1
IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, (EXCISE),KARIMNAGAR
Present:- Smt.Ch.Sunandamma, B.Sc.,LL.B. Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Excise, Karimnagar.
Monday, the 30th day of January, 2012.
CALENDER CASE NO. 499 of 2006.
Between:- The State through S.I of Police, P.S.Ramadugu, (Cr.No.48 of 2006).
…Complainant.
And
A.1. Dumpeta Ramesh, S/o Rajaiah, 33 years, Jangam, A.2. Dumpeta Rajeshwari, W/o Rajaiah, 50 years, Jangam, A.3. Dumpeta Rajaiah, S/o Mogilaiah, 60 years, Jangam, All are R/o Warangal.
..Accused.
This case is coming before me on 25.01.2012 for final hearing in the presence of learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri E.Madusudhan Rao, Counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record upon hearing arguments and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Ramadugu filed Charge sheet in
Cr.No. 48/06 against the accused for the Offences Punishable Under
Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same has been taken on file on the same section of law by Addl. Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 12.5.06 at 1830 hours the complainant D.Subhashini came to police station lodged a complaint
before police stating that her marriage was performed about five years
back with accused A.1. In her marriage PW.1 parents presented net cash of Rs.60,000/- gold wg 1 ½ tola and other house hold articles towards dowry, they lead happy marital life for about one year, later A.1 to A.3 have harassed PW.1 physically and mentally demanding
additional dowry on that she brought Rs. 35,000/- from her parents, but
A.1 to A.3 did not satisfy with it, further harassed to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. In this regard a panchayath was held in the presence of elders, they advised to treat her well, but they assured to treat her well and taken away her, but A.1 to A.3 continued harassment 2 for additional dowry, in unbearable stage she has returned back to her parental house. On 26.1.06 her husband has come down to her parental house and demanded to come back with additional dowry of
Rs.50,000/- otherwise threatened to perform another marriage and divorce her. Therefore she requested for taking necessary action against
A.1 to A.3.
3. Basing on the complaint LW.6/J.Krishna Reddy, S.I of police registered a case in Cr.No. 48/06 u/s 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and investigated in to. During the course of investigation S.I of police examined and recorded the statements of
LW.s 1 to 5 in part-II CD. On 30.5.06 at 1600 hours A.1 to A.3 have been surrendered before S.I of Police at P.S Ramadugu. On interrogation they have admitted the guilt of offence on that S.I of Police effected the arrest of the accused by issuing arrest memos and produced them
before Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation S.I of
police filed charge sheet against the accused.
4.On appearance of the accused before the Court all the relevant copies have been furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.
and they were examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C. A Charge U/sec. 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act were framed and read over and explained to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.The case has been originally filed before Addl. J.M.F.C. Karimnagar and numbered as CC.No.817/06. During the pendency of the case the same has been transferred to this Court as per the proceedings of the
Hon’ble District Judge, Karimnagar and on transfer the same was
renumbered as CC.No. 499 of 2006.
6.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.s 1 to 5 and Ex.P-1 and P.2 are marked on its behalf.
7. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating circumstances that had appeared against them and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. Hence defence evidence has been closed.
8.Heard both sides.
9.Now the point for Consideration is:
3
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/s U/sec. 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?
10.The case of the prosecution is that A.1 to A.3 harassed PW.1 subjected to cruelty physically and mentally demanding additional dowry thereby the accused committed an offence punishable u/s 498-A
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
11.To prove the same the prosecution has examined in all five witnesses. PW.1 is the complainant/victim. PW.s 2 and 3 are parents of
PW.1. PW.4 is panchayath elder. PW.5 is investigating officer.
12.According to PW.1 deposed that she is resident of Kothapalli village. A.1 is her husband. A.2 and A.3 are her in laws. The marriage took place during the year 2001 with A.1. At the time of her marriage her parents gave Rs.60,000/-, 1 ½ tula gold and other house hold articles towards dowry. They lived happily for about one years. They begotten two children during the wed lock. The accused very frequently demanded for additional dowry. Her parents gave RS. 35,000/- for the purpose of business. For that amount the accused started his business but it is not running properly. Due to which the business is running in loss, again the accused demanded her mentally and physically. At first they lived with their in laws and after some time they separated from them. She informed about the harassment meted out by the accused to her in laws. She further deposed that in her presence A.2 and A.3 advised A.1 to behave properly and in her absence A.2 and A.3 advised
A.1 to demand money from her parents. A.1 also demanded to give her gold pusthelathadu for the purpose of business, but she has not agreed for that. During the year 2006 she came to her parents house due to disputes between her and A.1 on 26.1.2006, A.1 came to her grand mother's house at Vannaram village, he made complaint against her due to which her grand mother informed to her parents who are at
Vannaram village and her father called her to Vannaram from Warangal.
Her father scolded A.1 about the petty disputes. Then A.1 left Vannaram village with a request to bring his parents but they did not come to
Vannaram village. A.1 used to telephoned to her requesting her to come and join with her otherwise he will kill her father and also threatened that he will give divorce to her. As repeatedly A.1 threatening her she lodged complaint on 12.5.2006 against the accused. She further deposed that A.1 demanded for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and with that demand he bet her with hands. A panchayath was convened at 4
Vannaram village in the presence of N. Kanakaiah and Kura Anjaiah and in that panchayath they informed A.1 to look after her and her children well and again he started to harass her mentally and physically for demanding the amount of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of developing the business. She further deposed that another panchayath was also held at
Godavarikhani where her parents were residing at Godavarikhani and in that panchayath the grand mother of A.1 and paternal uncle Veeraiah and another uncle by name Rajaiah acted as elders on behalf of accused and in that panchayath also A.1 agreed to look after her and her children well and again started to harass her for demanding money of
Rs.50,000/-, due to which she gave complaint, Ex.p.1 before police.
13.PW.s 2 and 3 are parents of PW.1 deposed on the same lines of
PW.1 in all material aspects. Pw.3 further deposed that A.1 used to call her husband, Pw.2 in drunken condition and abused him in filthy language.
14.Pw.4 who is panchayath elder deposed on the same lines of Pw.s1 to 3 in all material aspects. He further deposed that they admonished the accused and his parents and advised them to look after PW.1.
thereafter they lived for about six months, and also deposed that on 26.1.2006 accused A.1 came to his village along with PW.2 in their presence accused informed them that he is going to marry another women if PW.2 failed to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to him.
15.Pw.5 who is investigating officer deposed the manner of investigation done by him. He further deposed that on 30.5.2006 A.1 to
A.3 have surrendered before him, on interrogation they admitted their guilt, after completion of formalities of arrest he produced them before the Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.
16.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of Pw.s 1 to 5 is consistent, cogent and trustworthy and prayed the court to convict the accused.
17.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the dispute arose between A.1 and PW.1 for not transferring the property of A.3 infavour of sons of Pw.1 and also argued that the accused never harassed PW.1 physically and mentally and after filing of O.P.No.34 of 2006 the Pw.1 filed a complaint against the accused and the he further conducted that 5
PW.1 also residing with the accused on advice of Hon'ble Family Court
Judge, Warangal and requested the court to acquit the accused.
18.Basing on the evidence it is the duty of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. On scrutiny of the evidence of PW.1 it is observed that the facts mentioned in Ex.P.1 report were not spoken in her evidence. The evidence of PW.s1 to 3 contains a bundle of omissions and contradictions. They made only omni-bus allegations against all the accused about the demand of dowry and other material aspects. Further many of the material aspects in regard to dowry and other harassment spoken by the prosecution witnesses before the court were not stated
before the police. P.W.5 who is investigating officer also admitted the
same in his evidence. The prime allegation against A-1 as per the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 is that A.1 harassed Pw.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- form PW.s 2 and 3.
19.Admittedly after the marriage P.W.1 separated from A.2 and A.3 and they lead marital life up to 2006. She deposed that in the year 2006 she came to her parents house due to disputes between her and
A.1. on 26.1.2006 A.1 came to her grand mother’s house at Vannaram village where he made complaint against her due to which her grand mother informed to Pw.s 2 and 3 who are at Vannaram village and PW.s 2 and 3 called her to Vannarm from Warangal. PW.2 scolded A.1 about the petty dispute. Then A.1 left Vannram village with a request to bring his parents but they did not come to Vannaram village. She further deposed that A.1 used to telephoned her requesting her to come and join with her otherwise he will kill her father and also threatened that he will give divorce to her.
PW.1 admitted in her cross examination A.1 issued legal notice through his counsel by name Chakilam Upender on 30.1.2006 demanding her to join his society stating that on 26.1.2006 without any reason she left from company of A.1. She also admitted that A.1 filed
O.P. for restriction of conjugal rights at Warangal vide O.P.34 of 2006.
she further admitted that after receipt of summons in that case she appeared before Family Court, Warangal. She further admitted that she mentioned in Ex.p.1 that 6 months prior to 26.1.2006 she along with her children in her parent’s house and she also admitted that she did not mention in Ex.P.1 and also in her 161 Cr.P.C statement that she accompanied A.1 from Family Court, Warangal and again he started harassment thereafter she filed complaint against accused. On one hand the PW.1 admitted she do not know A.1 issued legal notice on 6 30.1.2006 through his counsel Chakilam Upender on the other hand she admitted that received notice from the counsel of A.1, 1Chakilam
Upender. In view of inconsistent statements , the evidence of PW.1 in this aspect is not believable.
20.Admittedly PW.1 lived with her parents house at Vannaram village prior to 26.1.2006 he neither filed any complaint nor stated before the police about the harassment of the accused. As per the prosecution on 26.1.2006 A.1 came to her parents house and demanded PW.2 to give
additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. PW.2 admitted that A.1 got issued
legal notice to PW.1 for restitution of conjugal rights on 31.3.2006 in the above notice he mentioned that PW.1 left accused on 26.1.2006 without informing him. On their own admission it shows that A.1 did not come to the house of PW.2 on 26.1.06 and not threatened PW.1 and demanded dowry amount and threatened to kill her father.
21. The learned counsel for accused argued that there is a dispute with regard to the transfer of the property of A.3 infavour of sons of
PW.1. PW.1 admitted in the cross examination that A.2 and A.3 own house site at Mills Colony, Warangal and also land at Kotilingala. She also admitted that she demanded A.2 and A.3 to transfer share of land of A.1 in the names of her sons. She further admitted that she do not know the A.1 get shares in the property and also admitted that the above referred two properties are self acquired properties of A.3. PW.2 admitted that in the cross examination in the W.P.S the counseling was made the accused refused in the counseling and admitted that A.1 shall transferr the two guntas of land in the name of sons of PW.1 subsequently they did not turn up as such PW.1 filed this present complaint. He further admitted that he did not mentioned in Ex.p.1 about approaching the S.P and counseling in W.P.S and accepting the transmission of two guntas of land. PW.3 admitted that the parents of
A.1 having house at Mill Colony and also Kotilingala village she again says that the accused A.3 having another house near Siddaiah hotel, main road, Warangal. She further admitted that there is dispute to transfer the house and land in favour of sons of PW.1. The learned counsel for accused suggested to PW.s 1 to 3 they filed a false case for transfer of the property and also continuing proceedings to pressurize the accused even though PW.1 living with A.1 since last two years, but they denied. As per their own admission there is a dispute in between
PW.s 1 to 3 and A.1 to A.3 with regard to the transfer of the property in the names of sons of PW.1. PW.s 1 to 3 colluded with each other and 7 foisted a false case against A.1 to A.3. Hence the evidence of PW.s 1 to 3 is not believable in this aspects.
22.The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.1 did not give any dowry to the accused and accused never demanded additional dowry of Rs.35,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- after the marriage and also argued that no one was present at the time of giving dowry to the accused. To prove its contention it is elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 that all the relatives know about the dowry paid by her parents. She do not know when her parents paid dowry amount to the accused, but her parents paid entire dowry amount at the time of marriage to the accused and also admitted that she do not know how her father paid the entire dowry amount. She again says that her father paid dowry amount from his salary. PW.2 admitted that one Manyam Ashok was mediator for settling the marriage of PW.1 with A.1 who is resident of Warangal.
He knows about presenting the dowry and gold ornaments presented to
A.1. He approached the said Ashok for mediator about the disputes between PW.1 and A.1, after one year. He further admitted that he also present at the time of lodging Ex.p.1. He has not mentioned in Ex.p.1 and also not stated before the police that above said Ashok was mediator in the marriage and complained him on the marriage. PW.3 admitted that the son in law of her sister is mediator to the marriage of her daughter. PW.5 admitted that he did not enquire about the financial capacity of PW.1. The evidence of PW.s 1 to 5 shows that no one was present at the time of giving dowry and demanding dowry to the accused and the prosecution failed to examine one Manyam Ashok who is mediator to settle the marriage between spouse. Except the self serving testimony of PW.s 1 to 3 regarding dowry and demanding dowry there is no direct evidence. Hence their evidence is not believable with regard to the dowry and demanding additional dowry.
23.The learned counsel for accused argued that there is a delay of six months in lodging Ex.p.1 complaint before the police. As per the prosecution the offence occurred on 26.1.2006. The Ex.P.1 complaint filed on 12.5.06. PW.5 admitted the same and there is no explanation from PW.1 for the reasons she filed Ex.p.1 complaint on 12.5.06 instead of 26.1.2006 further PW.1 admitted in the cross examination six months prior to 26.1.2006 the PW.1 resided at the house of her parents at
Vannaram village, but PW.1 neither mentioned in Ex.p.1 nor stated
before the police. PW.s 2 and 3 also not stated before the police. PW.1
further admitted that accused never visited her parents house till filing 8 of Ex.p.1 complaint and also admitted that A.1 used to contact her over cell of her father. She do not know the model of cell owned by her father and there is no recording facility in that cell. PW.3 deposed in her chief examination A.1 used to call her husband in drunken condition and abused him in filthy language. She denied that she did not state before the police A.1 used to call her husband in drunken condition and abused in filthy language. There is a material omission in the evidence of PW.2 in this aspect. As per the evidence of PW.s 1 to 3 no offence was occurred on 26.1.2006. As already observed supra the evidence of PW.1 is belated. If really the accused came to her parents house and threatened to bring additional dowry otherwise he will give divorce to
PW.1, she would not have kept quite without reporting the matter to the neighbours, caste elders or to the police.
24.The learned counsel for the accused argued that there are several omissions and improvements in the evidence of PW.s 1 to 3.
PW.1 deposed that A.1 demanded to give her gold pusthelathadu for the purpose of the business, but she has not agreed for that. She came to her parents house due to disputes between her and A.1. Her father scolded A.1 about the petty disputes then A.1 left Vannaram village with a request to bring his parents but they did not turn up and A.1 used to telephoned to her requesting her to come and join with him otherwise he will kill her father and also threatened that he will give divorce to her. She admitted in the cross examination she did not mention in
Ex.P.1 that A.1 telephoned to her father and also threatened as such she lodged complaint, and also admitted that she did not stated in her 161 Cr.P.C statements. She further admitted that A.1 issued a legal notice on 30.1.2006 demanding her to join his society stating that on 26.1.2006 without any reason she left the company of A.1. She also admitted that A.1 filed O.P for restitution of conjugal rights at Warangal vide O.P.No.34/2006 and after receipt of summons in that case she accompanied with A.1 and A.1 started harassment thereafter she filed the complaint. She also admitted that she mentioned in Ex.p.1 that six months prior to 26.1.2006 she along with her children were residing in her parent's house, and also admitted that she neither mentioned in
Ex.P.1 complaint nor stated before the police, that she accompanied with A.1 from Family Court, Warangal and A.1 started harassment thereafter she filed complaint against the accused.
9
25.In this regard the learned counsel for accused relied on a decision reported in 1971 SCC (Crl) 684 between Yudishtir Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, where in their lord ship held that when a particular fact deposed to by witnesses does not find mention both the FIR and in statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. it is an improvement and it cannot be considered. In this case the evidence of PW.1 is not considered.
26.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of
PW.s 4 and 5 has not taken in to consideration. To prove his contention it is elicited that in the cross examination of PW.4 admitted that he do not know whether PW.1 and A.1 lived together or not. PW.5 admitted that PW.4 and LW.5/P.Anjaiah did not disclose the elders who were participated on behalf of accused. If the panchyath was held in the presence of PW.4 and LW.5/ P.Anjaiah. They would have either deposed
before the court or stated before the police about the names of elders
who were participated on behalf of accused. Further PW.5 admitted that he came to know that PW.1 used to come to the house of her parents at Vannaram village. He also admitted that he did not visit the in laws house of PW.1 at Warangal and also not examined the neighbours of A.1. On his investigation the name of elders of A.1 did not reveal and also examined the elder on behalf of accused at
Warangal. The evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 shows that no panchayath was held no elder was participated no resolution was of passed in that panchayath. As per the version of PW.s 1 to 3 the PW.1 lodged complaint to claim share in the property of A.3 in the name of sons of
PW.1. Hence the evidence of PW.s 4 and 5 is not believable therefore cannot be accepted. From the provision under section 498-A of IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused demanded dowry and caused ill treatment to P.W.1 either to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.s 1 to 5 coupled with Ex.P.1 and P.2 the prosecution failed to prove that all the accused harassed P.W.1 both physically and mentally for additional dowry and there by prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused U/s 498-A of I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
27.After repeated summons to LW.5/P.Anajaiah the prosecution failed to produce LW.5/P.Anjaiah, hence the evidence of LW.5/P.Anjaiah is closed.
10
28.Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I am of the considered view that the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and they are also entitled for acquittal. Thus, this point is unanswered in favour of the accused persons.
29.In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/ss 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted u/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Dictated to the P.A, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in
Open Court on this the 30 th day of January, 2012.
Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, (Excise),Karimnagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:-
----None---- P.W.1: D.Subhashini. P.W.2: K.Chandramouli. P.W.3: K.Padma. P.W.4: N.Kanakaiah P.W.5: J.Krishna Reddy.
EXHIBITS MARKED.,
FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 is complaint. Ex.p.2 is FIR.
FOR THE DEFENCE: -Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS
-Nil-
Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, (Excise),Karimnagar.
11
EXHIBITS MARKED.,
FOR THE PROSECUTION.
Ex.P.1:is Complaint. Ex.P.2:
FOR THE DEFENCE: -Nil- Material Objects Marked M.O.s 1 and 2 cotton boxes
Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, (Excise), Karimnagar