Smt. G. Spandana

:IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Present : Smt G.Spandana,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and Excise, Court, Guntur.

FAC. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur.

Friday, this the 13th day of December,2024.

C.C.No.288 of 2019

Between:-

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Woman Police Station,Guntur District. …Complainant.

And

1. Duggineni Prathap Raja, S/o.Malakonda Rayudu @ Malakondrayudu,A/30 years.

2. Duggineni Satyavathi, W/o.Malakonda Rayudu @ Malakondrayudu, A/50 years.

3.Duggineni Malakonda Rayudu @ Malakondrayudu, S/o.Malyadri, A/57 years.

4. Duggineni Ashok Raja @ Vikky, S/o.Malakonda Rayudu @ Malakondrayudu, A/28 years.

5. Namburi Bharathi Devi @ Bharathi, W/o.China Subba Rao, A/64 years.

(A1 to A4 are R/o.Flat No.319, SaiKrishna Residency, APSEB colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam city and A5 is R/o. Rupulamma Temple Street, Eleswaram Town, East Godavari District.) …Accused Nos.1 to 5.

This case is coming on 09.12.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri.Y.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 5 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Women PS, Guntur filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.3/2019 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 509 of IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.02.2017 the marriage of PW.1 was performed with the accused No.1 at Bandlamudi gardens, Amaravathi road. At the time of marriage, the parents of PW.1 presented an amount of Rs.10 lakhs, 11 sovereigns of gold and some silver articles to accused towards dowry and performed their marriage with great manner as per their demand. At the time of marriage, A1 is working as Inspector in Central Excise Department at Chennai and Pw.1 is working as

Asst Professor in RVR JC college, Guntur. After marriage, PW.1 was stopped her job as per the instructions of A1 to A3. When PW.1 went to Chennai, A5 who is the maternal aunt of A1 and her younger brother-in-law/A4 are together residing with PW.1 and A1 and A4 who is studying as MBBS used to vulgarly abused PW.1 by stating that he will sleep with PW.1 in her bed room while A1 was failed to lead marital life, so he will lead marital life with PW.1. When PW.1 and A1 staying at Chennai, A1 used to harass

PW.1 by suspecting her fidelity and used to imposed restrictions that PW.1 never talks with her parents/PW.1 and Lw.2/Chekuri Hanumantha rao, checked her phone, A1 comes to house from in middle of the office timings, to hide the food items and neglected her family welfare even he failed to provide sufficient food to PW.1. Later,

PW.1 knows one fact about that before marriage, A1 got accident and in that effect A1 have unconscious state in 20 days, hence A1 is suffering with mental and nerves related illness and is used to behaved as psycho. A5 is used to resided at Chennai along with them upto end of ending month of May,2017. When they resided at Chennai,

A2 to A5 are used to pick up quarrel with PW.1 and harassed Pw.1 for demanding to bring additional dowry and A2 and A3 are used to talked with PW.1 over phone for demanding to bring additional dowry. On hearing their words, A1 used to pick up quarrel with PW.1 and harassed her, abused and beat PW.1 without any fault andA4 is also supported him and he is used to pick up quarrel with PW.1 and harassed her by suspecting her fidelity and seeing the blue films to PW.1 and harassing that PW.1 will do the same. Finally, in the month of October, 2017, A1 is used to pick up quarrel with

PW.1 by abusing her to bring additional dowry, otherwise, they could’nt accept to lead marital life and sent PW.1 to her parental home. Due to unbearable harassment, Pw.1 will commit the suicide attempt. Later, her parents are sent elders to negotiating talks with A1 to A5 but they did not heed their words and they couldn’t accept to take PW.1 to inlaws house at Vizag for their level best the family issue of PW.1 to negotiate talks with

A1 to A5 there they are together used to threatened them and A1 is used to trying to attack them. Then, PW.1 came to Guntur and trying to commit suicide attempt, PW.3 rescued Pw.1. later, on 12.08.2018 A1 to A5 are together come to her parental home, picked up quarrel with Pws.1, 3 and LW.2/Ch.Hanumantha rao threatening that PW.1 failed to bring their demand, A1 caught hold of her tuft and beat PW.1 in their presence.

When her parents trying to rescue PW.1 from the hands of A1, A2 to A5 picked up quarrel with them by thrown and went away from there. Having finding no other go,

PW.1 lodged a complaint against the accused in Women PS, Guntur.

Basing on the same, PW.6/K.Narayana Prasad, HC, Women PS registered a case in Cr.No.3 of 2019 U/sec.498-A,509 of IPC, Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation P.W.6 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch,, served notices to Accused A1 to A5 under Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C on 25.01.2019. After completion of investigation, PW.6, HC filed charge sheet against accused A1 to A5.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence U/sec.498-A, 509 of I.P.C and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused Nos.1 to 5.

4. On appearance of the accused No.1 to 5 copies of the case documents were furnished to them as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused Nos.1 to 5 were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. The accused

No.1 to 5 denied the prosecution case. As there were grounds to proceed initially charges U/sec.498-A of I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against Accused No.1 to 5 and a charge under Sec.509 of IPC against A4. The charges were read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Telugu for which the accused Nos.1 to 5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses and Ex.P1 to P3 are marked for the prosecution. Ex.P1 is the report of P.w.1, Ex.P2 is the first information report and Ex.P3 is the Rough sketch of scene of offence.

7. After conclusion of trial, during the examination of the accused U/sec. 313

Cr.P.C. the accused Nos.1 to 5 denied the incriminating material found in the prosecution evidence and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence. However,

Ex.D1 marked during the course of cross-examination of PW.5 on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the material on record.

9.Now the Point for determination of this court is:

1. “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 to 5 for the offences U/Secs. 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4

of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 beyond all reasonable doubt”?

2. “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.4 for the offence U/Sec. 509 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10.POINT:

In order to prove the guilt of A1 to A5, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.3 and Ex.D1. According to the prosecution,

PW.1 is the defacto-complainant, PW.2 is elder brother of PW.1, PW.3 is mother of

PW.1, PW.4 is her neighbour and family friend, PW.5 is the family friend of Pw.1 and

PW.6 is the investigating officer who registered FIR, examination of witnesses, servicing

Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notices to accused, conducted investigation in this case.

11.The case of prosecution is unfolded from the evidence of PW.1 is that on 2.2.2017 the marriage of PW.1 was performed with A1 at Bandlamudi Guntur. At the time of marriage, her parents/LW.2/Ch.Hanumantha rao and PW.3/Ch.Rathna Kumari gave cash of Rs.10,00,000/-, 11 Sovereigns of gold and some silver articles towards dowry to accused as per their demand. At the time of marriage, A1 was working as

Inspector in Central Excise Department at Chennai and PW.1 was working as Assistant

Professor in RVR,AC, College, Guntur and after the marriage, she resigned her job as per the instructions of A1. Immediately after marriage, she joined A1 at the house of her in-laws/A2 and A3 situated Vizag to lead matrimonial life and stayed there for a period of 16 days. From there, herself along with A1, A4 and A5 went to Chennai and lived in the same house. Since her marriage, A1 to A5 harassed her towards additional dowry.

During her stay at Chennai, A4 used to misbehave with her by stating that A1 is not useful to lead marital life and he was asked to sleep with him. A1 harassed and forced her to see obscene videos at the instigation of A4 and also they not allowed her to call her parents and also they failed to provide sufficient food for her, and they used to check her phone frequently. During her stay, A1 used to suspect her fidelity and also A1 used to behave like psycho and harassed her physically and mentally. Later, she informed the same to her in-laws/A2 and A3 but they didn't heed her words and supported A1, A4 and A5. On 23.10.2017 A1 and A4 picked up quarrel with her by demanding additional dowry and sent her to Guntur to bring the same, at that time, she informed to her inlaws/A2 and A3 about the same, but they supported A1 and A4, and on the same day, she went to Guntur to her parents house. Then she informed about the demand of additional dowry by accused to her parents but they have no capacity to fulfill the same. In the month of December,2017, her parents/LW.2 and PW.3 along with herself and PW.5 had been to Vizag to the house of accused to pacify the matter, but they did not heed their words and did not accept to allow her for marital life, at that time,

A5 caught hold of her tuft and beat her, hence, they returned to Guntur. In the month of

August, 2018, A1 to A5 came to her parents house at Guntur and picked up quarrel with her and her parents/LW.2 and PW.3 by threatening to kill her with dire consequences as they are decided to file case against them, due to which, A1 and A3 also beat her.

During the course of cross-examination, she stated that her father is doing cultivation at her village Pamulapadu and her father have Ac.4.00 of land and she did not have any documentary proof to show that their parents gave dowry of Rs.10 lakhs, gold ornaments and silver articles at the time of marriage to accused. Witness adds to say that they have bills to show that they purchased the gold ornaments at the time of her marriage but she did not file before this court. She denied the suggestion that her father has no financial capacity to give Rs.10 lakhs, gold ornaments and silver articles as her father has working as supervisor and he has no agricultural land. She stated that she studied M.Tech and A1 studied B.Tech. After the marriage, she lived along with A1 for a period of eight months nearly. She denied the suggestion in her cross-examination that she did not state before police that they gave dowry “as per their demand” as stated in her chief and she did not state before police that herself along with A1, A4 and A5 went to Chennai from Vizag and also she did not state before police that at the instigation of A4, A1 harassed her to see obscene videos. She do not remember whether she stated before the police particular date on which, A1 to A4 picked up quarrel and sent her Guntur. She denied the suggestion that she did not state before police or in her Ex.P1 report that A4 also picked up quarrel with her and sent her to

Guntur by demanding additional dowry and she informed the same to A2 and A3 but they supported A1 and A4 and she did not state before police or in Ex.P1 that she informed about the demand of additional dowry of accused but her parents have no capacity to fulfill the same and she also denied the suggestion that she did not state

before police or in Ex.P1 that PW.5 went along with her parents to vizag for mediation

and that she did not state before police or in Ex.P1 at the time of mediation, A5 caught hold of her tuft and beat her, as such, they returned to Guntur and that she did not state

before police or in Ex.P1 in the month of August,2018, A1 to A5 came to her parents

house at Guntur and picked up quarrel with them by threatening her to kill with dire consequences and A1 and A3 also beat her. She admitted in her cross-examination that at the time of her marriage, A1 was working at Chennai. She stated that she does not know whether A1 got his job after he met with accident or not. She admitted in her cross-examination that the office of A1 is situated nearly half kms from her house and

A1 used to go office at Chennai by walk and used to come to house for lunch and A1 has no vehicle and that during her stay at Chennai, A1 and herself went to Pulumanali for holidays. Witness adds to say that it is her periods time. She admitted that they went to Kanchi temple. She denied the suggestion that they went to other temples around Chennai. She stated that in the month of June or July, 2017, A4 went from their house and she does not know where he went and that she does not know whether A4 was studying in Sabitha medical college by staying in P.G hostel. She denied the suggestion that A4 never resided along with them at their house and he never misbehaved with her at any point of time. She stated that A5 is resident of Eleswarama,

East Godavari District. It is not true to suggest that A5 never resided along with us at

Chennai. It is true that my inlaws/A2 and A3 were residing at Vizag. At present I am not ready to live along with A1 to lead marital life. Since the year 2021, I am working as

Assistant Lokpailet Indian Railways, Vizag. I do not sustained any visible injuries due to harassment of the accused and I do not went to hospital for treatment. She denied the suggestion that she is suffering from tocophobia i.e., pregnancy phobia and she is not interested to participate in sexual intercourse with A1 as she am suffering with phobia and that she voluntarily deserted A1 as he is continuously insisting for children and that accused requested her so many times to consult doctor for treatment for her phobia. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she intentionally foisted false case against the accused with a view to obtain divorce from A1 by creating a false story and demanding huge amounts from accused and that accused never harassed her nor beat her and also never demanded for additional dowry at any point of time as they have no financial capacity even to give dowry and that nothing was happened as stated by her and that on 12.08.2018 A4 is present at his PG hostel. She stated that she does not remember the presence of A4 on the particular day when accused came to her parents house and picked up quarrel and that on the day of quarrel at her house, she found A1 and A3 only. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing false and accused never harassed her at any point of time.

12.PW.2 is the elder brother of PW.1 deposed that on 02-02-2017, the marriage of PW1 is performed with A1 at Bandlamudi garage, Guntur as per Hindu rights and caste customs and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.10,00,.000/- cash, 11 sovereigns of gold and one kg silver articles to accused towards dowry as per their demands. At the time of marriage, A1 is working as Inspector in Central Excise

Department at Chennai. After the marriage, PW1 joined A1 at Vizag to lead marital life.

After 16 days, PW1 went to Chennai. After one month, A1 started harassment towards

PW1 by demanding to bring additional dowry and A5 also instigated A1 who were living along with PW1 and A1 at Chennai. Thereafter PW1 informed A2 and A3 but they supported A1 and also demanded her to bring additional dowry. A4 also used to reside along with PW1 and A1 at Chennai after completion of MBBS. By that time A4 used to harass PW1 physically by saying that her husband/A1 is unfit to lead marital life as such

A4 used to harass PW1 sexually. Due to harassment of accused, PW1 informed them over phone then they enquired A1 and also his parents about their harassment towards

PW1 over phone, but accused demanded additional dowry, then they informed their inability to fulfill their illegal demands. In the month of October, 2017 A1 sent PW1 to their house by demanding her to bring additional dowry. Later they sent elders to the house of A2 and A3 at vizag for mediation but accused 2 and 3 did not change their attitude. Thereafter in the month of December,2017 he along with PW1 and LWs 2 and 3 went to Vizag for mediation, at that time accused A1 to A5 picked up quarrel with them and A5 beat PW1 by demanding additional dowry, on that they returned to Guntur.

In the month of October,2018 A1 to A3 along with their relatives came to their house at

Guntur and threatened them to see their end if PW1 is going to lodge complaint against them and by saying so A2 beat PW1 indiscriminately and demanded to bring additional dowry. Later, PW1 lodged complaint against A1 to A5 at Women PS.

During his cross-examination, PW.2 stated that at the time of quarrel picked up by accused at their house, neighbours were gathered there, by that time, PW.4 and one another lady came into their house and the house of PW.4 is situated beside his apartment and the lady also residing in the ground floor in the house of PW.4 andhe admitted that A2 and A3 are also residing in apartment in vizag. He further stated that by the time of dispute at Vizag neighbours not gathered there.

13.PW.3 who is the mother of PW.1 deposed that on 02-02-2017 the marriage of PW1 is performed with A1 at Bandlamudi gardens, Guntur and at the time of marriage, they gave Rs.10 lakhs cash, 11 sovereigns of gold ornaments and silver articles to accused towards dowry. By the time of marriage, A1 used to work as

Inspector in Central Excise Department, Chennai and PW1 used to work as Associate

Professor at RVRJC College of Engineering and after the marriage, PW1 left her job at the instigation of accused. Immediately after the marriage, PW1 joined A1 at Vizag which is her in laws house. From there A1 and PW1 along with A4 and A5 went to

Chennai and stayed there. Since the marriage, A1 used to behave like a sadist and used to harass PW1 by suspecting her fidelity and A1 used to come home frequently during intervals and used to search house. A1 did not allow PW1 even to take food and he did not allow her to cook. During the stay of PW1 at Chennai, A4 used to misbehave with PW1 by standing in front of bathroom while she was taking bath and used to demand to sleep in their bed room. Then PW1 informed the same to in laws, but A2 and A3 used to support the acts of A4. A5 also harassed PW1 and did not allow her to talk over phone and also beat her and A1 to A5 used to harass PW1 for everything for no fault of her. During the stay of PW1 at Chennai, at the instigation of A2 and A3, A1,

A4, A5 used to harass PW1 by demanding to bring the money from them to purchase the house at Chennai. But they did not give any amount to accused. Thereafter, A1 sent PW1 to Guntur by demanding to bring the money. In the month of December,2017 they along with PW1 and PW.5 along with elders went to Vizag for mediation, by that time A1, A2, A3, A5 were present in their house and during negotiations A5 beat PW1 and A2 threatened to kill them by firing then they all left the house of accused.

Thereafter in the month of August,2018, A1 to A3, A5, along with elders came to their house at Guntur then A3 beat PW1, by that time the neighbours/LW6/V.Rama Devi and others were gathered there. Thereafter, PW1 lodged a report against accused at

Women PS.

During her cross-examination PW.3, she admitted that A2 and A3 are also residing in apartment in Vizag. She stated in her cross-examination that by the time of dispute at Vizag, neighours not gathered there. She further admitted that Pw.1 also filed DVC case on the file of this court and maintenance case on the file of learned V

AJCJ, Guntur and the said maintenance case was dismissed. In her cross-examination

PW.3 denied the suggestion that she did not state before police that at the time of marriage presented one kg silver articles to accused and and did not state before police that her parents gave dowry to accused on their demand and did not state before police that accused started harassment towards PW.1 after one month of their marriage and did not state in the month of December, 2017, at the time of mediation at Vizag A5 beat

PW.1 by demanding additional dowry and that she did not state before police that A2 beat PW.1 indiscriminately by demanding additional dowry when they came to their house at Guntur. She denied the suggestion that nothing was happened as stated by her and also denied that Pw.1 is suffering with pregnancy phobia as such, she voluntarily left the conjugal society of A1 and also demanding divorce and compensation from accused and Pw.1 foisted this false case against the accused.

14.PW.4 who is the neighbour and family friend of PW.1 stated that in the year 2017, the marriage of P.W.1 is performed with A1 at Bandlamudi gardens, Guntur.

she came to know through L.W.2/ about the dowry of Rs.10 lakhs given to Accused and

A1 is Government employee. After the marriage, P.W.1 joined A1 to lead marital life.

Thereafter, one month 15 days of their marriage P.W.1 came to her parents’ house, then they heard cries from the house of L.W.2 then himself and other neighbours were went to the house of L.W.2 and found that there is quarrel between accused and P.W.1 and her family members. Then they gave an advise to resolve their dispute in amicable manner. He did not know the reason for their disputes. He cannot say the name of the neighbours who gathered at the house of L.W.2.

During the course of cross-examination, PW.4 stated that the house owner name is Ramadevi. After their marriage, she has not seen A1 to A5 again. She has no acquaintance with anyone of the residents of the apartment of LW.2/Ch. Hanumantha rao.

15.PW.5 who is also family friend of PW.1 testified that at about seven years ago, the marriage of PW.1 with A1. At the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 gave

Rs.10 lakhs towards dowry and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments along with silver articles to accused on their demand. At the time of marriage, A1 is central Government employee. Immediately after the marriage, P.W.1 joined A1 at Visakhapatnam and from there they both went to Chennai for the purpose of A1’s job. In the month of August of the same year, L.W.2 made a phone call to him and informed the disputes arose between A1 and P.W.1 and accused harassing P.W.1 and also informed P.W.1 came to his house, then asked herf to come Visakhapatnam to act as mediator to pacify the disputes between them. Then he accompanied L.W.2, P.W.1 and 3 to Visakhapatnam to the house of accused and waited till afternoon in their house then all the accused came to the house. During negotiations the maternal aunt of A1 intervened and caught hold taught of P.W.1 and beat P.W.1 by asking her why she brought them to their house for mediation without bringing additional dowry as per their demand. By that time, they tried to rescue P.W.1, then A1 to A4 came upon them and abused in filthy language by threatening that they would kill them so that they all returned to Guntur. The reason of the disputes is due to harassment of unlawful demand of additional dowry by accused.

During the course of cross-examination, he stated that L.W.2 is his childhood friend. L.W.2 do cultivation at Pamulapadu village. At about 7 years ago, PW.5 went to

Vizag for mediation but he cannot say the exact date. On the relevant day, he reached

Vizag at about 7:00 A.M. and straight away he went to the house of accused and had break-fast and lunch in the house of accused only. He cannot remember by which train he returned from Vizag. He denied that suggestion he stated before police as he came to know that L.W.2 and P.W.2, 3 took P.W.1 to Vizag then accused tried to assault them so that they returned and in Ex.D.1 is part of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5. He admitted that he stated before police that the parents of P.W.1 gave 11 sovereigns of gold ornaments along with silver articles to accused. He stated that he did not remember whether he stated before police that in the month of August of the same year of their marriage L.W.2 made a phone call to him and informed that the disputes arose between P.W.1 and A1. He denied the suggestion that he stated before police that

L.W.2 is his relative. He stated that the parents of P.W.1 presented alleged dowry to accused in his presence at the time of engagement at Bandlamudi gardens. He denied the suggestion that nothing was happened as stated by him in his chief examination and she is deposing false only with a view to help P.W.1 as she is his relative.

16. PW.6 who is the investigation officer deposed that on 04-01-2019 at about 11:00 a.m., while he was present at police station, P.W.1 along with L.W.2 and P.W.3 came to police station presented a written report under Ex.P.1 and basing on the same as per the instructions of S.H.O., he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.3/2019 for the offence punishable u/Secs.498A, 509 of IPC and Sec 3 and 4 of DP Act, original

FIR submitted to the Hon'ble court and copies of the same to all concerned officers, examined PW1, L.W.2 and P.W.3 and recorded their statements at the police station itself. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence situated at Anjaneya Towers,

Lakshmi Nagar, 2nd lane, Gorantla i.e., the house of parents of P.W.1 and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, secured the presence of P.Ws.2, 4, 5 and

L.W.6/V.Rama Devi at the scene of offence and recorded their statements. On 24-01- 2019 he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C., notice to accused No.1 to 5. Later, on 24-01-2019 he handed over the entire investigation done by him to L.W.9/Sub-Inspector of Police,

Women P.S. and he verified the same and found it on correct lines. Thereafter, L.W9 filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 5.

During the course of cross-examination, PW.6 admitted that PW1 did not state

before him that her parents gave alleged dowry to accused on their demand ( emphasis

on their demand) and PW1 did not state before him that herself along with A1, A4 and

A5 went to Chennai from Vizag and lived in the same house. He also admitted that

PW1 did not state before him that A1 harassed and forced her to see obscene videos at the instigation of A4 and PW1 did not state before him that exact date i.e 23-10-2017 when she was necked out from matrimonial home but PW1 stated she was necked out in the month of October, 2017. He further admitted that PW1 did not state before him that on 23-10-17 A4 along with A1 picked up quarrel with her by demanding additional dowry and A2 and A3 supported the acts of A1 and A4 and PW1 did not state before him that PW1 did not inform about the demand of additional dowry by accused to her parents but they have no capacity to fulfill the same. He also further admitted that PW1 did not state before him that in the month of December, 2017 PW5 accompanied them to the house of accused at Vizag and PW1 did not state before him that at that time A5 caught hold of her tuft and beat her and that PW1 did not state before him that in the month of August, 2018 A1 to A5 threatened to kill her with dire consequences and

PW1 did not state before him that A3 beat PW.1 along with A1. PW.6 admitted in his cross-examination that PW2 did not state before him that their parents gave one kg silver articles to accused and alleged dowry as per their demand and PW2 did not state

before him that after one month they went to Chennai A1 started harassment towards

PW1 for demanding additional dowry and that PW2 did not state before him that when they went to Vjzag for mediation, A5 beat PW1 for demanding additional dowry. He also admitted that PW2 did not state before him that in the month of October, 2018 when A1 to A3 came to their house at Guntur they threatened them to see their end and PW2 did not state before him that A2 beat PW.1 indiscriminately. He admitted that PW3 did not state before him that A1 and PW.1 along with A4 and A5 went to Chennai from Vizag and that PW3 did not state before him that during the stay of PW1 at Chennai A4 misbehaved with PW.1 by standing in front of bathroom while she was taking bath.

( emphasis by standing in front of bathroom while she was taking bath) and that PW3 did not state before him that PW.1 informed the acts of A4 to her in-laws A2 and A3 but they supported him. In his cross-examination, he admitted that PW3 did not state before him that A5 did not allow PW.1 to talk over phone and also beat her and that PW.3 did not state before him that in the month of December, 2017, PW5 accompanied them to

Vizag for mediation and that PW3 did not state before him that during negotiations A5 beat Pw.1 and A2 threatened to kill them by firing pistol and that PW3 did not state

before him that in the moth of August, 2018 when A1 to A3, A5 along with elders came

to thier house at Guntur and by the time A3 beat PW1 and by the time the neighbours/LW6 and others were gathered there ( emphasis on time A3 beat PW1 and by the time the neighbours ie LW6 and others were gathered there). During cross- examination, he admitted that PW5 did not state before him that parents of PW1 gave 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to accused but stated 11 sovereigns of gold ornaments and that PW5 did not state before him that in the month of August of the same year, LW2 made a phone call to him and informed the disputes arose between

PW.1 and A and that PW5 did not state before him as in Ex D1 . i.e he came to know that LW.2 and PW2 , PW3 to PW1 went to Vizag, accused tried to assault them so that they returned.

17.The accused in this case are charged with the offences under Sections 498-A, 509 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act. The allegations relate to demands for additional dowry, harassment, and physical abuse, with the prosecution's case relying primarily on the testimony of several witnesses, including P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.2, and P.W.3. However, upon careful analysis of the evidence and cross-examination, I find several inconsistencies, omissions, and contradictions in the prosecution's case.

18.The Overview of Evidences of prosecution as P.W.1 has testified that she was subjected to harassment by her husband (A1) and other accused persons over dowry demands. She claimed that after her marriage, she was subjected to severe mental and physical abuse. However, upon reviewing her statements before the police and in court, there are several discrepancies. Omissions in Her Statements: P.W.1 did not mention in her police statement that her parents gave dowry to the accused on their demand, a significant omission. She did not mention the specific incidents of harassment and physical violence involving A4, A5, and A2. Furthermore, P.W.1 did not provide specific details about the date of the incident on 23-10-2017, when she claimed she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. P.W.1’s statement regarding her stay in

Chennai for seven months with A1 contradicts the narrative of ongoing abuse.

Additionally, she testified that they went to the Kanchi temple and Kulumanali, where

there were no visible signs of injury. This indicates that A1 treated her properly during this period, as no treatment for injuries was sought by her.

19.P.W.5 testified as a witness to the mediation between the parties in

December 2017, where A5 allegedly caught hold of P.W.1’s tuft and beat her. However, there are contradictions regarding P.W.5’s presence during these events. P.W.5 resides in a village near Tenali, which was distant from the scene of the alleged incident. His role in the events is thus questionable. It is also noteworthy that P.W.5 is said to be a relative of L.W.2 , which could suggest potential bias in his testimony.

20.Both P.W.2 and P.W.3 provided testimonies that were inconsistent with the statements made before the police. Specifically: Omissions of Key Events: They did not mention several significant events, such as the demand for additional dowry, the harassment by A1 and A4, or the physical violence by A5. Role of A3: The testimony of

P.W.3 mentions that A3 developed a version of events, including using a pistol to threaten P.W.1, which was not mentioned in any earlier statements or in the report. This late introduction of new facts raises questions about the credibility of this testimony.

21.P.W.4, a mason worker, provided testimony regarding the house in which

P.W.1 resided. However, there are discrepancies in his account: Neighbouring House:

P.W.4 could not have witnessed or heard the events happening in P.W.1’s flat, as he was residing in a neighboring house, further weakening his position as a witness to the alleged incidents. Mason Work Relationship: The defense also pointed out that P.W.4 was employed at the same construction site as P.W.2 (a supervisor), which raises the possibility that his testimony was planted for the purpose of supporting the prosecution's case.

22.The evidence of L.W.6, the house owner where the alleged incidents took place, has not been properly established in court. The prosecution failed to examine the neighbors of the house in Chennai, who could have provided material evidence regarding the nature of the living conditions and the alleged harassment.

23.Therefore the Key Findings of the Court are that the credibility of P.W.1, the key witness, is significantly undermined by inconsistencies in her statements. First, there are omissions in her police statement regarding the alleged dowry demands, the physical abuse she claimed to have endured, and the specific roles played by the other accused individuals. These omissions are crucial as they raise doubts about the reliability of her testimony. For instance, she did not mention in her initial statement that her parents had given dowry to the accused upon their demand, which is a central element of the prosecution's case. Similarly, the claims of harassment and abuse by A1,

A4, and A5 are not consistently supported by her earlier reports. These discrepancies suggest that her testimony may have been fabricated or embellished during the trial.

The absence of detailed and consistent recollections weakens her case and makes her testimony less reliable. One of the most significant issues in this case is the lack of medical evidence to support P.W.1’s claims of physical abuse. Despite her testimony that she suffered physical violence at the hands of the accused, there are no medical records or doctor’s reports to substantiate her allegations. In cases of physical abuse, especially when serious injuries are claimed, it is expected that the victim would seek medical attention, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the incident. However,

P.W.1 did not obtain any treatment for her supposed injuries, nor was she examined by a medical professional. This absence of medical documentation casts doubt on the truthfulness of the claims of physical violence and suggests that the allegations may have been fabricated or exaggerated.During the trial, a new piece of evidence emerged involving A3 allegedly using a pistol to threaten P.W.1. However, this detail was not included in the initial police report or in P.W.1’s earlier statements, leading to further concerns about the authenticity of her account. The introduction of such a significant new detail at a later stage of the trial raises suspicion about the motivations behind it. The failure to mention this crucial fact earlier suggests that it may have been added to strengthen the prosecution’s case, indicating a potential embellishment of the narrative. This inconsistency calls into question the accuracy of the overall story presented by the prosecution. The role of P.W.5 in the alleged mediation between

P.W.1 and the accused also raises doubts. According to P.W.5’s testimony, he accompanied P.W.1 to Vizag for a mediation attempt, but his involvement is questionable for several reasons. Firstly, P.W.5 lives in a village near Tenali, far from the scene of the alleged incidents, making it unlikely that he was directly involved or aware of the events in Vizag. Furthermore, P.W.5 is related to L.W.2, a key witness for the prosecution, which suggests a potential bias in his testimony. It is important to consider that familial relationships can influence the objectivity of a witness, and this connection undermines the credibility of P.W.5 as an independent and impartial witness.

The defense also raised concerns that P.W.5 may have been planted as a witness to support P.W.1's version of events, especially given the discrepancies and the lack of corroborating evidence from neutral witnesses.

24.Investigation Officer’s /PW.6 evidence also fails to provide substantial support to the prosecution's case. While the I.O. did conduct a formal investigation, it was marked by serious deficiencies. The I.O. did not ensure that critical witnesses, such as the neighbors from Chennai, were examined, despite the fact that they could have provided important corroboration of the events alleged by P.W.1. The rough sketch prepared by the I.O. lacks critical details and does not effectively support the claims of abuse or harassment. Furthermore, the I.O. did not collect any medical records or other forms of physical evidence that could substantiate P.W.1's allegations of abuse or injury. The failure to properly document and secure such evidence further weakens the prosecution’s case.

25.After thoroughly examining the evidence, statements, and the cross- examination of witnesses, I find that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimony of the key witnesses, particularly that of P.W.1, is riddled with inconsistencies that undermine the reliability of their accounts. There are significant omissions in their statements, particularly with regard to crucial details such as the demand for dowry and the nature of the alleged physical abuse. These omissions suggest that the witnesses may have been selective in their recollections or have altered their accounts to fit the prosecution's narrative.

Furthermore, several important facts have been introduced only later in the proceedings, which raises questions about the authenticity of the claims being made.

For instance, the role of certain accused individuals was not mentioned in the initial reports or in the earlier testimonies but was later added, particularly the claim about the use of a pistol and against A4. This late introduction of new details suggests that the case may have been embellished as the trial progressed.

26.Additionally, there is a complete lack of credible eye evidence to support the allegations made by the prosecution. Despite claims of harassment, physical abuse, and dowry demands, the prosecution has failed to produce any corroborative evidence such as medical records, photographs of injuries, or other independent witness testimonies that would substantiate these allegations. P.W.1 did not seek medical treatment for the alleged abuse, which would have been expected if the claims were true. The absence of such evidence is a critical flaw in the prosecution's case.

Furthermore, the witness testimonies from individuals like P.W.5 and P.W.6 also lack the necessary objectivity, with certain witnesses being biased or potentially influenced by familial connections to the complainant.

27.Therefore, based on the lack of reliable evidence and the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses, I am constrained to ACQUIT the accused persons, A1 to A5, of all charges leveled against them.

28. In the result, A1 to A5 found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 498-A of IPC, Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Further, A4 found not guilty for the offence under Sec.509 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court,, this the 13th day of December, 2024.

Sd/-G.Spandana

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: Ch.Mounika Chowdary. --None--. PW.2: Ch.Venugopala Chowdary. PW.3: Ch.Ratna Kumari. PW.4: G.Anil Kumar. Pw.5: K.Srinivasa rao. PW.6:K.Narayana Prasad, HC of Women PS, Guntur Urban.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

EX.P1:Report given by Pw.1 to the police.

Ex.P.2: F.I.R.

Ex.P.3:Rough sketch.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1: Marked portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

--NIL--

Sd/-G.Spandana

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

: IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

C.C.No.288/2019

01. Date of offence: 04.01.2019

02. Date of Filing: 04.02.2019

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: --

04. Release on bail: --

05. Commencement of trial: 03.07.2023

06. Closure of trial: 29.10.2024

07. Date of Judgment : 13.12.2024

08. Explanation for delay: After appearance of the accused No.1 to 5, copies of case documents were furnished to them on 20.03.2019 and they were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charges for the offences under Secs. 498-A of IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act against A1 to A5, Sec.509 of IPC against A4 are framed. On 13.09.2023, PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 marked, on 30.10.2023, PW.2 was examined, on 11.12.2023, PW.3 was examined, on 18.06.2024 PW.4 was examined, on 02.09.2024, PW.5 was examined and Ex.D1 marked during the course of PW.5 on behalf of accused and on 21.10.2024, PW.6 was examined and Exs.P2 and P3 marked and on 29.10.2024, prosecution evidence was closed on the same day. On 04.11.2024, accused Nos.1 to 5 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. On 02.12.2024, arguments of learned counsel for accused were heard. On 09.12.2024 arguments of learned APP were heard. Judgment pronounced on 13.12.2024.

09. Name of the complainant:

State represented by Inspector of Police, Women P.S.

10. Name of the accused :

1. Duggineni Prathap Raja, S/o.Malakonda Rayudu @ Malakondrayudu,A/30 years.

2. Duggineni Satyavathi, W/o.Malakonda Rayudu @ Malakondrayudu, A/50 years. 3.Duggineni Malakonda Rayudu @ Malakondrayudu, S/o.Malyadri, A/57 years.

4. Duggineni Ashok Raja @ Vikky, S/o.Malakonda Rayudu @ Malakondrayudu, A/28 years.

5. Namburi Bharathi Devi @ Bharathi, W/o.China Subba Rao, A/64 years. (A1 to A4 are R/o.Flat No.319, SaiKrishna Residency, APSEB colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam city and A5 is R/o. Rupulamma Temple Street, Eleswaram Town, East Godavari District.)

11. Offence : U/Secs. 498-A of IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act against A1 to A5, Sec.509 of IPC against A4

12. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

13. Finding : Not guilty

14. Sentence :

A1 to A5 found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 498-A of IPC, Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Further, A4 found not guilty for the offence under Sec.509 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/-G.Spandana

FAC.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

:IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Present : Smt G.Spandana,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and Excise, Court, Guntur.

FAC. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of December,2024.

C.C.No.253 of 2014

Between:-

State: Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem Police Station,Guntur District. …Complainant.

And

1. Vanukuri Naresh Reddy, S/o.Siva Rami Reddy, A/25 years. R/o.Lingamguntlaaripalem, Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Shaik Abdul Karimullah, S/o.Abdul Masjid, A/33 years, Clerk (C.1 Seat) attached to District crime records bureau, District police office, Guntur Urban. …Accused Nos.1 and 2.

This case is coming on 09.12.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri. T.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem PS, Guntur filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.120/2012 for the offences punishable under sections 468, 469 and 420 of IPC.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 is originally native of

Lingamguntlavaripalem of Kakumanu Mandal Guntur. About four years ago, A1 migrated to Guntur and was working as private agent near RTA office,Guntur and A1 used to supply of no objection certificates to his customers by using his influence and by taking commissions. PW.2 is the Home Guard who is the crony of A1 and worked as

Home Guard attached to S.P(Admin) office, Guntur Rural. PW.5 is a Mechanical

Engineer, he went to Uganda about 20 years ago and worked as an Engineer. About two years back, PW.5 came down to India and used to purchase old tractors and trolleys and transport them toUganda after obtaining No Objection Certificates. In this connection, PW.5 purchased four tractors and trolleys recently and met A1 and asked him to provide no objection certificate for the four vehicles. Then, A1 demanded for

Rs.5000/- to provide No Objection certificate. Later, Pw.5 agreed to pay the said amount, due to need of no objection certificate and paid an amount of Rs.5000/- to A1.

Later, A1 met with A2 through PW.2 and asked him to provide four on objection certificates NOSs and then, A2 demanded to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- to provide four no objection certificates and the deal was settled to Rs.3,500/-. On that, A1 paid an amount of Rs.3,500 to A2 towards bribe. Later, A2 prepared fake no objection certificatesinC.Nosi.e.,1)39/C1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012,2) 40/C1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012,3)41/C1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012and 4)42/C1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2021, all dt.26.03.2012 by forging the signatures of

LW.3/S.Sudheer Babu the then S.P, Guntur Urban. After preparing the above four fake no objection certificates, A2 delivered only three fake no objection certificates in C.Nos.

1)39/C1/Vehicles/DCRB-U/2021,2)40/C1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012and 3)41/C1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012 to A1 and kept the other no objection certificate in

C.No.42/C1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012 with him only. Later, A1 delivered only two no objection certificates vide C.Nos.39 and 40/C-1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012, dt.26.03.2012 to PW.5 by keeping one NOC bearing No.41 C-1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012, dt.26.03.2012 with him only with mollified intention in order to extract more money from PW.5.

subsequently, Pw.5 who required six more NOCs approached PW.1 and asked him to permit him to meet LW.3, the then S.P,Guntur (U) by narrating the entire episode and by showing the 2 nos of NOCs delivered by A1. On seeing the NOCs shown by PW.5 and on verifying the signatures on NOCs, PW.1 expressed his doubt about the genuineness of signatures of LW.3 and that they were fake certificates and met Lw.3 the then Superintendent of Police, Guntur (U) and narrated the entire episode and introduced Pw.5 and Lw.3 and also placed the fake NOCs issued by a2 through A1

before Lw.3. then,Lw.3 the then Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban identified that

the signatures on the fake certificates are forged one and directed PW.1 to lodge a report before SHO, Nagarampalem PS to take action against the accused. As per the instructions of LW.3, PW.1 the then Inspector of police, District Special Branch, Guntur lodged a complaint at Nagarampalem PS along with two fake NOCs issued by A2.

Basing on the report given by Pw.1, PW.6/Ch.Srinivasa rao, Inspector of police,

Nagarampalem PS registered a case in Cr.No.120 of 2012 U/sec.468, 469 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation P.W.6 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

During the course of further investigation, PW.6 arrested A1 on 07.04.2012 in the presence of mediators/PW.3, LW.6/K.Yedukondalu and recorded his confessional statement and also seized the fake NOC in C.No.4/C1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012, dt.26.03.2012 from the possession of A1 under the cover of mediatornama duly attested by them and sent A1 for judicial custody. Later on 01.05.2012, A2 remanded to judicial custody on his surrendered before this court. Later, PW.6 filed a memo before the court and took A2 to police custody on 04.05.2012 and recorded the confessional statement of A2 on 05.05.2012 in the presence of mediators/PW.4 and Lw.8/T.Sudhakara rao and also seized the fake NOC in C.no.42/C1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012, dt.26.03.2012 from the house of A2 under the cover of mediatornama duly attested by them and sent him to judicial custody. Later, PW.6 sent the question documents and the admitted writings of

Lw.3, the then S.P, Guntur Urban to FSL, Hyderabad for examination and opinion of

Hand writing expert and the analyst opined that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked as S1 to S20 did not write the red enclosed signatures marked as !

Q.1 to Q4. After completion of investigation, PW.6/Inspector of police filed charge sheet against accused A1 and A2.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence U/sec.468, 469 and 420 of

I.P.C against the accused Nos.1 and 2.

4. On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2 copies of the case documents were furnished to them as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. The accused No.Nos.1 and 2 denied the prosecution case. As there were grounds to proceed initially charges U/sec.468, 469 and 420 of I.P.C were framed against Accused

Nos.1 and 2. The charges were read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 and 2 in

Telugu for which the accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses and Ex.P1 to P13are marked for the prosecution. Ex.P1 is the report given by P.W.1,

Ex.P2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2, Ex.P3 is the signature of PW.3 on attested copy of mediatornama, dt.7.4.2012 at about 9.00 a.m., Ex.P4 is the seizure cum confession nama, Ex.P5 is the no objection certificate dt.26.03.2012 vide C.No.39/C- 1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012 in the name of Sri. M.Saneeva Reddy. Ex.P6 is the no objection certificate dt.26.03.2012 vide C.No.40/C-1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012 in the name of Sri. G.Gopala Krishna Reddy, Ex.P7 is the first information report, Ex.P8 is the

Rough sketch, Ex.P9 is the no objection certificate vide C.No.41/C-1/vehicles/DCRB-

U/2012, dt.26.03.2012, Ex.P10 is the mediatornama (4 pages) dt.07.04.2012 at about 9.00 a.m., Ex.P11 is the mediatornama proceedings dt.05.05.2012 at 12.30 noon,

Ex.P12 is the no objection certificate vide C.No.42/C-1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012 dt.26.03.2012 and Ex.P13 is the FSL report dt.14.03.2014.

7. After conclusion of trial, during the examination of the accused U/sec. 313

Cr.P.C. the accused Nos.Nos.1 and 2 denied the incriminating material found in the prosecution evidence and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the material on record.

9.The key issues that need to be decided in this case are:

1. “Whether the no-objection certificates (Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.P9, Ex.P12) were forged by the accused”?.

2. “Whether the investigation was carried out in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the law”?.

3. Whether the prosecution has established beyond

reasonable doubt that the accused were involved in forgery,

cheating, and fraud.

10.POINT:

In order to prove the guilt of A1 and A2, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.13.

11.The case of prosecution is unfolded from the evidence of PW.1 is the then

Inspector of police, District Special Branch, Guntur testified that on 06.04.2012 while he was at office at about 9.30 a.m., one GG Krishna Reddy came to the office and requested him to get the appointment of S.P at camp office and when he asked the said

GG.Krishna reddy regarding the reason for the appointment of S.P, he replied that as he needed to talk to the S.P regarding issuance of no objection certificates for exported the vehicle to the Uganda. He further stated that already two NOCs are issued to two tractors and he want to request S.P to issue NOCs for the rest of two tractors, he replied that he obtained the same through one RTA agent. When he perused the document shown by the Krishna Reddy, he noticed that the said papers contents the signature of

S.P by name Syama Sundar. He is being working at Special Branch, he got an opportunity to observe the signatures of SP Syam Sundar. So on seeing NOCs, he entertain a suspicion that signatures of S.P is forged. Hence, he showed the NOCs to the SP and SP conformed that the said signatures in the NOCs does not belongs to him and are forged. Hence, he instructed him, he lodge a report before Nagarampalem PS.

When witness is confronted with the report, he admitted the signature over it and contents as true and correct.

During the course of cross-examination, PW.1 stated that after preparing Ex.P1, he did not shown the same to SP. He also stated that he did not choose to take the signature of Lw.2 or his affidavit. He admitted in his cross-examination that for obtaining the NOC in respect of vehicles matter will be communicated from RTO to the SP but no person will approach personally for obtaining NOC.

12.PW.2 testified that he does not know anything about this case. Though, the learned APP cross-examined the said witness by seeking permission from the court to declare him as hostile witness to the case of prosecution, but nothing could be elicited in favour of prosecution from the said cross-examination, except marking of his

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements as Ex.P2.

13.PW.3 is the one of mediator who present at the time of arrest of A1 and seizure of fake NOC testified that he does not know anything about this case. He deposed that he never accompanied police to any place and no proceeding was recorded in his presence. On some work, when he went to police station, police obtained his signature on blank papers. When the witness is confronted with the confession mediatornama, he identified the signature over it but denied its contents.

Though, the learned APP cross-examined the said witness by seeking permission from the court to declare him as hostile witness to the case of prosecution, but nothing could be elicited in favour of prosecution from the said cross-examination.

14. PW.4 is another mediator who present at the time of arrest of A1 and seizure of fake NOC testified that testified that on 05.05.2012 at about 9.30 hours, one police constable of Nagarampalem PS came to the office and requested him to act as a mediator for recording seizure and confession of accused. Immediately, he proceeded to Nagarampalem PS and in his presence, the Inspector of police recorded the confessional statement of A2 and seized fake NOC. The entire proceedings recorded under vide seizure-cum-confession nama dt.05.05.2023 at about 10.00 a.m., and he attested on the same.

During cross-examination, he stated that one of the constable is the scribe of

Ex.P1. He admitted that there is no endorsement in Ex.P4 showing the name of the scribe. He also admitted that usually, at the request of police, he used to accompanied them and help them.

15. PW.5 testified that In the years 2011 and 2012, he purchased nine 2nd hand used tractors to export them to the farmers of Uganda and in that process he approached RTO office, Guntur for no objection certificate for those tractors and in that process he approached some agents nearby RTO office for clearance and no objection certificates from police and he gave some advance of Rs.5,000/- to one of the agent by name Naresh whose full name he did not remember at present and in return he handed over him to NOCs for two tractors. Thereafter, he approached S.P office on 06.04.2012 for obtaining no objection certificates for remaining 7 tractors and he has shown the two no objection certificates received by him from said agent Naresh to P.W1 who is the then Inspector of police, District Special Branch, Guntur. Then, he informed him that those no objection certificates are fake with forged signatures of L.W3 who is the then

Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban. Thereafter, a complaint was given in this case by P.W1 after due instructions from L.W3 who asserted that signatures on those NOCs are not that of L.W3. Thereafter, he examined by police and they recorded his statement and he handed over those two no objection certificates which are said to be take and forged to P.W1 during investigation. On confrontation with no objection certificate dt. 26.03.2012 vide C.No.39/C-1/Vehicles/DCRB-U/2012 in the name of Sri.

M. Sanjeeva Reddy.as in Ex.P5. Witness admitted them to be the NOC with respect to two used tractors handed over to him by said agent Naresh and Ex.P5 is in the name of

Sri. M. Sanjeeva Reddy. On confrontation with no objection certificate dt. 26.03.2012 vide C.No.40/C-1/Vehicles/DCRB-U/2012 in the name of Sri. G. Gopala Krishna Reddy as in Ex.P6. Witness admitted them to be the NOC with respect to two used tractors handed over to him by said agent Naresh and Ex.P6 is in the name of G. Gopala

Krishna Reddy. He cannot identify the said agent by name Naresh as 10 years of time was lapsed.

During the course of cross-examination by learned counsel on behalf of

A1, he admitted that Ex.P5 is with reference to one Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o Mohan Reddy of Namburu. He stated that he did not submit the relevant documents of said used tractors such as Registration certificate and sale documents to police at the time of investigation, for which Ex.P5 and P6 NOCs were issued and that he did not give any separate report to police in this case. He denied the suggestion that neither he approached S.P office on that day nor submitted anything to P.W1 including

NOCs/Ex.P5 and P6. On 06.04.2012, he is examined by police at Nagarampalem police but he cannot say the specific police personnel who examined him on that day and he is not examined by police in this case at Nagarampalem P.S. Cross-examination by the defence counsel on behalf of A2 reported as nil. The learned APP reexamined PW.5 and PW.5 stated that he did not remember whether he stated to police that he approached one Naresh Reddy, RTA agent. Witness adds as 10 years time was lapsed.

He denied the suggestion that intentionally he is avoiding to identify accused No.1 in this case and also not mentioning the full name of A1.

16. Pw.6 testified that on 06.04.2012 at 12:30 noon, PW1, who is the then

Inspector of Police, District Special branch, Guntur along with PW5/G. Gopala Krishna reddy came to police station and PW1 presented a written report/Ex.P1 enclosing certain documents, and after going through its contents, and also on perusal of enclosed documents, he registered the same as Cr.No.120/2011 U/sec. 468,469 of IPC.

submitted FIRto the Hon'ble Court and copies to all the concerned authorities. On the same day, at police station he examined PW1, PW5 and recorded their statements.

Immediately, he proceeded to scene of offence on the same day which is at District

Police Office, Guntur urban located in the premises of District Superintendent of Police,

Guntur rural, Guntur and prepared Ex.P8/rough sketch, proceeded to camp office of

Superintendent of Police, Guntur urban and secured presence of the then

Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban/LW3, examined him and recorded his detailed statement and he stated before him that the copies of No objection certificate with respect to vehicle tractor bearing No. AP31 U 432/Ex.P5 and copies of No objection certificate with respect to vehicle tractor and trally bearing No. AP22V 0018/19, dated.

26.3.2012/Ex.P6. On 7-4-2012, at about 8-30 am, he received information about the presence of A1 at Revenue Kalaynamandapam, 14th cross road, near Kankaragunta fly over, Guntur, secured mediators/PW.3 and Lw6/K. Yedukondalu explaining them reasons to be mediators and after obtained their consent, he along with his staff proceeded to Revenue Kalyanamandapam at Moulali Juice stall and he took him into custody with the assistance of his staff and inquired him in presence of both mediators and recovered No objection certificate with regard to tractor and trailer bearing registration number AIC-4964/65, chasis Number S9F 24963, engine number 3524045 vide C.No. 41/C-1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012, dated 26-3-2012 as in Ex.P9 and confession statement of accused was recorded in the presence of both mediators duly attested by them after effecting arrest of A1 as in Ex.P10.Thereafter, A1 brought to police station and produced A1 before the court and he was sent for Judicial Custody.

On the same day, he secured PW2 and examined him and recorded his detailed statement/Ex.P2. After coming to know that A2 was surrendered before the Honble

Court on 1.5.2012, he filed memo for police custody of A2 on 4.5.2012 and after obtaining orders from the court, I recorded confession statement of A2/Ex.P4 on 5.5.2012 in presence of mediators/PW4 and LW8/T. Sudhakara rao. In pursuance of confession of A2, he was taken to his house which is at D.No.40, 2nd lane, Naibrahmin colony, Maruthi Nagar, Gujjanagundla, Guntur in presence of mediators and went inside of the said house and he came out with a no objection certificate bearing registration

No. AP 16 T 2068/69 chasis no. A20416, Engine No. 3S47206 vide C.No.

42/C-1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012, dated 26-3-2012 as in Ex.P12 Mediatornama proceedings dated 5.5.2012 at 12-30 noon at H.No.40, 2nd lane, Naibrahmin colony,

Maruthi Nagar, Gujjanagundla, Guntur as in Ex.P11. Then he issued search proceedings and conducted search of house of A2 for incriminating material pertaining this case, but no such material was found by him. In the due course of enquiry, he addressed a letter SP, Guntur Urban requesting to provide Standard admitted handwriting of LW3 in order to send them along with material objects of questioned documents ie., four no objection certificates for examination at FSL, Hyderabad, in the due course of enquiry, he also obtained from SP, Guntur Urban about the job charter of

A2. He submitted hand writtings of LW3/then the SP, Guntur Urban to the Honble

Court requesting to take on file in this case and on the same day he filed another memo

before this court requesting to send the questioned documents ie., four no objection

certificates along with stand handwritings of LW3 for comparison to FSL, Hyderabad and for opinion of handwriting expert. After obtaining expert opinion from FSL,

Hyderabad vide FSL.No. DOC/45/2014, dated 14-3-2014 opining that “the person who wrote the red enclosure signatures marked S1 to S20 did not write the enclosed signatures marked as Q1 to Q4”as in Ex.P13. Their investigation material as well as confession of A1 and A2 reveals that at the influence of A1, A2 forged no objection certificates mentioned earlier ie., Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.P9 and Ex.P12 as if they were issued by the then Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban/LW3 for the purpose to send the vehicles i.e, factors mentioned thereon to the formers of Uganda country for their unlawfull gain and thereby committed cheating against PW5. After completion of investigation and due verification of investigation material, he filed charge sheet against

A1 and A2.

During the course of cross-examination, he stated that he did not obtain any receipt of complaint from PW1 on 6.4.2012 when he examined him at police station along with

PW1 and he recorded statements of PW1, PW5 and LW3 directly on computer. He stated that he only typed all their statements directly on computer and that in general, public can apply RTA authorities for getting No objection Certificates in relation with transfer of vehicles from one place to another place including any other country and the concerned R.T.A Authorities have to send them to concerned SP having authority for processing the No objection certificates and the same will be dealt by District Crime

Record Bureau. He admitted in his cross-examination that the said District Crime

Record Bureau consists of Inspector, Head Constables, one clerk, writer. Witness adds at that time of period of crime in this case, there is no Deputy Superintendent of police post in District Crime Record Bureau, but subsequently that post was created in

District Crime Record Bureau. He stated that he examined the then Inspector of

District Crime Record Bureau as part of his investigation in this case. After receiving of applications from RTA Office, SP will forward the same to District Crime Record Bureau and those applications will come to C-1 seat as per job charter for verification process including as to involvement said vehicles any crimes in jurisdiction of concerned SP and then C-1 clerk has to prepare no objection certificate for relevant vehicles after due process of the said application. He stated that after preparing of No objection certificate by C-1 clerk, he has to place them before concerned SP with due initials of C-1 Clerk and as per procedure, registers has to be maintained has to forward applications of RTA

Authorities to SP and entrustment to District Crime Record Bureau and thereafter also the relevant registers has to be maintained as to verified applications and their respective results including issuance of NOC. He also stated that he had gone through the relevant registers, but as he did not found any relevant entries of No objection certificates of Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, Ex.P9 and Ex.P12 in those registers, hence, he did not seize any such registers from the SP office or District Crime Record Bureau office. He denied the suggestion that he did not verify any such registers, hence, only he did not seize any such registers though he is testifying that no relevant entries under Ex.P5,

Ex.P6 and Ex.P9 and Ex.P12 are found in those registers. He stated that he did not examine any RTA officials and District Crime Record Bureau officials as part of investigation. He stated that on confrontation with C.No.01/C-1/vehicles/DCRB/2012 to

C.No.08/C-1/vehicles/DCRB/2012, C.No.14/C-1/vehicles/DCRB/2012, C.No.15/C-1 vehicles/DCRB/2012, C.No.18/C-1/vehicles/DCRB/2012 to C.No.20/C-1/vehicles

DCRB/2012 to C.No.28/C-1/vehicles/DCRB/2012 (the documents of No objection certificates having standard signatures S1 to S20 in handwriting expert opinion) said to be issued by Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban and suggested that the signatures on said documents ie., S1 to S20 are not that of LW3 then witness denied the same.

Witness adds that, those are the correspondence between RTO office, Guntur and

Superintendent of Police, Guntur urban and on request of IO/witness, those documents were furnished by SP office as admitted signatures of LW3/the then SP, Guntur Urban.

He denied the suggestion that the above confronted documents of No Objection

Certificates-20 Nos having signatures of Lw3 are only FAX messages from SP office,

Guntur Urban to RTO, Guntur.

17. on careful perusal of the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, the present case involves allegations of forgery, cheating, and manipulation of documents, specifically no-objection certificates (NOCs) issued by the Superintendent of Police,

Guntur Urban, which the prosecution contends were forged by the accused with the intent to facilitate unlawful vehicle transfers. The charges against the accused are under sections 468, 469, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution has presented testimonies from various witnesses and submitted documents including

Ex.P1, Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.P9, and Ex.P12. The defense has vehemently denied the charges and raised doubts regarding the authenticity of the documents and the procedural lapses in the investigation. After thorough consideration of the evidence and the arguments made by both sides, the Court is now in a position to deliver its judgment.

18. Considering the Testimony of PW1, PW1 is the then Inspector of Police,

District Special Branch, Guntur. He deposed that the accused, in conspiracy, forged several no-objection certificates (Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.P9, Ex.P12) with the intention of unlawfully transferring vehicles to Uganda. PW1 claimed that the accused manipulated documents that were essential for the legal transfer of vehicles. PW1 filed a report/Ex.P1 to that effect, which led to the registration of the FIR/Ex.P7 against the accused.

19.PW1 further stated that he recorded statements from various witnesses, including PW5 and LW3, and had also visited the District Crime Record Bureau (DCRB) during the course of his investigation. The witness claimed that the no-objection certificates presented in the case were forged and that the accused had conspired to deceive the authorities.

20.PW5 corroborated PW1's testimony by confirming the involvement of the accused in the unlawful transfer of vehicles. PW5 stated that he was misled by the accused, who presented the forged no-objection certificates as legitimate documents issued by the concerned authorities. However, PW5 could not provide any specific details that could definitively link the accused to the act of forging the documents.

21. PW6 is the Investigating Officer (IO) in this case, who deposed that he examined the scene of the offence, recorded statements, and collected evidence during the course of his investigation. He claimed to have obtained several documents, including no-objection certificates from the accused, during mediatornama proceedings.

These documents were presented as evidence in court.

22 PW6 also mentioned that during his investigation, he discovered discrepancies in the signatures on the no-objection certificates, which led him to conclude that the documents had been forged. According to PW6, the signatures on the documents did not match the standard signatures of the then Superintendent of Police,

Guntur Urban (LW3). PW6 confronted the accused with these findings, and the accused allegedly confessed to the crime.

23. The prosecution submitted the FSL report (Ex.P13), which highlighted the discrepancies in the signatures on the no-objection certificates. According to the FSL report, the signatures on the documents marked as S1 to S20 were found to be standard signatures. The prosecution relied heavily on this report to substantiate their claims of forgery. However, it is worth noting that the handwriting expert who prepared the report was not called to testify in court, leaving room for doubt regarding the authenticity and reliability of the report.

24. The defense contended that the no-objection certificates in question were legitimate and that the accused had not forged any documents. The defense questioned the investigation process and highlighted the following discrepancies:

25. During the cross-examination of PW1, the defense pointed out that no receipt was obtained from PW1 when he examined him on 6.4.2012. The defense also questioned the process by which the statements of PW1, PW5, and LW3 were recorded directly on a computer, without the issuance of any physical receipts or proper documentation.

26.The defense pointed out that PW6 had failed to seize relevant registers from the District Crime Record Bureau (DCRB), even though he claimed to have examined the registers. PW6 admitted that he found no relevant entries for the no- objection certificates in the registers, but did not seize any documents from the DCRB or SP office, which the defense argued was a procedural lapse.

27.The defense disputed the confessions made by the accused, claiming that these confessions were obtained under duress during mediatornama proceedings. The defense suggested that the accused did not confess to any crimes, and that the mediatornama documents/Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 were fabricated to suit the prosecution’s case.

28.The defense questioned the authenticity of the signatures on the no- objection certificates, suggesting that these documents were not forged but were legitimate certificates issued by the authorities. The defense claimed that the documents marked as Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.P9, and Ex.P12 were valid and legally issued for the transfer of vehicles.

29.The defense further contended that the entire investigation was conducted in a cursory and incomplete manner, with several key steps not being followed as per legal procedure. No RTA officials or DCRB personnel were examined during the investigation, which weakened the prosecution's case.

30.The prosecution's case hinges significantly on the FSL report/Ex.P13, which analyzed the disputed signatures on the NOCs. The handwriting expert opined that "the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked S1 to S20 did not write the red enclosed signatures marked Q1 to Q4." The expert's conclusion suggests that the signatures on the NOCs were not the genuine signatures of LW3, the then

Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban. This is a critical point in the case, as it raises a substantial question about the authenticity of the NOCs and casts doubt on the entire prosecution theory.

31.Ex.P13 details the comparison between the alleged forged signatures (Q1 to Q4) and the authentic signatures (S1 to S20). The expert specifically noted that there was a marked difference between the handwriting styles and strokes of the two sets of signatures. This led the expert to conclude that the signatures on the NOCs could not have been written by the same person who signed the original documents. As a result, the prosecution's assertion that the NOCs were issued by LW3 is brought into question.

32.The Ex.P13/FSL report plays a pivotal role in the prosecution's case. The signatures (Q1 to Q4) were said to represent the NOCs issued for the tractors involved in the case, while S1 to S20 were considered to be the authentic signatures of LW3.

The handwriting expert's analysis was based on these samples, with the conclusion that the signatures on the NOCs were forged.

33.In legal terms, the opinion of a handwriting expert, especially in cases involving document forgery, is of considerable importance. However, the FSL report does not conclusively establish that the accused were responsible for the forgery of the

NOCs. The report only indicates that the signatures in question were not the genuine signatures of LW3, but it does not point directly to the accused as the perpetrators of the forgery.

34. The investigation conducted by PW6 was marred by several procedural lapses. There were discrepancies in the testimony regarding the seizure of documents from the accused’s house and the confessions made during the mediatornama proceedings. The failure to examine RTA officials and DCRB personnel, coupled with the lack of relevant entries in the registers, undermines the credibility of the investigation.

35. The prosecution failed to present adequate corroborative evidence to support its claims. No significant physical evidence, such as the registers from the

DCRB or the admitted signatures of LW3, was produced in court. The failure to present such crucial evidence weakens the prosecution’s case substantially.

36.Furthermore, the defense raised several questions regarding the handling of the FSL report. During cross-examination, it was revealed that the prosecution had not obtained any additional standard signatures from LW3 for comparison purposes.

This raises concerns about the thoroughness and fairness of the investigation, as the lack of direct comparison material could undermine the reliability of the expert's opinion.

37.Moreover, the prosecution failed to demonstrate the chain of custody of the documents, which could further weaken the credibility of the evidence. The absence of relevant entries in the registers maintained by the District Crime Record Bureau, which should have reflected the issuance of the NOCs, also casts doubt on the prosecution's case.

38.The defense has strongly contested the authenticity of the FSL report and the procedures followed during the investigation. The defense argued that the prosecution's reliance on the handwriting expert's opinion was misplaced, as the expert only concluded that the signatures were not written by LW3, without directly implicating the accused in the forgery. Furthermore, the defense pointed out the discrepancies in the evidence, such as the lack of seized registers and failure to question key witnesses, including RTA and District Crime Record Bureau officials, regarding the issuance of the

NOCs.

39.The defense also challenged the manner in which the NOCs were handled during the investigation, asserting that there was a lack of due diligence in verifying the authenticity of the documents. Additionally, the defense suggested that the entire case was constructed based on the assumption that the NOCs were forged, without adequate consideration of other potential explanations for the discrepancies.

40.It is well-settled in law that a confession made before the police is inadmissible as evidence, except in certain circumstances, as per Section 25 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Confessions made to a police officer are presumed to be coerced and unreliable, and therefore, they cannot form the basis of a conviction. In this case, the alleged confessions made by the accused before the police, as stated in the mediator's report (Ex.P10 and Ex.P4), are inadmissible in evidence, as they fall within the ambit of this legal provision. As a result, these confessions cannot be relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused in the present case.

41.After careful examination of the evidence, particularly the FSL report/Ex.P13, and considering the arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defense, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused were responsible for forging the NOCs. The FSL report, while indicating that the signatures on the NOCs were not written by LW3, does not conclusively link the accused to the forgery. The lack of direct evidence implicating the accused, combined with the inconsistencies in the investigation and the handling of the evidence, creates reasonable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution's case.

42.Furthermore, the prosecution's failure to establish a clear chain of custody for the documents and the absence of corroborative evidence from key witnesses, such as RTA and District Crime Record Bureau officials, further weakens the case against the accused.

43.Given these findings, this Court holds that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, both Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 are acquitted of all charges under sections 468, 469, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

44.In the result, A1 and A2 found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 468, 469, 420 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court,, this the 17th day of December, 2024.

Sd/-G.Spandana

JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE GUNTUR.

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: S.V.Rajasekhara Reddy. --None--.

PW.2: N.Balaji.

PW.3: S.Sudheer Babu.

PW.4: Y.China Guruvaiah.

PW.5: G.Gopala Krishna Reddy.

PW.6:Ch.Srinivasa rao,Inspector of police, Nagarampalem PS, Guntur Urban.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Report given by P.W.1.

Ex.P2:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2.

Ex.P3:Signature of PW.3 on attested copy of mediatornama, dt.7.4.2012 at about 9.00 a.m.,

Ex.P4:Seizure cum confession nama.

Ex.P5:No objection certificate dt.26.03.2012 vide C.No.39/C-1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012 in the name of Sri. M.Saneeva Reddy.

Ex.P6:No objection certificate dt.26.03.2012 vide C.No.40/C-1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012 in the name of Sri. G.Gopala Krishna Reddy.

Ex.P7:First information report.

Ex.P8:Rough sketch.

Ex.P9:No objection certificate vide C.No.41/C-1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012, dt.26.03.2012,

Ex.P10:Mediatornama (4 pages) dt.07.04.2012 at about 9.00 a.m.

Ex.P11:Mediatornama proceedings dt.05.05.2012 at 12.30 noon.

Ex.P12: No objection certificate vide C.No.42/C-1/vehicles/DCRB-U/2012 dt.26.03.2012 .

Ex.P13:FSL report dt.14.03.2014.

FOR DEFENCE:

-- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

--NIL--

Sd/-G.Spandana

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

: IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

C.C.No.253/2014

01. Date of offence: 05.04.2012

02. Date of Filing: 04.04.2014

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 07.04.2012(A1),01.05.2012(A2)

04. Release on bail: 17.04.2012,07.05.2012

05. Commencement of trial: 25.10.2018

06. Closure of trial: 09.11.2022

07. Date of Judgment : 17.12.2024

08. Explanation for delay: After appearance of the accused No.1 and 2, copies of case documents were furnished to them on 30.07.2018 and they were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charges for the offences under Secs. 468, 469, 420 of IPC.On 25.10.2018, PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 marked, on 19.02.2020, PW.2 was examined and Ex.P2 marked, ON 04.03.2020 PW.3 was examined and Ex.P3 marked, ON 10.03.2020, Pw.4 was examined and Ex.P4 marked, on 20.05.2022 PW.5 was examined and Exs.P5 and P6 marked, on 04.11.2022, Pw.6 was examined and Exs.P7 to P13 marked and prosecution evidence was closed on 09.11.2022. On 17.11.2022, accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. On 19.11.2024, arguments of learned APP were heard. On 20.11.2024 arguments of learned counsel for A1 and A2 were heard in part and on 29.11.2024 arguments of learned counsel for A1 and A2 were heard in part on 09.12.2024, arguments were heard by the learned counsel on behalf of A1 and A2. Judgment pronounced on 17.12.2024.

09. Name of the complainant: State represented by Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem P.S.

10. Name of the accused :

1. Vanukuri Naresh Reddy, S/o.Siva Rami Reddy, A/25 years. R/o.Lingamguntlaaripalem, Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Shaik Abdul Karimullah, S/o.Abdul Masjid, A/33 years, Clerk (C.1 Seat) attached to District crime records bureau, District police office, Guntur Urban.

11. Offence : U/Secs. 468,469, 420 of IPC

12. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

13. Finding : Not guilty

14. Sentence : A1 and A2 found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 468, 469, 420 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/-G.Spandana

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

PRESENT:: G. Spandana,

SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR PROHIBITION AND

EXCISE, GUNTUR

FAC: VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR Wednesday, the 26th day of March, 2025.

Calender Case No.4762/2021

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Women PS....Complainant

And

1.Kakumanu Surya Prakash, S/o.Ajay Kumar, 31 years, C/Kapu, D.No.1-82, 1-27, Backside Government Hospital, Amarawathi village and Mandal, Guntur District.

2.Kakumanu @ Putta Indira Kumari, W/o.Ajay, 50 years,C/Kapu, D.No.1-82, 1-27, back side Government Hospital, Amarawathi village and Mandal, Guntur District.

.. Accused

This case coming on 21.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of K. Ramesh, the learned Advocate for accused No.1 and 2, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Disha Women P.S filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.143/2021 for the offence under sections 498-A of

IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are that,the offence took place at

Chebrolu village and mandal, Guntur District. Lw.1 is the defacto complainant and she is resident of Chebrolu village and mandal, Guntur District. Her parents performed the marriage of Lw.1 with A1 on 11.03.2020 in th epresnece of elders. She joined marital life. A1 and A2 looked after for a week days only. Since then they started harassing her for additional dowr;y. A1 forced her for gold, site and farm field with her. They rejected for marriage certificate registration till bringing additional dowry. On 26., August, 2020

A1 beat on her stomach, she phoned her paretns and they reached at 12 in the night 2 and took her to hospital and found her fallopian left tube infected and tube was removed by operation. She stayed 3 months at parental house. But A1 an dA2 did not care to look after her. On 17.12.2020 she went to maternal house still they ill-treated her and not even provided proper food. On 20th December she got stomach pain and on 6th

Januaty at 11 pm A1 beat her on her stomach and abused herin filthy language. Later she went to parental and stayed. Then A1 and A2 visited her parental and picked quarrel and beat Lw.1 and subjected her to cruelty. A1 and A2 rejected to take her back to marital life.

On the report of Lw.1, Lw.4 registered as a case in Cr.No.143/2021 of Disha Women PS under section 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act on 15.06.2021.

c) During the course of investigation, Lw.4 visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution in the said case. He also visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 494 and 420 of IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.After perusing the record, this Court took cognizance for the offence u/sec 498-

A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act against accused and issued summons to him by assigning in CC.No.4762/2021.

4.Accused when appeared before the court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

When accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., stating the allegations against them which are available in the charge sheet for the offence punishable u/sec.

498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act the same are read over and explained to accused in Telugu. They abjured guilt and claims to be tried. Hence, accused were put on trial.

5.To substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution agency has examined

P.W.1 to P.W.4.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of crpc and they denied any knowledge about the contents of the allegations and stated that they have no evidence on their behalf.

3

7. Heard the learned A.P.P., for the prosecution and learned counsel for accused.

Perused the material on record.

8.NOW, THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

accused for the offence U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP

Act beyond reasonable doubt subject to the satisfaction of the court

by establishing the essential ingredients there under:-

9. POINT: Pw.1 deposed in her evidence that her marriage was perforemd with A1 in Sajja

Kalyanamandapam, Ponnur A2 demanded cash of Rs 10 lakhs from her parents but they agreed for Rs.5 lakhs in the presence of LV12 and others ie, her grandmother, her grand parents and uncles of A1, LW3 gave Rs 5 lakhs to A2 and after marriage, she joined A1 to lead her conjugal life at Amaravathi to the house of A2 and at the time of marriage. A1 was doing medical coding from Home, A2 worked as C.H.O Amaravathi, after one week of their marriage, A1 started harassing her physically even during her menstrual periods and also demanded additional dowry of Rs. 20 to Rs.30 Lakhs, land, site for the purpose of registration of their marriage. on 26.8.2020 at about 12'o clock,

A1 bet on her stomach by that time she was in her period's time, Prior to that she got conceive, but due to the beating by A1, she got over bleeding, and she phone called to her parents and they came and took her to Kanunuri Hospital, where she underwent surgery on 21.9.2020, thereafter, she stayed for a period of 3 months at her parents house, during that period, A1 and A2 never visited her, even then, she went to the house of A1 to continue her marital life but failed to provide proper food and never concerned about her health issues. She further stated that on 6.1.2021 at night hours, A and herself altercated for gold belonging to her and also demanded to bring from her parents, on 07.01.2021 her father came to their house and put her to their house for the festival but A refused to come, A used to taunt her stating that she is no way suitable for the as she is earning Rs.1.5 lakh and she also used filthy language and used to throw household utensils, during that period, she used to prepare for Government jobs, but A2 used to hide her books and never gave her even if she requested, by the time of marriage, the accused promised her that he will help her to pursue her higher education after her Degree, but the accused failed to keep up his promise, after 07.01.2021, she 4 went to Disha Women PS where counselling was done for four times, wherein A1 attended only once, subsequently, she lodeged a complaint against both the accused.

10.In the cross examination it is admitted that she has also filed MC, DVC and

Restitution of conjugal rights cases against A1 and his family members in Guntur Courts and that all the cases are ‘Dismissed for default’ due to her non appearance. It is also admitted that Ex.P1 is undated and it is silent about the persentation of dowry to A1 and his family. It is also admitted that she got tubal Ectopic pregnancy, as such that pregnancy was removed through surgery and that after their marriage, there was first wave of Covid-19 virus and A2 being CHO, Amaravathi used to attend her duties once in a week even then she used to mingle with them. It is also admitted that there are no specifics in the report about the issues that arose between them. It is also admitted that she resided for 5 months in his in-laws house, thereafter he left for surgery and took bed rest for 3 months at his in-laws house and again he joined A1 for 1 ½ month. It is also admitted that he has not mentioned in Ex.P1 report that A1 and A2 failed to provide proper food to him. The promise of A1 and A2 to let her to pursue her higher education was not reduced into writing. Ex.P1 report is Dt.07.01.2021 and FIR was registered on 15.06.2021.

11.Pw.2/P Satyaveni and PW.3/P.Veera Babu who are parents of defacto complainant stated in their chief examination in one voice that on 11.3.2020 the marriage of PW1 with A1 at Sajja Kalyanamandapam, Ponnuru, after marriage. At of you harassed PW1 physically and mentally for which she had underwent surgery at

Karumun Hospital, Guntur as during the Tubal Pregnancy, A1 kicked her on her abdomen, thereafter. Pw1 stayed with them for 3 months for bed rest, A1 harassed PW1 asking her to join the matrimonial home, on that, LW3 dropped PW1 at their house.

Thereafter, PW1 called them and informed that A1 and A2 beat her, demanding to register site in their favour instead of PW1 and also for gold into your possession, for which, PW1 refused the same, then on the phone call of PW1, Lw3 went to the house of

A1 of you and brought back her to their house, thereafter, PW1 lodged a complaint against A1 and A2 at Disha Women Ps and she was examined by the police.

12.In the cross examination they admitted that because of that pregnancy, one can receive pains and inconvenience during their gestation period and the same has to be 5 removed at any time and that because of this pregnancy in fallopain tube her pregnancy was terminated on 22.09.2020. It is further admitted that Pw.1 handed over all the hospital bills to A1 for claiming medical insurance and that Pw.1 informed them that A1 asking her to come to the house of A2 to join with him after bed rest and that A2 is an employee and are financially well persons. It is also admitted that they came to know through Pw.1 that A1 and A2 are demanding to register site in their favour instead of

Pw.1 and also demanding for the possession of gold ornaments of Pw.1. It is also admitted that after returning to their house in the month of January, 2021, she went to

Hyderabad and joined in computer courses and subsequently joined in a job at Cap

Gemini Software and simultaneously prepared Group-II Exams and that Pw.1 filed all these cases at Guntur while she was doing job at Hyderabad, he addressed a letter to

DMHO to the place where A2 is working and copies to 10 other officials informing that

A2 is the reason for the termination of pregnancy of Pw.1 as she had given some medicines which are not related to pregnancy. It is further admitted that her son was residing at USA but it is in correct to ascertain that A1 adjusted Rs.3 lakhs for his travel to abroad.

13.Pw.3/P.Veera Babu, deposed in his evidence that on 11.3.2020 the marriage of

PW1 with A1 at Sajja Kalyanamandapam Ponnur and that after mariage, PW1 joined A1 at the house of A2, Amaravathi and stayed there for months and after marriage, since beginning A1 harassed PW1 physically and mentally for which she had underwent surgery at Karumuri Hospital, Guntur as during the Tubal Pregnancy, A1 kicked her on her abdomen and he bore the expenses for her surgery Thereafter he dropped PW1 at the house of A1 and later PW1 again came to their house due to disputes and her job was removed while she was working at Cap Gemini due to some complaint against her by unknown person to her H.R. during the stay of PW1 at their house. A1 used to call her and harassed her and he never allowed PW1 to live peacefully and due to his harassment, PW1 is having suicide tendency but we supported her for survival

Thereafter, PW1 lodged a complaint against A1 and A2 at Disha Women PS and that he was examined by the police.

14.In the cross examination it is elicited that PW1 conceived with tubal pregnancy which is unsafe for her health and that A1 collected the medical bills and claimed 6 nsurance. It is further admitted that they addressed a letter to DMHO to the place where A2 is working and copies to 10 other officials informeing that A2 is the reason for the termination of pregnancy of Pw.1 as she had given some medicines which are not related to pregnancy knowing fullyl aware that Tubal pregnancy is danger for her life. It is also admitted that Pw.1 filed all these cases at Guntur while she was prusuing her courses and while she was doing job at Hyderabad and that for 4 or 5 months, sh eresided mostly at their house, after her marriage and that Pw.1 no where specirfically mentioned the nature of harassment done by A1 in Ex.P1 and that she was the reason for all the cases filed by Pw.1 against A1. It is further admitted that basing on the word of Pw.1, they addressed a letter to DMHO against A2.

15.Pw.4/J. Anuradha, SI of police,Disha Women PS deposed in his evidence that while she was present in the police station PW.1 came and presented a written report, basing on it she registered a case in Cr.No. 143/2021 U/sec. 498-A IPC, Sec. 3 and 4 of

DP Act and she sent original FIR to Hon'ble court and copies to concerned authorities, then and there she examined PW 1 and recorded their statement U/sec. 161 Cr.Pc. On 16.6.2021 she has visited the house of complainant and there she examined PW2 and

PW3 and recorded their statements u/sec. 161 Cr.PC and prepared rough sketch and on 15.07.2021, she served 41-A cr.p.c notice on you and after completion of investigation she filed charge.

16.In the cross examination of Pw.4 it is elicited that there are no specifics in Ex.P1 report about the dowry given on the date of events and that he has not filed any proof to show the property particulars of Pw.3.

17.Delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) is a crucial factor that courts must carefully scrutinize in criminal cases, as it often raises questions about the authenticity of the allegations made by the complainant. In the present case, the prosecution alleges that the accused subjected the complainant to physical and mental cruelty soon after marriage, including demands for additional dowry and acts of physical assault. However, despite such serious allegations, the FIR was filed belatedly on 15.06.2021, almost a year after the alleged incidents took place. Such a significant delay, without any cogent explanation, naturally invites suspicion regarding the veracity of the claims. It is well-established in criminal jurisprudence that an unexplained and 7 unreasonable delay in filing an FIR may indicate embellishment, exaggeration, or even a deliberate attempt to frame the accused due to ulterior motives. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that a prompt FIR lends credibility to the prosecution’s case, whereas an unexplained delay weakens it by creating doubts about the spontaneity of the allegations. In this case, the Investigating Officer (PW4) himself admitted in cross-examination that there is no mention in the FIR regarding any reason for the delay, nor is there any official record to show that the parties underwent counseling sessions before the registration of the case. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the complainant faced any restrictions or threats that prevented her from approaching the authorities earlier. The absence of a plausible justification for the delay suggests that the FIR may have been lodged as an afterthought, possibly as a reaction to personal disputes rather than as a genuine complaint of criminal wrongdoing. Delay in lodging an FIR is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case if satisfactorily explained, such as in instances where the victim faces intimidation, trauma, or other compelling circumstances. However, when the delay remains unexplained or appears strategically motivated, courts must exercise caution

before convicting the accused based on such allegations. The possibility that the

allegations have been exaggerated or fabricated due to ongoing matrimonial discord cannot be ruled out. Given that criminal law demands a high standard of proof, any delay in filing the FIR must be evaluated in light of its impact on the reliability of the prosecution’s case. In this instance, the prolonged delay casts a shadow of doubt over the prosecution’s narrative, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.

18.Lack of independent corroboration is a critical shortcoming in the prosecution’s case, particularly in matters involving serious allegations such as cruelty and dowry harassment under Section 498-A IPC. In the present case, the entire prosecution story hinges solely on the testimonies of PW1 (the complainant), PW2 (her mother), and PW3 (her father). It is a well-settled principle in criminal jurisprudence that while the evidence of an interested witness, such as the victim or their close family members, cannot be outrightly discarded, it must be subjected to careful scrutiny, especially when independent witnesses are available but not examined. The prosecution has not presented any testimony from neighbors, relatives, or other individuals who could 8 provide an unbiased account of the alleged incidents. PW4, the Investigating Officer, admitted during cross-examination that no independent witnesses came forward to depose in support of the complainant’s claims. However, no effort appears to have been made by the prosecution to secure the testimony of persons living near the matrimonial home of PW1, who might have had firsthand knowledge of the alleged harassment.

Courts have repeatedly held that in cases where allegations are serious and involve multiple accusations, independent corroboration is desirable to strengthen the case and dispel any doubts regarding exaggeration or personal vendetta. In the absence of such corroboration, the prosecution’s case is significantly weakened, as it relies entirely on the testimonies of individuals who have a direct interest in the outcome of the case. The risk of embellishment or exaggeration in matrimonial disputes cannot be ignored, particularly when allegations emerge after the breakdown of the marriage. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to produce medical records, financial transaction details, or any other documentary evidence to substantiate the claims of physical and mental harassment. Mere oral assertions, without tangible proof or independent verification, do not meet the stringent standard of proof required in criminal cases, where the burden rests squarely on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While the testimony of a victim can form the sole basis for conviction if found wholly reliable and trustworthy, the present case is marred by inconsistencies, contradictions, and the absence of any neutral testimony to support the prosecution’s version. This lack of corroboration, coupled with the unexplained delay in filing the FIR and other material inconsistencies, raises reasonable doubt about the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

In criminal law, where the liberty of an individual is at stake, such doubt must invariably benefit the accused. Therefore, in light of the absence of independent corroboration and the overall weakness of the evidence presented, the accused are entitled to acquittal.

19.The absence of medical evidence to substantiate the prosecution’s allegations of physical assault is a significant lacuna in the present case. The primary accusation against A1 is that he kicked PW1 in the abdomen, leading to a tubal pregnancy and the subsequent need for surgery. However, despite the serious nature of this allegation, the prosecution has failed to produce any medical records, prescriptions, or expert testimony from the doctors who treated PW1. PW4, the Investigating Officer, admitted in his cross-examination that no medical prescriptions were furnished to the court, nor 9 were any medical experts examined to corroborate the alleged injuries. In criminal trials, particularly in cases involving allegations of physical violence, medical evidence serves as a crucial piece of corroborative proof. It provides an objective assessment of the nature and cause of injuries and helps establish a direct link between the alleged act and the harm suffered by the victim. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that while oral testimony is important, cases involving bodily harm must be supported by medical evidence to remove any doubts of exaggeration or fabrication. In the present case,

PW1’s claims remain unsubstantiated by any documentary proof, making it difficult for the court to conclusively establish that the injuries, if any, were inflicted by A1.

Moreover, it is medically recognized that a tubal pregnancy is a biological condition that can occur due to various medical reasons unrelated to external trauma. The prosecution has not presented any evidence to show that such a pregnancy was caused due to physical assault by A1. If PW1 had indeed suffered injuries from an assault severe enough to necessitate surgery, it is expected that medical records detailing such findings would have been produced. The absence of any such records raises serious doubts about the veracity of the allegations. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that PW1 immediately reported the assault to any medical professional or law enforcement officer, which further weakens the prosecution’s claim. Given these inconsistencies and the failure to produce essential medical proof, the benefit of the doubt must necessarily go to the accused. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of any objective medical evidence supporting the claims of physical assault, this burden has not been met. Consequently, the court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused on this charge, further strengthening the case for acquittal.

20.The prosecution has alleged that A1 and A2 demanded additional dowry in the form of a property transfer and gold, which formed the crux of the accusations under

Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, a careful examination of the evidence reveals that these allegations remain unsupported by any documentary proof.

In cases involving dowry demands, it is imperative that the prosecution presents tangible evidence such as property records, financial transactions, or any written communication that substantiates the alleged demands. In the present case, no such 10 evidence has been placed on record. PW4, the Investigating Officer, admitted in his cross-examination that no property records or financial documents were collected during the investigation to demonstrate that A1 or A2 had insisted on a property transfer in their favor. This omission significantly weakens the prosecution's case, as mere oral assertions, particularly from interested witnesses such as PW1, PW2, and PW3, are insufficient to establish such a serious charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

21.Furthermore, the defense successfully contradicted the prosecution’s claim that

A1 had abandoned PW1 financially during her medical treatment. While PW1 and her parents alleged that A1 neglected her after her surgery, the defense produced evidence that A1 had, in fact, transferred 10,000 to PW3 during PW1’s hospitalization. This₹ transfer, which was not convincingly rebutted by the prosecution, raises serious doubts about the credibility of the allegations that A1 refused to provide financial assistance. If

A1 had truly intended to neglect or ill-treat PW1, such a financial transaction would be inconsistent with the prosecution’s theory of harassment and dowry-related cruelty.

Additionally, it is notable that PW1 handed over all hospital bills to A1 for insurance

claims, which further suggests that A1 was involved in her medical care rather than abandoning her. The defense’s argument that the allegations were exaggerated or motivated by external factors gains further strength in light of these contradictions.

22.In cases of dowry harassment, courts have consistently held that the prosecution must provide clear and cogent evidence of the alleged demands. The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against the misuse of dowry laws, emphasizing that false or exaggerated claims must be scrutinized carefully to prevent undue harassment of the accused. In the present case, the lack of any documentary proof of dowry demands, coupled with the contradictions in financial support claims, creates serious doubts about the prosecution’s version of events. The mere assertion of demands without corroborating evidence cannot be the basis for conviction in a criminal trial, where the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Given these inconsistencies and the absence of any conclusive proof of dowry harassment, the court finds that the allegations remain unproven. The benefit of doubt must necessarily be extended to A1 and A2, and as a result, the charge of dowry demand against them stands unsubstantiated.

11 23.The circumstances surrounding the filing of this case suggest the possibility of an ulterior motive. During cross-examination, it was revealed that PW1 lost her job at Cap

Gemini due to an unknown complaint made to her HR department. The prosecution failed to establish any direct link between this complaint and A1, yet the defense argued that this incident was opportunistically used to escalate existing personal disputes into criminal proceedings. The timing of the complaint against A1 and A2, coming months after PW1’s termination from employment, raises concerns about whether the criminal case was initiated out of genuine grievance or as a reaction to other unrelated personal setbacks. In cases of matrimonial discord, courts have repeatedly cautioned against the misuse of criminal law as a tool for vengeance or undue pressure in domestic disputes.

The unexplained and sudden escalation of allegations after PW1's professional setback lends credence to the defense’s argument that this case may have been filed with a retaliatory intent rather than as a result of genuine harassment.

24.Additionally, PW3’s own testimony revealed that PW1 relocated to Hyderabad after the alleged incidents and was actively preparing for competitive exams. This raises an important question about the urgency and credibility of the allegations. If PW1 had indeed been subjected to continuous harassment and physical abuse, it is reasonable to expect that she would have sought immediate legal recourse or medical attention.

Instead, the evidence shows that she moved on with her career aspirations and educational pursuits before eventually filing this case. Such behavior is inconsistent with the claim of severe and unrelenting cruelty, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

The absence of any contemporaneous complaint or urgent legal action during the period of alleged abuse suggests that the accusations may have been raised belatedly for reasons other than seeking justice.

25.Courts have consistently held that while matrimonial cruelty is a serious offense, false or exaggerated claims must be scrutinized carefully to prevent misuse of legal provisions. The Supreme Court has recognized that Section 498-A IPC should not be allowed to become an instrument of harassment or coercion, particularly in cases where long delays and circumstantial inconsistencies raise doubts about the veracity of allegations. In the present case, the defense has successfully highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, the absence of immediate legal action, 12 and the possible personal motivations that could have influenced the filing of this case.

These factors collectively create a strong element of doubt regarding the prosecution’s case, and in criminal jurisprudence, any such doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. In light of these considerations, the court finds that the possibility of extraneous motivations behind the case cannot be ruled out, further undermining the reliability of the prosecution’s allegations.

26.The burden of proof in a criminal case lies on the prosecution, and the standard required is beyond a reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution failed to:

Provide a reasonable explanation for the delayed FIR. Establish independent corroboration for the allegations. Furnish medical evidence to support claims of physical abuse. Produce documentary proof of dowry demands. The inconsistencies, lack of independent testimony, and absence of crucial documentary evidence raise serious doubts about the veracity of the allegations. The possibility of personal disputes escalating into legal action cannot be ignored.

27.Considering the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A1 and A2 beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, both A1 and

A2 are acquitted of the offenses under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

28. IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilt for the offences punishable u/sec.498 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted for the same u/sec.248 (1) of Cr. P. C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall remain in force for aperiod of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed by me personally and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 26 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- G. Spandana

SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, GUNTUR

FAC: VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

13

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For complainant: For Defence: None.

P.W.1: M. Surya Durga Pragada.

P.W.2: P.Satyaveni.

P.W.3: P.Veera Babu.

P.W.4: J. Anuradha.

Documents Marked.

For complainant: For Defence: -NIL-

Ex.P.1: Report.

Ex.P2: Original Radiologist report of Pw.1 to Ultrasound abdomen dt.02.03.2023.

Ex.P3: Xerox copy of Discharge summary of Pw.1 Dt.24.09.2020 issued by consultant.

Ex.P4: Wedding cards – 2 in number.

Ex.P5: Wedding photographs – 4 in number.

Ex.P6: FIR.

Ex.P7: Rough sketch.

M.Os. Marked: - NIL -

Sd/- G. Spandana

SPL. JMFC (P & E), FAC: VI. A.C.J(Jr. Div), GNT.

// True Copy//

VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

14

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR

C.C.No.4762/2021 Date of offence:Prior to 15.06.2021

Date of filing: 26.07.2021

Date of apprehension of accused:--

Date of release on bail:- -

Date of commencement of trial:28.01.2025

Date of close of trial:18.03.2025

Date of sentence or order:26.03.2025

Explanation of delay:In serving summons to accused and for examination of prosecution witnesses by prosecution agency delay was happened.

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Women PS. ...Complainant

And

1.Kakumanu Surya Prakash, S/o.Ajay Kumar, 31 years, C/Kapu, D.No.1-82, 1-27, Backside Government Hospital, Amarawathi village and Mandal, Guntur District.

2.Kakumanu @ Putta Indira Kumari, W/o.Ajay, 50 years,C/Kapu, D.No.1-82, 1-27, back side Government Hospital, Amarawathi village and Mandal, Guntur District.

.. Accused

Offence : U/Sec.498 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. Plea of accused : Not Guilty Finding : Found not guilty Sentence or Order:

IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilt for the offences punishable u/sec.498 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted for the same u/sec.248 (1) of Cr. P. C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- G. Spandana

SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, GUNTUR

FAC: VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

15 //True Copy//

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

1 :IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Present : Smt G.Spandana,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and Excise, Court, Guntur.

FAC. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur.

Friday, this the 20th day of December,2024.

C.C.No.17 of 2019

Between:-

Vejandla Nirmala, W/o.Raja Mohana rao, A/55 years, R/o. D.No.26-33-49, 6th lane, A.T.Argaharam, Guntur. …Complainant.

And

Nattala Snehalatha, D/o.Syam Prasad,A/41 years,

R/o.D.No.42-2-22, Dabakottula centre, Azith Singh Nagar,

Vijayawada, Krishna District.

…Accused

This case, coming on 16.12.2024 for arguments before me in the presence of Sri B.Sagar, learned counsel for Complainant and of Sri M.K.Deena Dayal, learned counsel for Accused, and upon hearing the arguments on the side of both parties, and upon perusal of entire material available on record, and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The complainant filed this complaint to punish the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (here-in-after referred as “Act” for sake of convenience and brevity) for issuing a cheque towards legally enforceable debt without maintaining sufficient funds in his account, for which the same was dishonoured.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:-

a) On 09.01.2018,theaccusedborrowedanamountofRs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) fromthe complainant for her family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant, agreeing to repay the same with interest either to the complainant or to her order on demand.

Subsequently, in discharge of the said debt, the accusedgaveacheque bearingNo.108226forRs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs only) drawn on

State Bank of India, Avanigadda Branch, Krishna District towards part 2 payment of the above said debt due to the Complainant under the pronote of Rs.5,00,000/-, believing her words, the Complainant received the cheque and presented the same in her bank i.e. Andhra Bank, Amaravathi road Branch, Guntur, for encashment, but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement that “ Payment stopped by drawer’’ on 11.09.2018 and the accused banker sent the same to the banker of the Complainant.

(b) The complainant received the said cheque and return memo from her bank. Then, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 06.10.2018 demanding the payment of amount covered under the above cheque bearing No.108226 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and the accused returned the said notice on 09.10.2018 by managing the postal authorities, the accused kept quiet without paying the cheque amount. The accused has not paid the cheque amount within stipulated period. Hence, the complainant is constrainedtofilethiscomplaintU/sec.138ofNegotiable

InstrumentAct. Hence, the complaint.

3.This court took cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused on 07.01.2019.

4.On production of the accused on 21.08.2019, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. On 21.08.2019, accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C.

by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act alleged against her in Telugu, for which she denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case, the complainant got examined herself as

PW1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P5 and one Thota Baji Kumari who is the scribe of Ex.P1 examined as P.W.2.

7. After closure of the complainant evidence, on 16.03.2022, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence of complainant in Telugu, for which she denied the same and reported defence evidence. The accused herself examined as

D.W.1, Ex.D1 to D3 are marked on her behalf.

3

8. Heard arguments on behalf of the complainant as well as the accused.

Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of accused.

9. Points for Determination

1. Whether the cheque (Ex.P2) was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt?

2. Whether the statutory legal notice was validly issued and served?

3. Whether the defenses raised by the accused are credible and sufficient to rebut the presumptions under the N.I. Act?

10. The main allegation of the complainant in brief is that without maintaining sufficient funds in her account, the accused made Ex.P2/cheque bearing

No.108226forRs.5,00,000/-wasdishonored,thoughissuedthesameto discharge legally enforceable debt covered under Promissory note and thus, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act.

11. In order to substantiate her case, the complainant has examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. One Thota Baji Kumari examined as

PW.2. Ex.P1 is the Promissory note executed by the accused in favour of complainant for Rs.5,00,000/- dt.09.01.2018, Ex.P2 is the cheque bearing

NO.108226 dt. 06.09.2018 issued by the accused for Rs.5,00,000/-, Ex.P3 is the cheque return memo issued by the Complainant’s banker, dt. 11.09.2018,

Ex.P4 is the office copy of the registered legal notice dt. 06.10.2018 and

Ex.P5 is the returned registered legal notice with RP cover dt.09.10.2018.

12. The case of the complainant as unfolded by PW1 in brief is that on 09.01.2018, the accusedborrowedRs.5,00,000/-fromPW1and executed a promissory note in her favour agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% per annum. On repeated demanded made by her, on 06.09.2018 accused issuedacheque(Ex.P2)forasumof

Rs.5,00,000/-,to the complainant(PW1). When PW1 presented the same in

State Bank of India, Avanigadda Branch, Krishna District, for collection, the said cheque was returned on 11.09.2018 with the endorsement i.e. ‘Payment

Stopped by drawer Funds’ under Ex.P3. Subsequently, on 06.10.2018, the

PW1 got issued a registered legal notice to accused, calling upon her to pay the cheque amount and accused returned the said notice on 09.10.2018/Ex.P5 4 by managing the postal authorities and kept quite and then the PW1 filed the present complainant on 22.11.2018, to punish the accused under Section 138 of the Act.

13. In the cross-examination of PW1 that she stated that she did not remember the amount in her bank account as on the date of said transaction under promissory note/Ex.P1. She further stated that she can produce the bank statement or her passbook for relevant period before this court. He also stated that accused is resident of Avanigadda and she is a Government

Teacher and she came to know that she is working at Vijayawada. He stated that she does not know whether accused is working as teacher at Jaggaiahpet by the date of transaction and that she does not know whether accused studied her B.Ed, at KSK, B.Ed. College, Bhattiprolu, Guntur District between 9.8.2018 to June, 2020 after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities with regard to leave her from job. During her cross-examination, she does not know whether accused temporarily stayed at said Ajit Singh Nagar,

Vijayawada for 15 days only for getting treatment of her father suffering with heart ailment and joined for treatment at Andhra hospitals, Vijayawada and also she does not know whether said Jaya obtained three empty cheques vide 108226, 108227,108228 and so also three empty promissory notes from accused towards the debt borrowed by accused in the year 2015. She further stated that she does not know whether this accused lodged a report with commissioner of police, Vijayawada against her and the said Jaya on 4.9.2018 as the said empty blank cheques and promissory notes were not returned to accused inspite of withdrawing the entire debt amount with interest through that ATM card by that date and with regard to that report, they both were called by police and at that time said Jaya promised to return the said blank promissory notes and the said blank cheques to accused after tracing out them as recently by that time Jaya’s husband was died. She stated that thereafter also accused lodged another report in Sannihitham program with police,

Vijayawada for not returning those cheques and promissory notes. She also stated that she does not know whether accused filed private complaint before

Hon’ble court, Vijayawada with regard to said returned cheques and

promissory notes as there is no response of police inspite of said report and the same was forwarded to police and registered as Cr.No.576/2020 under

Secs.420, 468, 483, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

5

14. Point 1: Legally Enforceable Debt

The complainant has successfully established the existence of a legally enforceable debt through documentary and oral evidence. The complainant produced Ex.P1 (Promissory Note dated 09-01-2018), Ex.P2 (Cheque No.

108226 dated 06-09-2018), Ex.P3 (Dishonor Memo) issued by the bank with the remark "Payment stopped by drawer," and Ex.P4 (Legal Notice sent on 09-10- 2018). These documents form a clear chain of events to show that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the complainant, executed a promissory note as acknowledgment, and subsequently issued a cheque towards part payment, which was dishonored. The accused, during her cross-examination, admitted to staying temporarily at Ajit Singh Nagar, Vijayawada for 15 days to assist her father undergoing treatment at Andhra Hospital. This admission is significant because it aligns with the address mentioned in Ex.P4 (Legal Notice) and the scene of the offense in Ex.P3 (Dishonour memo), thereby contradicting the accused's denial of her presence at Vijayawada.

15.The accused's defense that the promissory note and cheque were misused by one Mallola Jaya is wholly unsubstantiated. The accused claimed that she had filed a police report dated 04-09-2018 with the Commissioner of

Police, Vijayawada, regarding the alleged misuse of her cheques and promissory notes. However, no such report was produced before the Court.

Similarly, her claim of filing a grievance under the Sannihitha Program of

Vijayawada Police concerning the non-return of cheques and promissory notes remains unproven as no evidence was filed. The accused relied on Ex.D3 (Private Complaint dated 26-09-2019) and an FIR dated 18-12-2020 to substantiate her contention. However, it is pertinent to note that these complaints are subsequent to the initiation of the present case, which significantly reduces their evidentiary value. Moreover, the date of offense in

Ex.D3 is prior to 2016, yet the complaint was lodged only in 2019, raising serious doubts about its authenticity and suggesting it was created merely to fabricate a defense.

16.The accused also relied on Ex.D1 (Proceeding dated 20-07-2018) and

Ex.D2 (Relieving letter dated 08-08-2018) to claim that she was pursuing her

B.Ed. studies during the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-20. While these documents confirm her enrollment in the B.Ed. course, they do not preclude her ability to engage in financial transactions. Crucially, during cross-examination, 6 the accused (DW1) admitted that she could apply for leave whenever required.

This admission opens up the possibility that the accused could have approached the complainant on 09-01-2018 to borrow the loan amount, thereby undermining her defense that her academic pursuits prevented such an occurrence.

17.The accused's failure to produce credible evidence to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which favors the complainant, further strengthens the case against her. Once the complainant proved the execution of the promissory note and issuance of the cheque, the presumption under Section 139 comes into play that the cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt. The burden to rebut this presumption shifts to the accused, who has failed to do so by adducing cogent evidence. The accused’s inconsistent defenses, failure to produce supporting documents for her claims, and admission regarding her temporary stay at the scene of the offense collectively point to her liability. Therefore, the complainant has successfully proved that the accused issued Ex.P2 (the dishonored cheque) to discharge a legally enforceable debt, and the accused's defense is both unsatisfactory and unsubstantiated.

18.Point 2: Service of Statutory Notice

The complainant has satisfied the statutory requirement under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by issuing a legal notice (Ex.P4) to the accused's address at Ajit Singh Nagar, Vijayawada. This address is significant because the accused herself admitted during cross-examination that she stayed temporarily at the same address for 15 days to assist her father undergoing treatment at Andhra Hospital, Vijayawada. Such an admission undermines the accused’s argument that the address was incorrect or that the notice could not have been delivered. Additionally, the summons in this case were also successfully served through the Advocate Commissioner at the same address, thereby corroborating the fact that the address used for the legal notice was correct and valid. The accused’s failure to rebut this presumption strengthens the complainant’s case.

19.It is a settled principle of law that the issuance of a legal notice to the correct address is sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirement under Section 138(b). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed 7 and Another, (2007) 6 SCC 555 held that if the drawer claims non-receipt of notice, it is sufficient if the complainant proves that the notice was sent to the correct address of the drawer. The presumption under Section 27 of the General

Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that service of notice is deemed valid once it is dispatched to the correct address. In the present case, the complainant discharged her burden by producing Ex.P4 and supporting it with corroborative evidence regarding the address.

20.The accused’s reliance on temporary residence or non-receipt fails to rebut this presumption, especially when the accused herself admitted to staying at the address for a certain period. As emphasized in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran

Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510, the drawer cannot evade liability by denying receipt if the notice is dispatched properly. Further, in B. Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee, (2007) 13 SCC 107, the court reiterated that service of notice at the address where the accused was known to reside or temporarily stay satisfies the statutory requirement.

21.Moreover, the accused failed to substantiate her claim that the notice could not have been served. No evidence was produced to show that the complainant acted in bad faith or that the notice was deliberately sent to an incorrect address. The presumption of service stands unrebutted, and the statutory requirement under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act is fulfilled.

22.In view of the above, the legal notice was validly issued and served. The accused’s defense regarding improper service is not only inconsistent with her own admissions but also legally unsustainable in light of settled precedents.

Accordingly, the complainant has proved compliance with the mandatory provision under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act beyond reasonable doubt.

23.Point 3: Credibility of the Defense

The accused’s defense that the promissory note and cheques were allegedly misused by one Mallola Jaya lacks merit and remains unsubstantiated. The accused failed to produce any credible evidence, such as the purported police complaint dated 04-09-2018 to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, or the report under the Sannihitha Program of the Vijayawada Police, which she claimed to have filed concerning the non-return of the cheques and promissory notes. The failure to bring these documents before the court significantly 8 undermines the accused’s contention and reflects an afterthought designed to create a defense. In Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act includes not only the existence of a legally enforceable debt but also shifts the burden onto the accused to rebut this presumption by cogent evidence. The accused in this case has failed to discharge this burden.

24.Furthermore, the accused’s reliance on Ex.D3 and the FIR dated 26-09- 2019 and 18-12-2020 does not aid her case, as these documents were created subsequent to the filing of the present complaint. This timeline discrepancy indicates a deliberate attempt to set up a defense after the proceedings were initiated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4

SCC 197, reiterated that a self-serving defense unsupported by tangible evidence will not rebut the presumption under Section 139. The defense of misuse or coercion must be proved by the accused, not merely alleged, as bare denials will not suffice.

25.The evidence of P.W.2, the scribe of the promissory note, lends further credence to the complainant’s case. P.W.2 unequivocally deposed that the promissory note (Ex.P1) was executed in his presence and that the accused signed the document in acknowledgment of receiving the loan amount. This corroborative testimony strengthens the complainant’s version of the transaction and establishes a legally enforceable debt. In T. Vasanthakumar v.

Vijayakumari, (2015) 8 SCC 378, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that corroborative evidence from an independent witness, coupled with documentary proof, makes out a strong case for the complainant, and the accused cannot rebut this by vague allegations or inconsistent pleas.

26.During cross-examination, the defense failed to discredit P.W.2’s evidence, which remains consistent and reliable. The categorical assertion by

P.W.2 about witnessing the execution of the promissory note and confirming its contents provides a clear link supporting the complainant’s case. In contrast, the accused has not been able to produce any material evidence to counter this corroboration. Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the

N.I. Act remains unrebutted.

9

27.Thus, the accused’s defense is riddled with inconsistencies and lacks credibility. The failure to produce the alleged police complaints, coupled with the timeline of Ex.D3, casts serious doubt on the veracity of her claims. The corroborative testimony of P.W.2 further fortifies the complainant’s position, establishing the issuance of the cheque to discharge a legally enforceable debt.

The accused has, therefore, failed to rebut the presumption of liability under

Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and the complainant has succeeded in proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

28. The complainant has successfully proved that:

1. The accused issued the cheque (Ex.P2) in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

2. The legal notice was validly issued and served.

3. The defenses raised by the accused are untenable and lack credibility.

The ingredients of the offense under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are satisfied.

29. In the result, accused, Nattala Snehalathafound guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, accused is convicted under Section 255(2) Criminal Procedure Code.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court,, this the 20 th day of December, 2024.

Sd/-G.Spandana

JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE GUNTUR.

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:

When the accused is questioned about the sentence, she stated that she did not borrow any amount and did not give anything and thus, pleaded mercy in imposing sentence.

On considering the facts of the case, as the main object of Section 138 of the Act is to avoid the malignant practice of indiscriminate issuance of cheques without sufficient funds, the court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply Provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. It is noted that the complainant has also filed the suit for recovery of debt amount from the 10 accused. Thus, in view of the submissions of the accused and gravity of the case, the court is inclined to take balanced view in imposing sentence and also inclined to grant compensation to the complainant.

Therefore, the Accused is sentenced to undergoSIMPLE

IMPRISONMENT for a period of THREE MONTHS and to pay Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees five Lakhs only) i.e., cheque amount to the complainant towards compensation under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in default of payment of compensation, the Accused shall undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of THREE MONTHS for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

The accused is informed of her right to prefer an appeal against the

CalendarandJudgmentofthiscourt.When sheisaskedabouthermeansto prefer an appeal, she stated that she is having means to engage a legal counsel and she does not need legal aid.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20th day of December, 2024.

Sd/-G.Spandana

JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE GUNTUR.

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: V.NirmalaDW.1:N.Snehalatha. PW.2: Thota Baji Kumari.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Promissory note executed by the accused in favour of complainant for Rs.5,00,000/- dt.09.01.2018.

Ex.P2:Cheque bearing NO.108226 dt. 06.09.2018 issued by the accused for Rs.5,00,000/-.

11

Ex.P3:Cheque return memo issued by the Complainant’s banker,

dt. 11.09.2018.

Ex.P4:Office copy of the registered legal notice dt. 06.10.2018.

Ex.P5:Returned registered legal notice with RP cover dt.09.10.2018.

FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D1:Proceedings with regard to N.Snehalatha of DEO, Krishna District, Machilipatnam in R.C.No.8523/E1/2017 dt.20.07.2018.

Ex.D2: Relieving letter of N.Snehalatha from MEO Jaggaiahpeta, dt.08.08.2018.

Ex.D3:Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.576/2020 on AS Nagar PS, Vijayawada city along with complaint.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

--NIL--

Sd/-G.Spandana

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

: IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

C.C.No.17/2019

01. Date of offence: 06.09.2018

02. Date of Filing: 07.01.2019

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: --

04. Release on bail: --

05. Commencement of trial: 01.11.2021

06. Closure of trial: 14.03.2022

07. Date of Judgment : 20.12.2024

08. Explanation for delay: After appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to her on 21.08.2019 and on the same day, she was examined under Sec.251 of Cr.PC and the substance were explained to her in Telugu for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 01.11.2021, PW.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P5 marked, on 07.03.2022, Pw.2 was marked and prosecution evidence was closed on 14.03.2022. On 16.03.2022, accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported defence evidence on her behalf. On 06.08.2024, accused was examined as DW.1 and Exs.D1 to D3 marked and defence evidence closed on 25.08.2024. on 16.12.2024 arguments heard on both sides. Judgment pronounced on 20.12.2024.

09. Name of the complainant: Vejandla Nirmala, W/o.Raja Mohana rao,A/55 years, R/o.D.No.26-33-49, 6th lane,A.T.Argaharam, Guntur.

10. Name of the accused :

Nattala Snehalatha, D/o.Syam Prasad, A/41 years, R/o.D.No.42-2-22, Dabakottula centre, Azith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

11. Offence : U/Secs. 138 of N.I.Act.

12. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

13. Finding : Found guilty

14. Sentence : Accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, accused is convicted under Section 255(2) Criminal Procedure Code. Accused is sentenced to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT for a period of THREE MONTHS and to pay Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees five Lakhs only) i.e., cheque amount to the complainant towards compensation under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in default of payment of compensation, the Accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of THREE MONTHS for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is informed of her right to prefer an appeal against the CalendarandJudgmentofthiscourt.When sheisaskedabouther meanstoprefer an appeal, she stated that she is having means to engage a legal counsel and she does not need legal aid. (As per the orders in Crl.M.P.No. 3454/2024, dt.20.12.2024, sentence is suspended till 20.01.2025)

Sd/-G.Spandana

FAC.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

13

1

:IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Present : Smt G.Spandana,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and Excise, Guntur.

FAC. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile, Guntur.

 Thursday, this the 4 th day of April,2024.

C.C.No.1001 of 2020

Between:

The State rep. by the Sub­Inspector of Police,

Nagarampalem PS. ... Complainant.

A N D 

1. Mallavarapu Vamsi, S/o.China Koteswara rao, A/27 years.

2.Mallavarapu China Koteswara rao, S/o.Kotaiah, A/57 years.

3. Mallavarapu Sasirekha, W/o.Avinash, A/26 years.

4. Mallavarapu Leela Kumari, W/o.China Koteswara rao, A/51 years.

5. Balijepalli Gayudu, S/o.Bhushanam, A/42 years. Balayesu Nagar, Takkellapadu village, Pedakakani Mandal,Guntur District.) (A1 to A4 are R/o.D.No.4­8­211, Arundhati Nagar, Koritepadu, Guntur Town) … A1 to A5.

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for Prosecution, and Sri.K.Krishna rao,, learned counsel for the accused A1 to A5 and upon hearing, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by Sub­Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem P.S., filed a charge sheet in Crime No.350 of 2019 of Nagarampalem police station for the offence punishable under sections.323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

02.The brief facts of the prosecution case were as follows:

 PW.1 is the resident of Aditya Gardens, Tulasi Heights, Yetukuru village and her husband worked as AR constable in Guntur Rural District. In the year, 2015, her husband was demised in a road accident, while he was working as 2

AR constable. PW.1 was blessed with one son/PW.2 and one daughter and

PW.1 performed their marriages. On 04.10.2018, the marriage of PW.2 was performed with A3, daughter of A2 residents of Koritepadu, Guntur and since the marriage, A3 used to pick up quarrel with PWs.1 and 2 and threatened

PW.2 that she would make him to remove him from his job and A3 would file cases against him. On 06.11.2018 at about 5­00 p.m., when, A3 gave water to

PW.2 by mixing Sabja seeds and crystal, PW.2 consumed the same. After half an hour, PW.2 got vomiting and motions, PW.1 shifted PW.2 to Tulasi hospital and got admitted him in the hospital. Having come to know about the same,

PW.1 questioned A3 for giving crystal to PW.2, A3 altercated with PW.1 and declared that she gave the crystal to PW.2 as it was available in the house.

Since then, A3 used to quarrel with them and asked to give divorce and now and then, A3 used to go to her parental house. Finally on 11.05.2019, while

PW.1 was at her parental house, A3 came there, picked up quarrel with PWs.1 and 2 and asked PW.2 for divorce. Then, PW.2 took A3 to her parental house and handed over to A2. Later, PW.1 sent elders to bring A3 for conjugal life, but her parents did not send her. Later, on 18.10.2019 A3 gave a report in GGH

Sakhi and they gave counseling to them on three occasions i.e., 25.10.2019, 9th and 23 also. On 7.12.2019, when PWs.1 and 2 were summoned to Mahila

Pranganam for counseling, PWs.1 to 3 and mother of PW.1 went for the counseling. While the counseling was going on, at about 11.30 a.m, A1 to A5 beat PW.1, Pw.3 and mother of PW.1 with hands and legs, caught hold of her tuft, pulled her saree and abused PW.1 in filthy language. Later A1 to A5 pounced upon PW.2, A3 and A5 beat Pw.2, A3 bitten PW.2 on his left shoulder and inflicted injury. When, LW.4/Ulli Ashok and PW.4 and 5 rushed there, A1 to A5 fled away from there. Later, A3 and A5 again came there and when they 3 beat PW.2 with paper weight, PW.2 sustained bleeding injury on his nose and right side of forehead and while A1 to A5 were going, they threatened PWs.1 and 2 that they would kill them. Thereafter, PWs.1 and 2 went to GGH,

Guntur for treatment and later, PW.1 came to the police station along with

PWs.2 and 3 and presented a report in Nagarampalem PS.

Basing on the report given by PW.1, LW.7/K.Geethanjali, Sub­Inspector of Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.350 of 2019 for the offences

U/secs.323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.7 examined PWs.1 to 3 and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch, examined LW.4/Ulli Ashok and

PW.4/Uggirala Purnachandra rao and recorded their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements. Later, on 12.02.2020, LW.7 released the accused A1 to A5 after serving Sec.41­A Cr.P.C notices. After receipt of wound certificates and on completion of the investigation, LW.7 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under Secs.323, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC against the accused A1 to A5.

4.On appearance of the accused A1 to A5 , the case copies furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused A1 to A5 were examined under examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and framed charges for the offences under Secs. 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, read over the same in Telugu, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trial.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The evidence of LW.4 and 7 is closed by this court.

4

However, Ex.D1 was marked during the cross­examination of Pw.1 by the defence counsel on behalf of accused.

7. Accused were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused and no documents are marked on behalf of accused.

8.Heard oral arguments from both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A1 to A5 for the offences punishable U/Secs.323, 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.P O I N T:

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has cited as many as seven witnesses, out of which, five witnesses were examined.

a) Defacto­ complainant is examined as PW.1/mother of PW.2 stated on oath before the court that on 04.10.2018, the marriage of PW.2 was performed with A3 and since beginning, A3 used to pick up quarrel with PW.2 and used to demand to give divorce otherwise, threatened to file false cases against PW.2.

On 6.11.2018, A3 mixed subja seeds with alum (Spatika) and gave it to PW.2 and he consumed the same. Due to which, PW.2 got vomiting and motions.

Immediately, she shifted PW.2 to Tulasi hospital for treatment and on the same day evening, PW.2 was discharged. Later, he questioned A3 for giving the alum to PW.2 and on that she replied that she gave it as it was available in the house. Since then, disputes were raised between A3 and PW.2, A3 used to threaten and insisted to give divorce to PW.2. On 11.05.2019 A3 along with

PW.2 went to the house of her parents situated at Etukuru village there also A3 5 picked up quarrel with PW.2 and asked to give divorce to her. PW.1 further deposed that due to which, PW.2 took A3 to her parents house and handed over to her parents. Later, on 18.10.2019 A3 gave complaint in Sakhi against her and PW.2 and for every 14 days, they gave counselling to her along with

PW.2 and her parents. On 7.12.2019 they went for counelling to Mahila

Praganam at Sakhi office, at morning session, while counselling was going on,

A5 caught hold the neck of PW.2, A3 and A4 beat her by caught hold of her tuft and A2 made her parents fell down and beat with your legs, A1 beat her father indiscriminately and abused them in filthy language. On seeing the same, one

Advocate by name Vijaya Lakshmi called Nagarampalem Police and A1, A2 and

A4 left from the place. Again A2 and A5 came to them and beat and bite PW.2 on his left shoulder, A5 thrown away the paper weight on PW.2 and PW.2 sustained injuries on his nose and forehead. Thereafter, on the same day, himself along with PW.1 and her parents went to Nagarampalem PS and lodged a complaint against A1 to A5. Later, police advised them to go to hospital for treatment.

During her cross­examination, she admitted that she mentioned in her

Ex.P1/report that A3 demanded divorce from her son. She further admitted that FCOPNo.265/2020 filed by PW.2 against A3 for granting divorce on the file of Hon’ble Family court, Guntur. Witness adds to say that at the time of counselling, A3 used to ask PW.2 to put up separate family and she refused to live along with her. She also made the following admissions that her husband worked in police department and died during service. As per Ex.D1 photographs pertaining to the marriage of PW.2 and A3 is Christian marriage and performed by a Church father. She stated in her cross­examination that the elder who was sent by her is no more and she do not know the persons who 6 went along with her for mediation. He further stated that at the time of treatment, they obtained wound certificate of PW.2 from hospital. She stated

before PW.5 with regard to the persons who beat her. She cannot says that

she did not remember whether she stated before PW.5 about the persons who beat her or not.

b) PW.2 is the son of Pw.1 who stated before the court on oath that on 04.10.2018, his marriage was performed with A3 and since beginning there are misunderstanding between him and A3 as A3 are not interested to live along with his mother. On 11.05.2019 he along with A3 went to the house of his grandparents at Etukuru village, at that time A3 raised disputes and threatened him to give divorce and she is not interested to live in his house along with his mother PW.1, on that he dropped her at her parents house.

Later, they sent elders to the house of parents of A3 to bring A3 to marital home but the parents of A3 did not respond. Later, in the month of October, 2019 A3 gave complaint in sakhi against him and PW.1. Later, three counsellings were held at the time of 4th counseling on 07.12.2019 between 11­00 to 12­00 noon, A3 was asked to come marital home but she refused.

On that while counseling was going on, A5 came behind him and caught hold his neck, A3 and A4 beat PW.1 by caught hold of her tuft and A2 made his grandmother fell down and beat with his legs, A1 beat his grandfather indiscriminately and abused them in filthy language. On that, the persons present there on seeing the same, called Nagarampalem police due to which,

A1 to A5 went away. But again A3 and A5 came back and attacked him and A5 caught hold his neck, A3 bite on his left shoulder, A5 thrown away the paper weight on him. Due to which, he sustained injury on his nose and forehead.

Later, himself along with Pw.1 and his grandparents went to Nagarapampalem 7 police station and lodged a complaint against A1 to A5. Later, they went to

GGH hospital for treatment. 

During his cross­examination, he says that after filing FCOP before the

Hon’ble family court in the year 2021 after counseling given by the Hon’ble

family court, he used to take A3 and they went outside together nearly for one week and he promised A3 to put up separate family. He further says that he himself and A3 agreed to live together at Piduguralla and also agreed to stay away from PW.1. Firstly his marriage is performed in Christian customs and on the same day. The Hindu marriage also as per the Hindu rites and customs.

c) PW.3 on 4.10.2018 the marriage of PW.2 was performed with A3 at

Etukuru village and after their marriage, the disputes arose between PW.2 and

A3 and A3 are not interested to live in Etukuru village along with her in­laws and used to go her parents house frequently. After some days, A3 picked up quarrel with PW.2 by saying that she is not interested to live in the village and demanded to give divorce and send her to her parents house, as such, PW.2 dropped A3 at her parents house. Thereafter, A3 made an application before

Sakhi for that they gave summons both the parties for counseling. On 7.12.2019 while the third counseling was going on between both the parties, suddenly A5 caught hold the neck of PW.2, A3 and A4 caught hold the tuft of

PW.1 and beat her. A1 pushed him and made him fell down and A2 also pushed his wife by name Marthamma and A1 to A5 abused them in filthy language. On seeing the same, the officials of sakhi informed to the

Nagarampalem PS about the incident, on hearing the same, A1 to A5 ran away but again A5 and A3 came back and A5 caught hold PW.2 on his back side then, A3 bite on the left shoulder of Pw.2, A5 stabbed with one object on the 8 nose of PW.2 due to which, PW.2 sustained bleeding injury. Later, on the advice of officials of Sakhi, PWs.1 and 2 went to police station and lodged a report against accused and the police advised PWs.1 and 2 to go to hospital for treatment.

During his cross­examination, Pw.3 admits that on 20.04.2019, PW.2 dropped A3 at her parents house. He stated that he do not know whether

PW.2 filed FCOPNo.265/2020 on the file of Hon’ble Family Court,Guntur for granting of divorce or not. He further admitted that PW.1 has one daughter and there are family disputes between her daughter and her son­in­law and also the case is pending between them.

d) PW.4 stated before the court on oath that at about three years back, he along with his friend were going on and heard some cries at Sakhi, on that, he went there and found some persons along with A3 beat PWs.1 and 2.

On enquiry, he came to know that the other persons are relatives of A3, at that time, the sakhi officials informed the police about the alleged incident and on hearing the same, the accused went away except A3 along with one woman.

He cannot identify the remaining accused except A3. Thereafter, he accompanied PWs.1 and 2 to police station to lodge a report against the accused. Then, police advised them to go to hospital for treatment. During the alleged incident, PW.2 sustained scratch injury on his shoulder.

During his cross­examination by the learned counsel for A1 to A5, he says that he do not know whether his name was mentioned in Ex.P1 or not.

On the date of alleged incident, he along with one Rehaman were going to movie. He further admits that he never stated the names of the accused before the police.

9

e)PW.5 stated before the court oath that on 7.12.2019 at about 12­ 30 p.m., she examined Pw1 and found the injury i.e, minor abrasion over right cheek and she opined the above mentioned injury is simple in nature. On the same day, she examined PW.2 and found the following injuries i.e., 1.Minor abrasion of 5 x 1 x 1 cms over forehead and minor abrasions over nose, left ear, right ear and left elbow, 2) bite marks over left shoulder back and 3) contusion over right shoulder back and she opined above mentioned injuries are simple in nature. Accordingly, she issued wound certificates/Exs.P3 and

P4 of PWs.1 and 2.

As per her cross­examination, she did not mention in Ex.P3 with regard to who brought PW.1, crime number and also police station. She did not mention in Ex.P3 that the person who beat PW.1. She did not mention the details of PW.1 in Ex.P3. She made the following admissions that injuries mentioned in Ex.P3 might have been caused to contact on rough surface. She did not observe the bite marks on the shirt of PW.2. She did not mention in

Ex.P3 from which teeth and how many tooth bite marks were caused. She did not mention the names of the persons who caused injuries in Ex.P4. She did not mention in Ex.P4/wound certificate of PW.2 from whose hand, it was caused and what is the weapon used.

11.As there is no dispute that PW.2 and A3 are husband and wife and this case was filed by PW.1 who is the mother of PW.2 against A3 and her parental family members. Learned counsel for the accused pointed out, many lacunas in the investigation done by LW.7. Though, Sec.324, 506 of IPC are non­ cognizance offences but LW.7 has not sought permission to register the crime as FIR and without any permission from this court, LW.7 registered the FIR.

10

Further, LW.7 is not examined by the prosecution, FIR and rough sketch are not even marked in this case, being the investigating officer, she did not attend the court though number of opportunities given to her.

12.Further more, the offence was took place on 07.12.2019 and FIR was registered on 14.12.2019 and it was registered on 24.12.2019. Though, there was delay of seven days in lodging of complaint but in Fir column No.8, it was mentioned as no delay. All the witnesses stated that they went to the police station firstly and from there police referred PWs.1 and 2 to hospital. All these discrepancies clearly dilute the prosecution case.

13.Other important thing to be noted here is that, on careful perusal of

Exs.P3 and P4 wound certificates of PWs.1 and 2 respectively reveals interesting things which gives raise to many doubts in Ex.P3 wound certificate of PW.1. The injuries are said to be caused on 07.02.2020 at about 12.30 p.m., due to assault by known people @ Sakhi office and PW.5 examined PW.1 on 07.02.2020 at 2.06 p.m., and she gave wound certificate on 07.02.2020 and the injury caused is only one i.e., minor observation over right cheek. Further on careful scanning of Ex.P4/wound certificate of PW.2, the wounds are said to be caused on 07.02.2019 at 12.30 p.m., assaulted by known persons @ Sakhi office on 07.02.2019 and PW.5 examined PW.2 on 07.02.2020 and she issued wound certificate on 09.02.2020, whereas before court, she says that on 07.02.2019 at about 12.30 p.m., she examined PWs.1 and 2. The chief­ examination of PW.5, the medical officer in this case who treated PWs.1 and 2 is completely fishy. During the course of cross­examination, she admitted that the injuries can be caused when contact of hard surface and can also be caused due to blunt object. She further says during the course of cross­ 11 examination that she did not observe bite marks on the shirt of PW.2. Hence, the evidence of PW.5 rather strengthening weakens the case of prosecution. In

Ex.P1/report, specific overacts done by each of accused are not mentioned and the same was admitted by prosecution witnesses. There are also major contradictions with the testimonies of witnesses before the court with their

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements and Ex.P1 report. In Ex.P1 report, PW.1 mentioned that A5 and A3 throws a paper weight towards PW.2, whereas PWs.1 and 2 says that A5 throws a paper weight on PW.2. For PW.3, A5 stabbed with one object on the nose of PW.2. In Ex.P1 report, it was mentioned that A1 to A4 all together beat PWs.1 to 3 and her mother with hands and legs and they pulled her saree, caught hold the hair of PW.1 and abused her in filthy language.

Though, they stated that A3 and A5 beat PW.2 and A3 bite PW.2 on his left hand shoulder. The other allegation against A3 and A5 is that they again came and thrown paper weight on PW.2. According to PW.1, A5 caught hold the neck of PW.2, A3 and A4 beat her by caught hold of her tuft and A2 made her parents fell down and beat with his legs, A1 beat her father indiscriminately and abused them in filthy language. Again A2 and A5 came to the scene of offence, beat and bite PW.2 on his left shoulder, A5 thrown away one paper weight on PW.2. There are a lot of contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses among themselves and also with Ex.P1 report. According to prosecution witnesses, one advocate by name Vijaya Lakshmi called the police over phone but she was not examined and not even cited as witness. None from sakhi office were examined nor citied as witnesses. Only family members were examined. PW.4 is the only independent witness but he did not say anything against A1, A2, A4 and A5. Further, he was also declared as hostile witness. The parents of PW.1 are not examined and not even cited as witnesses 12 in the memo of list of witnesses. FIR was not marked due to non­examination of LW.7/K.Geethanjali, Sub­Inspector of police. Hence there are serious of lacunas on the part of the investigation agency.

14.On careful examination of documents marked clearly shows that falsity of the prosecution case. Hence, this court feels that unable to face cross­ examination by the accused counsel, LW.7 though being investigating officer did not turn up to the court to depose evidence and her acts are to be reprimanded. Thus, due to lack of cogent, concrete and due to serious lacunas in the investigation done by LW.7 and due to pending disputes between A3 and

PW.2, this court is inclined to give benefit of doubt to the accused A1 to A5 by disbelieving the version of prosecution. Hence, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against the accused for the offence under Secs.323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the accused A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437­A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 4 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/­G.Spandana

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROH AND EXCISE, GUNTUR.

FAC JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, 

 SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

13

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW.1:P.Amrutha Roy. ­­ NONE – PW.2:P.Avinash. PW.3:E.Sowri Royal. PW.4: U.Purnachandra rao. PW.5: Dr.M.Anusha Rani, CMO, GGH, Guntur.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Report Ex.P2 : Part of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P3 : Wound certificate of PW.1. Ex.P4: Wound certificate of PW.2. FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D1: 5 photographs relating to the marriage of PW.2 and A3. 

M.O’s MARKED:

­­ NIL –

 Sd/­G.Spandana

FAC JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, 

 SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

14

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

: IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : 

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

C.C.No.1001/2020

01. Date of offence: 07.12.2019

02. Date of Filing: 11.02.2020

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: ­­

04. Release on bail: ­­

05. Commencement of trial: 20.06.2023

06. Closure of trial: 24.11.2023

07. Date of Judgment : 04.04.2024

08. Explanation for delay: Due to non­production of witnesses.

09. Name of the complainant : State represented by Sub­ Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem P.S.

10. Name of the accused :

1. Mallavarapu Vamsi, S/o.China Koteswara rao, A/27 years. 2.Mallavarapu China Koteswara rao, S/o.Kotaiah, A/57 years.

3. Mallavarapu Sasirekha, W/o.Avinash, A/26 years.

4. Mallavarapu Leela Kumari, W/o.China Koteswara rao, A/51 years.

5. Balijepalli Gayudu, S/o.Bhushanam, A/42 years. R/o. Balayesu Nagar, Takkellapadu village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District.) (A1 to A4 are R/o.D.No.4­8­211, Arundhati Nagar, Koritepadu, Guntur Town)

11. Offences : U/Secs.323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

12. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

13. Finding : Found not guilty

14. Sentence :

A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437­A Cr.P.C.

Sd/­G.Spandana

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, 

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

15