Devan Ajay Kumar

CC No.86/2016, 1st AJCJ, Gurazala,

Dated: 20.12.2017

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GURAZALA

PRESENT: S RI . D EVAN A JAY K UMAR , I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Wednesday, the 20h day of December, 2017

C.C.No.86/2016

Between: State:Sub-Inspector of Police, Karempudi P.S. (Cr.No.21/2016)

... Complainant

And

1. Koritala Hari Krishna, S/o.Siva Rama Krishna, 26 years.

2. Koritala Siva Rama Krishna, S/o.Koteswara Rao, 55 years.

3. Koritala Koteswaramma, W/o.Siva Rama Krishna, 50 years.

All are R/o.Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming up before me on 11-12-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and Sri K.Kaspar Reddy, Learned Advocate for Accused and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court made the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1.A1 to A3 are prosecuted for the offence U/s.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code (In short IPC), sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (In short

DP.Act).

2.The defacto complainant, Koritala Anantha Lakshmi/P.W.1 is married to

A1 on 16.12.2014 at Chintapalli village as per their caste customs. A2 and A3 are parents of A1. P.W.2 is father of P.W.1. It is alleged that at on the demand of A1 to A3 at the time of marriage, the parents of

P.W.1 had given Rs.3,00,000/- cash, gold ornaments worth of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and incurred Rs.6,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. After the marriage P.W.1 joined A1 and they both lived happily for 3 months and subsequently A1 started harassing

P.W.1, both mentally and physically for want of additional dowry and land. A2 and A3 used to instigated A1. It is further alleged that A1 is doing business at Hyderabad and used to visit his parents house where

P.W.1 has been residing and he used to suspected her fidelity. Unable to bear the harassment P.W.1 left to her parents house and later several mediations had taken place before the village elders but A1 had refused to accept P.W.1 and instead wanted divorce.

1 of 9

CC No.86/2016, 1st AJCJ, Gurazala,

Dated: 20.12.2017

3.P.W.1 got filed a private complaint and same was referred to Karempudi

P.S. P.W.6/T.Peda Narayana Swamy, SI of police, registered a case in

Cr.No.21/2016, U/s.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act and tookup investigation. He examined the availabe witnesses and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C notices were issued to accused and on 30.03.2016, A1 to A3 were released on self bonds. On completion of investigation charge sheet has been laid down.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence U/s.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act. On appearing of the accused, copies required

U/s.207 of Cr.P.C, had been furnised and they were examined. Charge for the offence U/s.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, sec.3 & 4 of D.P Act had been framed. As the accused pleaded not guilty, the case came up for trial, wherein the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and exhibited

P.1 to P3, in detail mentioned in the appendix of evidence annexed hereunder. The evidence of L.W.3/Unnam Nageswara Rao,

L.W.5/Karnati Venkateswarlu were given up by learned APP. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded U/s.313 of Cr.P.C and their case is of total denial. No evidence is produced for them but they relied upon the contradictions, Ex.D1 to D4.

5.Heard the learned APP and learned defense counsel. Perused the material on record. The learned APP has argued that; 5.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is consistent with the prosecution case and she has categorically stated about the harassment meted out in the hands of A1 to A3 for want of additional dowry. She has categorically stated that when she was pregnant for 5th month she received a telephone call from some unknown person and since then she has been harassed by suspecting her character and later mediations were held in the presence of elders and in the said mediations also the accused demanded the additional dowry.

5.2. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated in material aspects by

P.W.2 and further more corroborated by P.Ws.3 to 5.

2 of 9

CC No.86/2016, 1st AJCJ, Gurazala,

Dated: 20.12.2017

5.3. P.W.4 is one of the mediator and he categorically stated about the demand of the dowry by the accused and whereas P.W.5 is a grand mother of P.W.1 and she also spoke about the demand of

additional dowry and all the above evidence clearly constitutes

an offence U/s.498-A of IPC and 3 & 4 of D.P.Act and accordingly all the accused are liable to be punished.

6.Per contra, the learned defense counsel has argued that; 6.1. Several facts had been supressed by P.W.1 and her family members and the person who approachs this court by supressing the mater facts is not entitled for any relief. The learned defense counsel has taken this court through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and pointed out several instances to establish that there are supression of facts. It has been argued that the marriage between P.W.1 and A1 has taken place at Srisailam but the same is stated to have been peformed at the parents house of P.W.1 by incurring Rs.6,00,000/- which is totally false. The real facts have been supressed with a malice to harass all the accused to bring to their terms and accordingly Ex.P.1 is brought into existence and accused have never committed any offence.

6.2. The entire reading of Ex.P.1 does not disclose the dates and events when P.W.1 was subjected to harassment and a omini bus allegations has been made which cannot be believed. it has been argued that admittedly mediatios were held by the accused at

Karempudi village and admittedly no mediation was conducted by the parents of P.W.1 and if really P.W.1 was harassed for

additional dowry the matter would have been placed before the

village elders which is not found in the instant case, which in turn suggest that no harassment has been taken place.

6.3. The learned defense counsel took this court through the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 to show that the entire case of the prosecution is false. It was pointed out that as per the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, one of the village elders is P.W.3 but whereas this witnesses, i.e., P.W.3 has stated that he never participated in the mediations. The evidence of P.W.4 also cannot relied upon as she has stated that P.W.1 and A1 have also participated in the 3 of 9

CC No.86/2016, 1st AJCJ, Gurazala,

Dated: 20.12.2017

mediations, which is inconsistent with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who have stated that P.W.1 has not participated in the mediations at all.

6.4. It has been further argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is also inconsistent with Ex.P.1 and there are several descripancies and hence there evidence cannot be relied upon. It has been argued that as per the evidence of P.W.1, the main purpose of holding the mediations was for the demand of additional dowry and not because of A1 suspecting her character but as per Ex.P.1

A1 used to suspect her fidelity. It has been further argued that as per Ex.P1 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, A1 wanted divorce from P.W.1 and in these circumstance the question of accused demanding additional dowry does not arise at all. For all the above reasons the prosecution case has to fail.

7.Now the point for determination is : 1) Whether P.W.1 was subjected to cruelty for wantof additional dowry ? 2) Whether dowry of

Rs.3,00,000/- and gold ornaments worth of Rs.2,00,000/- were given as dowry to A1 to A3 ? 3) Whether A1 to A3 demanded additional dowry from P.W.1 ? 4) Whether P.W.1 was criminal intimidation by the accused ?

8.Point No.1 to 4: As all the points are interconnected with each other and in order to avoid reputation of evidence all these points are taken up together.

9.Ex.P.1 is the private complaint basing on it the criminal law was put into motion. As per the said document it is alleged that the marriage of

A1 was perform with P.W.1 at the Chintapalli village i.e, parents house of P.W.1 and cash of Rs.3,00,000/-, 10 sovs., of gold ornaments worth of Rs.2,00,000/- was given towards dowry and Rs.6,00,000/- was incurring towards marriage expenses. It is further alleged that A1 has developed suspicion on P.W.1 and used to harass her and it is further alleged that A1 demanded P.W.1 to bring 4 sovs., of gold chain and

Ac.1.00 of land towards additional dowry and A2 and A3 had instigated

A1.

10.Rule of based evidence says that a best evidence is to be produced to 4 of 9

CC No.86/2016, 1st AJCJ, Gurazala,

Dated: 20.12.2017

establish a particular fact. P.Ws.1 and 2 claim that Rs.3,00,000/- dowry and gold ornaments worth of Rs.2,00,000/- were given to the accused and Rs.6,00,000/- was incurring towards marriage expenses. But except making on oath on oath no documentary evidence is produced.

Generally the parents of the bride save money to perform the marriage of their daughter and it can be assumed that huge expenses are incurred for the marriage. But in the instant matter certain material is elicited from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 which clearly suggest that the real facts are supressed by P.Ws.1 and 2.

11.P.Ws.1 and 2 claimed that marriage was performed at Chintapalli village but the evidence on record shows otherwise. P.W.1 has stated in her cross examination that her marriage was performed in a function hall in her village but she does not know its name. This witness denied the suggestion that her marriage was performed at Kakatiya Anna

Satra Sangam at Srisailam on 06.12.2014. She further stated that her marriage was performed at night hours of 06.12.2014 i.e., about 00.15 mid night of 07.12.2017 and after the marriage they went to Srisailam in 3 jeeps with all family members and again at Srisailam the marriage was performed with all formalities. She further stated that

Rs.6,00,000/- was given towards marriage expenses and marriage was performed by her parents. She further stated that her parents did not incured Rs.6,00,000/- while performing her marriage at their village.

From the evidence of P.W.2 it is elicited that on the date of marriage

P.W.2 went to Srisailam at 6.00 AM and A1 tied mangalsutram to P.W.1 at Srisailam.

12.Ex.P.1 is use to corroborate and contradict the informant i.e, P.W.1.

When Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.1 are read together a contradiction is found in Ex.P.1. In Ex.P1 it is mentioned that the marriage was performed at Chintapalli by incurring Rs.6,00,000/- but whereas P.W.1 in her evidence stated that Rs.6,00,000/- were given to accused, which cannot be believed. Apart from this it is found that

P.W.1 is shifting her stand from time to time. She goes to say that her marriage was performed twice once at her parents house and again at

Srisailam which is unnatural. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 it is clearly understood that the marriage was not performed at Chintapalli but the same was performed at Srisailam. Thus incurring of

Rs.6,00,000/- by the parents of P.W.1 cannot be believed.

5 of 9

CC No.86/2016, 1st AJCJ, Gurazala,

Dated: 20.12.2017

13.Coming to the next allegation made against the accused. It is alleged in Ex.P.1 that A1 developed suspicion on P.W.1 and started harassing her and additional dowry was also demanded. Even as per what is stated in Ex.P.1 shows that A1 has send the elders to the parents of

P.W.1 and 3 times mediations were held at karempudi and A1 demanded for divorce. If really additional dowry was demanded by A1 to A3 then the question of A1 demanding for divorce in the mediations would not arise at all. If really the additional dowry was demanded by

A1 to A3 then the parents of P.W.1 would have placed the matter

before the elders to mediate the dispute but admittedly the parents of

P.W.1 did not hold any such mediation.

14.Apart from this, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the discussions held in the mediations is also inconsistent. As per Ex.P.1 only the question of A1 demanding divorce was raised in the mediations which was conducted at the instance of A1. But coming to the evidence P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that accused demanded

additional dowry and no discussion came up in the mediations with

regard to the conduct of P.W.1, which is inconsistent with Ex.P.1. Hence the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is found to be unreliable and untrustworthy.

15.Coming to the evidence of other witnesses i.e., P.Ws.3 to 5. P.W.3 is said to be the elders of the village who participated in the mediation but even as per what is stated by him in chief examination shows that he is a hearsay evidence. This witness did not state about the acting of mediation. In the cross examination, this witness admitted that he has not attended any mediation conducted by P.W.1 and accused and he is unaware about the family disputes between P.W.1 and accused and also admitted that P.W.1 has not specifically narrated him the dates and events of harassment of A1 and others. From the evidence of P.W.3 it is clear he is not a mediator and he does not know the family affairs of P.W.1 and accused. Hence his evidence is of no use of the prosecution.

16.P.W.4 is one of the neighbour and distant reliative of P.W.1 and his evidence is that P.W.1 was harassed to sell her Ac.1.00 of land and bring additional dowry and accordingly necked her out and P.W.1 came 6 of 9

CC No.86/2016, 1st AJCJ, Gurazala,

Dated: 20.12.2017

to the house of P.W.2 when she was 5th month pregnant and thereafter after one month a panchayat was held at Karempudi and he along with

P.W.3 and K.Venkateswarlu/L.W.5 had acted as elders and P.W.1 and her family members and A1 to A3 were also present in the said panchayat.

He further stated in the said panchayat, A2 insisted for selling Ac.1.00 of land of P.W.1 or else they would not allow P.W.1 and perform the 2nd marriage of A1.

17.When the evidence of P.W.4 is analysed it is understood that in the mediation both P.W.1 and A1 were also present which is totally against the evidence of P.W.1, who stated that she has not participated in the panchayat. It is understood this witness is trying to support P.W.1 being her relative and hence cannot be relied upon. It is found that the evidence of this witness is inconsistent. In the chief examination this witness stated that P.W.1 has also participated in the mediation. But coming to the cross examination he has stated that P.W.1 did not attend the panchayat. Exs.D2 to D.4 are contradictions pointed out in the evidence of this witness. There are several contradictions of the evidence of this witnesses and hence his evidence cannot be relied upon.

18.P.W.5 is grant mother of P.W.1 and her evidence is that A1 harassed

P.W.1 for Ac.1.00 land and 4 sovs., of gold for establishing a shop at

Hyderabad. She stated that both A1 and P.W.4 were not present in panchayat and in the said panchayat took place 2 or 3 times at R & B

Banglow and she has attended one panchayat. She further stated that the reason for the dispute between P.W.1 and A1 are raised in the panchayat. If really accused were demanding additional dowry the same would have been raised in the panchayat. But even as per what is stated by this witness shows that no such demand was raised in the panchayat.

19.Admittedly, panchayats were held and A1 wanted divorce from P.W.1.

The reason for A1 for claiming divorce is not correctly stated by P.W.1.

Though it is stated in Ex.P.1 that A1 used to suspecting fidelity of P.W.1 and accordingly the mediations were held, the said fact is denied by

P.Ws.1 and 2, which in turn suggest that true facts are being concealed. P.W.2 has spoken that A1 wanted divorce from her daughter as her family is not good, which means the question for holding 7 of 9

CC No.86/2016, 1st AJCJ, Gurazala,

Dated: 20.12.2017

mediation was not with regard to the demand of additional dowry but for some other reason, which was with regard to conduct of P.W.1.

20.The prosecution witnesses did not come up with a true version and several facts are supressed. From the foregoing discussion, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

21.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. Their bail bonds shall be in force for six months from today in view of sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Person Assistant by me, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 20 th day of December, 2017.

Sd/-Devan Ajay Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: None. P.W.1: Koritala Anantha Lakshmi. P.W.2: Unnam Nageswara Rao. P.W.3: Nelapati Sivaiah. P.W.4: Gamidi Purnaiah. P.W.5: Bayyala Sayamma. P.W.6: T.Peda Narayana Swamy, SI of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Private complaint. Ex.P2: FIR. Ex.P3: Rough sketch.

For Defence: Ex.D.1: Some relevent portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.D.2: Some relevent portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.D.3: Some relevent portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.D.4: Some relevent portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil.

Nil.

Sd/-Devan Ajay Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

8 of 9

CC No.86/2016, 1st AJCJ, Gurazala,

Dated: 20.12.2017

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.86/2016 DATE OF :- Offence: 17.03.2016 Complaint: 17.03.2016 Apprehension of accused: 30.03.2016 Released on bail: 30.03.2016 Commencement of trial: 19.09.2016 Close of trial: 11.12.2017 Sentence or order: 20.12.2017

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant: State:Sub-Inspector of police, Krempudi P.S. (Cr.No.21/2016)

Name of the accused

1. Koritala Hari Krishna, S/o.Siva Rama Krishna, 26 years.

2. Koritala Siva Rama Krishna, S/o.Koteswara Rao, 55 years.

3. Koritala Koteswaramma, W/o.Siva Rama Krishna, 50 years.

All are R/o.Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal.

Offence : U/s.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

Finding : Found not guilty U/s.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. Their bail bonds shall be in force for six months from today in view of sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-Devan Ajay Kumar

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. Copy submitted to : 1)The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur. Copy to:

2) The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

9 of 9

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GURAZALA.

Present:-Smt.T.Jyostsna Devi

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Wednesday, this the 20th day of December, 2017

C.C.No.104/2015

Between:- State: Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Gurazala. . . Complainant

And

Mathangi Rambabu. . . Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for filing death certificate of accused in the presence of learned APP for the complainant; this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Gurazala, has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.7-A r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act.

02. Accused called absent. Report of panchayat secretary is filed stating that accused had died. As the accused is the sole accused Hence the case against the accused is abated.

Pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 20th day of December, 2017.

Sd/-Smt.T.Jyostsna Devi

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

NIL

Sd/-Smt.T.Jyostsna Devi

AJCJ, GZL

//True Copy//

AJCJ,GZL

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GURAZALA.

Present:-Smt.T.Jyostsna Devi

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Wednesday, this the 20th day of December, 2017

C.C.No.155/2015

Between:- State: Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Gurazala. . . Complainant

And

Shaik Nagul Meera. . . Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for filing death certificate of accused in the presence of learned APP for the complainant; this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Gurazala, has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.34-A of AP Excise Act.

02. Accused called absent. Report of panchayat secretary is filed stating that accused had died. As the accused is the sole accused Hence the case against the accused is abated.

Pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 20th day of December, 2017.

Sd/-Smt.T.Jyostsna Devi

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

NIL

Sd/-Smt.T.Jyostsna Devi

AJCJ, GZL

//True Copy//

AJCJ,GZL