW5 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama, EX.P13 and seized Passport of A2 Further he addressed a letter to the passport authority to submit complete details of accused regard to the passport applied and document furnished (30 pages) by the accused, the passport authority had send the details by addressing a covering letter to the SHO, Miyapur, EX.P12. Further

PW5 requested the Hon’ble court through requisition to send specimen signatures of PW1 with disputed signatures of EX.P9 and the same was allowed, thereafter questioned and standard signatures were send for expert opinion to FSL. Later he handed over the CD file to LW11 who filed charge sheet after receiving FSL report and completion of charge sheet.

17.In cross examination defence counsel put a question to PW5 that the document EX.P9 and P10 have not recovered from the accused, but obtained from the authorized organization and further PW5 denied for all the suggestions that he not conducted EX.P11 and not recorded the statements of PW1, PW2, LW2 and LW3.

Point for consideration:-

18.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 discloses that PW1 is legally wedded wife of accused and their marriage was performed on 29-08-2013 at Shahi

Gardens, Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs. Further PW1 and ac- cused led happy marital life for about six months, thereafter accused left to

USA and returned back after ten months. Later some disputes arouse be- tween PW1 and accused, as such PW1 filed 498-A IPC case against the ac- cused. While the case was pending, accused went to USA, at that time ac- cused use to have contact with PW1 through Whatsapp and mails. Subse- quently PW1 came to know that accused married another woman named

Varalakshmi in March, 2017. As such she lodged a report EX.P1 on 05-08- 2017 against the accused. Subsequently PW1 approached Inspector of Po- lice, Miyapur on 08-08-2017 by lodging EX.P4 by mentioning the complete details of accused regard to his passport, marriage certificate and order of

Page No. 8

Family Court, Chennai. Furthermore to corroborate with the ocular evidence of PW1 the documents EX.P1 to P6 stands supportive. Moreover, the docu- ments furnished by the accused to the passport authority i.e., EX.P12 con- tains the marriage certificate, which discloses that accused got married to

Thallapalli Varalakshmi on 05-03-2017 and their marriage got registered on 08-03-2017 before Registrar of Marriages, Registrar Office, Janagaon, Jana- gaon District, Telangana State.

19.On other hand the evidence of PW4 reveals that, being hand writing expert at TSFSL examined the questioned signatures EX.P3 of EX.P9 and compared with the standard signatures ‘S1 to S10’, EX.P4, ‘S11’ EX.P5 and ‘S12 to S51’ EX.P6 and gave his opinion that the person who wrote red enclo- sures signature marked S1 to S51 did not write the red enclosures signatures marked ‘Q’. Further PW4 submitted his opinion that the questioned signa- tures EX.P3 of EX.P9 does not belongs to PW1 and the same was fabricated and furnished his opinion in EX.P7.

In 1980 AIR 531, 1980 SCR (2) 249 of Murarilal Vs. State of

M.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1975 of the Supreme Court of

India laid down the opinion followed below

We begin with the observation that the expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the haz- ard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses-- the equality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses--, but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion.

An expert deposes and not decides. His duty 'is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence'. (Vide Lord President Cooper in Decie v. Edinburgh Magistrate 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor Cross in his Evidence).

We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and

Page No. 9 examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight.

20.Here in the present case the opinion of the Pw4 is corroborated with the documentary evidence and also with the ocular evidence of PW1 and

PW2.

21.Furthermore the evidence collected by PW5 from the passport author- ity i.e., EX.P12 consists that accused applied for passport along with the doc- uments by mentioning that Thallapally Varalakshmi as his wife and further mentioned that he obtained divorce from the first wife M. Swarupa Rani (PW1) in the court of Judge, Family Court, Chennai vide O.P.No. 1039/2016.

After receiving the said information PW5 requested the Hon’ble Family court,

Chennai to confirm the genuineness of order in O.P.No. 1039/2016 between

Swarupa Rani (PW1) Vs. Lakshmikanth Goud (Accused). for further investiga- tion in Crime No. 803/2017 U/s 420, 461, 471, 201 IPC on 09-11-2017. Con- sidering the requisition of SHO, Miyapur the Hon’ble Judge A.K.A. Rahaman,

Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai sent a letter to the SHO, Miyapur for

reference letter dated: 09-11-2017 that “on through verification of the order it is made clear without any second thought that the said order is absolutely fake and it is nothing but abuse process of law. Please also take note that the order is said to have been pronounced by the Family Court, Chennai. It is very much painful to know that order is said to have been delivered by

Hon’ble Justice Thiru.M.Y.EQBAL which is out of scope, as his lordship was

formerly The Chief Justice of Madras High Court and thereafter the Judge of

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and who retired on 13-02-2016 itself. It is out

of imagination to mention his lordship to have presided over the family court,

Chennai as it is not the protocol and his lordships was the controlling author- ity of the entire Tamilandu State Judiciary. Further the seal of the Family court is also manipulated. Further submitted that on verification of the suit

Page No. 10 register of the family court, Chennai, it is found that O.P. 1039/2016 was filed by one Mrs. R. Kama Lakshmi @ Swapna against Mr. K. Satish Kumar and the case is still pending before II Addl. Family Court, Chennai. The contents of the order go to show that it is nothing but a fabrication to cheat the person concerned. It is clear case of abuse process of court and fraud committed on the judicial system.

22.By the above opinion of EX.P9 the Hon’ble Principal Judge, Principal

Family Court, Chennai clearly establishes that accused fabricated EX.P9. By the contents mentioned by Hon’ble Principal Judge, Family Court in Ex.P10 discloses that the Hon’ble Justice Thiru M.Y. EQBAL was the Hon’ble Justice of

Supreme court and worked as a chief justice of Madras High Court and there is no scope to be the lordship as a Judge for Family Court, Chennai in O.P.No.

1039/2016.

23.By the documents EX.P9 and P10 it clearly elicits that accused fabri- cated the document EX.P9 to furnish the same before Passport authority to show that he obtained divorce from his earlier wife i.e., Swarupa Rani (PW1) by showing Varalakshmi as his wife, because already PW1 name is men- tioned as wife of accused in his earlier passport. Furthermore, the acts of the accused shows that he is a such a type of person who can go extreme level to cheat any person or organization with fraudulent and dishonest intention.

In BhimshaSubannaPawar v. State of Maharashtra (1996)

The Bombay High Court in light of the case of BhimshaSubannaPawar v. State of Maharashtra (1996) took into consideration the circumstances when independent evidence is not available to the Court to carry on with the conviction of the accused. In this present case, the Hon’ble High Court while concluding that in the absence of independent evidence, the Court has to carefully examine evidence by the police witnesses which, if found to be a reliable source, will form the basis on which the conviction of the accused will exist.

Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel v. the State of Punjab (2012)

The Supreme Court of India’s decision, in the case of, Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel v. the State of Punjab (2012) concerned about the inter-relation existing between Section 162 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 162(1) reads as, “a statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an

Page No. 11 investigation done, if reduced to writing, be not signed by the person making it”, which by its very language makes it clear that law requires a statement that has been made before the investigating officer to not be signed by the witness giving it. To simplify, the witness will not be bound by his statements made before the concerned authority. But it is noteworthy to mention that the provision of Section 162(1) of C.r.P.c will not be applicable to the statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. While observing this, the Apex Court noted that there lies no obligation on the part of the investigating officer to obtain the initials of an accused in the statements that have been attributed to him while preparing seizure memo under Section 27 of the Act of 1872. But if such initials have been obtained then the same will not be considered unlawful.

24.By the above said facts and evidence on record, this court found that prosecution has established relevant evidence to prove that accused cheated the passport authority by preparation of fabricated documents to make belief as true to the passport authority that he obtained mutual con- sent divorce from the Hon’ble Family Court, Chennai.

25.Accordingly, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 420, 468, 471 IPC and convicted under section 248 (2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 22nd day of July, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally

26.Accused heard the quantum of sentence, he pleaded that he is has small children, they are dependent upon him, even he has old age parents and requested the court to take lenient view towards him. This court has not taken lenient view towards the accused by taking consideration that he cheated the judiciary by creating fabricated document i.e., court order.

Further he is not entitled for benefit under probation of offenders Act.

27.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC and convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C with a sentence with an imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.4000 for the offence U/S 420 IPC, an imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence U/S 468 and an imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence U/s 471 IPC, total imprisonment of three years and fine of

Page No. 12

Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine he has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Further accused is found not guilty for the offence Under sec: 201 IPC and acquitted U/sec: 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the appeal time.

Accused is informed his right of appeal on quantum of sentence and his right to get legal aid before the appellate court. As there is no property deposited, no property order passed. All the sentences run consecutively.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 22nd day of July, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESS EXAMINED)

For Prosecution:- P.W.1 : M. Swaroopa P.W.2 : M.Srinivas P.W.3 : Arjun P.W.4 : V. Muralidhar P.W.5 : K. Lingya Naik

For defence: - None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the report Ex.P2 is the signature obtained in the police station on white paper Ex.P3 is the questioned signature marked as ‘Q’. Ex.P4 is the standard signatures marked as S1 to S10 Ex.P5 is the standard signature as S11. Ex.P6 is the standard signatures marked as S12 to S51 Ex.P7 is the opinion in file of DOC/42/2018, dated: 31-03-2018 Ex.P8 is the FIR Ex.P9 is the order of the Family Court, Chennai Ex.P10 is the letter addressed to SHO, Miyapur Ex.P11 is the Passport book Ex.P12 is the letter from Passport authority Ex.P13 is the confession cum seizure panchanama.

For defence: -NIL- MOs marked: -NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Kukatpally

Page No. 1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VIII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT KUKATPALLY

Present: Bommathi Bhavani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally.

Dated this on 27th of July, 2022

C.C No. 765 of 2017

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Miyapur....Complainant

AND

A1.Manga Lakshmikanth Goud, S/o. Kishan Goud, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Software Engineer, R/o. B9 NSK Bliss Lands, Near Pranam hospital, Madinaguda, Miyapur.

A2.Varalakshmi, W/o. Lakshmikanth goud, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. B9 NSK Bliss Lands, Near Pranam hospital, Madinaguda, Miyapur.

A3.Manga Kishan Goud, S/o. Late Laxminarayana, Age: 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. B9 NSK Bliss Lands, Near Pranam hospital, Madinaguda, Miyapur.

A4.Manga Premalatha, W/o. Kishan Goud, Age: 55 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. B9 NSK Bliss Lands, Near Pranam hospital, Madinaguda, Miyapur.

A5.Tallapalli Mallesh Goud, S/o. Late Ayodhya, Age: 55 years, Occ: DCM Driver, R/o. Near Hanuman Temple, Medipally, Uppal, Hyderabad, N/o. Tharigoppula village and Mandal, Janagaon District.

A6.Tallapalli Balamani, W/o. Mallesh Goud, Age: 53 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Near Hanuman Temple, Medipally, Uppal, Hyderabad, N/o. Tharigoppula village

and Mandal, Janagaon District.... Accused

This case is coming up before me on 22-07-2022 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri. B. Suresh Goud, learned Counsel for the accused, and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

Section of Law:U/S. 406, 420, 494, 109 IPC Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty

Page No. 2

Finding of the Court:Found guilty Sentence or Order :In the result, A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/S. 406, 420, 494 IPC and convicted under section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. with a sentence of impris- onment for one year and fine of Rs.4000/- for the offence U/S 406 IPC, an imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence U/S 420 and an imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence U/s 494 IPC, total imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in de- fault of payment of fine he has to un- dergo simple imprisonment for three months. Further A2 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/S. 494 r/w 109 IPC and convicted U/S. 248(2) Crpc with a sentence of imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence U/S 494 r/w 109 IPC, in default of payment of fine she has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. A3 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence U/S 406, 420, 494 r/w 109 IPC and acquitted U/sec: 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. A1 and A2 are informed their right of appeal on quantum of sentence and their right to get legal aid before the appellate court. As there is no property de- posited, no property order passed.

J U D G M E N T

1.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 28-03-2017 at 1700 hours received a report from the complainant Smt. M. Swarupa Rani, W/o.

Lakshmikanth Goud, R/o. Madinaguda, Miyapur, in which she stated that her marriage was performed with Lakshmikanth Goud (Second Marriage). Due to internal disputes between her and her husband in the month of June 2016 she lodged a dowry case against her husband and case is pending. Further the complainant came to know that without taking divorce with her, her husband re-married with another woman and requested the SHO, Miyapur to take action against the said persons as per the law prescribed. On the receipt of the above complaint SHO, Miyapur made GD entry since the contents are related to sec. 494 IPC and obtained permission from the court.

Page No. 3

2.Basing on the report, the SI of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.370/2017, U/s 406, 420, 494, 109 IPC and issued FIR to concerned.

During the course of investigation, LW10/M.Mahipal Reddy, SI examined and recorded the statement of LW1 viz., Smt. M. Swarupa Rani. LW10 addressed a letter to HR Manager, System Soft Technologies, Madhapur where the accused was employed with the request to inform about the request made by Lakshmikanth Goud to include the name of Varlakshmi as his wife and the said certificate is necessary for A1 to include Varalakshmi (A2) as wife of A1 for the purpose of obtaining VISA as she is dependant of A1. The HR Manager after receiving the request letter from SHO, Miyapur furnished a copy of passport of A2 in which A1 shown as husband of A2. During the course of investigation LW10 served the notice U/S 41-A Crpc to A1 and A2. Thereafter as per the instructions of LW9, LW11 taken over the CD file and issued the noticed U/S 41-A Crpc to A3 to A6. After completion of investigation, the SI of

Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s. 406, 420, 494, 109 IPC.

3.This court has taken cognizance for the offence U/s. 406, 420, 494, 109

IPC against A1 to A6.

4.After receiving of the summons A1 to A6 were present before this court and copies furnished as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Later A1 to A6 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, and the contentions of the charge sheet for the offences U/S 406, 420, 494, 109 IPC are read and explained to all the accused in Telugu for which they denied and claimed to be tried. Thereafter this court framed charge for the offences u/s 406, 420, 494, 109 IPC against A1 to A6.

6.On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW7 are examined and Exhibit

P1 to P22, EX.D1 and D2 were marked.

7.After completion of trial, A1 to A6 were examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating material available against them in the evidence of

Page No. 4 prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9.Point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the offence U/s. 406, 420,

494, 109 IPC against A1 to A6 beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it relies on the oral evidence of PW1 to PW7, EX.P1 to P22, EX. D1 & D2.

11.PW1 M. Swroopa testified in her evidence that, she got married with A1 on 29-08-2013 at Shahi gardens, Hyderabad, at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.7lakhs dowry, 30 tulas gold and house hold articles. Later she took personal loan of Rs.3lakhs and Rs.6lakhs on instance of A1, as accused purchased car with the said amount and she and accused took the flat in Miyapur. After six months of marriage A1 left USA by making her to stay at her parent’s house and stated to her to resign the job, as he intend to take her to USA. Thereafter A1 returned back after ten months and harassed her for additional dowry of Rs. 3lakhs, As such she filed 498-A IPC against the accused. Further stated on 24-03-2017 she came to know that A1 married to

A2, as such she lodged EX.P1 and further marked EX.P2 to P18 and subsequently APPO filed 311 Crpc for recall of PW1 at the stage of 313 Crpc and marked EX.P22.

12.In cross examination defence counsel put a suggestion that PW1 married A1 as second wife, without obtaining divorce from first wife of A1, for which she denied. Further put a suggestion that PW1 creating disturbances in marital life of A1 with earlier wife for which she denied. Further defence counsel elicited that after marriage proposal by A1 for two to three times

PW1 accepted. Further admitted that she filed divorce OP No. 1039/2016,

EX.D1 and same was withdrawn by her EX.D2. Further defence counsel put a

Page No. 5 suggestion to PW1 that she created disturbances in marital life of A1 and his wife and forcibly tried and provoked to give divorce to earlier wife for which she denied. Further defence counsel put a suggestion that PW1 is five years elder then A1 for which she denied.

13.PW2 M. Srinivas testified in his evidence that PW1 is his sister and she got married with A1, thereafter some disputes aroused between PW1 and A1, twice issues were placed before the marriage elders and the same were resolved, after that A1 went to USA, returned from USA in March 2017.

Further he stated that after knowing the information of the second marriage of A1, he questioned A1, then A1 replied that he had not performed another marriage. On that there aroused suspicion and filed a petition under RTA Act to furnish documents from Sub-Registrar Office. In cross examination defence counsel put a suggestion that as A1 first marriage is in existence, the marriage with PW1 is not valid marriage for which witness denied.

14.PW3 J. Raghavacharyulu testified in his evidence that, he have been working as purohith at Yadagirgutta from 1980 to till today. On 04-03-2017 he performed the marriage of A1 and A2, 20 members were attended as marriage elders and photographs of A1, A2 and his family members were taken. Witness identified A1 and A2. In cross examination he admitted that he was not present in the marriage photograph of A1 and A2.

15.PW4 Srinivas Goud and PW5 Raju testified in his evidence that they do not know anything about the case and police did not examine and record their statements. APPO through cross examination marked their statements as EX.P19 and P20.

16.PW6 M. Mahipal Reddy testified in his evidence that on 28-03-2017 at 1700 hours LW9 received a report from PW1, basing on the report he registered a case in crime No. 370/2017, U/s 494 IPC and entrusted a CD file to him, thereafter he recorded the statements of PW1, PW2, LW2, LW3 and

Page No. 6

LW6 and addressed a letter to Software company named Systems Soft

Technologies, Madhapur to know whether any requisition filed by A1 to include the name of A2 as his wife. Accordingly they informed that A1 made a requisition before HR of the company to include A2 as his wife and also furnished a copy of passport of A2. EX.P21 covering letter addressed by

Systems and technologies to Sub-Inspector of Police along with the reference letter 317/CR/MIC/CYD/2017. Thereafter he issued 41-A Crpc notice to A1 and

A2 and handed over the CD file to LW11.

17.PW7 K. Lingya Naik testified in his evidence that he took CD file from

PW6 in July 2017, after verification of CD file he found the investigation went in proper lines, thereby recorded the statements of PW3 to PW5. Later collected the marriage certificate of A1 and A2 EX.P15, thereby issued 41-A

Crpc notice to A3 to A6, on compliance of said notice they were released on bail as per due process of law and after completion of investigation laid charge sheet.

Point for consideration:-

18.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 are concerned, A1 married A2 during the subsistence of the marriage of A1 and PW1 in 2017, by knowing the said information PW1 sent a letter to Registration and stamps department,

Janagoan on 04-04-2018, to furnish the information regard to the marriage of

A1 and A2 under right to information act, 2005. After receiving the said re- quest, the Sub-Registrar, Janagoan named Mohd. Amzad Ali sent reply for the application of PW1 dated: 04-04-2018 vide LR No. RTI/38/2018, dated: 12-04- 2018 with the documents i.e., EX.P2 is the attested copy of Letter No. RTI/ 138/2018, dt: 12.04.2018 from Government of Telangana, Registration and

Stamps department.EX.P3 application made by A1 to register the marriage of

A1 and A2 which took place on 05-03-2017 at Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy

Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, EX.P4 Form-A contains the details of A1 and

A2, EX.P5 Secondary School certificate of A1, EX.P6 is the attested copy of

Aadhar Card of M.Laxmikanth goud. EX.P7 is the attested copy of Secondary

Page No. 7

School Certificate, Dt: 30.02.2002 of Varalaxmi.Ex.P8 is the attested copy of

Adhar Card of Thallapelli Varalaxmi. EX.P9 is the attested copy of Adhar Card of M.Omkara Chary, Ex.P10 is the attested copy of Adhar Card of Marka Ayi- laiah. Ex.P11 is the attested copy of Adhar Card of Manga Raju. Ex.P12 is the attested copy of NSC New, T.Vara laxmi for Rs. 1000/-. Ex.P13 is the attested copy of marriage card of Varalaxmi. Ex.P14 is the attested copy of marriage photos (2 Nos.) and Marriage certificate, Ex.P15.

19.After receiving the above said documents, PW1 filed case against the accused before SHO, Miyapur for Bigamy. On going through the EX.P2 to

P15, it is clearly elicited that A1 furnished EX.P2 to P14 before Sub-Registrar,

Jangaon for registration of his marriage which took place at Sri Lakshmi Nar- simha Swamy Temple, Yadagirigutta. As such EX.P2 to P14 are the admitted facts by A1, thus admitted facts need not be prove under 58 of Indian Evi- dence Act.

20.On other hand the evidence of PW3 stood supportive to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and also to EX.P2 to P15 that the marriage of A1 was per- formed with A2. Furthermore, the documents collected EX.P21 by PW6 Inves- tigation Officer also shows clearly that even A1 included the name of A2 as wife in the company where A1 worked i.e., System Soft technologies India

Pvt. Ltd.

21.Indeed defence counsel took the contention in the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 that as PW1 is a second wife of A1, the marriage between

A1 and his first wife is in existence as such the marriage by A1 with PW1 is not valid marriage. However, to stand on the said contentions defence coun- sel not filed any document to show that the marriage of the A1 with his first wife was not dissolved and still in existence. Perhaps in EX.P22 OP No.

207/2017 of Hon’ble Principal Judge, Family Court cum Additional Chief

Judge, Hyderabad, in para No.3, A1 himself admitted by filing a counter in

the said petition that he married PW1 and the marriage was consummated.

Page No. 8

As such by the above admission of A1 in his counter of EX.P22, himself ad- mitted that PW1 is his wife and his marriage was consummated, thus the contentions taken by the defence counsel not stood to supportive that A1’s first marriage is in existence.

In Ravinder Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab (1966)the

Supreme court held that "No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended."

In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India 2 the Supreme Court held that the expression ‘void’ in section 494 has been used in the wider sense. A marriage which is in violation of law would be void in terms of the expression used under section 494. A Hindu marriage solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can only be dissolved on any of the grounds specified under the said Act. Till the time a Hindu marriage is dissolved under the Act none of the spouse can contract a second marriage.

22.The Hon’ble Supreme court in the Judgments cited supra has clearly explained that how the evidence found on record to be calculated in appreci- ating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

23.By the aforesaid facts, circumstances, evidence and documents, it is clearly elicited that A1 at the inception of performing of marriage with A2 has dishonest and fraudulent intention, with the said intention he performed the marriage with A2 by committing criminal breach of trust of his marriage with

PW1, regard to the said allegations, the prosecution has established the evi- dence beyond reasonable doubt against A1 U/S. 406, 420, 494 IPC. Further

A2 being knowledge that A1 got married to PW1 abated for the act of A1 in performing marriage to her, as such the offence U/S 494 r/w 109 IPC is proved against A2. Furthermore, the prosecution has not established rele- vant evidence either oral or documentary to prove that A3 to A6 instigated and abetted A1 to perform marriage with A2. Hence due to lack of evidence

Page No. 9 against A3 to A6, the offences alleged by the prosecution U/S 406, 420, 494 r/w 109 IPC are not proved against A3 to A6.

24.Accordingly, A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/S. 406, 420, 494 IPC and A2 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/S. 494 r/w 109 IPC and convicted under section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. A3 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence U/S 406, 420, 494 r/w 109 IPC and acquitted U/sec 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 27th day of June, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally

25.A1 is in jail, as he got convicted on CC 2380 of 2018, heard the quantum of A1 through virtual mode from Cherlapalli central jail. A1 after hearing the sentence requested the court to grant bail as he intend to move appeal in appellate court. A2 heard the quantum of sentence, she pleaded that she has small children, they are dependent upon her, further stated that she doesn’t know about the earlier marriage of the A1 and requested the court to take lenient view towards her. This court has not taken lenient view towards the accused by taking consideration that the offence is of Sec. 494 r/ w 109 IPC. Further, she is not entitled for benefit under probation of offenders Act.

26.In the result, A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/S. 406, 420, 494 IPC and convicted under section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. with a sentence of imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.4000/- for the offence U/S 406 IPC, an imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence U/S 420 and an imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence U/s 494 IPC, total imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine he has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

Further A2 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/S. 494 r/w 109 IPC

Page No. 10 and convicted U/S. 248(2) Crpc with a sentence of imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence U/S 494 r/w 109 IPC, in default of payment of fine she has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

A3 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence U/S 406, 420, 494 r/w 109 IPC and acquitted U/sec: 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. A1 and A2 are informed their right of appeal on quantum of sentence and their right to get legal aid

before the appellate court. As there is no property deposited, no property or-

der passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer system, cor- rected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 27th day of July, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESS EXAMINED)

For Prosecution:- P.W.1 : M. Swaroopa P.W.2 : M.Srinivas P.W.3 : J. Raghavacharyulu P.W.4 : Srinivas Goud P.W.5 : Raju P.W.6 : M. Mahipal Reddy P.W.7 : K. Lingya Naik

For defence: - None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is the attested copy of Letter No. RTI/138/2018, dt: 12.04.2018 from Government of Telangana, Registration and Stamps department. Ex.P3 is the attested copy of Letter from The marriage officer, Jangaon, Dt: 08.03.2017. Ex.P4 is the attested copy of Form A, application of Registration of Hindu Marriage, dt: 08.03.2017. Ex.P5 is the attested copy of Secondary School Certificate, Dt: 26.05.1998 of M.Laxmikanth Goud. Ex.P6 is the attested copy of Aadhar Card of M.Laxmikanth goud. Ex.P7 is the attested copy of Secondary School Certificate, Dt: 30.02.2002 of Varalaxmi. Ex.P8 is the attested copy of Adhar Card of Thallapelli Varalaxmi. Ex.P9 is the attested copy of Adhar Card of M.Omkara Chary. Ex.P10 is the attested copy of Adhar Card of Marka Ayilaiah. Ex.P11 is the attested copy of Adhar Card of Manga Raju. Ex.P12 is the attested copy of NSC New, T.Vara laxmi for Rs. 1000/-. Ex.P13 is the attested copy of marriage card of Varalaxmi.

Page No. 11

Ex.P14 is the attested copy of marriage photos (2 Nos.). Ex.P15 is the Certificate of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, dt: 08.03.2017. Ex.P16 is the original photograph. Ex.P17 is the C.C of FIR in Cr.NO. 803/2017, dt 10.08.2017. Ex.P18 is the C.C of Charge sheet in Cr.NO. 301/2017, dt 04.05.2017. Ex.P19 is the 161 Crpc statement. Ex.20 is the 161 Crpc statement. Ex.21 is the covering letter addressed by Systems of Technologies to Sub-In- spector of Police, Miyapur along with the details regard to the reference let- ter 370/CR/MIC/CYD/217. Ex.P22 is the copy of order of conjugal rights passed on the Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional chief judge, dated: 23-07-2019 in O.P. 207/2017.

For defence: Ex.D1 is the CC of O.P.No. 1039/2016. Ex.D2 is the CC of withdrawal petition.

MOs marked: -NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Kukatpally

Page No. 1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VIII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT KUKATPALLY

Present: Bommathi Bhavani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally.

Dated this on 11th day of July, 2022

C.C No. 3850 of 2018

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Miyapur....Complainant.

AND

A1.Geediginjala Manna Balraj, S/o. Venkatesh, Age: 32 yrs, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No.1-54/71, Dwarakanagar Colony, Madinaguda, Miyapur, Cyberabad.

A2.Dudhakula Abhilash @ Mallesh, S/o. Srinivas, Age: 26 yrs, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.2-31/A/5, Shivajinagar Colony, Taranagar,

Lingampally, R.R.District.... Accused

This case is coming up before me on 07-07-2022 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri. B. Padma Rao, learned Counsel for the accused, and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

Section of Law:U/S. 323, 504 IPC Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found guilty Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 323, 504 IPC and convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C with a sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence U/S. 323 IPC and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence U/S 504 IPC, Total fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, A1 and A2 have to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. Accused are informed their right of appeal on quantum of sentence and their right to get legal aid before the appellate court. As there is no property deposited, no property order passed.

J U D G M E N T

Page No. 2

1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 12-08-2018 at 2100 hours received a report from Sri. Vanam Bhaskar Yadav, S/o. Mallesham

Yadav, R/o. Madinaguda, Miyapur, in which he stated that two persons named Balraju and Mallesh have bet him infront of his house, when he questioned about the parking of car infront of his gate and requested to remove the car, then they abused him and his wife in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences of death. Further he stated that he sustained bleeding injury for his nose and injuries to chest, elbow and other parts of the body and the incident was happened on 12-08-2018 at around 09:00 to 09:30 PM. As such he requested SHO, Miyapur to take action against the above said person.

2.Basing on the report, the SI of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.751/2018 U/s 323, 504 IPC and issued FIR to concerned. During the course of investigation, LW9 V. Vishwanatham, SI examined and recorded the statement of LW1 viz., Sri. Vanam Bhaskar Yadav and visited the scene of offence and caused enquiries and secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW5 and LW6 viz., M. Shashidhar and K. Iailaiah and drafted crime details form. Thereafter he recorded the statements of eye witnesses i.e.,

LW2 to LW4 viz., Smt. Vanam Shamala, Vodapally Raj Kumar and Kollur

Jumar Yadav. Later LW7 issued notice U/Sec. 41(A)(1) Crpc to A1 and A2 and on comply of the said notice they were released on bail and after completion of investigation, the SI of Police filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence U/s 323, 504 IPC.

3.This court has taken cognizance for the offence U/s 323, 504 IPC against A1 and A2.

4.After receiving of the summons A1 and A2 were present before this court and copies furnished as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Later A1 and A2 were examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C, the substances of accusation explained to them in Telugu for which they denied

Page No. 3 the accusation leveled against them in the charge sheet and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW7 are examined and Exhibit

P1 to P7 weremarked.

7.After completion of trial, A1 and A2 are examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9.Point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the offence U/s 323, 504 IPC

against A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:- In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it relies on the oral evidence of PW1 to PW7, EX.P1 to P7.

11.PW1 Bhaskar Yadav and PW2 Shyamala testified in their evidence that on 12-08-201, one function was held in the opposite side of their house, the guest who attended the function and parked his car infront of their gate, as such they cannot open the gate to go out from the house, then informed to the car owner to remove the car, the car owner came to remove the car, but in meantime some of the persons came there opposed stating that why they should remove the car from the parking area and abused in filthy language, meantime A1 and A2 bet PW1 with hands, when PW2 came to rescue him the same persons pushed her, so she fell down. Thereafter A1 and A2 threatened them with dire consequences, due to the man handle of the both accused,

PW1 sustained bleeding from gums and nose and injuries on left side of his ribs. Thereafter neighbours came and rescued them from the hands of A1 and A2. As such they approached police Miyapur and lodged a report. EX.P1.

Both PW1 and 2 identified the accused who were in the dock of the court.

The defence counsel put the suggestions to PW1 and PW2 that they field the false case against the accused and no car was parked in front of the house

Page No. 4 and PW1 came in a drunken condition and made with a galata to disturb the function infront of the opposite house, the said suggestions are denied by

PW1 and PW2 and elicited the admission that PW1 not mentioned the car number in EX.P1 and he know the accused since six years and PW1 not handed over the blood stains clothes to the police.

12.PW3 K. Ailaiah testified in his evidence that in 2018 police called him to

Madinaguda, there they conducted scene of offence panchanama about the galata took place. He admitted his signature on scene of offence panchanama marked as EX.P2. In cross examination defence counsel elicited that the scene of offence is in front of his shop and do not know the contents of scene of offence panchanama.

13.PW4 Raj Kumar not supported the prosecution case and denied of recording his statements by the police, which were marked by the prosecution as EX.P3.

14.PW5 Kumar Yadav testified in his evidence that he know PW1 to 4, A1 and A2 who are his neighbours. In 2018, on one day bonala festival was held at Madinaguda for whole day. While he was performing bonala festival in their house, at that time police has come near his house and one constable telephoned him and asked whether he know about the commotion took place near his house, then he replied that he do not know as he was in his house.

Point for consideration:-

15.The evidence of PW1 and 2 are concerned, on 12-08-2018, one func- tion was held in the opposite house of their house. Meantime the persons who attended to the function parked his car exactly opposite to their gate, then PW1 requested to the said person to remove the car as they intend to go outside. Meantime while the car owner was removing the car from the parked area then accused came there and abused them in filthy language and bet PW1 with hands, meantime PW2 came and rescued PW1 from the hands of accused. Furthermore, to corroborate with the contentions of PW1 and PW2 the evidence of PW6 stood supportive regard to the injury sus-

Page No. 5 tained to PW1 on scene of offence day and he got treated at 11.15 PM on 12- 08-2018 i.e., same day of the incident and found the injuries mentioned in

Ex.P5.

16.On other hand the evidence of PW7 who is the investigation officer stood as supportive as he conducted scene of offence panchanama EX.P7 which shows that the incident was happened at scene. Furthermore, from the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 nothing elicited by the defence coun- sel whether there is any enmity among PW1 and accused to wrongly impli- cate the accused in the present case without any happening. Hence this court holds that the evidence of PW1 and 2 elicited the allegations against the accused which was happened on scene of offence day by them.

17.Accordingly it is considered that prosecution has placed considerable evidence to prove the offence against A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt.

18.Hence, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.

323, 504 IPC and convicted under section 248 (2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 11th day of July, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally

19.A1 and A2 heard quantum of sentence, they pleaded that they had old aged parents and requested the court to take lenient view towards them.

This court has taken lenient view towards the accused by taking consideration of their old aged parents and imposed fine otherwise not imprisonment. But they are not entitled for benefit under probation of offenders Act.

20.In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 323, 504 IPC and convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C with a sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence U/S. 323 IPC and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence U/S 504 IPC, Total fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine A1 and A2 have to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The

Page No. 6 bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. Accused are informed their right of appeal on quantum of sentence and their right to get legal aid before the appellate court. As there is no property deposited, no property order passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 11th day of July, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESS EXAMINED)

For Prosecution:- P.W.1 : Bhaskar Yadav P.W.2 : Shyamala P.W.3 : K. Ailaiah P.W.4 : Raj Kumar P.W.5 : Kumar yadav P.W.6 : Dr. Naresh P.W.7 : C. Harishchandra Reddy

For defence: - None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the report Ex.P2 is the signature of PW3 on Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3 is the 161 Crpc statement of PW4 Ex.P4 is the 161 Crpc statement of PW5 Ex.P5 is the medical certificate of PW1 Ex.P6 is the FIR Ex.P7 is the scene of offence panchanama

For defence: -NIL- MOs marked: -Nil-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Kukatpally

Page No. 1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VIII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT KUKATPALLY

Present: Bommathi Bhavani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally.

Dated this on 12th day of July, 2022

C.C No. 2743 of 2020

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Miyapur....Complainant.

AND

Vaddepally Sravan Kumar, S/o. Srinivas, Age: 30 yrs, Occ: TSRTC Conductor, R/o. Srinivas Colony, R.C.Puram, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, N/o. H.No.3-7, Mekavanampally Village,

Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District.... Accused

This case is coming up before me on 29-06-2022 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri. M/s. Bheemani Krushna & Assts, learned Counsel for the accused, and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

Section of Law:U/S. 354, 354-D, 354-A, 506 IPC Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty Sentence or Order :In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 304-A and acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C otherwise not required in any other case. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. As there is no property deposited, thus no property order passed.

J U D G M E N T

1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 09-12-2019 at 1130 hours received a report from Smt. M. Aruna Jyothi, W/o. Sadashiva Reddy, in which she stated that she is working as a conductor at Miyapur depot-I.

Earlier one person namely V. Sravan Kumar used to work as a conductor at the same work place, during that time he came into contact with her and made well acquaintance with her and used to move close with her, at that time he recorded her phone conversation with him, by taking advantage of

Page No. 2 this presently he is harassing her and sending the same to her husband. By keeping those records with him he is forcing her to satisfy him sexually, otherwise threatening that he would spread bad publicity about her character. Further he was stalking her wherever she goes despite of her disinterest, by seeing those all messages her husband is asking to give divorce to him. In this regard, she complained in the police station, upon which said Sravan Kumar pleaded her that he would never repeat such things in future, so she compromised, but again he is repeating the same and did not change his behavior. As such she requested SHO, Miyapur to take action against the above said person.

2.Basing on the report, the SI of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.1092/2019 U/s 354, 354-D IPC and issued FIR to concerned. During the course of investigation, LW5 Ch. Raghu Ramulu, SI examined and recorded the statement of LW1 viz., Smt. M.Aruna Jyothi by LW3 viz. Miss R.Mounika,

WSI of police. Thereafter LW5 visited the scene of offence and caused enquires about the offence and examined and recorded the statement of

LW2 viz. M. Sadashiva Reddy. As per the statements of complainant and witnesses the offence against the accused is clearly established and Sec.

354-D, 506 IPC are added to the earlier sections. Later LW5 entrusted the CD file to LW6 viz. P.Ravi Kiran and verified the investigation done so far by LW5 and found it is on correct lines and caused enquires. Further on 07-09-2020,

LW6 issued 41(A) Cr.P.C Notice to the accused, on the compliance of the said notice he was released on bail as per due process of Law. Further after completion of the investigation LW6 laid charge sheet against the accused.

3.This court has taken cognizance for the offence U/s 354, 354-D, 354-

A, 506 IPC against the accused.

4.After receiving of the summons accused was present before this court and copies furnished as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Page No. 3

5.Later accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, he denied the accusation leveled against him in the charge sheet and pleaded not guilty, on consideration charges U/s 354, 354-D, 354-A, 506 IPC are framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which accused denied and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW3 are examined and Exhibit

P1 to P3 weremarked.

7.After completion of trial, accused was examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9.Point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the offence U/s 354, 354-D,

354-A, 506 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it relies on the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3, EX.P1 to P3.

11.PW1 M. Aruna Jyothi and PW2 M. Sadasiva Reddy testified in their evidence that the accused and PW1 use to work as bus conductors at

Miyapur depot. Accused joined in RTC depot, Miyapur after three years of joining PW1 as conductor. Thereafter PW1 and accused got close intimacy and relation between them. Further PW1 testified that after knowing the bad motive of the accused towards her, she kept him away and stopped talking with him. Further she stated that accused threatened her by saying that he had audio, SMS and phone conversation of her and blackmailed her that if she won’t fulfill his sexual desire, he would forward audio recording and SMS to PW2. Further PW1 stated that accused used to hold tightly on her waist from back side, after her denial and threatened her with dire consequences

Page No. 4 of death of her children, if she fails to fulfill his sexual desires. Further PW1 stated that she informed about the incident to PW2, on his advice she lodged a report before SHO, Miyapur, there police conducted counseling to the accused, after admonition by police accused executed a bond EX.P2 that again he never repeat the same with PW1. Further PW1 stated that due to the behavior of the accused her matrimonial life got disturbed, as accused send all the audios and messages to PW2, for which PW2 stated to PW1 that he give divorce to her, after unconditional apologies PW2 convinced.

12.In cross examination PW1 and PW2 admitted that specific place where accused followed PW1 is not mentioned in EX.P1. Further admitted that they have not furnished audio and messages to the court.

13.PW3 P.Ravi Kiran testified in his evidence that on 09-12-2019 at 1130 hours LW4 received a report from PW1, considering the same registered a case in crime No. 1092/2019 U/S 354, 354-D IPC EX.P3 FIR and entrusted CD file to LW5, he recorded the statements of PW1, PW2 and LW3. While investigation is under process the offence 354-A and 506 were elicited as such with the consent of the court he included the said sections. Later CD file handed over to him, on 07-09-2020 accused surrendered and voluntarily admitted his guilt, thereafter issued U/s 41-A Crpc notice and compliance of investigation laid charge sheet.

14.In cross examination PW3 admitted that he not seized the cell phone from the accused, not enquired and examined the employees of RTC department about the allegation alleged by the PW1 against accused.

Point for consideration:-

15.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 are concerned, PW1 worked as a col- league with the accused in RTC deport, Miyapur for considerable time. Fur- ther from the admissions of PW1 it is noticed that she has close intimacy with the accused for some period and thereafter when PW1 refused to con- tinue the intimacy with accused by noticing bad motive, then accused threat- ened her that he send her audio and messages to her husband which cause

Page No. 5 disturbances in her matrimonial life. Further PW1 contended that finally ac- cused has send the audio and messages to her husband, due to which dis- putes arouse in her matrimonial life. Here to consideration of the contentions of the PW1 that accused threatened PW1 with dire consequences of death, she not furnished any evidence on who’s presence accused threatened PW1 with dire consequences.

16.On other hand PW1 merely, stated that accused has send audio and messages to PW2 for which matrimonial disputes were aroused. However she not furnished any audio or messages which were send by the accused to

Pw1 to support her contentions that accused assaulted her with intention to outrage her modesty. On other hand PW1 and PW2 admitted in their cross examination that EX.P2 is the authorization letter given by the accused in po- lice station. Moreover in EX.P2 also nothing mentioned about the outrage of modesty caused by the accused towards PW1. Otherwise it is mentioned that accused wont repeats same practice towards PW1. As such by the EX.P2 also nothing elicited regard to the intention of the accused as contemplated by

PW1 in EX.P1.

17.Furthermore there is no other evidence found on record, except the oc- ular evidence of PW1 and PW2. As such this court is inclined to hold that nothing placed on record by the prosecution to prove the offence U/S. 354, 354-D, 354-A, 506 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

18s.Accordingly, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 354, 354-D, 354-A, 506 IPC and acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C otherwise not required in any other case. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. As there is no property deposited, thus no property order passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 12th day of July, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Page No. 6

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESS EXAMINED)

For Prosecution:-

P.W.1 : M. Aruna Jyothi

P.W.2 : M. Sadasiva Reddy

P.W.3 : P. Ravi Kiran

For defence:

- None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the report

Ex.P2 is the Authorization of accused.

Ex.P3 is the FIR

For defence:

-NIL-

MOs marked:

-NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Kukatpallys

Page No. 1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VIII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT KUKATPALLY

Present: Bommathi Bhavani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally.

Dated this on 8th day of July, 2022

C.C No. 967 of 2022

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Miyapur....Complainant.

AND

Dukkipati Siddhartha, S/o. Late Sridhar, Age: 26 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. Lake View Enclave, Miyapur, N/o. Flat No. 7-1-619/F/4, Gayatri nagar,

Srinivas Colony, East Ameerpet, Hyderabad.... Accused

This case is coming up before me on 08-07-2022 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and M. Madhu mohan Goud, learned Counsel for the accused, and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

Section of Law:U/S. 304-A IPC & Sec. 196 M.V.Act Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty Sentence or Order :Accordingly, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 304-A & Secd. 196 M.V.Act and acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C otherwise not required in any other case. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. As there is no property deposited, thus no property order passed.

J U D G M E N T

1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant named

Chakali Shiva Kumar, S/o. Veeraiah, in which he stated that on 02-04-2022 at about 2230 hours his father namely Chakali Veeraiah has left the house by saying that he will go to their village after meeting complainant’s brother, after meeting his brother at Miyapur on 03-04-2022 at about 0130 hours while his father was crossing the road near Shivalayam, New colony,

Miyapur, in the meantime the rider of the bike Br.No. TS09EZ1927 which was proceeding towards Kukatpally from Miyapur drove the bike in rash and negligent manner with an high speed and hit against his father, due to which

Page No. 2 his father sustained severe blood injuries to his head and he was shifted to

Srikara hospital and the same was informed to him. Immediately, he rushed to the Srikara hospital, where doctors examined his father and declared that he was died. As such she requested SHO, Miyapur to take action against the above said person.

2.Basing on the report, the SI of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.427/2022 U/s 304-A IPC & Sec. 196 M.V.Act and issued FIR to concerned. During the course of investigation, LW11 K. Girish Kumar, SI examined and recorded the statement of LW1 viz., Sri. Ch. Shiva Kumar and visited the scene of offence and caused enquires about the offence and drafted crime detail form in the presence of two panchas i.e., LW6 and LW7 viz., Ch. Sriram and Ch. Narsimlu and drawn rough sketch of the scene. Later he examined and recorded the statement of eye witnesses LW2 to LW5 viz.

Smt. Ch. Mogulamma, Ch. Raju, P. Rajesh and Ch. Narsimhulu. Thereafter he examined and recorded the statements of LW8 and LW9 viz., Dr. K. Venkata

Nagaraju and Ch. V. Satyanarayana. Thereafter on 17-04-2022, LW11 issued 41(A) Cr.P.C Notice to the accused, on the compliance of the said notice he was released on bail as per due process of Law. Further after completion of the investigation LW11 laid charge sheet against the accused U/S 304-A IPC & Sec 196 M.V.Act.

3.This court has taken cognizance for the offence U/S 304-A IPC & Sec 196 M.V.Act against the accused.

4.After receiving of the summons accused present before this court and copies furnished as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Later accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C, the substances of accusation explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the accusation leveled against him in the charge sheet and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page No. 3

6.On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW4 are examined and Exhibit

P1 to P9 weremarked.

7.After completion of trial, accused was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9.Point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the offence U/S 304-A IPC &

Sec 196 M.V.Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it relies on the oral evidence of PW1 to PW4, EX.P1 to P9.

11.PW1 Ch. Shiva Kumar, PW2. C. Mogulamma and C. Raju testified in their evidence that deceased is the father of PW1 and PW3 and husband of

PW2. On 22-04-2022 at 2230 hours while deceased was crossing the road near Shivalayam, he met with an accident, due to which he sustained bleed- ing injuries to his head and shifted to Srikara hospital, after reaching there, doctors declared him as dead. Thus PW1 filed a report EX.P1. In cross exami- nation they reported that the contents of their 161 Crpc statements were not recorded as per their version marked as EX.P2 to P4.

12.PW4 K. Girish Kumar testified in his evidence that on 03-04-2022 at 1600 hours LW10 received a report from PW1, considering the same, regis- tered a case in Crime No. 427/2022 U/S 304-A IPC, EX.P5 FIR. Thereafter went to scene of offence and there secured the presence of LW6, LW7 and conducted scene of offence panchanama EX.P6. Later conducted inquest panchanama EX.P7 at Gandhi hospital and send crime vehicle for inspection to LW9. Further issued 41-A Crpc notice to the accused. On compliance of said notice, he was released on bail. Thereafter after completion of investiga-

Page No. 4 tion, after collection EX.P7, P8 and P9 filed the charge sheet against the ac- cused.

Point for consideration:-

13.The evidence of PW1 to PW3 are concerned. Deceased is the father of

PW1 and PW3 and husband of PW2 and he met with an accident near Shiv- alayam road while crossing. Thereafter he died by undergoing treatment at

Srikara hospital. However their evidence not revealed anything who is the reason for the accident and how the accident was occurred. Furthermore, the evidence of PW4 who is investigation officer went in a chronological way but nothing elicited to prove that due to the rash and negligent driving of the ac- cused the death of the deceased was caused. As such this court not found any incriminating material against the accused and viewed that prosecution miserably failed to place relevant evidence to prove the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

14.By the aforesaid circumstance this court not found any evidence against the accused to prove the guilt for the offences U/S 304-A IPC & Sec 196 M.V.Act.

15.Accordingly, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/S 304-A IPC & Sec 196 M.V.Act and acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C otherwise not required in any other case. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. As there is no property deposited, no property order passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 1st day of July, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESS EXAMINED)

For Prosecution:-

P.W.1 : Ch. Shiva Kumar

Page No. 5

P.W.2 : C. Mogulamma

P.W.3 : C. Raju

P.W.4 : K. Girish Kumar

For defence:

- None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the report

Ex.P2 is the 161 Crpc statement of PW1

Ex.P3 is the 161 Crpc statement of PW2

Ex.P4 is the 161 Crpc statement of PW3

Ex.P5 is the FIR

EX.P6 is the Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P7 is the Inquest panchanama

Ex.P8 is the PME report

Ex.P9 is the MVI report

For defence:

-NIL-

MOs marked:

-NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Kukatpally