Sri G. Sai Krishna

C.C.No.705 of 2015, Page 1 of 13 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NUZVID.

Present: Sri G.Sai Krishna,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

Thursday, this the 05th day of March, 2020

C.C.No.705/2015

BETWEEN:

The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction Police Station, Krishna District.

...Complainant.

AND

Majji Nageswara Rao, S/o.Arjuna Rao, 28 Years, T.Kapu, R/o.Nandiwada Village, Mandal.

...Accused.

This case coming on 10­02­2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Babu Rao, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant and of Sri.M.Basava Rao, Advocate for Accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Hanuman Junction Police Station registered a case against the Sole Accused in Crime No.200/2011 for the offences under Sections 498­A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2)The gist of the facts of the case as per the charge sheet are as follows:

P.W.1 is the legally wedded wife of Accused and she is presently resident of K.Sitharampuram Village, Bapulapadu Mandal. The marriage of Accused with P.W.1 was performed in the year 2004 and an amount of Rs.30,000/­was given towards dowry along with wrist watch,

C.C.No.705 of 2015, Page 2 of 13 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020 gold ring. The Accused has been harassing P.W.1 for additional dowry since the time she joined her matrimonial house and he used to demand money for purchase of Auto and also because P.W.1 gave birth to two female child. The Accused necked out P.W.1 and as there is no other way

P.W.1 came to her parents house and has been residing there.

Based on the report of P.W.1, P.Balaswamy, Head Constable 1801 registered the same as First Information Report in Crime

No.200/2011 for the offences under Section 498­A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. 

On 27­12­2011 he arrested the Accused and sent him for remand and later Abdul Salam, Sub Inspector of Police, Hanuman

Junction Police Station took up investigation and verified the same and found it on correct lines and after completion of investigation he filed

Charge Sheet.

3)On completion of investigation by the police and submission of the final report in the matter, this Court took cognizance for the offences

Under Section 498­A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

4)Upon appearance of Sole Accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5)Subsequently, the Accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and charges under Section 498­A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, are framed against him and were read over and explained

C.C.No.705 of 2015, Page 3 of 13 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020 to him in Telugu. The charges were denied by him and he preferred to be tried for the charges against him.

6)During the trial, L.W.1, L.W.2, L.W.3, L.W.5 and L.W.9 were examined as P.Ws.1 to P.W.5 and Exhibit P­1 was marked on behalf of

P.W.1. Exhibit P­2 was marked on behalf of P.W.4. Exhibit P­3 was marked on behalf of P.W.5.

7)On completion of prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to Accused in Telugu and same was denied by them and they reported no defence evidence.

8)On completion of evidence this Court heard arguments of learned Incharge Assistant Public Prosecutor and defence counsel.

9)On perusal of the charge sheet, documents and evidence produced and on hearing the counsels of both sides the following points arise for determination by this Court:

1) a) Whether the Accused subjected P.W.1 to cruelty by

stating that she gave birth to two female children?

b) Whether the Accused demanded additional dowry of

Rs.,30,000/­ from P.W.1 for purchase of Auto and thereby subjected her to cruelty?

2) Whether the Accused received Rs.30,000/­ cash as dowry at the time of marriage from the parents of

P.W.1?

3) Whether the Accused demanded additional dowry of

Rs.30,000/­ from P.W.1?

C.C.No.705 of 2015, Page 4 of 13 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

4) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10)POINT:

P.W.1 deposed in her chief­examination that the Accused is her husband and her parents gave Rs.30,000/­ as Pasupu Kumkuma in addition to wrist watch and gold ring to the Accused at the time of their marriage. That one week after she joined conjugal life, the Accused his parents and brother harassed her by stating she brought less dowry.

P.W.1 further deposed that the Accused used to come home in drunken state and that the Accused harassed her for giving birth to female child in the year 2005. That the Accused insisted that she should bring additional dowry for purchase of an auto and necked her out when she failed to bring the amount. P.W.1 further deposed that after she rejoined Accused, once again when she was in ninth month pregnancy with the second child, the

Accused demanded Rs.30,000/­ to purchase Auto and necked her out.

That the Accused came to her parents house one day before festival and demanded Rs.30,000/­ from her and put a condition that he will take her back only if she meets his demand. That the Accused did not visit her after the birth of second child and one and half months thereafter he came to her parents house and beat her. P.W.1 deposed that after one year the

Accused took away the first child with him. That on the occasion of marriage at her maternal uncle’s house in Nandivada her elder daughter came with her and she later came to know that the Accused filed cases against her and thereafter she filed Report against the Accused.

C.C.No.705 of 2015, Page 5 of 13 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

11)During cross­examination, it is elicited from P.W.1 that P.W.2 is looking after her welfare by running sundry shop and they do not have any movable or immovable properties. P.W.1 admitted that she has been residing in K.Sietharampuram from December, 2007. P.W.1 admitted that within one year after the birth of her first daughter, Panchayat was conducted at Ramalayam in the village of her in­laws in the presence of

P.W.4 and thereafter she returned to Accused who has set up separate family away from her in­laws. P.W.1 stated that after birth of her second child she returned to the Accused and they lived in a rental accommodation for three years. P.W.1 admitted after the birth of second child she underwent family planning operation and the Accused signed on no objection to the operation stating that he does not need more children.

P.W.1 admitted that the Accused used to visit her children in school. P.W.1 stated that she does not know whether she got issued any legal notice to the Accused asking him to take her back or if she filed any objection for restitution of conjugal rights. P.W.1 admitted that the Accused filed case against her in Nandivada Police Station for taking custody of eldest daughter without his permission.

12)P.W.2 deposed that P.W.1 is her daughter and herself presented Rs.30,000/­ to the Accused along with gold ring and wrist watch and that for one year Accused and P.W.1 lived happily. P.W.2 further deposed that after one year Accused started demanding Rs.30,000/­ for purchase of Auto and finally P.W.1 was beaten by the Accused and send home.

C.C.No.705 of 2015, Page 6 of 13 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

13)During cross­examination, P.W.2 admitted that she is a coolie and does not own any bank accounts or properties. P.W.2 further admitted that P.W.1 came to her one month prior to birth of her second child and did not go back to the fold of the Accused after the birth of the child. P.W.2 admitted that the Accused used to visit the school of P.W.1’s children.

P.W.2 stated that the Report was drafted by an Advocate. P.W.2 admitted that only after filing of the Police Complaint by the Accused P.W.1 filed this case and Maintenance Case against the Accused.

14)P.W.3 deposed that P.W.1 is his niece and he came to know that the mother of P.W.1 gave Rs.30,000/­ as dowry along with gold ring to the Accused. P.W.3 deposed that for three or four years Accused and P.W.1 lived happily and he came to know that thereafter the Accused started demanding money for purchase of Auto from P.W.1.

During the cross­examination, P.W.3 admitted that the

Accused used to own Auto even in the past.

15)P.W.4 did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor of the State cross­examined P.W.4 with the permission of the Court, but he could not elicit anything in support of the prosecution case.

16)Perusal of P.W.1 and 2’s evidence discloses that the incriminating evidence broadly covers the following issues.

That the Accused received dowry of Rs.30,000/­ along with other gifts at the time of marriage. That the Accused used to harass P.W.1 because she gave birth to two female children. That the Accused used to demand for additional dowry of Rs.30,000/­ for purchase of an auto. That

C.C.No.705 of 2015, Page 7 of 13 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020 the Accused neglected to look after P.W.1 and her children after the birth of their second child.

17)P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed that an amount of Rs.30,000/­ was given to the Accused towards dowry at the time of marriage of P.W.1.

However P.W.1 admitted in her cross­examination that her father passed away when she was three years old and her mother is earning livelihood by running sundry shop and she does not have any movable or immovable properties. P.W.2 admitted in her cross­examination that she is a coolie and does not own any bank account or properties. The evidence of P.W.3 is not of much help as it states that he came to know that P.W.1 gave

Rs.30,000/­ towards dowry and hence same is hearsay evidence. Except for the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, no other evidence was produced to show that Rs.30,000/­ was given towards dowry and hence same is unreliable. Keeping in view the admissions of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to their financial capacity, this Court is of the opinion that the Accused discharged his burden to prove that no amount was given towards dowry.

Hence, point No.2 is answered in favour of the Accused.

18)Among other things, P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that Accused harassed P.W.1 for giving birth to two female child and he further neglected to look after both the children. However, P.W.1 admitted in cross­examination that the Accused used to visit her children in the school even when she was staying at her parent’s house. P.W.2 also admitted that the Accused used to visit her children at school. P.W.1 also admitted that the Accused signed on no objection document at the time of family planning operation of P.W.1 stating that he does not need more children.

C.C.No.705 of 2015, Page 8 of 13 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

The defence counsel submitted that if the Accused wanted male children, he would not have consented to the conduct of family planning operation of P.W.1. Therefore the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the Accused did not like birth of female children is doubtful. Moreover, P.W.1 despite stating in her chief­examination that the Accused necked her out after the birth of first child, admitted in her cross­examination that after she rejoined

Accused both of them have set up separate family away from her in­laws.

This itself shows that the main reason for the first dispute between the

Accused and P.W.1 is not about birth of female child. Therefore point

No.1 (a) is answered in favour of the Accused.

19)The main allegation of P.W.1 and 2 is that the Accused used to demand for Rs.30,000/­ for purchase of Auto. According to P.W.1 within one week after she joined marital life, Accused used to say that the dowry brought by her is not sufficient and that after the birth of first child, the

Accused demanded money for purchase of Auto. P.W.1 further deposed that when she was pregnant with the second child, the accused once again demanded for Rs.30,000/­ from her and necked her out because she failed to meet his demand. However in the cross­examination P.W.1 admitted that she came to her parents house in December, 2007 and since then she did not go back to the Accused. P.W.2 also admitted that P.W.1 came to her one month prior to birth of second child and did not join the Accused after the birth of the second child. On the other hand, P.W.2 deposed that the Accused and P.W.1 lived happily for one year. P.W.3 deposed that the

Accused lived happily for 3 or 4 years. The above inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.1 vis­a­vis her cross­examination and the evidence of

C.C.No.705 of 2015, Page 9 of 13 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

P.Ws.2 and 3 prove that P.W.1 was never necked out of the house by the

Accused when she was pregnant. This fact is further supported by admissions of P.W.1 that since December, 2007 she did not got issued any legal notice to the Accused asking him to take her back or that she did not file any petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Further P.W.3 admitted that the Accused owned Auto even in the past.

20)The evidence of P.W.1 on the above aspect of demand for

additional dowry is rendered doubtful on account of her other admissions.

P.W.1 admitted that her elder daughter came along with her on the occasion of marriage function at her maternal uncle’s house and this was followed by police complaint lodged by the Accused against her. Both

P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted that they filed this case in December, 2011 after the Accused filed Police Complaint against P.W.1 for taking away her elder daughter from the custody of the Accused. Admittedly P.W.1 was staying at her mother’s house since December, 2007 and failed to make any attempt to join back the Accused. P.W.1 did not got issued any legal notice to the Accused seeking accused to take her back. The Police Complaint was filed much later after the Accused filed a Police Complaint against her.

P.W.5 admitted that P.W.1 has been staying at parents house even prior to the Report and she did not mention any reason for the delay in lodging the

Report. The aforesaid admitted facts and circumstances throw serious doubt on the credibility of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about demand for

additional dowry. Hence, it can be said that the Accused discharged the

burden to prove that he did not demand for additional dowry from P.W.1 or

C.C.No.705 of 2015, Page 10 of 13 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

P.W.2. Hence point No.1 (b) and Point NO.3 are answered in favour of the Accused.

21)In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be said the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

22)POINT NO;4

In the result, the Accused is hereby found not guilty for the offences under Section 498­A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and he is hereby acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the offences under Section 498­A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­III, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 5th day of March, 2020.

Sd/­G.Sai Krishna, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF 

PROSECUTION DEFENCE; ­NONE­ P.W.1­M.Yesu Krupa.

P.W.2­P.Adilakshmi.

P.W.3­Majji Venkata Narayana.

P.W.4­Puchala Simhachalam.

P.W.5­P.Bala Swamy.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P­1­Report of P.W.1.

Ex.P­2­161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P­3­Original First Information Report in Crime No.200/2011 of Hanuman Junction P.S.,

C.C.No.705 of 2015, Page 11 of 13 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

­NIL­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­NIL­

Sd/­G.Sai Krishna, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

//True Copy//

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

C.C.No.705 of 2015, Page 12 of 13 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIABLE ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, NUZVID

C.C.No.705 of 2015

DATES OF:

1. Date of Offence : 08-11-2011

2. Date of Taken on file : 30-03-2012

3. Date of Apprehension of Accused : 27-12-2011

4. Date of Commencement of Trial : 04-10-2016

5. Date of Close of Trial : 11-07-2019

6. Date of Judgment : 05-03-2020

7. Name of the Complainant : The Sub Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction.

8. Name of the Accused Majji Nageswara Rao, S/o.Arjuna Rao,28Years,T.Kapu, R/o.Nandiwada Village, Mandal.

09. Offence : U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and SS.3 & 4 of DP Act.

10. Plea of Accused. : NOT GUILTY.

11. Finding : FOUND NOT GUILTY.

12. Result : Accused is hereby found not guilty for the offences under Section 498­A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act are hereby acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences under

Section 498­A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. No orders as to the case property, as there is no case property in this case.

13. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file against the Accused for the offence under Section 498­A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P Act. On 12­01­2016, Accused is present. Copies of documents furnished to them u/sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 29­01­2016 The Accused is present and he was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. Prosecution side evidence is commenced from 04­10­2016 and closed on 11­07­2019. On 27-01-2020 Accused is present and he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported

C.C.No.705 of 2015, Page 13 of 13 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020 no defence evidence. On 30-01-2020, Heard arguments of A.P.P. On 10-02-2020 Heard arguments of counsel for Accused. On 05-03-2020, Accused is present. Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.297 of 2019, Page 1 of 9 I A.J.M.F.C.

Dt. 19.03.2020 FAC:II AJMFC, Nuzvid.

IN THE COURT OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID.

Present :- Sri. C.K.V.SATYAKANTH KUMAR,

FIRST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

FAC: II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

Thursday, this the Fourteenth [19th]day of March, 2020

C.C.No.297 of 2019

Between:

The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction Police Station. … COMPLAINANT

And

1) Akula Durga Prasad, S/o.Siva, 26 Years, Turpu Kapu, Nallapadu

Road, Lakshminagar Near Mirchi Yard, Guntur.

2) Akula Ramanama, W/o.Siva, 50 Years, Turpu Kapu, Nallapadu Road,

Lakshminagar Near Mirchi Yard, Guntur.

3) Kathiri Kanka Maha Lakshmi @ Kanka Lakshmi, W/o.Sreenu, 25

Years, Turpu Kapu, Dubacharla Village, Nallajarla Mandal, West

Godavari District.

4) Somaraju Lakshmi Malleswari @ Malleswari, W/o.Apparao, 35

Years, Turpu Kapu, RMS Colony, Eluru.

…ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4.

*****

This Case, coming before me on 11.03.2020, in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, for Prosecution; and Sri L.Raja Rao, Advocate for the Accused; and upon hearing the Arguments on the side of both Parties; and upon perusal of the entire material available on record, and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction Police

Station has filed Charge-sheet against the Accused Nos.1 to 4, for the offences under Section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.284/2018 of Hanuman

Junction Police Station.

C.C.No.297 of 2019, Page 2 of 9 I A.J.M.F.C.

Dt. 19.03.2020 FAC:II AJMFC, Nuzvid.

2.The Case of the Prosecution, as per the Charge-sheet, in brief, is as follows:-

The De-facto Complainant, namely, Akula Sri Naga Rupa

Rani [LW.1] is the wife of Accused No.1 viz., Akula Durga Prasad.

The marriage of Akula Sri Naga Rupa Rani [LW.1] was celebrated with Accused No.1 on 3rd May, 2015 at Guntur in the presence of elders; and at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.2 lakhs as dowry to A-1 and 2 sovereigns of gold and also gave

Rs.10,000/- as Adapaduchu Katnam and later she joined with the

Accused No.1 to lead marital life along with Rs.50,000/- worth of household articles; and from the wedlock she blessed with one son and

Accused No.1 looked her happily for sometime and later began to harass her by mentally and physically in drunken state; and that A-2 and A-3 encouraged A-1 in harassing her and they beat her daily for

additional dowry and also tried to kill her be leaking out the gas; and

Akula Sri Naga Rupa Rani [LW.1] also placed the matter before elders for four times but the efforts were futile.

On the strength of the Report of Akula Sri Naga Rupa Rani [LW.1] , V.Satish, Sub Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction Police

Station [LW.6] registered the same as First Information Report in Crime

No.284/2016 under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared Rough sketch and examined the witnesses namely,

Akula Sri Naga Rupa Rani, Yejjavarapu Ramanjaneyulu, Yejjavarapu

C.C.No.297 of 2019, Page 3 of 9 I A.J.M.F.C.

Dt. 19.03.2020 FAC:II AJMFC, Nuzvid.

Ramanamma, Yejjavarapu Naga Malleswara Rao, Kurumula Srinivasa

Rao [Lws.1 to 5] and recorded their statements.

On 09.11.2018, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 voluntarily surrendered before V.Satish, Sub Inspector [LW.6] and he served

Notices to the Accused under Section 41 (A) Cr.P.C, and after completion of investigation, he filed Charge Sheet. Thus, the Accused

Nos.1 to 4 are liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 324 and 498-A of I.P.C. Hence, the Charge.

3.The Case was taken on file against the Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4.On appearance of the Accused Nos.1 to 4, the Copies of the

Case Documents were furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.During the course of Examination under Section 239 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Accused Nos.1 to 4 have denied the allegations of the Prosecution. When the Charges, framed against them for the offences under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are read over and explained to them in Telugu, they have pleaded not guilty, and claimed for Trial.

Hence, the Case is posted for Trial.

6.On behalf of the Prosecution, the PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked. Since PWs.1 to 3 did not support the case of Prosecution, the Prosecution has felt that there is no use of examination of the remaining Witnesses. Hence, the evidence

Yejjavarapu Naga Malleswara Rao, Kurumula Srinivasa Rao and

V.Satish, Sub Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction Police Station

C.C.No.297 of 2019, Page 4 of 9 I A.J.M.F.C.

Dt. 19.03.2020 FAC:II AJMFC, Nuzvid.

[Lws.4 to 6] was given-up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Hence, the Prosecution side evidence is closed.

7.The Examination of the Accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is dispensed with, since there is no incriminating material available against them in the evidence of

Prosecution Witnesses and the Documents.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The Point for consideration is whether the Prosecution is

able to establish the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 to 4 the offence

under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3

and 4 of D.P Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point: To establish its Case, the Prosecution has examined the De-facto Complainant, namely, Akula Sri Naga Rupa Rani] was examined as PW.1, Yejjavarapu Ramanjaneyulu [LW.2] was examined as

P.W.2 and Yjjavarapu Ramanamma [LW.3] was examined as PW.3 and got Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked. Ex.P1 is the Report of PW.1 date; 15.10.2018. Ex.P2 is the Statement of PW.1, recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P3 is the Statement of PW.2, recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P4 is the Statement of PW.3, recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

(a)As per the case of the prosecution, the marriage of

PW.1 was celebrated with the A-1 and at the time of marriage Rs.2 lakhs was given towards dowry and 2 sovereigns of gold and also

Rs.10,000/- towards Adapaduchu Katnam besides presenting household articles worth of Rs.50,000/-; and they led happy marital life for some years and out of wedlock she blessed with one son and later A-1

C.C.No.297 of 2019, Page 5 of 9 I A.J.M.F.C.

Dt. 19.03.2020 FAC:II AJMFC, Nuzvid.

started harassing her both physically and mentally and the same was supported and encouraged by A-2 to A-4 and they all used to beat her with a demand to bring additional dowry from her parents.

(b)PW.1 deposed in her Chief-examination that on 03.05.2015, her marriage was celebrated with the Accused No.1 at

Dwaraka Tirumala Temple, and she do not know whether any dowry was given to the Accused No.1 by her parents at the time of her marriage and soon after her marriage she joined with A-1 and out of wedlock she blessed with a male child; and thereafter some differences were arosed between them and later the disputes was place dbefore elders and they obtained her signature on a written paper and she did not gone through the contents of the Report; and by the time of her marriage, A-3 and A-4 were already married and they have been residing at their in-laws house; and the Accused never demanded her and harassed her for additional dowry; and infact all the Accused treated her very well, except petty quarrels with the Accused there is no any dispute with them; Police did not examine her and recorded her statement.

(c)PW.2 father and PW.3 mother of PW.1 deposed on par with the evidence of PW.1; further they deposed in one voice that due to some differences arosed between PW.1 and the Accused No.1, the dispute was placed before the elders and PW.1 never complained them about the harassment and demand of additional dowry by the Accused; and that PW.1 did not submit any Report to the Police, Police did not examine them and recorded their statements.

C.C.No.297 of 2019, Page 6 of 9 I A.J.M.F.C.

Dt. 19.03.2020 FAC:II AJMFC, Nuzvid.

(d)As Pws.1 to 3 did not support the case of Prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor have sought permission to

Cross-examine them, as they turned Hostile. Permission was accorded by the Court. Hence, Pws.1 to 3 were Cross-examined by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor, and they have denied having stated, as in

Exhibits P2 and P3.

(e)As PW.s1 to 3 did not support the case of Prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had given up the evidence of

Yejjavarapu Naga Malleswara Rao, Kurumula Srinivasa Rao and

V.Satish, Sub Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction Police Station [Lws.4 to 6].

(a)It is clear from the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 that they did not support the case of the Prosecution in any manner, and they did not depose anything against the Accused. Nothing was elicited from

Pws.1 to 3 that could support the case of Prosecution. So, there is no iota of evidence against the Accused Nos.1 to 4.

(b)In view of the above discussion, this Court concludes and holds that the Prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the

Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the Offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal thereof.

Hence, the Point is answered against the Prosecution.

11.In the result, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted of the same under Section 248[1] of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Bail

C.C.No.297 of 2019, Page 7 of 9 I A.J.M.F.C.

Dt. 19.03.2020 FAC:II AJMFC, Nuzvid.

Bond of the Accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of the Judgment, as per Section 437-A of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973, and thereafter, they shall stand cancelled. The unmarked Case Property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of

Appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation to the Stenographer Grade-III, II AJCJ, Nuzvid, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- C.K.V.Satyakanth Kumar

First Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

FAC: Second Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Nuzvid.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW.1 : Akula Sri Naga Rupa Rani [De-facto Complainant].

PW.2 : Yejjavarapu Ramanjaneyulu [Father of PW.1].

PW.3 : Yejjavarapu Ramanamma [Mother of PW.1].

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Report of PW.1 dated; 15.10.2018.

Ex.P2 : Statement of PW.1 recorded by Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P3: Statement of PW.2, recorded by Police under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C.

Ex.P4: Statement of PW.3, recorded by Police under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE

PROSECUTION

NIL.

Sd/-C.K.V.Satyakanth Kumar,

First Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Nuzvid.

C.C.No.297 of 2019, Page 8 of 9 I A.J.M.F.C.

Dt. 19.03.2020 FAC:II AJMFC, Nuzvid.

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID.

CALENDER IN C.C. No.297/2019

Date of Offence: 15-10-2018 (Prior to)

Date of Complaint: 15-10-2018

Date of Apprehension of Accused: 09-11-2018

Date of taking on file: 25-04-2019

Date of Commencement of trial: 18-03-2020

Date of Closure of trial: 18-03-2020

Date of Sentence / Order : 19-03-2020

Complainant : The State, Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction P.S.

Name of the Accused:: 1) Akula Durga Prasad, S/o.Siva, 26 Years, Turpu Kapu,NallapaduRoad, Lakshminagar Near Mirchi Yard, Guntur.

2) Akula Ramanama, W/o.Siva, 50 Years, Turpu Kapu,NallapaduRoad, Lakshminagar Near Mirchi Yard, Guntur.

3) Kathiri Kanka Maha Lakshmi @ Kanka Lakshmi, W/o.Sreenu, 25 Years, Turpu Kapu, Dubacharla Village, Nallajarla Mandal, West Godavari District.

4) Somaraju Lakshmi Malleswari @ Malleswari, W/o.Apparao,35Years, Turpu Kapu, RMS Colony, Eluru.

Nature of Offence : Subjecting that the Accused 1 to 4 are liable for punishment.

C.C.No.297 of 2019, Page 9 of 9 I A.J.M.F.C.

Dt. 19.03.2020 FAC:II AJMFC, Nuzvid.

Section of Law : Under Section 498-A IPC & SS. 3 and 4 of D.P Act are against the A1 to A4.

Finding of the Court : Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty.

Sentence/ Order : The Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted of the same under Section 248 [1] of Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973. The Bail Bond of the Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of the Judgment, as per

Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and thereafter, they shall stand cancelled. The unmarked Case Property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of Appeal time.

Explanation for delay :

This case was taken on file against the Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under

Section 498-A of I.P.C and SS.3 and 4 of D.P Act. On 24-06-2019

Accused 1 to 4 are present. Copies of the documents were furnished to them. On 18.03.2020, Accused 1 to 4 are present and they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Prosecution evidence is commenced from 18.03.2020 and closed on the same day, and Exs.P1 to

P4 are marked, and the Prosecution side evidence is closed and on the same day examination of the Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with, and on the same day Arguments were heard. On 19-03-2020, Accused Nos.1 to 4 are present. Judgment was

pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-C.K.V.Satyakanth Kumar,

First Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Nuzvid.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.466 of 2017, Page 1 of 8 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NUZVID.

Present: Sri G.Sai Krishna,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

Thursday, this the 05th day of March, 2020

C.C.No.466/2017

BETWEEN: The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural Police Station, Krishna District.

...Complainant.

AND 1.Abbadasari Chiranjeevi, S/o.Chintaiah, 28 Years, Madiga, Pothureddipalli Village.

2.Abbadasri Yesupadam, S/o.Gopi, 28 Years, SC­Madiga, Pothureddipalli Village.

3.Abbadasri Bujji @ Suresh, S/o.Yesurathnam, 29 Years, SC­Madiga, Pothureddipalli Village, Nuzvid Mandal.

...Accused Nos.1 to 3.

This case coming on 11­02­2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Babu Rao, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant and of Sri.K.Rama Rao, Advocate for Accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Nuzvid Rural Police Station registered a case against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.232/2014 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2)The gist of the facts of the case as per the charge sheet are as follows:

P.W.1 and the Accused are residents of Pothureddipalli Village of Nuzvid Mandal. L.W.2­Tagaram Padma sold her house site to one

A.Ramesh. P.W.1 is unaware whether the said sale was registered or not.

C.C.No.466 of 2017, Page 2 of 8 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

On 03­07­2014, in the morning hours when said Ramesh tried to transport soil into his land using a Tractor, L.W.2 asked him to stop the same till the measurements of the land is done. While so, at about 5.00 p.m., on the same day P.W.1 drove back his blows to his house and in front of his house he saw Accused and Ramesh quarreling with each other.

Accused No.3 asked for interference in support of A­1 and P.W.1 denied the same on the plea of lack of knowledge. On that A­3 came upon P.W.1 and A­2 caught hold the trunk of P.W.1, A­1 pulled stick in his hand and beat P.W.1 with the stick on his trunk. L.Ws.2 to 5 noticed the same and shifted P.W.1 to Area Hospital, Nuzvid.

On the strength of the Report of P.W.1, L.W.7­K.Thirupathi

Rao, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural Police Station registered the same as First Information Report in Crime No.232 of 2014 under Section 324 r/w of 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, prepared Rough sketch of the scene.

Later, L.W.8­S.Rama Krishna, Sub Inspector of Police, Nuzvid

Rural Police Station took up investigation from L.W.7­K.Thirupathi Rao,

Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and verified it and found on correct lines.

On 08­07­2014, A­1 to A­3 surrendered before L.W.8 and he sent them for judicial custody.

The Medical Officer, Ch.Vara Prasad, treated the injured/

P.W.1 and issued Wound Certificate.

After completion of investigation, L.W.8­S.Rama Krishna, S.I filed charge sheet.

C.C.No.466 of 2017, Page 3 of 8 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

3)On completion of investigation by the police and submission of the final report in the matter, this Court took cognizance for the offences

Under Section 324 R/W 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4)Upon appearance of Accused Nos.1 to 3 before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5)Subsequently, the Accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined U/s.239

Cr.P.C and charges under Section 324 R/W 34 of IPC, are framed against them and were read over and explained to them in Telugu. The charges were denied by them and they preferred to be tried for the charges against them.

6)During the trial, L.W.1 and L.W.3 were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exhibits P­1 to P­2 was marked on behalf of P.W.1. Exhibit P­2 was marked on behalf of P.W.2. 

7)On completion of prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Telugu and same was denied by them and they reported no defence evidence.

8)On completion of evidence this Court heard arguments of learned Incharge Assistant Public Prosecutor and defence counsel.

9)On perusal of the charge sheet, documents and evidence produced and on hearing the counsels of both sides the following points arise for determination by this Court:

1) Whether on 03­07­2014 at 5.00 P.M., A­1 to A­3 voluntarily beat P.W.1 with a stick and caused him injury?

C.C.No.466 of 2017, Page 4 of 8 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

2) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A­1 to A­3 beyond all reasonable doubt?

10)POINT NO.1:

P.W.1 deposed in his chief­examination that he knows all the

Accused as they are his villagers. P.W.1 further deposed that P.W.2 sold away his house site about five years back to one A.Ramesh. That about five years back on one day at 2.00 P.M., when he was returning from his field along with his bullocks and reached near his house, A­1 called him and told him that P.W.2 was not allowing him to drive the earth into the house site of Ramesh. P.W.1 further deposed that when he was advising

A­1 not to make any altercation, A­3 came to him and pushed him away and A­2 caught hold of him and A­1 beat him with a stick on his head and on his back. That P.W.2 intervened and admonished the Accused. That later L.W.2­T.Padma, P.W.2 got him shifted to Government General

Hospital, Nuzvid for treatment.

11)During cross­examination, P.W.1 deposed that he does not have any disputes with the Accused and he deposed in the chief­ examination as per the instructions of the Police. P.W.1 deposed that he does not know the contents of Ex.P­1 Report and that all the Accused never abused him or altercated with him. P.W.1 admitted that he did not receive any head injury at the hands of A­1 and received the same when he fell down.

12)P.W.2 deposed that he does not know about any disputes between P.W.1 and all the Accused and does not know how P.W.1 sustained injuries. 

C.C.No.466 of 2017, Page 5 of 8 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor cross­examined P.W.2 with the permission of the Court, but could not elicit anything in support of the prosecution case.

13)Perusal of chief­examination of P.W.1 discloses that P.W.1 initially deposed that A­1 beat him with a stick and A­2 and A­3 cooperated with the A­1 for the same. However, in the cross­examination

P.W.1 contradicted his own evidence by stating that he did not receive any injuries at the hands of the Accused and he does not have any disputes with the Accused. Moreover, the evidence of L.W.2 and L.Ws.4 to 8 were given up by the Asst. Public Prosecutor as he felt that the defacto complainant is not supporting the case of the prosecution. Hence, point

No.1 is answered in favour of the all the Accused.

14)POINT NO:2

IN THE RESULT, the Accused Nos.1 to 3 are hereby found not guilty for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand discharge after expiry of the six months from the date of the judgment as per section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­III, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 5th day of March, 2020.

Sd/­G.Sai Krishna, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid. ‘

C.C.No.466 of 2017, Page 6 of 8 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF 

PROSECUTION DEFENCE; ­NONE­ P.W.1­T.Nagendra Rao.

P.W.2­A.Venkateswara Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P­1­Statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P­2­161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

­NIL­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­NIL­

Sd/­G.Sai Krishna, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

//True copy//

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

C.C.No.466 of 2017, Page 7 of 8 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIABLE ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, NUZVID

C.C.No.466 of 2017

[Old CC.No.837/2014]

DATES OF:

1. Date of Offence : 03-07-2014

2. Date of Taken on file : 30-07-2014

3. Date of Apprehension of Accused : 08-07-2014

4. Date of Commencement of Trial : 30-10-2019

5. Date of Close of Trial : 06-02-2020

6. Date of Judgment : 05-03-2020

7. Name of the Complainant : The Sub Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural Police Station.

8. Name of the Accused 1.AbbadasariChiranjeevi, S/o.Chintaiah, 28 Years, Madiga, Pothureddipalli Village.

2.AbbadasriYesupadam, S/o.Gopi, 28 Years, SC­Madiga, Pothureddipalli Village.

3.Abbadasri Bujji @ Suresh, S/o.Yesurathnam, 29 Years, SC­ Madiga, Pothureddipalli Village, Nuzvid Mandal.

09. Offence : U/Secs.324 r/w 34 IPC.

10. Plea of Accused. : NOT GUILTY.

11. Finding : FOUND NOT GUILTY.

12. Result : A­1 to A­3 are hereby found not guilty for the offences under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC are hereby acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. No orders as to the case property, as there is no case property in this case.

13. Explanation for delay : Originally this case was numbered

before the Court of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid and numbered as

CC.NO.837/2014 and posted to 05-06-2015. On 05-06-2015 A-1 to A-3 present

C.C.No.466 of 2017, Page 8 of 8 II AJFCM, Nuzvid. Dt.05-03-2020 copies of case documents were supplied to them as per section 207 Cr.P.C. Later the said CC was transfered to his Court as per the directions of the Hon’ble Prl.

District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam in Dis.No.6775, dt.07.08.2017. The

C.C.No.837/2014 was receivekd by this Court and renumbered as

CC.No.466/2017. On 28-03-2018 A-1 to A-3 were present and they were

examiend under section 239 Cr.P.C. Prosecution side evidence is commenced from 30­10­2019 and closed on 06­02­2020. On 11-02-2020

Accused 1 to 3 are present and they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence and on the same day heard both sides. On 05-03-2020 A1 to

A3 present. Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Machilipatnam.