1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,
CHEEPURUPALLI.
Present : Kum. Ponnuru Bujji, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Vizianagaram - FAC - Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Cheepurupalli
Friday, this the 13th day of March, 2026
C.C.NO.265/2016
Between:
State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Garividi P.S., Vizianagaram. …Complainant
And
1.Yagati Sudarshan Chinnarao S/o late Appayya, 35 yers, Arrabalaga Village, Terlam Mandal, R/o Duvvam village, Garividi Mandal.
2.Yagati Ramu S/o Latye Appayya, 38 years, R/o Arrabalaga village, Terlam Mandal.
3.Yagati Ramalakshmi W/o Ramu, 32 years, Arrabalaga village, Terlam Mandal.
.... Accused No.1 to 3
This case coming on 27.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri K. Simhachalam, learned counsel for accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. NATURE OF OFFENCE:- Accused have been arraigned before this Court for the offence U/Sec.498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) under the warrant Procedure prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure (for short
Cr.P.C) basing on the charge sheet filed by S.H.O of Garividi P.S., Vizianagaram.
2.THE BRIEF AVERMENTS OF THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IN
BRIEF AS FOLLOWS:
2
i)It is pleaded by prosecution that basing on the written report given by
P.W.1- Yagati Nagamani a case was registered against accused in
Cr.No.67/2016, u/sec.498-A of IPC by P.W.6 and investigated the same.
ii)It is pleaded in the report of P.W.1 that previously her marriage held with one Bellam Balaraju R/o Sivvam village of Vangara Mandal, Srikakulam district, during their wedlock she gave birth to two children and after 6 years of her marriage, due to disputes between them she left her in laws house and gave a report in Rajam Police station against her husband and police registered a case against him. Later, A1 made acquaintance with PW1 by frequently visiting the parents house of PW1 and made to believe PW1 and her parents tht he will treated her as wife and also accept her children and convince her to lead left with him. About 4 years back the A1 constructed a church on Duvvam village and took PW1 and her children to Duvvam village and interdicted LW1 and her children to the villagers as his wife and children. Since then they lived under one roof at Duvvam village. On knowing the same the first husband of PW1 went to
Duvvam village and picked up a quarrel as to how she developed extramarital relation with A1. On that LW1 and her first husband separated legally in the court and then she lead marital life with A1. They lived happily for 4 years, then A2 and
A3 used to instigate the A1 that PW1 die not bring any dowry and if he married another lady he might have get huge dowry. On hearing their words, the A1 started harassment to PW1 to bring money from her parent’s house and also frighten her to kill. All the accused harassed PW1 to bring dowry from her parents house, due to the unbearable harassment of accused PW1 returned to her parent’s house. Later PW1 gave a report, basing on the report of Pw1, PW6 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.67/2015 for the offences punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC and took up investigation.
iii) During the course of investigation, P.W.6 examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and LW6-
Sesanapudi Apparao and recorded their statements u/sec.161 Cr.P.C., Later,
PW6 issued u/sec. 41(A) Cr.PC notice to the A1 to A3 and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC. Hence the charge.
3
3. COGNIZANCE :- My learned predecessor took cognizance for the offence u/sec.498-A of IPC against accused and issued summons to A1 to A3 by assigning in CC.No.390/2020.
4. COMPLIANCE OF PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS :-
a) Accused when appeared before the court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
b) When accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., charges for the offence punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC was framed against the A1 to A3, the same is read over and explained to accused in Telugu. They abjured guilt and claims to be tried. Hence, accused were put on trial.
5. Trail:- To substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution agency has examined P.W.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 viz., Ex.P1-Report of PW1,
Ex.P.2- Attested copy of Aadhar Card of the PW1, showing the name of A1 as husband, Ex.P.3- attested copy of Aadhar card of elder daughter of PW1 along with seven educational certificates showing the name of A1 as father, Ex.P4 – 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2, Ex.P5 – 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 and Ex.P6 –
FIR . On the other hand, the accused/A1 was examined as DW1and D1 and D2 are got marked. i.e., Ex.D1- certified copy of the M.C. petition along with order and Ex.D2- HMOP petition along with order and decree, dated 16.03.2018 on behalf of the accused.
6. Sec.313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C examination:- Upon closing of the evidence the accused were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. calling upon them, to explain for the incriminating evidence leveled against them from the evidence and the same were read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the same and reported they have defence evidence.
7. Heard on both sides. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and counsel
for the accused filed written arguments along with citation in their respective
contents.
8. Arguments submitted by the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor:
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that PW1 was initially married to one Balaraju in the year 2004 and was blessed with two daughters during their 4 wedlock. Due to marital disputes, she lodged a complaint against Balaraju at
Rajam Police Station, and the matter was later settled before the Lok Adalat at
Rajam in the year 2015. It is further contended that A1, who was known to the family of PW1, used to frequently visit her house. Subsequently, A1 expressed his intention to marry PW1, stating that he had lost his wife and that he would take care of PW1 and her children. Accordingly, PW1, A1, and her children started residing together at Kondapalem, Garividi, for about one year and thereafter shifted to Duvvam village, where village elders allotted Ac.0-06 cents of land and constructed a church and house for them. They resided there for about six years.
During this period, A2 and A3 allegedly instigated A1 by stating that he could obtain more dowry by marrying another woman. Thereafter, A1 started harassing
PW1 by demanding money from her parental house and also subjected her to cruelty by burning her with a hot iron box and pulling her skin with a cutting plier.
Thereafter, A1 laid the foundation for construction of a house at DFN area,
Duvvam, Garividi and also constructed a church and a house at Arasabalaga,
Therlam Mandal with the said amount. She further stated that A1 later performed a second marriage. When she raised a dispute before the village elders, A1 beat her indiscriminately, caught hold of her tuft of hair and dragged her.
Apart from the above evidence, PW4 corroborated with the evidence of
PW1. The investigation officer also corroborated with the evidence of PW1.
Hence, the prosecution established that the accused used to harass the PW1 both physically and mentally. Therefore, the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by establishing all the essential ingredients of the offence u/sec.498-A of IPC.Therefore, prayed the court to convict the accused.
9. Arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the accused:
a) The learned counsel for the accused strenuously argued that PW1 had already married one Balaraju, and two female children were born out of their wedlock. Subsequently, PW1 filed a maintenance case against her husband
before the Honourable Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Rajam, in M.C.
5
No. 14 of 2010, and the same was disposed of on merits, granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to PW1 and Rs. 1,500/- each to her children. He further contended that PW1 and the said Billa Balaraju filed a mutual divorce petition before the
Honourable Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam, and the same was allowed in the
year 2017. It is further argued that during the subsistence of the marriage between PW1 and her husband Balaraju, PW1 falsely lodged a report against the accused, and therefore the present case is not maintainable under law. The learned counsel also argued that Accused No.1 never married PW1, and even
PW1 admitted during her cross-examination that A1 did not marry her. Hence,
PW1 cannot claim the status of wife of A1.
b)Further, it was argued that A2 and A3 never lived with PW1 and they are in no way connected with the alleged acts of harassment. Therefore, the question of
A2 and A3 harassing PW1 does not arise. It is further, contended that A1 is working as a pastor in a church and enjoys a good reputation in the village.
However, PW1 falsely implicated A1 along with A2 and A3 with an intention to extract money from them. The learned counsel further argued that A1 never married PW1 and had no intimate relationship with her. Though the prosecution examined PW2 to PW4, except PW4 none supported the case of the prosecution.
Even PW4, who is the mother of PW1, does not have direct knowledge of the alleged incidents.
c)The learned counsel further argued that the Investigating Officer did not conduct the investigation on proper lines. He failed to examine the neighbours of the accused and, without conducting a proper investigation, falsely implicated the accused in this case under the influence of PW1, who is allegedly active in social service activities and participates in meetings of the CPI. Therefore,the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 498-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, prayed the Honourable Court may be pleased to acquit the accused in the interest of justice.
10. NOW, THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS:
Whether the prosecution agency proved guilt of the accused for the 6
offences U/Sec.498-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt subject to the
satisfaction of the court by establishing the essential ingredients there
under:
11. To bring home of the guilt of the accused u/sec.498-A IPC the prosecution should establish :-
That Accused being husband of P.W.1 subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally?
At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Now it is apt of to appreciate the prosecution evidence.
12. Evidence of P.W.1:
i) PW1 who is the victim and she deposed that in the year 2004 she got married with one Balaraju and blessed with two daughter during their wedlock.
They lived happily for a period of 6 years. Later disputes arose between her and
Balaraju in the year 2009. Then Balaraju sent her to her parents house. In the year 2011, the Balaraju again married to his sister’s daughter, then she lodged report in Rajam police station against the Balaraju and the said matter was settled before the Lok Adalat in the year 2015 at Rajam. She further deposed that her family and family of A.1 are having relationship and A.1 used to visit her house once in a week and stayed there for 10 days in her house. Then A.1 asked to her parents that he intended to marry her as he also lost his wife and also stated that he would look after her children well by taking house at DFN area,
Kondapalem, Garividi, for which they agreed for the same, accordingly A.1 took her and her children to the Kondapalem and we stayed there for one year. She further deposed that later they shifted to Duvvam village as the village elders gave us to 0-06 cents of land to them to construct the church and house in the said land. Later the village elders got constructed the church and house hand over the same to them. They resided in the said house for a period of 6 years.
Meanwhile, A.2 and A.3 used to visit their house at Duvvam and instigated the
A.1 by stating that if he marries another woman he would get more dowry and 7 also why he stayed with her without taking dowry, then A.1 started harassing her by demanding amounts from her parents house. He further submits that A.1 harassed her by burning her with hot Iron box and also pulling her skin with cutting plier and behaving like a psycho in front of her children. A.1 joined her children in the Shreeram Aided school, Garividi by mentioning his name as ‘father’ in school records.
a)She further deposed that A1 took an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was given by her 1st husband towards permanent alimony and also took the 1 ½ tulas of gold ornaments from her. Thereafter A1 laid foundation for construction of house at DFN area, Duvvam, Garividi with the amount of gold ornaments and also A1 constructed a church and house at Arasabalaga, Therlam mandal with the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. she further submits that After that A1 got performed 2nd marriage. Then she raised dispute before the village elders of the accused in that panchayath, A1 beat her indiscriminately by caught hold of her tuft of hair and dragged her.
b)She further deposed that she did B.Ed. during her stay at her parents house in the year 2010-11, her marriage with one Balaraju was performed in the year 2004 at Sivvam village of Vangara Mandal and they lead marital life at
Sivvam village. After marriage she blessed with her first daughter in the year 2005 and blessed with her 2nd daughter in the year 2007 at her parents house, after five months of delivery of her 2nd daughter, she joined with the Balaraju for marital life and stayed with him till 2009, then due to disputes between her and
Balaraju, she returned to her parents house along with her children. She further deposed that in the year 2010 she filed complaint against Balaraju before the
Rajam Court. She also filed maintenance case against the Balaraju in the year 2010 by claiming maintenance to her and her children and in the said M.C. court and the said matter was settled before Lok Adalat agreeing to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- to her, Rs. 1,500/- to her 1st daughter and Rs.
1,000/- to her 2nd daughter in the year 2015, but Balaraju never paid any maintenance amount to them and he used to go for imprisonment. Herself and
Balaraju field mutual divorce petition before the Honourable Senior Civil Judge’s 8
Court, Rajam in the year 2015. She further deposed that A.1 did not marry her.
She again says that A.1 assured her that he would marry her and got mentioned his name in the certificates of her daughters as father and mentioned in her
Aadhar card as husband. She further admitted that A.1 got married with another woman in the year 2017 and blessed with two children. She further deposed that Ex.P1 report was scribed by her in her own hand writing. She further admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.p1 that accused harassed her to bring
additional dowry. As per her aadhar card her name is mentioned as Yagati
nagamani W/o Yagati Sudarsana Chinnarao. She has not filed any documents to show that Government sanctioned house in her name.
c)She further admitted that her parental surname is ‘’Cheedi ‘’. she further admitted that she used to participating in meetings in CPI for social service after my B.Ed i.e., opposing the violence against Women. She further admitted that in recent elections in the month of May, 2024 she cast her vote in the name of ‘’Cheedi Nagamani’’. She further admitted that Billala Balaraju, who is her first husband filed Divorce petition before the Honourable Senior Civil Judge Court,
Rajam in HMOP. No. 10/2017 on and divorce was granted on 16-03-2018 through
Court. She again says that divorce was granted in the year 2017 through elders.
She further admitted that A.1 is a paster and he has been running church at DFN
Area, Garividi. She further deposed that A.1 took the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her in the year 2015 at Rajam, she cannot say the exact date on which she gave Rs. 1,00,000/-. she further deposed that at the time of taking amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- by A.1, her parents were alive. She further deposed that in the year 2013 A.1 harassed her by burning with Hot Iron box and in the year 2014 A.1 harassed her by pulling her skin with cutting plier.
ii)During the course of cross examination she deposed that she filed mutual divorce petition in the year 2017 but not 2015 and order was passed in the year 2018 by granting divorce. She further denied that she has no right to got mentioned the name of the A1 as her husband without his permission as A1 did not marry her. She denied that after taking divorce from her 1st husband he has been residing at her parents house and that all the documents are in the parental 9 surname of ‘’Cheedi’’ and that she foisted false case against accused to harass the accused by creating the documents with the surname of ‘’Yaagati’’ as she is in
CPI party. She further denied that A.2 and A.3 are residing at Arasabalaga village,
Therlam Mandal and that harassment by the A.2 and A.3 does not arise and that she is deposing false.
13. Evidence of PW2 and 3:
i) PW2 and PW3 are deposed that they do not know PW1 and A1 and they do not know anything about this case. Police did not examine them.
As the PW2 and 3 were turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, they were subjected to cross examination by learned Asst.P.P. in spite of it except marking their 161 Cr.P.C. statements as Exs.P4 and 5, no substance is elicited about the harassment of the accused.
14. Evidence of PW.4:
i) PW4 who is the mother of PW1, she deposed that PW.1 got married with one Baalaraju and they blessed with two children and lived happily for a period of 6 years. Later disputes arose between them as Baalaraju demanded PW.1 to bring money and other articles and they expressed their inability to give the same to the Baalaraju. She further deposed that the said Baalaraju sent the PW.1 to their house. Then PW.1 lodged report against said Baalaraju in Rajam police station and the said matter was settled before Lok Adalat and in that settlement
Baalraju gave Rs.1,00,000/- to PW.1. After that A.1 used to come to their house as their family and family of A.1 are relatives and A.1 told them that he will look after PW.1 as his wife since he lost his wife and he also stated that he would look after the children of PW.1 well by taking them to his house. She further deposed that accordingly, A.1 took PW.1 and her children along with him and looked after them for some period. Thereafter A.1 harassed the PW.1 by beating and abusing her. A.1 also harassed the PW.1 by burning the PW.1 with hot Iron box and also beat the PW.1 with stick. A.1 also beat the PW.1 with hammer on her head by the instigation of A.2 and A.3. She further deposed that A.1 took the amount of
Rs. 1,00,000/- which was given by the Baalaraju to PW.1 at the time of settlement and also took the 1 ½ tula gold ornaments from the PW.1. PW.1 10 raised the dispute before the village elders but in vain. Due to unbearable harassment of A.1, PW.1 lodged report before the Garividi police.
ii)During the course of cross examination she deposed that her husband is only son to his parents. She admitted that true Baalaraju gave an amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- in the settlement of Divorce case before the Senior Civil Judge court,
Rajam and that PW.1 gave the said amount to the A.1. PW.1 did B.Ed. She further admitted that after Divorce from the 1st husband, PW.1 used to do Private job. She further deposed that they did not handover any blood stain clothes to the police. He does not remember the date on which A.1 beat PW.1. She further deposed that Police never examined me at my native place at Vanjarampeta.
Police examined me at DFN area. She further admitted that A.1 is not the son of her husband’s own sister. She again says that the mother of A.1 is cousin of her husband. She further deposed that brother of A.1 is residing in Arasabalaga village along with his family.
15. Evidence of PW.5:
i) PW5 who is mediator he deposed that he know PW1 and A1 as they resided at DFN area, by that time he worked as Vice president to Duvvam village, PW1 and A1 approached him and Sarpanch by placing the disputes between them then he advised them to settle the same before their marriage elders as it is matrimonial dispute.
ii)During the cross examination he deposed that he does not know anything about the disputes between pw1 and A1, police did not examined him.
16. Evidence of PW.6:
i)Who is the investigation officer, he deposed that On 11-07-2016 at about 8 p.m. He received written report from P.W.1, basing on the same he registered case in Cr. No. 67/2016 u/s.498-A IPC. he Submitted original FIR to
JFCM Court, Cheepurupalli and copies to our concerned. He examined P.W.1 , and her mother and recorded their statements at police station. On the next day he visited the scene of offence which is situated at Duvvam DFN Area, Garividi and examined PW.2 and PW.5, LW.3, LW.6 and recorded their sec. 161 Cr.P.C.
statements. He obtained the prostate copies of Aadhar cards and marks lists 11 (marked as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3) and Ration card also photographs of children of
PW.1. He further deposed that on 21-07-2016 he served sec. 41(A) Cr.P.C.
notice to A.1 to A.3. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
ii)During his cross examination he deposed that PW.1 filed written report
before him on 11-07-2016. PW.1 did not mention in her report that the A1 married
her. He again says that she mentioned in her report that A.1 informed her that he looked after her as a married wife as such A.1 and PW.1 living in one roof as a wife and husband. Except mentioned as ‘wife’, the PW.1 mentioned as stated above in her report. He further deposed that A.1 paster in Church, PW.1 got married with another man in the year 2009 and blessed with two children. Later disputes arose between her and her 1st husband. PW.1 and her two children filed a maintenance case against 1st husband of PW.1 by name Billana Balaraju vide
MC. No. 14/2010 and the said case was ended with compromise before the Lok
Adalat. He further deposed that he does not know whether PW.1 and her 1st husband filed a mutual divorce before the Hon’ble Senior Civil judge Court,
Rajam vide HMOP. 10/2017 and the mutual divorce was granted on 06-03-2018.
he further admitted that PW.1 lodged report on 11-07-2016. He further deposed that PW.1 did not enclose the marriage photos and wedding card with A.1 before this Court. Witness adds that PW.1 submitted photographs showing the A.1,
PW.1 and her children. He does not know whether PW.1 is a communist leader.
PW.1 is a Graduate.
17. Evidence of DW1 :
i)DW1 Who is the A1 he deposed that he does not know PW.1. The Garividi police called him to the police station and informed him about the report of PW.1.
Then he stated that the averments mentioned in report are all false. PW.1 already got married with Billa Balaraju and filed maintenance case against Billa
Balaraju on the file of Hon’ble Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court in Rajam, in
MC. 14/2010 and the same was disposed off on merits and granted Rs. 3,000/- to
the PW.1 and Rs. 1500/- each to the children of PW.1. He further deposed that 12 the PW.1 and said Billa Balaraju filed mutual divorce before the Honourable
Senior Civil Judge Court ,. Rajam and the same was granted in the year 2017.
PW.1 is not his wife and she filed false complaints against him and against A.2 and A.3. He never got married PW.1 and he has no intimacy with PW.1.
ii) During his cross examination he deposed that he studies upto intermediate.
He is working as a paster, since 15 years, he does not know the PW1, one
Billana Nagamani field the present case against them. He does not know about the present case facts. Ex.D1 and D2 documents concerned to the Billana
Nagamani and Billana Balaraju. He admitted that PW1 is not a party to Ex.D1 and D2 documents. His father name is Appayya. He does not know whether any person with his name in their village or not, but may be the person with his surname and his name and with his father name working as a paster. He confronted with Ex.P3 he stated that the name of the husband of the PW1 is
Yagati S Sudarasana Chinnarao and further stated that the name of the father of the Yagati Snehalatha, who is the elder daghte of PW1 is Yagati Sudarsana
Channarao in Aadhar Cards. He confronted with Mark list of 10th Class and
Intermediate, Vocational course certificate of Yagati Snehalatha, he stated that the name of the father of the Yogati Snehalatha is Yagati Sudarsana Chinnarao.
He confronted with pass book, study certificate of Yagati Priya, who is the 2nd daughter of PW1, he stated that the name of the father of the Yagati priya is
Yagati Sudarsana Chinnarao and in election card the name of the father of
Yagati Priya is Chinnarao.
In criminal cases always the burden of proof lies on the prosecution
and the prosecution has to prove the guilty of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt. In the instant ant case, let’s have a glance whether the
prosecution succeeded to prove the guilty of for the accused for the
offence u/sec 498-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
18.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that PW1 clearly stated in her evidence that the accused used to beat her and harass her both physically and mentally. As such, the evidence of PW1 is reliable and sufficient to prove the harassment committed by the accused against her.
13
i)On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that during the cross-examination PW1 clearly admitted that she had earlier lived a marital life with one Balaraju and was blessed with two female children. Therefore, the accused No.1 never married PW1 and did not subject her to any physical or mental harassment. As such, the evidence of PW1 cannot be believed.
ii) As seen from theevidence of PW1, she clearly stated that she was previously married to one Balaraju and was blessed with two female children.
Due to disputes, they separated and the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat at Rajam in the year 2015. Subsequently, the said Balaraju married his sister’s daughter. PW1 further stated that there was a family relationship between her family and that of A1. A1 used to visit her house once a week and stay there for about 10 days. Later, A1 informed her parents that he intended to marry PW1 as he had lost his wife and that he would take care of her and her children. Believing his words, PW1 and her children went with A1 and stayed at Kondapalem,
Garividi, for about one year.
iii)Thereafter, village elders allotted land for construction of a church and a house, which were later constructed and handed over to them. PW1 and A1 lived there for about six years. Thereafter, A1 started harassing PW1 by demanding money from her parents, burning her with a hot iron box, pulling her skin with a cutting plier, and behaving violently in front of the children.
iv)During the course of cross-examination, the learned counsel for the accused elicited from PW1 that in the year 2010 she filed a complaint against her first husband, Balaraju, before the Rajam Court and also filed a petition seeking maintenance for herself and her children. The said matter was subsequently settled before the Lok Adalat, wherein Balaraju agreed to pay maintenance of
Rs.3,000/- per month to PW1, Rs.1,500/- to the first daughter and Rs.1,000/- to the second daughter.
v)PW1 further admitted that she and Baalaraju obtained a mutual divorce in the year 2015. She clearly stated that after her separation from her first husband,
Baalaraju, Accused No.1 used to visit her house and assured her that he would marry her. On the basis of such assurance, PW1 developed a relationship with 14
Accused No.1. Though PW1 stated that Accused No.1 did not formally marry her, she specifically deposed that Accused No.1 repeatedly assured her that he would marry her and, believing his assurance, she mentioned the name of Accused
No.1 as the father in the certificates of her daughters and also mentioned his name as her husband in her Aadhaar card.
vi)On perusal of Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, i.e., the Aadhar Cards of PW1 and her elder daughter, along with the educational certificates produced in this case, certain relevant facts emerge. As per Ex.P2 – the Aadhar Card of PW1, the name of her husband is mentioned as Sudharshan Chinna Rao. Further, Ex.P3 – the educational certificates of the elder daughter of PW1 clearly show the name of the father in the relevant column as Yagati Chinna Rao. Moreover, the bank account records and the Voter ID Card relating to the daughter disclose the father’s name as Yagati Sudharshan Chinna Rao. Thus, from these documents it can be reasonably inferred that the name of the accused (A1) has consistently been shown as the husband of PW1 and as the father of her daughter in several public records.
vii)It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that without the
permission of A1, PW1 mentioned his name as her husband in her Aadhar
Card, and that A1 never married PW1. However, the said contention does not inspire confidence for the reason that the accused No1 has not specifically
denied the fact that his name has been mentioned as the husband of PW1 in
the Aadhar Card and as the father of the daughter in the educational
certificates and other official records. If really there had been no
relationship between PW1 and A1, and if the accused No1 had never
assured PW1 that he would look after her and her children, it is quite
natural that he would have objected to the use of his name in such
important public documents. It is a settled principle of law that entries in
public or official documents carry a presumption of correctness unless the
contrary is proved. When such entries remain unchallenged for a long period, the conduct of the concerned person becomes a relevant circumstance to draw 15 an inference.
viii)(a) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of
Maharashtra held that the conduct of a party and surrounding
circumstances are relevant factors for drawing reasonable inferences in a
case. When a person fails to dispute a fact for a long time, the Court can legitimately draw an adverse inference against such person.
(b) Further, in Tulsa v. Durghatiya, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that long cohabitation and recognition of a relationship in public records
may give rise to a presumption of a valid relationship or marriage unless
disproved by cogent evidence.
19.The contention of the accused is that his real name is Yagati Sudharsan
Chinna Rao, whereas in Ex.P3 educational certificates the father’s name is mentioned as “Yagati Chinna Rao.” On that basis, the accused argues that those documents cannot be relied upon. It is a settled principle of law that minor
discrepancies in the spelling or form of a name in public documents do not
by themselves render the document unreliable, particularly when the identity of the person can otherwise be established. Moreover, the public documents
like birth certificates, educational records, Aadhaar cards, or voter records
may contain minor variations in names, and such differences cannot automatically negate the identity of the person unless the accused proves that the documents actually relate to a different person.
i) Moreover, the accused himself is uncertain about the existence of another person with the same name. He could not specifically state that such a person actually exists. Under the principles of evidence, mere suggestion without proof cannot discredit a document. Therefore, the Ex.P2 shows the relationship between the Accused No.1 and PW1. As such Ex.A2 and A3 corroborated with the evidence of Pw1.
20.Further, the accused counsel argued that PW1 did not mentioned in Ex.P1 and stated before the police when she gave a report to the police. At this point as 16 seen from the evidence of PW1 admittedly she did not mentioned the date when she gave a report to the police. However, as per Ex.P1 shows that she gave a report on 11.07.2016. However, merely because this part of her version is not
supported by contemporaneous records, the entire testimony of PW1
cannot be discarded in toto. It is a settled principle of law that the evidence
of a witness need not be rejected in its entirety if a part of it is found to be unreliable, provided the remaining portion inspires confidence. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 in this regard is consistent and is corroborated by her complaint marked as Ex.P1 on all material particulars relating to the cohabitation, and subsequent conduct of the accused. There are no material contradictions affecting the core of the prosecution case.
i)In this regard this court relied the judgment in Rajesh Chaddha v. State of
Haryana (2025 SC) held that minor inconsistencies which do not go to the
root of the case cannot be a basis for acquittal if the overall evidence is
credible.
The above ratios are aptly applicable to the present case on hand.
21.It is also contend by the accused counsel that the PW2 and 3 are turned hostile and they did not support to the case of the prosecution as such their evidence no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
As could be seen from evidence of PW2 and 3 admittedly they turned hostile, though the learned APP cross examined them but nothing could be elicited from their evidence except marking Ex.P4 and 5.
22. The learned counsel for the accused further contended that the evidence of PW4 who is the mother of PW1 cannot believable.
i)This contention is not sustainable in view of the clear and categorical evidence of PW4. A careful perusal of the testimony of PW4 shows that her evidence corroborated with the evidence of Pw1 in all aspects. Merely PW4 is mother of Pw1 only on such a ground the entire evidence of PW4 cannot be thrown away on bushes side.
17 ii) At this juncture, the learned public prosecutor relied the judgment in
Surendran v State of Kerala 2022 SCC online SC 621, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the evidence tendered by the related or interested witness
cannot be discarded on that ground alone. The defence suggestion that she
is deposing falsely due to relationship is baseless, as her evidence is
consistent with PWI and withstands cross-examination.
iii) Since the matter of cruelty under IPC section.498-A are related to matrimonial home most of the witnesses are related to each other by birth or marriage. Thus, the above ratio is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
23. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the evidence of PW5 is in no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW5 and PW1. As such, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration.
24.As seen from the evidence of PW5, who is the neighbour of PW1 and A1, he clearly stated in his chief-examination that PW1 and A1 were residing in the
DFN area at the relevant time and that he was working as the Vice-President of
Duvvam Village. He further deposed that PW1 and A1 approached him as well as the Sarpanch by placing the dispute between them. On that occasion, both of them were advised to settle their dispute before their marriage elders, as the matter was purely a matrimonial dispute.
i)However, during the course of cross-examination, PW5 deposed that he did not know anything about the dispute between PW1 and A1 and also stated that the police had not examined him during the course of investigation. This statement appears to be inconsistent with his earlier version given in the chief- examination.
ii)It is a common phenomenon in matrimonial disputes that independent witnesses, particularly neighbours or relatives, often hesitate to depose against either party due to social pressure, fear of damaging relationships, or reluctance to involve themselves in family matters. Therefore, it is not unusual for such witnesses to resile from their earlier statements or attempt to avoid giving 18 incriminating evidence during cross-examination. The tendency of witnesses turning hostile or giving evasive answers in matrimonial matters has been noticed in several cases, as they prefer not to interfere in the personal affairs of husband and wife.
iii)In the present case, though PW5 initially stated in his chief-examination that PW1 and A1 approached him along with the Sarpanch regarding their dispute, he later stated during cross-examination that he had no knowledge about the dispute. If really PW5 had no knowledge about the dispute at all, he would not have stated in his chief-examination that both parties approached him and the
Sarpanch for settlement. The very fact that he admitted the said circumstance in his chief-examination indicates that he had some knowledge regarding the dispute between PW1 and A1. However, the relevant evidence of PW5 can be taken into consideration.
25.The learned counsel for the accused further, argued that the Investigating
Officers (PWs 6) did not conduct the investigation on proper lines. As on the date of lodging report PW1 is not a wife of A1, but he falsely registered a crime and filed a charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the the evidence of PW6 cannot believable.
i)As seen from the evidence of Pw6 clearly stated that the PW1 clearly mentioned in Ex.p1 report that A1 informed her that he looked after her as a married wife as such A1 and PW1 living one roof as a wife and husband. Further he stated that PW1 lodged a report on 11.07.2016.
ii)However, it is needless to say that the irregularities committed by the
Investigating Officer shall not come in the way of rendering the injustice to the party. It is not proper on the part of the Court to discard their entire evidence in toto. Merely on the ground of defective investigation does not affect the prosecution case.
iii)At this context the this court had relied judgment in State of Rajasthan v.
Om Prakash (2022 SCC On Line SC 356) held that minor omissions or minor defects in investigation cannot be used to discard trustworthy evidence of a 19 natural witness. Therefore, the oral testimony of PW1, given on oath, must be given due weight. The above judgments are very much suitable to the present case on hand.
26.The learned counsel for the accused has taken a specific defence that the accused never married PW1 and that the alleged marriage is not valid in the eye of law. In order to rebut the prosecution case, A1 examined himself as DW1 and deposed that PW1 had already married one Billa Balaraju and filed M.C.
No.14/2010 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam, seeking maintenance, wherein maintenance of Rs.3,000/- was granted to PW1 and
Rs.1,500/- each to her children. He further stated that PW1 and Billa Balaraju later obtained a mutual divorce before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam, in the year 2017. He categorically denied that PW1 is his wife and contended that she filed false complaints against him and against A2 and A3. He also stated that he never married PW1 and had no relationship with her. Further, PW1 did not file any photographs or material to prove the alleged marriage. Hence, it is contended that the prosecution failed to establish a valid marriage, which is a foundational requirement for invoking Section 498-A IPC, and therefore the offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
27.But here, the evidence of Pw1 shows that after the separation from her first husband, the accused No.1 assured PW1 that he would look after her as well as her children. Believing the assurance of A1, PW1 started living with him and both of them resided together for a period of about six years at Duvvam village. It is also brought on record that the house in which they resided was constructed with the assistance of the elders of Duvvam village. This circumstance probabilises the version of PW1 that both of them were living together as husband and wife.
i)It is true that PW1 has not filed any photographs to prove the marriage or cohabitation with A1. However, mere non-production of photographs cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the prosecution. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that A1 had already lost his wife and PW1 had also obtained divorce from her first husband. In such circumstances, particularly in rural areas, marriages or marital relationships are sometimes performed or continued without 20 formal ceremonies or photographic evidence. Therefore, absence of photographs alone cannot be a ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW1.
ii)When the evidence of PW1 regarding long cohabitation is considered along with the surrounding circumstances, such as the assurance given by A1, the fact that both of them lived together for six years in the house constructed by village elders, and the absence of any serious contradiction in her testimony, it creates a strong presumption that they lived together in the nature of a marital relationship.
Hence, the contention of the defence that the relationship between PW1 and A1 cannot be believed merely because photographs are not filed is not sustainable.
At this juncture, it is relavant to observe the following judgments:
1. Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation The Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that long cohabitation between a man and woman raises a strong presumption of marriage, and the law leans in favour of legitimacy rather than illegitimacy.
2. Tulsa v. Durghatiya The Supreme Court observed that continuous cohabitation of a couple for a long period may give rise to a presumption of valid marriage even if formal proof of marriage is not produced.
3. Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha The Court held that a woman who has lived with a man for a long period as husband and wife should not be denied legal protection merely because strict proof of marriage is lacking.
iii)Further, this court relied by this court judgment in The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 199, reported in
ALD (Crl) 2004 (1) AP 437, held that for prosecuting an offence under Section 498-A IPC, strict proof of a legally valid marriage is not mandatory, and if a woman is treated as a wife and subjected to cruelty by the accused, the object of
Section 498-A cannot be defeated on technical pleas regarding marriage validity.
Therefore, the defence plea regarding invalid marriage is legally irrelevant and 21 deserves outright rejection.
iv)In the present case, the evidence of PW1 assumes great significance as she is the victim of the alleged acts of cruelty. PW1 has clearly and categorically deposed before the Court that after some period of their cohabitation, A1 started subjecting her to physical as well as mental harassment. According to PW1, A1 used to demand money from her parental house and, upon her inability to fulfill such demand, he subjected her to severe cruelty. She specifically stated that A1 burnt her with a hot iron box, pulled the skin of her body with a cutting plier, and behaved in a violent and abnormal manner in the presence of her children. Such acts, if proved, clearly amount to physical cruelty as well as mental cruelty. The nature of injuries described by PW1 indicates that the harassment was not merely verbal but involved serious physical violence. Burning a person with a hot iron box and injuring the body with a cutting plier are acts that demonstrate extreme cruelty.
v)Further, the presence of children during the commission of such acts aggravates the mental trauma caused to PW1. The conduct of A1 in behaving violently in front of the children would naturally create fear, humiliation, and emotional distress to PW1, which amounts to mental cruelty within the meaning of matrimonial and criminal law.
vi)Apart from the testimony of PW1, the evidence of PW4 also assumes importance. PW4 has corroborated the version of PW1 regarding the harassment and ill-treatment meted out to her by A1. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that when the testimony of the victim is supported by an independent witness, the evidentiary value of such testimony becomes stronger and more reliable. The corroboration by PW4 in material particulars lends credibility to the evidence of PW1 and strengthens the prosecution case.
vii) Moreover, Cruelty can either be mental or physical. It is difficult to strait jacket the term cruelty by means of a definition because cruelty is a relative term.
What constitutes cruelty for one person may not constitute cruelty for another person as held in the judgment of GV Siddaramesh vs., State of Karnataka reported in (2010) 3 SCC 152 . The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from 22 individual to individual, also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs held in the judgment of Gananath Pattanaik vs., State of Orissa reported in (2002) 2 SCC 619.
viii)Nevertheless, as per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no
particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact, and the
conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a reliable witness. In the present case, the victim/PW1 has clearly deposed that A1 subjected her to harassment by demanding money from her parental house, by burning her with a hot iron box, and by pulling her skin with a cutting plier. The testimony of PW1 is consistent and inspires confidence. Further, the evidence of PW4, who is the mother of PW1, corroborates the version of PW1 in material particulars.
Therefore, the evidence of PW1, duly corroborated by PW4, appears to be trustworthy and believable.
ix)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras held that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if the Court finds it wholly reliable. Therefore, The PW1 subjected to cruelty meted out by the accused No1. On perusal of the evidence of Pws.1,4,5 and 6 nothing improbable is elicited during their cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused to doubt their testimony. The credibility of f Pws.1,4,5 and 6 are not impeached in the cross their evidence inspires the confidence of the court. I believed the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution sufficiently proved that the accused No.1 subjected the P.w.1 to cruelty both mentally as required
U/sec.498-A IPC. Therefore, Sec.498-A of IPC attracts against the accused No.1 only.
28. The learned counsel for the accused contended that Accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the brother and sister-in-law of Accused No.1, are innocent persons and were never residing with PW1 and Accused No.1 at any point of time. Therefore, the question of Accused Nos.2 and 3 subjecting PW1 to harassment does not arise. Hence they are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
i)On careful appreciation of the evidence on record, it is seen that the allegation of the prosecution against Accused Nos.2 and 3 is that they used to 23 visit the house of Accused No.1 and instigate Accused No.1 to demand money from PW1 by suggesting that if Accused No.1 marries another woman he would receive more dowry. However, PW1 in her evidence has not stated any specific date, time, or particular instance when Accused Nos.2 and 3 allegedly instigated
Accused No.1 in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Except making a general allegation that Accused Nos.2 and 3 instigated Accused No.1, no specific overt act has been attributed to them. There is also no independent evidence to establish that Accused Nos.2 and 3 actively participated in the alleged acts of cruelty or harassment. Further, there is no evidence to show that Accused Nos.2 and 3 were present at the time of the alleged incidents of harassment or that they directly demanded any amount from PW1 or her parents. It is well settled that mere vague and omnibus allegations against the relatives of the husband are not sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 498-A IPC unless specific acts of cruelty are clearly proved.
ii)In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar held that:
"In the absence of specific allegations regarding the role of the
relatives of the husband, continuation of criminal proceedings
against them would amount to abuse of the process of law."
iii)Further, in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, the Apex Court cautioned that courts must carefully scrutinize allegations against relatives of the husband because there is a tendency to implicate the entire family in matrimonial disputes.
In the present case, except the interested testimony of PW1 and PW4 containing general and vague allegations, there is no corroborative or independent evidence establishing the role of Accused Nos.2 and 3 in the alleged acts of cruelty. The prosecution has also failed to prove that Accused Nos.2 and 3 demanded dowry or instigated Accused No.1 with the intention of subjecting PW1 to cruelty.
iv)Therefore, in the absence of specific allegations, clear overt acts, and reliable evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of
PW1 and PW4 is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of Accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 498-A IPC. Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove 24 the guilt of Accused Nos.2 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt has to be given to A2 and A3.
29.In this light of aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the Prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused No.1 U/Sec.498-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused No.1 is liable to be convicted for the same. But, the prosecution fail to prove the guilty of the accused No.2 and 3 for offences punishable Under U/Sec.498-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
Hence Point NO.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution and accused
Nos.2 and 3 and against the accused No.1.
30. Result: In the result the accused NO1 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC and he is convicted for the same u/sec.248(2)
Cr.P.C. Further the accused Nos.2 and 3 are not found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC and they are acquitted for the same u/sec.248(1)
Cr.P.C.
Directly typed to my dictation by my personal assistant, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, on this the 13 th day of March, 2026.
Sd/-Kum Ponnuru Bujji,
Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Spl Mobile),
Vizianagaram. FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Cheepurupalli.
31.The Convict/Accused NO.1 questioned about quantum of sentence for the offences punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC for which
Accused NO.1 pleaded as follows
He is having wife and children, they are depending upon him. He is working as a paster. He is sole bried winner of his family. if he sent to jail, his family would suffer. Hence, prayed to show mercy upon him.
32.In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it is not a fit case to invoke provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C.
33.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the accused NO.1 and also the offence committed by the accused NO.1, I am 25 not inclined to take any lenient view. But this court feels that following sentence would meet the ends of justice as imposing fine is not sufficient.
34.In the result accused NO.1 is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of SIX MONTHS and ordered to pay fine amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) for the offences punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC. In default payment of fine amount the accused NO.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH.
35.The remand period of accused if any till date, shall be given set-off Under
Section 428 Cr.P.C.
36. Appraisal of right to prefer appeal: Convict/ accused NO.1 is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment of this court. When questioned with regard to means to engage the counsel at appellate stage, he submitted he has means.
Pronounced in open court on this the 13th day of March, 2026.
Sd/-Kum ponnuru Bujji,
Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Spl Mobile),
Vizianagaram. FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Cheepurupalli.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:
P.W.1: Yaganti Nagamani, P.W.2: Pinninti Appararo P.W.3: Mantri Rajamma P.W.4: Ch. Narayanamma P.W.5: Bonthu Ramunaidu. P.W.6: S. Srinivas, SI of Police
For Defence:
26
D.W1: Yagati Sudarshana Chinnarao
Documents Marked.
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Report of PW1 Ex.P.2: The attested copy of Aadhar Card of the PW1 showing the name of A1 as husband. Ex.P.3: The Attested copy of Aadhar card of elder daughter of PW1 along with seven Education Certificates showing the name of A1 as father. Ex.P.4: statement of PW2 u/sec.161 Cr.P.C Ex.P.5: statement of PW3 u/sec.161 Cr.P.C Ex.P.6: FIR
For Defence:
Ex.D1: Certified copy of the M.C. petition along with order
Ex.D2: Certified copy of HMOP petition along with order and decree dated. 16.03.2018
M.Os. Marked: -NIL -
Sd/- Kum ponnuru Bujji,
Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Spl Mobile),
Vizianagaram.
FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Cheepurupalli.
// True copy //
Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Spl Mobile),
Vizianagaram.
FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Cheepurupalli.
27
Copy//CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST
CLASS, CHEEPURUPALLI.
C.C. No.265/2016
Date of offence:Prior to 11.07.2016
Date of filing: 11.07.2016
Date of apprehension of accused:20.08.2024
Date of release on bail:- -
Date of commencement of trial:10.10.2024
Date of close of trial:23.01.2026
Date of sentence or order:13.03.2026
Explanation of delay:In serving summons to accused and for examination of prosecution witnesses by prosecution agency delay was happened.
Between:
State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Garividi P.S., Vizianagaram. …Complainant
And
1.Yagati Sudarshan Chinnarao S/o late Appayya, 35 yers, Arrabalaga Village, Terlam Mandal, R/o Duvvam village, Garividi Mandal.
2.Yagati Ramu S/o Latye Appayya, 38 years, R/o Arrabalaga village, Terlam Mandal.
3.Yagati Ramalakshmi W/o Ramu, 32 years, Arrabalaga village, Terlam Mandal.
.... Accused No.1 to 3
Offence : U/Sec.498-A of IPC Plea of accused: Not Guilty Finding : A1 Found guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.498- A of IPC and A2 and A3 are not found guilty for the offences U/Sec.498-Aof IPC.
28
Sentence or Order:
In the result the accused NO1 is found guilty for the offence punishable
U/Sec.498-A of IPC and he is convicted for the offence u/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.
Further the accused Nos.2 and 3 are not found guilty for the offence punishable
U/Sec.498-A of IPC and they are acquitted for the offence u/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.
The accused NO.1 is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of
SIX MONTHS and ordered to pay fine amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) for the offences punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC. In default payment of fine amount the accused NO.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
ONE MONTH.
The remand period of accused if any shall be given set-off Under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Appraisal of right to prefer appeal: Convict/ accused NO.1 is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment of this court. When questioned with regard to means to engage the counsel at appellate stage, he submitted he has means.
Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Spl Mobile),
Vizianagaram. FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Cheepurupalli.
Note: The accused had paid the fine amount of Rs.500/-,
Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble 1st Additional District Judge, Viziangaram.
29
QUESTION OF SENTENCE
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST
CLASS, CHEEPURUPALLI.
C.C.NO.265/20160 DATE:13.03.2026
A1 Yogati Sudarshan Chinnarao S/o late Appayya, 35 yers, Arrabalaga Village, Terlam Mandal, R/o Duvvam village, Garividi Mandal.
Question:- Offence u/sec. 498-A of IPC is proved against you and you convicted u/s 255(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. What do you say about the quantum of sentence ?
Ans:- I am having wife and children. They are depending upon me.I am working as a paster. My family members are depending upon me. If I will sent jail my family will be suffered a lot. Hence, prayed to show mercy upon me.
Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Spl Mobile),
Vizianagaram. FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Cheepurupalli.
Signature of the accused