D.indira

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: ATMAKUR­A.

Present: Smt.D.Indira, FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur.

Thursday, this the 27 th day of February, 2020.

D.V.C.No.4 of 2017

Between:

Bagyamma @ Susmitha W/o Late Madigatla Ramesh, Age: 24 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Boothpur Village, Kothakota Mandal now Devarpally Village of Atmakur Mandal. 

…Aggrieved person 

And

1. Madigatla Thirupathaiah S/o Gokaranna, Occ: Agriculture, 

2. Madigatla Giramma W/o Madigatla Thirupathaiah, Occ: House Wife

3. Madigatla Suresh S/o Madigatla Thirupathaiah, Occ: Agri.,

4. N.Ramulu S/o Chinna Sayanna, Occ: Agriculture,

5. Chinna Raidu S/o Gokaraiah, Occ: Agriculture,

6. Pedda Naganna C/o N.Ramulu, Occ: Dealer, All are R/o Boothpur Village of Kothakota Mandal.

...Respondents.

This DVC came before me for final hearing on 13.2.2020 in the presence of Sri N.L.Prasad, Advocate for the Aggrieved person and of Sri C.Rameshwar Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri G.K.Ramulu, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 6; upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

O R D E R 

This is a Domestic Violence case filed by the wife under

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'the Act') against her parent­in­laws, brother­in­law and three others, complaining of Domestic Violence against them, seeking the reliefs (1) compensation of Rs.15,00,000/­, (2) for a

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 2 direction to the respondents to handover the Car bearing No.TS06­

UA­6039 to her, (3) for a direction to R1 to R3 to pay Rs.2,00,000/­ of dowry amount, (4) to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to give shelter in the share house hold, (5) to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay monthly expenses of Rs.10,000/­ to her.

2.The averments of the application filed by the aggrieved person are as follows.

(i) She is the legally wedded wife of Late Madigtla Ramesh who is the son of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Her marriage was performed on 20.04.2016 at Boothpur village of Kothakota Mandal and at the time of marriage her parents presented cash of

Rs.2,00,000/­ towards dowry. After the marriage she along with her husband resided at the house of respondent Nos.1 and 2. After the marriage respondent Nos.1 to 6 started harassing her mentally demanding additional dowry. Her husband during his life time so many times expressed her inability to pay the additional dowry due to her parents poor financial condition, but the respondents never heed the words and neglected her.

(ii)Her husband was died on 18.11.2016 due to culpable homicide, but in fact it was a cunning plan only to get all the properties transferred in the name of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Her husband was died under suspicious death and as such she expressed doubt in the death of her husband. The inquest over the dead body of her husband was in the land in Sy.No.176, 177 and 178 but the respondents made one innocent person as the accused in the above crime.

(iii)During the life time of her husband he had been loving and affectionate towards her and there was no dispute in between them. But the respondents having no tolerance created a plan to commit murder of her husband. As such after the death of her husband, respondent No.1 executed a deed of payment for

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 3

Rs.2,00,000/­for her livelihood and respondent Nos.4 to 6 also executed a deed of payment for Rs.2,00,000/­ in her favour, but all the respondents did not pay any amount to her.

(iv) After the death of her husband, respondents increased the harassment, insulted and thrown her out of the house threatening her not to come again to their house and do not ask for any partition in the share house hold. Respondents forcibly taken car bearing registration No.TS06­UA­6039 from her possession which was the livelihood of her husband. Having suffered with great humiliation from the respondents she reached her parental house. She made several requests to the respondents to take her back to their home and to give shelter in the share house hold and handover the car of her husband, but the respondents refused her stay in the share house hold.

(v)Respondents 1 to 3 are having landed properties and house in the village and they are also maintaining one unregistered finance and earning about Rs.1,00,000/­ per month from out of their finance business. She requested many times to give shelter and expenses of her medical check­up but the respondents refused to pay any single rupee to her. The elders and well wishers have advised the respondents to give financial assistance to her and not to harass her mentally but the respondents did not heed the words of the elders. Hence she filed the case.

3.Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter denying the entire averments of the application filed by the aggrieved person, except admitting their relationship with her. It is contended in the counter as follows:

(i)The marriage of aggrieved person with the son of respondents 1 and 2 was performed on 20­04­2016 with the expenditure of these respondents. The husband of the aggrieved person Late Maddigatla Ramesh was working as driver at

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 4

Hyderabad and thus soon after the marriage the said Madigatla

Ramesh and the aggrieved person were shifted to Hyderabad and they lead their marital life at Hyderabad only and they never stayed in the company of these respondents at their house in Boothpur village at any point of time. These respondents never intervened into the matrimonial life of their son and daughter­in­law and they never demanded any additional dowry at any point of time.

(ii)Maddigatla Ramesh came from Hyderabad to attend

Kurumurthy Jathara, after attending the same he informed respondents 1 and 2 that he is going to his wife’s place by walk, then they advised not to go in the night time, despite of which he was going to his wife’s place and on the way he came with contact of live electricity wire which was kept in the fields of one

Eashwaraiah due to which Maddigatla Ramesh died on the spot.

But the aggrieved person leveled false allegations against these respondents to extract money from these respondents.

(iii)The car bearing registration No.TS06­UA­6089 was seized by the financiers for default of the payment of the installments and as such these respondents have no concern about the seizure of the vehicle. There are no any ancestral and joint family properties possessed by these respondents. Whatever the small extent of land property possessed by the respondents are the self acquired properties and as such there is no any obligation on the part of these respondents to provide maintenance or any other reliefs to the aggrieved person. The compensation amount awarded by the electricity department for the death of the son of respondents 1 and 2 was taken away by the aggrieved person without giving any amounts to these respondents, though they are legally entitled share in the said compensation.

(iv)The aggrieved person never came to the house of these

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 5 respondents at any point of time and as such there is no any cause of action to file this case against these respondents and as such the aggrieved person is not at all entitled any reliefs as claimed by her.

4.Respondents 4to 6 filed counter denying the allegations leveled in the application against them. The contentions of these respondents are that they never executed any deed of payment of

Rs.2,00,000/­ in favour of the aggrieved person after the death of her husband and therefore they are not liable to pay any amount to her. These respondents are only village elders, they have no relationship and not concern to the aggrieved person and prayed to dismiss the application.

5.The aggrieved person examined herself as Pw1 and examined her father as Pw2. The agreement said to have executed by respondents 1 to 3 and the agreement dated 18.11.2016 said to have executed by respondents 4 to 6 are marked as Exs.P1 and P2 respectively. Ex.P3 is the EMI statement issued by Mahindra and

Mahindra Financial Services LTD, Gadwal in respect of the car bearing registration bearing No.TS06­UA­6039. Certified copies of

ROR pertaining to the land in the name of respondent No.1 and

Nallapothula Gokaranna are marked as Exs.P4 and P5 respectively.

Exs.P6 and P7 are the statements of encumbrance of property in respect of the lands covered under Exs.P4 and P5. On the other hand respondent No.1 was examined as Rw1. On behalf of respondents 4 to 6, respondent No.4 was examined as Rw2. No documents are marked on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6. 

6.The learned counsel for the aggrieved person has submitted that the aggrieved person has no source of income, she require maintenance from respondents 1 to 3 and residence in the share house hold. He has further submitted that respondents have

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 6 executed Exs.P1 and P2 to pay the dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ but they did not pay any amount and causing mental torture to the aggrieved person and as such she is entitled to claim compensation.

He has further submitted that the car bearing registration No.TS06­

UA­6039 in the name of the husband of the aggrieved person is kept idle, the petitioner is entitled for the custody of the said car and prayed to give direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to handed over the same to the aggrieved person for her livelihood. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has submitted that soon after the marriage the aggrieved person and their son

Maddigatla Ramesh were started staying at Hyderabad, they stayed at Hyderabad till the death of Maddigatla Ramesh, they never stayed in the company of respondents 1 to 3 and as such there is no Domestic relationship in between the aggrieved person and respondents 1 to 3 and therefore the Domestic Violence case is not maintainable. He has further submitted that the husband of the aggrieved person died due to electricity shock while he was passing through agriculture land and touching the electricity wire which was kept in the said agriculture land to protect the crop from animals but the petitioner leveled false allegations in the matter of death of her husband and the amount of compensation that was paid by the electricity department was taken by the aggrieved person without giving any share to the respondents 1 and 2. He has further submitted that whatever the properties possessed by the respondents 1 to 3 are the self acquired properties of respondent

No.1 and therefore the respondents 1 to 3 are not liable to pay any amount of maintenance to the aggrieved person and prayed to dismiss the DVC. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 has submitted that these respondents have no concern with the family of the aggrieved person and respondents 1 to 3 and therefore, the case is not maintainable against them.

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 7

5. The following points would arise for consideration.

1. Whether there is domestic relationship in between the Aggrieved person and Respondents 1 to 6 and whether the aggrieved person was subjected to any Domestic Violence and if so whether she is entitled to seek reliefs from the respondents or not? 

2. Whether the Aggrieved person is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.15,00,000 under section 22 of the Act or not?

3. Whether the Aggrieved person is entitled for a direction to the respondents to handover the car bearing No.TS06­ UA­6039 to her or not ?

4. Whether the Aggrieved person is entitled for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 for return the cash dowry of Rs.2,00,000/­ or not ?

5. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for residence order in the share house hold under section 19 of the Act or not ?

6. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled to claim maintenance from respondents 1 to 3 or not ?

7. To what relief?

POINT No.1:­

(i) Section 2(f) of the Act defines domestic relationship, a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. The case of the aggrieved person in her application and in her chief examination affidavit is that after the marriage she has resided with her husband in the house of respondents 1 and 2.

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 8

During the cross examination, PW1 said that after the marriage they lived at Hyderabad for about six months, they used to survive by running car for hire, they stayed in a rented house and that they lived there till the death of her husband. The learned counsel

for the respondents 1 to 3 has submitted argument that as per the

statements of PW1 it is clear that the Aggrieved person and her husband never resided in the company of respondents 1 to 3.

During the cross examination of PW1 to a question put to her, she said that her marriage with her deceased husband took place at the place of respondent No.1. But there is no suggestion to her denying the said statement. It is an admitted fact that the marriage of the Aggrieved person with her husband is an arranged one. It is not the case of the respondent that the aggrieved person did not come to their house along with her husband has newly married couple after the marriage which took place in their village. It is also not the case of the respondents 1 to 3 that already accommodation was arranged for new couple at Hyderabad to go to Hyderabad on the day of the marriage directly from the place of marriage or marriage hall. During the cross examination, it was elicited from

PW1 that on the day of death of her husband they came from

Hyderabad to Kurmurthy Jathara and after the Jathara she went to her parental home and that she was at her parent’s home at the time of receiving the death information of her husband. It is not specifically pleaded by respondents 1 to 3 that the Aggrieved

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 9 person never entered into their house. No doubt it is true that the

Aggrieved person and her husband stayed at Hyderabad for six months, by virtue of the work of her husband. But it does not mean that they are not the members of the joint family. She is a member of joint family and her relationship with respondents 1 to 3 comes under the domestic relationship. Thus she will be called as aggrieved person. 

(ii) It is a fact that respondents 4 to 6 are not the members of the family of respondents 1 to 3, aggrieved person and her husband Madigatla Ramesh. The aggrieved person shown them as respondents to prove the document executed by them in her matter after the death of her husband. Therefore, it can be said that the

Aggrieved person has no domestic relationship with respondents 4 to 6 and therefore, the DVC is not maintainable against these respondents and liable to be dismissed.

(iii) It is a fact that the husband of the Aggrieved person

Madigatla Ramesh died due to electric shock by touching the electricity wire fencing in the agricultural land in their village which was erected to protect the crop from Wild animals. Though the

Aggrieved person in her application and in her chief examination affidavit said that respondents created a plan to commit to murder of her husband, during the cross examination she said that her husband died by shock when he came into contact with a live wire

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 10 while walking on the pathway and the Electricity department paid compensation of Rs.3,50,000/­ to her by depositing the same in to

Fixed Deposit for five years. It is a fact that a crime was registered in the matter of the death of the husband of the aggrieved person.

Hence, the contentions of the Aggrieved person in this regard are not relevant in this case to decide the domestic violence. 

(iv)It is the case of the Aggrieved person in her application and evidence that at the time of the marriage, her parents have given cash of Rs.2,00,000/­ towards dowry and that the respondents 1 to 3 used to harass her mentally for additional dowry and on her behalf her husband expressed her inability to give the same due to the poor financial condition of her parents. In this regard, she filed Ex.P1 agreement said to have executed by

Respondent No.1 which shows that it was agreed by respondent

No.1 to pay the dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ by 15.2.2017 at a time and in case of failure to pay the same Aggrieved person has every right to claim share in the joint family property. Though respondents 1 to 3 in their counter denied the execution of Ex.P1 by respondent No.1, during the cross examination of respondent

No.1 as RW1 he admitted that he affixed his thumb impression on

Ex.P1 but said that it was during the night time at police station at the instance of SI of police and CI of police as he was under deep shock and tragedy due to the death of his son. Respondent No.1 did not take any steps in this matter as admitted by him. Therefore

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 11 it can safely be said that respondent No.1 executed Ex.P1 knowing the contents of the document. The aggrieved person also filed Ex.P2 which shows respondents 4 to 6 as elders agreed to deposit

Rs.2,00,000/­ of the dowry amount in the name of the aggrieved person. As could be seen from these documents it appears that as the elders failed to keep their promise to deposit Rs.2,00,000/­ respondent No.1 executed Ex.P1. As observed above respondents 4 to 6 are no way concerned with the family of respondents and the aggrieved person, Ex.P2 is no way helpful to the aggrieved person.

As per the evidence of Pw1 it is clear that respondent No.1 did not pay the amount as agreed under Ex.P1. During the cross examination when it was put to Pw1, she said that she has demanded the amounts and when they failed to pay the amount she filed this case. It is the evidence of the aggrieved person that she made several requests to the respondents to take her back to their home and give shelter in the shared house hold. But the respondents bluntly refused her stay in the shared house hold. It is not the case of the respondents 1 to 3 that the aggrieved person has accommodation of her own or she is able to spent amounts for her stay. During the cross examination of RW1, he denied the suggestion that the aggrieved person came to their house after the death of his son on four or five occasions, but they did not allow her to stay with them, but said that after the death of his son he never went to invite his daughter­in­law to their home. It can be

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 12 understood that after the death of her husband the aggrieved person is suffering mentally and financially and no support was given by respondent No.1.

(v)It is the case of the aggrieved person that during the life time of her husband, he used to run a car bearing No.TS06­UA­ 6039 and the same is their livelihood, but the respondents forcibly taken the said car from her possession. In this regard the evidence of RW1 is that the said car was purchased by him from his own funds in the name of his son with the help of financiers to eke out their livelihood. It is his further evidence that after purchasing the said vehicle he handed over the same to his son to run the same at

Hyderabad by paying EMIs to the financiers apart from payment of the initial amount and thus the aggrieved person has no right or concern to the said vehicle. In the counter it is stated by the respondent No.1 that car was seized by the financiers due to default of EMIs and as such these respondents have no concern about the seizure of the vehicle. Petitioner filed Ex.P3 statement of the car loan amount, which shows that the EMIs were paid regularly and after receiving insurance claim the loan account was closed. During the cross examination, Rw1 admitted that by the time of death of his son there were no EMIs pending. He denied the suggestion that he had not paid any EMIs and that his deceased son paid them. But no proof is filed to show that he paid the EMIs.

He admitted that after the death of his son the finance institution

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 13 has adjusted remaining EMIs amount from the insurance amount and the remaining amount of Rs.9000/­ was transferred into his account. The husband of the aggrieved person is the owner of the car and during his life time it was their livelihood. But now respondent No.1 is denying to give the same to the aggrieved person.

(vi)It is the evidence of Rw1 that the compensation amount paid by the electricity department was taken by the aggrieved person without giving any amount to the respondents. During the cross examination Pw1 admitted that the electricity department deposited Rs.3,50,000/­ in her account as fixed deposit for 5 years.

But it is for the respondents to claim the same. It is not the case of the respondents that there was an agreement not to claim compensation by respondents and not to claim any other benefits by the aggrieved person from the respondents. 

(vii) The overall acts of the respondent No.1 being the elder in the family behaved with the aggrieved person very negligently and suffered the aggrieved person mentally and economically, which act comes under the domestic violence as defined under section 3 of the Act. Accordingly this point is answered holding that the aggrieved person suffered mentally due to the acts of respondent No.1 and she is entitled to claim reliefs against respondent No.1.

(viii) The entire case of the aggrieved person is against

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 14 respondent No.1 and that there are no specific averments of domestic violence against respondents 2 and 3 and therefore the

DVC against respondents 2 and 3 is liable to be dismissed.

Point No2:­

The evidence of Pw1 is not sufficient to award compensation.

Therefore this point is answered accordingly. 

Point No.3:

In view of the discussion in point No.1, it is held that the aggrieved person is entitled for the custody of Car bearing No.TS06­UA­6039 and she is entitled for direction to respondent No.1 to hand over the car bearing No. TS06­UA­6039 to her.

Point No.4:

In view of the discussion in point No.1, the aggrieved person by her oral evidence and Ex.P1 proved that an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/­ was given to the respondent No.1 towards dowry.

Therefore the petitioner is entitled for a direction to respondent

No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­. 

Point No.5:

Aggrieved person prayed to direct the respondents to give shelter in the shared house hold. During the cross examination

Rw1 said that the residential house in which they are residing is his self acquired property and that after purchase of the plot he constructed a house in it. The aggrieved person did not file any

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 15 proof that the said house is the ancestral property to accrue right in it to grant shelter in the said house. This point is answered accordingly.

Point No.6:

In her application Pw1 stated that after the death of her husband she made several requests to the respondents to provide the expenses of her medical check­up but the respondents refuse to pay any single rupee and after the death of her husband her life felt under hand to mouth and started begging to the people for her livelihood. During the course of her evidence she filed Exs.P4 to P7 revenue record in the name of respondent No.1 and the father of respondent No.1 Nallapothula Gokaranna. In this regard it is the contention of the respondent No.1 that whatever the land possessed by him, is his self acquired property. The aggrieved person did not file any other document to show that the landed property in the name of respondent No.1 under Exs.P4 and P6 are the ancestral property of respondents and her husband Maddigatla

Ramesh. During the cross examination Pw1 said that the father of respondent No.1 Gokaranna is alive and he is staying separately along with his wife. She further said that the said Gokaranna is having four sons and also daughters. She denied the suggestion that the properties belongs to Gokaranna is not concerned to respondent No.1 and that Exs.P5 and P7 are unconcerned documents. But no document is filed by her to show that the

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 16 properties under Exs.P5 and P7 are the ancestral properties of

Gokaranna/father of respondent No.1 to say that her husband accrues right in the said properties to get maintenance from out of the said property. In these faces and circumstances, this court is of the view that the aggrieved person is not entitled to claim maintenance from respondent Nos.1 or 3. This point is answered accordingly. 

24.Point No.7:­ In the result,this DVC is allowed in part.

(i)directing respondent No.1 to pay the dowry amount of

Rs.2,00,000/­ to the aggrieved person within one month from the date of this order.

(ii) Directing respondent No.1 to handover the car bearing

No.TS06­UA­6039 to the aggrieved person within one month from the date of this order.

(iii)Respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.5000/­ towards costs of the DVC.

This DVC insofar as the other reliefs are concerned and entirely against respondents No.2 to 6 is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th day of February, 2020.

Sd/­ Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy FAC Atmakur.

:: Appendix of evidence::

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 17

 Witnesses examined:

Petitioner: Respondents:

PW1: Bagyamma @ Susmitha RW1: Maddigatla Thirupathaiah PW2: Thirupathaiah RW2: N.Ramulu

Exhibits marked for

Petitioner:

Ex.P1: Agreement executed by respondents 1 to 3. Ex.P2: Agreement dated 18.11.2016 executed by respondents 4 to 6. Ex.P3: EMI Statement issued by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services LTD. Ex.P4: ROR pertaining to RW1. Ex.P5: ROR pertaining to Nallapothula Gokaranna. Ex.P6: Encumbrance certificate. Ex.P7: Encumbrance certificate. 

Respondents: ­NIL­ Sd/­ Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy FAC Atmakur.

DVC.No.4 of 2017 Page 18

C.C.No.78 of 2015 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS 

AT :: ATMAKUR­A.

Present: Smt.D.Indira, FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur.

Thursday, this the 20 th day of February, 2020

C.C.No. 78 of 2015

Between

State Represented through the Sub­Inspector of Police, Devarakadra Police Station. …Complainant.

And

Vakiti Anajaneyulu S/o Ramchandraiah, Age: 49 years, Occ: Driver, 

R/o Nijalapur Village of Addakal Mandal. ...Accused.

Offence:379 of IPC and Sec.27/35 of WALTA Act and Sec.2 of PDPP Act, 1984.

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence or order :Accused is found not guilty of the offence U/Sec. 379 of IPC Sec.27/35 of WALTA Act and Sec.2 of PDPP Act, 1984 and accordingly he is acquitted Under Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. ­o0o­

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 13.02.2020 in the presence of Sri Sri MKQ.Baqhtiyar, A.P.P. for the State and of Sri B.V.Rathnam, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of the charge­sheet filed by the

Sub­Inspector of Police, Devarakadra in Cr.No.138 of 2014 of the offence punishable under Section. 379 of IPC Sec.27/35 of WALTA

C.C.No.78 of 2015 Page 2

Act and Sec.2 of PDPP Act, 1984.

2.The brief facts of the case is as follows:

On 21­02­2015 at about 11:00 hours complainant Kavali

Ramanjaneylu, VRO of Koukuntla village lodged his complaint alleging that on the same day at about 04.30 hours he received credible information over the telephone about illegal sand transportation from Varne vagu as such he along with Lw2/Pw2

Kavli Kurumurthy proceeded to Varne vagu and on the way at about 05.00 hours they found one sand loaded DCM bearing registration No.AP22­Y­0752 which was coming from opposite direction and stopped the said sand loaded DCM and on enquiry with driver, he did not produce any valid permission about sand transportation, but the driver of the DCM fled away by leaving the

DCM. They further came to know the driver of the DCM name and particulars. Then they brought the sand loaded DCM to police station. On receipt of above complaint Lw5/M.Vinay Kumar Reddy,

Sub Inspector registered a case in Crime No.138/2014 of the offence U/Sec. 379 of IPC Sec.27/35 of WALTA Act and Sec.2 of

PDPP Act, 1984 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation the S.I of police examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene and conducted panchanama in the presence of mediators and also conducted seizure panchanama in the presence of same mediators. On 04­03­ 2015 at about 11.00 hours accused surrendered before the Lw5 and he secured same mediators and conducted confession panchanama and later he issued Sec.41­A Cr.P.C notice to accused and after the following due procedure he released the accused.

After completion of investigation charge sheet is filed for the offences U/Sec. 379 of IPC Sec.27/35 of WALTA Act and Sec.2 of

PDPP Act, 1984.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offences under section

C.C.No.78 of 2015 Page 3 379 of IPC Sec.27/35 of WALTA Act and Sec.2 of PDPP Act, 1984 against the accused. 

4. On appearance of accused the copies of case record were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. 

5. Accused is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C with reference to the accusation leveled against him in the charge sheet for which he denied the same. Charges U/Sec. 379 of IPC

Sec.27/35 of WALTA Act and Sec.2 of PDPP Act, 1984 are framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove it's case prosecution examined P.Ws1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. 

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused is examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining him the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu, for which he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under sections 379 of IPC

Sec.27/35 of WALTA Act and Sec.2 of PDPP Act, 1984 is beyond reasonable doubt or not ?

POINT

9.This case was registered on the report of the VRO of

Koukuntla village. He is examined as Pw1 and his report is marked as Ex.P1. Pw2 is the Kavalikar who accompanied Pw1 to the place of the offence. Pws.3 and 4 are the mediators to the scene of offence and seizure panchanama and also to the confession panchanama. Pw5 is the investigating officer. The evidence of all

C.C.No.78 of 2015 Page 4 these witnesses is very much available on record in the shape of depositions. The same is not retreating herein to avoid repetition.

The same will be appreciated at the relevant points.

10.The gist of the evidence Pw1 is that on 21.02.2015 at about 04.30 A.M., he received reliable information about illegal transportation of sand at Varne stream, then he along with Pw2 proceeded towards Varne stream, there at about 05.00 A.M., they noticed one DCM vehicle registration bearing No.AP22­Y­0752 coming in opposite direction with sand load. It is his further evidence that he stopped the said vehicle and asked the driver to show the permit, but the driver failed to produce the same and fled away from there. Except the vehicle number Pw2 deposed on the same lines of the evidence of Pw1. The evidence of the accused through cross examination of these witnesses is one of the total denial. Accused has the constitutional right to maintain silence and it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reason doubt. 

11.The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is that they found the DCM vehicle bearing No.AP22­Y­0752 in which sand was being transporting illegally. Both these witnesses identified the accused as driver of the DCM vehicle. But in their evidence they did not state anything whether they know the driver of the DCM vehicle prior to the alleged offence or they came to know his details at the scene of offence. During the cross examination, Pw1 admitted that he do not have any prior acquaintance with the accused he came to know about the name of the accused subsequently while enquiring.

In Ex.P1 report also Pw1 mentioned that subsequent to the offence he came to know the name of the driver of the vehicle as Vakiti

Anjaneyulu. The time of the alleged noticing of offence is at 04:30

A.M. Both Pws.1 and 2 during their cross examination admitted that it was dark at the time of their noticing the offence. In this

C.C.No.78 of 2015 Page 5 regard the evidence of Pw5 is that on 04.03.2015 at 11.00 hours accused himself surrendered before him and confessed the commission of offence. But it is not the evidence of Pw5 that he collected any document in proof of ownership of the DCM vehicle or any document to show the concern of the accused with DCM vehicle. In these circumstances it can safely be said that the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 identifying the accused as the driver of the

DCM vehicle cannot be believed in toto. Further Pw5 did not examine any independent witnesses showing the concern of the accused with the DCM vehicle.

11.With regard to the seizure of the sand vehicle, the evidence of

Pw5 is that he seized the sand vehicle in the presence of Lws.3 and 4 under cover of panchanama which is marked as Ex.P9. But the mediators/Pws.3 and 4 did not support the panchanama proceedings said to have held by Pw5. Their evidence is that about 4 years back police obtained their signatures on blank papers, they did not know the purpose for taking their signatures which are marked as Exs.P3 and P6. Even during the cross of their examination by the learned APP after declaring them hostile nothing favour could be elicited.

12.It is the evidence of Pw5 that the accused confessed his guilt of the commission of the offence and that he recorded the same in the presence of Pws.3 and 4. The said confession a mere confession which is inadmissible in evidence. However the above said mediators Pws.3 and 4 did not support the confession panchanama proceedings.

13.It is no doubt true that one DCM bearing registration

No.AP22­Y­0752 was produced by Pws.1 and 2 before Pw5, as the same was produced before the court. But the identify of the driver of the vehicle is not establishing through the evidence of Pws.1 and

2. Pw5 has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to connect the

C.C.No.78 of 2015 Page 6 offence with the accused. In these circumstances, in view of the insufficient evidence of Pws.1 and 2 it can safely be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thus benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused.

14.In the result the accused is found not guilty of the offences under sections. 379 of IPC and Sec. 21(1) Mines and

Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957, Sec.3 of PDPP Act, 1984 in the alternative and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1)Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The sand action amount of Rs.2000/­ which is paid through challan No.215 dated 16.04.2015 is ordered to be confiscated to the State. The DCM bearing No.AP22­Y­0752 is returned to the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad vide Writ Petition No.4498 of 2015.

Dictated to Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 20 th day of February, 2020 .

Sd/­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Wanaparthy FAC Atmakur­A. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE PW­1: Ramanjaneylulu ­ None ­ PW­2: K.Kurumurthy PW­3: D.Anjaiah PW­4: G.Ravi Kumar PW­5: M.Vinay Kumar Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : PROSECUTION Ex.P1: Police complaint. Ex.P2: Portion of signature of Pw3 on confession panchanama. Ex.P3: Portion of signature of Pw3 on seizure panchanama. Ex.P4:Portion of signature of Pw3 on CDF. Ex.P5: Portion of signature of Pw4 on confession panchanama. Ex.P6: Portion of signature of Pw5 on seizure panchanama. Ex.P7:Portion of signature of Pw6 on CDF. Ex.P8: FIR. Ex.P9: Seizure panchanama.

C.C.No.78 of 2015 Page 7

Ex.P10: Confession panchanama. Ex.P11: Challan. EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : DEFENCE: ­­NIL­­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­­NIL— Sd/­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Wanaparthy FAC Atmakur­A. 

DVC.No.10 of 2018 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: ATMAKUR­A.

Present: Smt.D.Indira, FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur.

Thursday, this the 27 th day of February, 2020

D.V.C.No.10 of 2018

Between:

Salavath Balamma W/o Lambadi Shanker @ Sarya Naik, Age: 38 Years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Buddavani Thanda, Jangareddypally, Marikal Mandal (Previously Narva Mandal). …Petitioner.

And

1. Lambadi Shanker @ Sarya Naik S/o Eetya Naik, Age: 42 years, Occ; Coolie, R/o Buddavani Thanda, Jangareddypally, Marikal Mandal (Previously Narva Mandal).

2. Pandu Naik S/o Thavurya Naik, Age: 38 years, Occ; Coolie, R/o Buddavani Thanda, Jangareddypally, Marikal Mandal (Previously Narva Mandal).

3. Smt.Kamalamma W/o Pandu Naik, Age: 25 years, Occ; Coolie, R/o Buddavani Thanda, Jangareddypally, Marikal Mandal (Previously Narva Mandal).

...Respondents.

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 13.2.2020 in the presence of Sri B.V.Rathnam, Advocate for the petitioner and of Respondents set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

:: O R D E R ::

This petition is filed by wife against her husband and his relatives under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') complaining

Domestic Violence against them and seeking. 

DVC.No.10 of 2018 Page 2

(i) Order for maintenance of Rs.10,000/­ per month under section 20 of the Act from the date of the filing of the DVC.

(ii)Order the respondents to pay Rs.10,00,000/­ towards compensation under section 22 of the Act.

(iii) Order to return the dowry of Rs.1,00,000/­, 1 tulas of gold and 10 tulas of silver ornaments to the aggrieved person under section 20 of the Act and

(iv) Order to provide shelter from respondent No.1 under section 18 of the Act.

(v)To pass protection orders.

2.The aggrieved person presented her application before the

Court, the same was registered as domestic violence case against respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the process was issued as contemplated under Section 13 of the Domestic Act. Though notices are served on the respondents Nos.1 to 3 they did not appear before the Court and remained exparte.

3.The case of the Aggrieved person as averred in the complaint, in brief, is as follows:

(i) She is the legally wedded wife of Respondent No.1 and their marriage was performed prior to 25 years from the date of this complaint at Buddavani Thand of Jangaraeddypally village of Marikal Mandal as per the customs and rites prevailing in their community and the same is subsisting. Respondent No.2 is

DVC.No.10 of 2018 Page 3 the father’s brother i.e., uncle and Respondent No.3 is the wife of respondent No.2.

(ii) At the time of marriage her parents provided

Rs.1,00,000/­ net cash, 2 tulas gold and 10 tuals silver ornaments towards dowry as per the demand of the respondents.

After the marriage she joined with the company of respondents.

During the marriage they lived happily and blessed with one female child namely P.Lalitha. Respondent No.1 is the innocent and he is puppet in the hands of respondent Nos.2 and 3, then he started harassing her physically and mentally for want of

additional dowry with the instigation of other respondents. All

the respondents beat her and used to force her to attend heinous works like to clean the lavatories, to wash the clothes of all the family members and also bring water etc., and that without taking any rest in entire day she was ordered to attend the above said works continuously without providing any food to her. 

(iii) From the last two years all the respondents driven out her from their matrimonial home, though she wept and bargained them with a request not to sent her from the matrimonial home, but they did not care her request and thrown her in the nights and caused her to stay outside the home for entire night and that in the early morning all the respondents

DVC.No.10 of 2018 Page 4 beat her and warned her to kill if she will not quit there house.

As such she went to her parents, narrated the things for which her parents requested respondent No.1 to take back her but the respondent No.1 did not accept the same and moreover night he called her by phone and abused her with dire consequences.

(iv) She suffered a lot in the hands of the respondents. She is unable to maintain herself. Respondent No.1 is agriculturist and he is having land to an extent of Ac.1­59 cents in

Sy.No.611/Aa3 at Buddavani thanda of Jangareddypally of

Marikal and earning good income from his agriculture work and prayed to grant the reliefs as prayed for. 

4.Respondents 1 to 3 remained exparte. 

5.On the basis of the averments in the application and the evidence of the aggrieved person the following points would arise for consideration.

1. Whether there was domestic violence towards the Aggrieved person by the respondents 1 to 3 or not? If so whether she is entitled for any reliefs ?

2. Whether the Aggrieved person is entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/­ per month as claimed under section 20 of the Act or not ?

3. Whether the Aggrieved person is entitled for a direction to the respondents to return the cash dowry of Rs.1,00,000 and 1 tula of gold and 10 tulas of silver as prayed for ?

4. Whether the Aggrieved person is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.10 lakhs under section 22 of the Act or not?

5. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for residence order under section 19 of D.V Act or not ?

6. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for protection order under section 18 of the Act or not ?

7. To what relief?

DVC.No.10 of 2018 Page 5

6.On behalf of the Aggrieved person, she examined herself as

PW1 and no documents were marked.

POINT No.1

The evidence of Pw1 is that on the demand of the respondents, her parents have presented dowry of Rs.1,00,000, 2 tula of gold and 10 tulas of silver ornaments towards dowry.

She gave birth to one daughter namely P.Lalitha. After the marriage she lead happy marital life. Since beginning respondent

No.1 is innocent, but at the instigation of respondent Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.1 started to harass her with pretext that the dowry given was less and used to beat her without any reason with a claim that he is in need of additional dowry. At the instigation of respondents No.2 and 3 only, respondent No.1 always forced her to tease, humiliate her to get additional dowry from her father. All the respondents used to beat her and used to force her to attend heinous works like to clean the lavatories, to wash the cloths all the family members, to bring water etc., without giving rest to her. According to Pw1, all the respondents driven her form out of the marital home and warned her to kill and having no other option she came to her parent’s home. The evidence of Pw1 remained unchallenged. The evidence of Pw1 shows that only due to the acts of respondent No.1 she is staying separately from him. According to her, she has no source of

DVC.No.10 of 2018 Page 6 income and is starving for food. The evidence of Pw1 proves that respondent No.1 is abusing her economically which act come under domestic violence as defined under section 3 of Act.

Except stating that respondent Nos.2 and 3 used to instigate respondent No.1 to demand her to bring additional dowry and instigate respondent No.1 to harass her, nothing is stated against the other respondents and no specific incident of domestic violence is stated against them. Accordingly this point is answered holding that respondent No.1 caused domestic violence and the aggrieved person is entitled to claim reliefs only from respondent No.1.

Point Nos.2 and 5:­

According to Pw1 respondent No.1 is agriculturist and he is having land to an extent of Ac.1­59 cents in Sy.No.611/Aa3 at his village Buddavani thanda of Jangareddypally of Marikal. But no proof is filed. She prayed to direct the respondent No.1 to provide shelter for her stay. She has one daughter by name

P.Lalitha and she has also the responsibility of maintaining her daughter. The aggrieved person requires amount for her food, cloths, medical expenses, shelter and other immediate basic needs for herself and for her daughter. Keeping in mind the requirement of the aggrieved person and the status of the respondent No.1, this court is of the view that granting an

DVC.No.10 of 2018 Page 7 amount of Rs.10,000/­ per month towards her maintenance and shelter would meet the interest of justice. These two points are answered accordingly

Point No.3:

The evidence of aggrieved person is not sufficient to award compensation and this point is answered accordingly. 

Point No.4:

Except stating that at the time of marriage her parents provided Rs.1,00,000/­, 1 tual gold and 10 tulas silver ornaments to respondent No.1, no documentary proof is filed to establish the same. Hence this point is answered accordingly holding that she is not entitled for this relief.

Point No.6:

Aggrieved person and respondent No.1 are staying separately from each other. It is also not the case of the aggrieved person that he is coming to her and threatening for anything or for any reason. Hence this court is of the view that

DVC.No.10 of 2018 Page 8 there is no need to grant protection order. This point is answered accordingly. 

24.Point No.7:­ In the result,this DVC is allowed in part as follows.

(i)directing respondent No.1 to pay Rs.10,000/­ per month to the aggrieved person towards her maintenance and shelter, from the date of filing of the DVC. Respondent No.1 shall pay the arrears of the amount till January, 2020 within one month from the date of this order and continue to pay the same on or before 10th of every succeeding month;

(ii)Respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.2000/­ towards the cost of the DVC.

(iii) This petition insofar as the other reliefs are concerned and entirely against respondents No.2 and 3 is dismissed.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27 th day of February, 2020.

Sd/­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

 Wanaparthy FAC Atmakur­A. 

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined:

Petitioner: Respondents:

PW1: Salavath Balamma ­NIL­

Exhibits marked for

Petitioner: ­NIL­

DVC.No.10 of 2018 Page 9

Respondents: ­NIL­ Sd/­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

 Wanaparthy FAC Atmakur­A. 

51

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

WANAPARTHY.

Wednesday the 25" day of August, 2021

Present: Smt D.Indira, Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

9.5.No.163 of 2021

Between-

Pullur Bharath Reddy S/o Pullur Ram Reddly, Age about 58 years, occupation agricutlure R/o Danthanoor village of Madanapurm mandal in Wanaparthy District. . Plaintiff

And

Uppari Narayana s/o Uppari Narasimhulu, age about 50 years, occupation agriculture and brickmanufacturer R/o Danthanoor village of Madanapuram mandal in Wanaparthy District. .Defendant

This suit came before me for final hearing on 24.08.2021 in the presence of Sri K.Mohan Kumar, Sri K.Venkat Ramana, Advocates for the Plaintiff and the defendant has been set exparte, and upon perusing the ,mäterial papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the coutdelivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This $ulf is filed for recovery of Rs.85,164.00 with costs and interest at the rate of 2% per month per hundred from the date of the suit till the date of realisation.

2. The brief facts of plaint are that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintif on 26.07.2018 for his family necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day in the presence of witnesses agreeing to repay the same with interest Rs.2-00 per month per hundredand to repay the same as and when demanded. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant postponed the matter on one or other pretext and finally on 21.06.2021 plaintiff demanded the defendant for payment of amount, but the defendant refused to pay the amount. Hence, he filed this suit.

In splte of recelpt of summons the defendant did not appear 3.

before this court and thus remained exparte.

Plaintiff fled his chief affldavlt as PW1 and marked the original promissory note Dt:26.07.2018, offlce copy of legal notice, postal receipt and served post acknowledgment as Exs.A1 to A4.

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6. Plaintiff fled hls chlef examination affldavlt as PWI re iterating the contents of the complalnt. The evldence of PWI Is that on 26.07.2018 the defendant had approached hlm at hls house Danthanoor and borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- for his famlly and bus1ness necessitles and executed a promissory note In his favour and marked the promissory note as Ex.A1. The evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 remalned un challenged. It is the further evidence of PW1 that he Issued a legal notice calling upon

the defengant to repay the amount but the defendant has falled to repay

the loan ambunt with Interest and relled on Ex.A2. The evldence of PW1

Coupled.with ExA1 Bo A4 proves the sult clalim and the plalntiff ls entltled

for the sult amount.

5 In the résult, the suit Is decreed for Rs.85,164/- (Rupees Elghty

Five thousahd and one hundred and slxty four only) together wlth costs

and interest at the rate of 12% PA from the date of sult tll the date of decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principle amount of Rs.50,000/-from the date of decree tll reallization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me In the open court this the 25h day of August, 2021.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

WANAPARTHY

: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined:

Plaintif

Defendant: PW.1: Pullur Bharath Reddy None.

Exhiblts marked for PlaintiffDefendant: Nil. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note Dt:26.07.2018. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice Dt:21.06.2021 Ex.A3 is the postal receipt Ex.P4 is the postal acknowledgement.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

WANAPARTHY

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

WANAPARTHY.

Wednesday the 25h day of August, 2021

Present: Smt D.Indira, Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

0.S.No.164of 2021

Between

Pullur Bharath Reddy S/o Pullur Ram Reddy, Age about 58 years, occupation agricutlure R/o Danthanoor village of Madanapurm mandal in Wanaparthy District. .Plaintiff

And

Uppari Narayana s/o Uppari Narasimhulu, age about 50 years, ocCupation agriculture and brickmanufacturer R/o Danthanoor village of Madanapuram mandal in Wanaparthy District. . Defendant ** This suitcamebefore me for final hearing on 24.08.2021 in the presence of Sri KMöhan Kumar, Sri K.Venkat Ramana, Advocates for the Plaintiff and the defendant has been set exparte, and upon perusing the aterial papers gn record and having stood over for consideration till this day.the court délivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,68,789/- with costs and interest at the rate of 2% per month per hundred from the date of the suit till the date of realisation.

2. The brief facts of plaint are that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 19.08.2018 for his family necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintíf on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest Rs.2-00 per month per hundred and to repay the same as and when demanded. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant post poned the matter on one cr other pretext did not repay the same and. Finally on 21.06.2021 plaintif demanded the defendant for payment of amount, but the defendant refused to pay the amount. Hence, he filed this suit.

3. In spite of receipt of summons the defendant did not appear

before this court and thus remained exparte.

4. Plaintiff filed his chief affidavit as PW1 and markedthe

original promissory note Dt:19.08.2018, office copy of legal notice, postal

receipt and served postal acknowledgment as Exs.A1 to A4.

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6. Plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit as PW1 re- iterating the contents of the plaint.The evidence of PW1 is that on 19.08.2018 the defendant had approached him at his house Danthanoor and borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for his family and business necessities and executed a promissory note in his favour and marked the promissory note as Ex.A1. The evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 remained un challenged. It is the further evidence of PW1 that he issued a legal notice

Caihg opon the defendant to repay the amount but the defendant has

failedto repaythe loan amount with interest and relied on Ex.A2 to A4.

The evidedçe bf pw1 coupled with Ex.A1 proves the suit claim and the

plainhff is entitled for the suit amount.

nthe result, the suit is decreed for Rs.1,68,789-00 (Rupees One

Lakh Sixty Eighty thousand and Seven hundred eighty nine only) together

with costs and interest at the rate of 12% PA from the date of suit til the date of decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principle amountof Rs.1,00,000/-from the date of decree till realization. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 24 day of August, 2021.

JUNTOR CIVIL JUDGE

WANAPARTHY.

: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined: Plaintiff: Defendant: P.W.1: Pullur Bharath Reddy None.

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff Defendant: Nil. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note Dt:19.08.2018 Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice Ex.A3 is the postal receipt Ex.P4 is the postal acknowledgement.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

WANAPARTHY