1 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili
IN THE COURT OF XV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
BHEEMUNIPATNAM ::VISAKHAPATNAM
CALENDER CASE NO. 267 OF 2018
Date of offencePrior to 03.03.2018 Date of report or complaint03.03.2018 Date of apprehension of the Accused 41-A Cr.PC or Date of appearance of the Accused in the Court Date of commencement of trial04.09.2019 Date of close of trial08.01.2024 Date of sentence on order12.01.2024
Explanation of delay or remarksDue to Non-production of accused and witness from time to time, as such there is a delay.
Name of the ComplainantThe State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.
Name of the Accused A.1 Chilla Dharma Reddy, S/o late Shankar Reddy (DIED)
A.2 Chilla Mangamma, W/o Dharma Reddy, 30 years, caste by Reddy,Chillapeta, Bheemunipatnam (Mandal), Visakhapatnam
District.
(A.1 died during pendency of the case and as such the case against him was abated on 16.11.2018).
OffencesUnder section 498-A IPC
Finding Found not Guilty.
SentenceIn the result, Accused/A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs 498-A of The
Indian Penal Code, 1860.Accordingly, the
Accused/A2 is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C., and she is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months only as per Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C.
XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam 2 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili
IN THE COURT OF XV ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BHEEMUNIPATNAM
PRESENT: Smt G.Vijaya Lakshmi
XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,
BHEEMUNIPATNAM.
Friday, this the 12 th day of January, 2024
CALENDER CASE NO. 267 OF 2018
(Cr.No.59/2018 of Bheemunipatnam Police Station).
BETWEEN:
The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. …Complainant AND
A.1 Chilla Dharma Reddy, S/o late Shankar Reddy (DIED)
A.2 Chilla Mangamma, W/o Dharma Reddy, 30 years, caste by Reddy, Chillapeta, Bheemunipatnam (Mandal), Visakhapatnam District.
(A.1 died during pendency of the case and as such the case against him was abated on 16.11.2018).
... Accused/A1 & A2
This case having come before me for final hearing on 10.1.2024 in the presence of the learned A.P.P for the State and of Sri K.V.Chandra Sekhar, Learned counsel for the Accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsel on either side, this Court delivers the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bheemunipatnam Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.59/201 8 of Bheemunipatnam Police Station for the offence under sections 498-A and 494 IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution:
The marriage of PW1- Chilla Vijaya with A.1 Chilla Dharma Reddy was performed on 16.08.1998 as per caste custom at her grand parents house at
Chillapeta village of Bheemunipatnam Mandal, of Visakhapatnam city and later during their wedlock they blessed with a boy on 7.2.2000. While so, A.1 developed an illicit intimacy with a widow i.e., A.2 herein and accordingly in view of the said intimacy on 1.12.2017 A.1 gave an authorization with regard to Ac.0.27 cents of land through power of patta to A.2. On coming to know about the same, PW1 3 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili questioned A1 regarding the said authorization of A2 given by A1. Then on 20.2.2018 both the Accused 1 and 2 were went to Sub Registrar Office for making their marriage registered. On coming to know about the same, PW1 and her relatives stopped the same. Hence, PW1 lodged report for necessary action. Basing on the report given by PW1, a case in Cr.No.59/2018 was registered by
PW8-P. Srinivasarao, SI of Police, Bheemunipatnam under Section 498-A, 494 IPC and investigated into.
During the course of investigation, PW.8 visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and served Section 41-A
CrPC notice on the accused and after completion of entire investigation, PW8 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A, 494 IPC.
3.Considering the material on record my learned predecessor took cognizance of offence punishable U/Sec.498-A, 494 IPC against the Accused 1 and 2 .
4.On appearance of the Accused 1 and 2, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C., While the matter stood so,
A.1 died and the case against him was abated as per orders of this Court dt.16.11.2018.
5.The Accused No.2 was examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C by my learned predecessor. A Charge U/Sec.498-A IPC alone was framed by my learned predecessor, read over and explained to her in Telugu and she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.To bring home the guilt of the Accused No.2, prosecution examined PW1 to
PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 and P.11. The evidence of rest of witnesses was given up by the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor in order to avoid repetition of evidence.
7. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, Accused No.2 was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and she denied the incriminating evidence brought on record against them, and reported that she has defence evidence and she herself examined D.W.1 and marked EX.D1 to D.4 on her behalf.
4 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili
8.PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 is the sister of PW1. PW3 is the cousin of PW1. PW4 to PW7 are the villagers and PW8 is the Investigating Officer in this case. Ex.P.1 is the report given by PW1, Ex.P.2 is the death certificate of A.1, Ex.P.3 is the study and conduct certificate of son of A.2. Ex.P.4 is the online SSC Mark list copy of son of A2, Ex.P.5 are the two phtographs along with CD, Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8 are the 161 CrPC statements of PW4 to 6, Ex.P.9 is the FIR, Ex.P10 is the Death
Certificate of Ch. Sankar Reddy and Ex.P.11 photo.
On the other hand, A.2 examined herself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to
D.4. Ex.D.1 is the marriage card, Ex.D.2 is marriage affidavit, Ex.D.3 is Aadhar card, and Ex.D.4 10th class certificate.
9.Heard arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for Accused.
10.Now the point for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution has made out the case against the
Accused No.2 for the offence Under Section 498-A of IPC beyond
all reasonable doubt? “
11. P O I N T :
P.W.1-Chilla Vijaya has deposed that, her marriage was performed with her husband A1 on 16.08.1998 and he was died on 11.08.2018. PW1 further deposed that A1 is her maternal uncle and her marriage is an arranged marriage and it is performed in the presence of her parents, relatives and village elders at the house of her maternal grand mother and all her relatives attended her marriage and after she went to her matrimonial home at Chillapeta and they blessed with one son by name Surendar Reddy. She further deposed that she knew the accusedA2 as she is the concubine of her husband A1 and A1 gave Ac. 0.27 cents of land to A2, through a Power of Attorney. The said Power of Attorney is executed on 01.12.2017 and in the said Power of Attorney her husband/ A1 showed A2 as his wife. PW1 has further deposed that through her near by persons she came to know that her husband gave Ac. 0.27 cents of land to A2 and through the villagers she came to know that on 20.02.2018 her husband went to Bheemili Sub-Registar office along with A.2 to marry her, and then immediately she went to Sub-Registar officer 5 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili
Bheemili and requested to stop the marriage and then the Sub-Registrar advised her to go to police station and lodged a report, and then immediately she went to
Bheemili police station and lodged a report and then the police gave a letter to the
Sub-Registrar and then the marriage of her husband with A.2 was stopped and later she came to know that the Sub-Registar of Bheemili gave a marriage Affadivait that the marriage of her husband is performed with A.2 on 14.02.1997 and the said marriage was registered on 20.02.2018.
PW1 has further deposed that along with the said Affidavit a marriage wedding card was also present and the wedding card shows that the said marriage was performed by her maternal grand mother and maternal grand father but her maternal grand father died in the year November, 1989 itself and that during the life time of her husband she has not obtained any divorce from her husband and the marriage of A.2 is performed with one Badidha Sanyasi Rao and they are blessed with one daughter and one son and she filed this case against her husband as he did not look after her and her children and he used to beat her and abuse her and she used to harassed her , as he developed illegal relationship with A.2. During her cross examination, she admitted that, she has not filed any document to show that A2 got married one B.Sanyasi Rao, as stated by her before police at the time of her report. She further deposed that A1 used to harass her at about five or six years back and he got married A2 later-wards. She further categorically admitted that, they have some property disputes between them and civil suits also pending before
Honourable District Court, Visakhapatnam. She further categorically admitted that,
after she came to know that A1 has transferred his entire property in the name of
A2 only she have separated from A1 and left the society of A1 voluntarily. She further admitted that she did not filed any Maintenance case against A1 during his lifetime to provide maintenance to her as a legally wedded wife of A1.
PW2- Chilla Sridevi, who is the sister of PW1 has turned hostile and did not
support the case of prosecution.
6 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili
PW3-Koyya Venkata Lakshmi, who is cousin of PW1 has deposed that the deceased /A1 is her father’s brother (chinnanna) and the marriage between A1 and
Pw1 has been taken place in the year 1995 at Chillapeta village and they blessed with one baby boy. She further deposed that, A1 got married with A2 and upon that some family disputes were raised between A1 and Pw1 and except this she do not know that how much property has been gifted by A1 to A2 and she do not know the reasons of their family disputes. During her cross examination, she admitted that, there are property disputes between A1 and PW1 and due to which A1 got married A2.
PW4 to PW6 who are villagers and independent witnesses were turned
hostile and did not support the prosecution case. As such the learned APP
sought permission of the court to declare them as hostile and cross examined
them. But nothing could be elicited from their respective cross examination.
PW7-Jeeru Venkata Lakshmi , another independent witness has deposed that she is resident of Chillapeta village of Bheemunipatnam and she is a house wife and she know PW1 and A1 as they are husband. She further deposed that she knew A2 by name Mangamma as the wife of A1 and A,2 is also used to reside with
A1 during his lifetime and she do not know the relationship between A.1 and A.2.
During her cross examination, she admitted that she knew A2 since 20 years and she has been with A1 at the time of his death as A1 was hospitalized due to ill health and A2 alone was with A1 to extend her services as a responsible wife and
A1 was died during his treatment at the hospital.
PW8 -P. Srinivasarao, Investigating officer of this case has deposed that, basing on the report of LW1 he has registered a case in Cr.No.59/2018 under
Section 498-A IPC, 494 IPC against the accused and investigated into and during the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and served Section 41-A notice to the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet before this court against A1 & A2. During his cross examination, he admitted that, he did not filed any 7 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili document to show that A2 is a widow lady as mentioned in his charge sheet and he further admitted that he has examined PW1 at police station and rest of the witnesses at their village. He further admitted that he has mentioned A2 is the wife of A1 in his charge sheet. He denied the suggestion that, at the instance of PW1 only he filed a false case against the accused.
The Accused/A2 – Chilla Mangamma examined as DW1 in her defence and deposed that the Accused/A1 by name Chilla Dharma Reddy is her husband and their marriage was solemnized on dt.14.02.1977 at Shivalayam temple, Pendurthy village and it was a love marriage , and that no elders or family members of their both families were not present at the time of marriage; but LW7 who is the sister of
A1 was present at the time of their marriage. She further deposed that she knew
PW1 by name Chilla Vijaya as she is her nearest relative (aadapaduchu kuthuru).
During their wedlock, A1 and A2 were blessed with one girl , by name Chilla
Madhavi and she is aged about 24 years. After the marriage of A2 with A1, they used to resided at Visakhapatnam for about 01 year and later they came down to
Chillapeta village and since 2001 they have been resided at Chillapeta village till the death of A1. DW1 further deposed that, during the life time of A1 he has been transferred his entire properties in her name and she is the absolute owner of the said properties . She further deposed that , in the year 2016 A1 fell sick due to liver damage and he was bed-ridden since 2016 and he was died in the year 2018; and during the said period A1 was hospitalized for several months and DW1 have been attended for all the days during the stay of A1 at the hospital and for his treatment, and she has looked after all other necessities of A1, till his death. She further deposed that she had obtained the death certificate of A1 as legally wedded wife and she also received the Government policy “ Chandranna Bheema Pathakam” for an amount of Rs.2 lakhs towards death insurance of A1. She further deposed that , after the death of A1 , Pw1 went to their house to visit the dead body of A1 in the capacity of our nearest relative and in the meanwhile Pw1 filed this case against A1 and A2, just before the death of A1 . She further deposed that she got performed 8 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili her daughters marriage in the year 2020 with one Shankar Reddy who is the son of
A1’s sister. Ex.D1 is the original marriage card , dt.14.02.1997, Ex.D2 is the certified copy of marriage affidavit, dt.21.02.2018 Ex.D3 is the Aadhar card , Ex.D4 is the notarized copy of 10th class certificate of her daughter. During her cross examination, DW1 admitted that she is an illiterate and PW1 is her nearest relative (Aadapaduchu kuthuru) . She further admitted that her marriage with A1 was performed on dt.14.02.1997 in Sivalayam temple at Saripilli village of Pendurthi mandalam and she did not file any of the marriage proof for the said marriage and she further adds that she can file the same as and when ordered by this court. She further admitted that Ex.D1 wedding card was prepared by A1 prior to their marriage and it is mentioned in the said wedding card as “Srimathi & Sri Chilla
Shankar Reddy, Adamma Dampathulu vrayu Shubhalekhardhamulu” , dt.14.2.1997 and the said Chilla Shankar Reddy was died in the year 1989 i.e., prior to their marriage. She denied the suggestion that A1 intentionally got prepared Ex.D1 and fabricated the same for the purpose of this case. She further denied the suggestion that with a guilty intention she along with A1 are colluded each other and fabricated all the documents for the purpose of this case and A1 with her help harassed PW1 to grab the property of PW1 and that they never committed the alleged offence.
12. The learned APP argued that the PWs.1 to 8 categorically deposed that the
Accused/A1 & A2 harassed the PW1 and subjected her to harassment both mental and physical and their evidence coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 clearly establishes the case of the prosecution for the offences U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and prays to convict the Accused /A2.
13.On the other hand the learned counsel for the Accused/A2 contended that
PW1 did not state anything about the cruelty caused by the Accused A1 & A2. All the prosecution are related to each other and they are the interested witnesses.
The prosecution failed to examine the independent witnesses i.e. either the neighbors of the accused or the neighbors of the PW1, as PW2, PW3 and PW7 are 9 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili the family members and relatives of PW1. PW1 intentionally filed a false report against the accused/A1 & A2 only to harass the accused /A1 & A2 and to grab the property of A.1, with all false allegations and none of the ingredients of the sec.498-A IPC were attract to the present case. There is no corroboration in the evidence of the PW1 to PW8. Due to harassment of the PW1, Accused No.1 fell sick and died and the PW1 did not extended her services during his last rituals and to grab the entire property and with a ill motive to harass A1 & A2 ,PW1 filed the false case against them and hence prays the court to acquit the Accused /A2.
14. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention the Sec.498-A IPC reads thus :
Sec. 498-A IPC :- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any un- lawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on ac- count of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
On reading the above the essential ingredients of offence under Section 498-A are as follows:
(1) A woman was married; (2) She was subjected to cruelty; (3) Such cruelty consisted in –
(i) Any lawful conduct as was likely to drive such woman to limb or health whether mental or physical;
(ii) Harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman or any of her relations to meet the lawful demand; 10 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili
(iii) The woman was subjected to such cruelty by her husband or any relation of her husband.
*The cruelty includes mental cruelty also.
15.The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual and also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs to. The Hon’ble supreme Court in Gananath Vs. State reported in 2002(2) SCC 619 held that “the cruelty for the purpose of constituting the offence under Section 498A IPC need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behavior may also amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case”.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pavan Kumar Vs. State reported in (1998) 3
SCC 301 held that - “Cruelty or harassment need not be physical. Even mental torture in a given case would be to a case of cruelty and harassment within the meaning of sec. 304B and 498A. Explanation (A) to sec. 498A itself refers to both mental and physical cruelty. A girl dreams of great days ahead with hope and aspiration when entering into a marriage, and if from the very next day the husband starts taunting her for not bringing dowry and calling her ugly, there cannot be any greater mental torture, harassment or cruelty for any bride”.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani reported in
AIR 1999 SC 1318, considered the meaning of cruelty in the context of the provisions under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and observed that :
"mental cruelty broadly means, when either party causes mental pain, agony or suffering of such a magnitude that it severs the r bond between the wife and husband and as a result of which it becomes impossible for the party who has suffered to live with the other party.
In other words, the party who has committed wrong is not expected to live with the other party." 11 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili
16.On perusal of the evidence of PW1 to PW8 and DW1, they categorically stated that PW1 is the legally wedded wife of A1 but they did not deposed anywhere in their entire evidence that A1 demanded PW1 to bring additional dowry from her parents. PW1 in her evidence categorically admitted that, they have some property disputes between them and civil suits also pending before Honourable
District Court, Visakhapatnam. PW1 further categorically admitted that, after she came to know that A1 has transferred his entire property in the name of A2 only she have separated from A1 and left the society of A1 voluntarily. She further admitted that she did not filed any Maintenance case against A1 during his lifetime to provide maintenance to her as a legally wedded wife of A1.
17. On perusal of section 498-A IPC, the demand made by the accused for payment of additional dowry amounts is not an essential ingredient. But it is essential that the accused made unlawful demand for any property or valuable security with a view to coerce the woman or any person in whom she was interested. In the present case the PW1 to PW4 categorically deposed that, the A1 along with A.2 and his family members harassed PW1 to bring additional amounts as demanded by them and caused the mental agony to the PW1. The other witness PW2 also admitted that, there are some property disputes between A1 and PW1 and due to which A1 got married A2. Moreover PW3 deposed that, A1 got married with A2 and upon that some family disputes were raised between A1 and Pw1 and except this she do not know that how much property has been gifted by A1 to A2, and she do not know the reasons of their family disputes. During her cross examination also ,
PW3 admitted that, there are property disputes between A1 and PW1 and due to which A1 got married A2. Further more, PW4 to PW6 who are villagers and
independent witnesses were turned hostile and did not support the
prosecution ase. PW2 , another independent witness also deposed that A2 as the wife of A1, is also used to reside with A1 during his lifetime and she do not know the relationship between A1 and A2. PW3 further admitted that she knew A2 since 20 years and she was with A1 at the time of his death as A1 was hospitalized 12 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili due to ill health and A2 alone was with A1 to extend her services as a responsible wife and A1 was died during his treatment at the hospital. The Accused/A2 as DW1 admitted that she is an illiterate and PW1 is her nearest relative (Aadapaduchu kuthuru) . DW1 further admitted that her marriage with A1 was performed on dt.14.02.1997 in Sivalayam temple at Saripilli village of Pendurthi mandalam. DW1 further admitted that After the marriage of A2 with A1, they used to resided at
Visakhapatnam for about 01 year and later they came down to Chillapeta village and since 2001 they have been resided at Chillapeta village till the death of A1.
DW1 further deposed that, during the life time of A1 he has been transferred his entire properties in her name and she is the absolute owner of the said properties .
PW1 further deposed that , in the year 2016 A1 fell sick due to liver damage and he was bed-ridden since 2016 and he was died in the year 2018; and during the said period A1 was hospitalized for several months and DW1 have been attended for all the days during the stay of A1 at the hospital and for his treatment, and she has looked after all other necessities of A1, till his death and this shows that A2 takes care of A1, as a dutiful wife of A1 in his last days with care and affection. The independent witness PW7 also corroborates the same that, A2 used to live with A1 during his hospitalization due to his ill health. Assume for a moment, as A2 spend all her time with A1 to extended her services towards his hospitalization at the time of his ill health, definitely there is no scope to harass PW1 either by A1 or A2 for
additional dowry amount and caused PW1 physical or mental harassment.
Moreover on perusal of entire evidence of all the witnesses, it has been come into light that, PW1 voluntarily left the society of A1 and her entire evidence is silent with regard to the harassment made by the Accused/A1 & A2 in relation with the offence U/Sec. 498-A of IPC.
18.Thus, on consideration of the entire evidence of both parties, it clearly speaks as the disputes arose between the PW1 and accused/A1 & A2 with regard to their properties, but except this, nothing on the record with regard to the unbearable harassment of the accused towards PW1 either physically or mentally.
13 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili
Though PW1 deposed as accused harassed her, but evidence of the other witnesses including her sister i.e., PW.2 is very much silent with regard to the said aspect and she turned hostile apart from other witnesses. Therefore, the entire facts itself speaks as prosecution is unable to prove the harassment of the accused towards
PW.1 either physically and mentally. Thus, the prosecution unable to establish the charge U/Sec.498-A of I.P.C. against the accused/A2.
19.It has also come to light during the cross examination of PW1 to PW7 that the entire incident took place due to their property disputes pending between them. This clearly put out the entire story to a different footing and it is evident from the version of PW1 to PW8 and D.W1. This clearly shows that the prosecution side has not been able to prove the offence U/sec 498A of IPC.
20. In this regard it is relevant to mention here that in “Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs.
State of Jharkhand & Anr.”, it has also been observed that :- “It is a matter of common experience that most of these
complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of
the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.
We come across a large number of such complaints which
are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At
the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases
of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
The learned members of the Bar have enormous social
responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of
family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that
exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be
reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the
complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned
members of the Bar who belong to
a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and
should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic
14 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili
human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the
parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human
problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their
abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of
the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should
also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple
cases.
Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the
implications and consequences are not properly visualized by
the complainant that such complaint can lead to
insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the
complainant, accused and his close relations.
The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and
punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the
truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The
tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real
truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in
dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial
cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close
relations who had been living in different cities and
never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to
be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long
and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the
relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in 15 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili
cases filed by the complainant if
the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail
even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable
settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely
long and painful.”
Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, it was also observed that:- “The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives
in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of
the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless
specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 21.By relying on the above discussion, it appears that the intention of the
Accused/A2 in commission of the offence couldn’t be made clear by the prosecution in this case. During the evidence of these Prosecution Witnesses none of the ingredients of section 498-A of IPC could be bought forward by the prosecution side. Hence, this court finds itself difficult that no such essential elements of the above mentioned sections could be proved by the prosecution beyond doubt.
22.At this stage, it is needful to say that, “ The golden rule that runs through the web of civilized criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged offence. “Presumption of innocence is a human right as envisaged under Art.14 (2) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. Art.11(1) of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights 1948 also provides that any charged with penal offences has a right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
In the case of V. D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1762 the
hon’ble Supreme Court has held that , “It is also the cardinal rule of our criminal
jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an offence would always lies
upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond
16 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.” 23.By the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to proved that the Accused /A2 along with the deceased A1, demanded
additional dowry in-connection with their marriage and also failed to prove that the
AccusedA.2 have harassed PW1, physically and mentally. Therefore, this Court hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilty of Accused/A2 for the offence under section 498-A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accordingly, Point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the Accused.
24.In the result, Accused/A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable
U/Secs 498-A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.Accordingly, the Accused/A2 is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C., and she is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months only as per Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-II, and after correction,
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of January, 2024).
XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Bheemunipatnam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:
PW1: Chilla Vijaya DW1: Chilla Mangamma PW2: Chilla Sridevi PW3: Koyya Venkata Lakshmi PW4: Maddi maha Lakshmi PW5: Kaki Adhi Lakshmi PW6: Jeeru Adhi Lakshmi PW7: Jeeru Venkata Lakshmi PW8 P. Srinivasarao
EXHIBITED MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE Ex.P.1 is the report given by PW1, dt.3.3.2018 17 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili
Ex.P.2 is the death certificate of Chilla Dharma Reddy
Ex.P.3 Study and Conduct certificate of Bathumani Krishna son of A.2
Ex.P.4 online copy of SSC Mark List of son of A.2
Ex.P.5 two photographs along with CD
Ex.P.6 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW4,dt.4.3.2018,
Ex.P.7 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW5, dt.4.3.2018,
Ex.P.8 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW6, dt.4.3.2018,
Ex.P.9 is the First Information report, dt.3.3.2018,
Ex.P.10 is the death certificate of Chilla Shankar Reddy (father of A.1)
Ex.P.11 is the photograph.
For Defence:
Ex.D.1 is the original marriage card, dt.14.2.1997,
Ex.D.2 is the certified copy of marriage affidavit, dt.21.2.2018,
Ex.D.3 is the Aadhar card of A.2,
Ex.D.4 is the notarized copy of 10th class certificate of daughter of A.2 (marked subject to objection by Learned APP)
MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL
XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate
Bheemunipatnam 18 C.C.No.267/2018 XV AMM, Bheemili