S.C.No.52/2022 1 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: ANAKAPALLE.
S.C.No.52/2022
P.R.C.No.5/2021 of XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Anakapalle Crime No.2015/2020 of Anakapalle Town Police Station Dr.H.Amara Rangeswara Rao, Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalle
Monday , this the 17 th day of April, 2023
State represented by Inspector of Police, Anakapalle Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.
...Complainant
Vs.
A1Dandru Govindababu @ Govindu, S/o Tatarao, age 28 years, r/o Dr.No.1243, Krishnapuram colony, Kothuru panchayat, Anakapalle Mandal. A2Dandru Tatarao, S/o late Peddabbai, age 62 years, r/o Dr.No.1243,Krishnapuramcolony,Kothuru Panchayat, Anakapalle Mandal. A3Dandru Venkata Laxmi, W/o Tatarao, age 56 years, housewife, r/o Dr.No.1243, Krishnapuram colony, Kothuru Panchayat, Anakapalle.
...Accused.
Prosecution conducted by: Sri. Buddha Trinadha Rao,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Whether the accused is : Defended by Sri.I.R.Gangadhar counsel for accused defended or not:
This Sessions Case coming on 27032022 before this court for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Buddha Trinadha Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri.I.R.Gangadhar, Advocate for Accused upon hearing on both sides, having perused the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Inspector of Police, Anakapalle Town P.S filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.498A, 306 r/w 34 IPC.
2.The case of the prosecution, in brief is that:
One Dandru Dhanalaxmi (herein after the deceased) is wife of A1. A2 and
A3 are his parents. On 18052017 the marriage between A1 and deceased was
S.C.No.52/2022 2 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
performed. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.3 lakhs cash, one pulsar motor cycle worth of Rs.80,000/ and 1½ sovereign gold to him, apart from the paraphernal items. After one year of their marriage, while the deceased was 4th month pregnant, A1 beat her and informed her father over phone to take back his daughter.
On that at about 0900 pm., he went there and brought her to his house. After one week A1 came to his house and took away her to the matrimonial house.
3.Subsequently, the deceased informed her father that that A1 was betting her and harassing her. On that he admonished her stating that normal disputes will happen in the family life. Thereafter, her daughter was blessed with one son. While the son is aged about one year and four months, on 18092020 at about 0539 p.m., she made a phone call and spoke to him. Thereafter at about 0711pm., she made a video call and talked tohis family members. Subsequently at about 819 pm., A1 informed him over phone that she committed suicide by hanging. Some other people also informed him about it. On that he rushed to the house of A1 and found the dead body of the deceased.
4.Subsequently, he submitted Ex.P.1 report to the then Inspector of Police of Anakapalle Town P.S L.Bhaskarao (PW11). Basing on it, he registered Ex.P.5 FIR in crime No2015/2020 of Anakapalle town P.S U/Sec.306, 498A r/w 34 IPC, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the Tahsildar, conducted investigation and after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet.
5.On appearance of the accused, the learned XI Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate’s Court, Anakapalle, furnished, the copies of documents, as required under
Sec.207 Cr.P.C, and on hearing on both sides this case was committed to the Hon'ble
Court of Sessions, Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam vide committal order dt.17122021.
6.The Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam had made over the case to this court for disposal according to law vide Sessions Case No.52/2022.
S.C.No.52/2022 3 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
7.On appearance of the accused, they were examined by this court
U/Sec.228 Cr.PC by explaining the charges leveled against them for the offence punishable U/Sec.498A, 306 r/w 34 IPC, having understood the charge explained to them, in Telugu, they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.PC about the incriminating material against them from the prosecution evidence. They denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defense evidence.
9.Heard both sides.
10.Now the point for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the
accused for the offence punishable under U/Sec.498A, 306 r/w 34
IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
11.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution must establish that:
1) the deceased committed suicide.
2) the accused harassed deceased.
3) the said harassment drive her to commit suicide.
12.Unfolding the case of the prosecution, it has examined P.Ws.1 to 11, produced Exs.P1 to P.8, M.Os1 and 2. Learned Additional P.P has submitted that the evidence of PWs1 to 11 is consistent and their cross examination did not elicit any material contradictions to disbelieve their evidence, Further, Exs.P.1 to 7 are corroborating their evidence in material particulars and their cross examination did not elicit any material contradictions to disbelieve their evidence. He further submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, prays to convict the accused.
S.C.No.52/2022 4 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
13.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has contended that the 2nd pregnancy of the deceased was aborted and with the said depression, the deceased committed suicide, the accused are innocent and police foisted the case against the accused. P.Ws.1 to 8 are close relatives. Except the self interest testimony of PWs.1s to 8, the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses relating to the alleged conduct of the accused towards PW1. Furthermore, the evidence of PWs1 to 11 is not showing that the accused subjected the deceased to harassment soon before her death,
Ex.D2 and D3 contradictions are showing that PWs5 and 7 are deposing false and their evidence is not showing direct nexus with the alleged Act and the suicide of the deceased. Further, Ex.D1 goes to show that P.W.1 himself borrowed money from the
A1 and executed a promissory note in his favour. That it self speaks volumes that the accused did not harass the deceased for additional dowry. Hence, the evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 8 is not believable. He further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, prays to acquit the accused.
14.In support of his contentions, he placed reliance in the decision reported in
i) Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab [2017 (1) SCC 433]., where in it was held that:
“17. While dealing with a case of abetment of suicide in
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal [ (2010) 1 SCC 707 ], Dr. Justice M.K. Sharma writing for the Division
Bench explained the parameters of Section 306 IPC in the following terms:
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order
S.C.No.52/2022 5 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”
15.ii) Heera Lal v. State of Rajasthan [2018 (11) SCC 323]. where in it was held that:
“where the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of
Section 498A I.P.C. and the appellants were acquitted for the said charge, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the appellant could not be convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.”
16.iii) Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr. v. The Inspector of Police [2022 Live
Law (SC) 834] it was held that:
"In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
S.C.No.52/2022 6 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable."
17.iv) Vunyala Gopal v. Lolakpuri Mahender [2017 (1) ALT (Crl.) 170] it was held that:
“In the case of Shaik Hussain v. State of A.P. , this Court held that if the deceased committed suicide unable to bear harassment, and same to be proved by the evidence. However, mere allegations would not suffice. On the date of occurrence of the alleged offence, if there was abetment, and in pursuance thereof, the deceased committed suicide that is relevant. None of the prosecution witnesses has proved that the abetment of the accused lead to the committal of suicide of the deceased. In the absence of the evidence in this regard, it will not be possible for the Court to convict the accused under Section 306 IPC.”
18. Keeping in mind the above principles this court will appreciate rival contentions. In so far as the death of the deceased is concerned, the evidence of PWs1 to 8 goes to show that the deceased committed suicide. Further, in Ex.P.1 report, the earliest version of PW1 also, he stated that the deceased committed suicide.
Furthermore, the evidence of PWs10, 11 and Ex.P.4 goes to show that the mediators present at the time of the inquest over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased was died due to commission of suicide.
19.Furthermore, Exs.P.7 and 8 goes to show that the medical officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opened that the deceased might have died due to hanging. Exs.P.1, P.4, P.7 and P.8 are corroborating the evidence of
S.C.No.52/2022 7 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
P.Ws.1 to 8 with regard to the death of the deceased. Further, their cross examination did not elicit any material to doubt the death of the deceased due to hanging. Further, the accused did not dispute the death of the deceased, due to hanging. Hence, the story of the prosecution that the deceased committed suicide is believable.
20.In so far as the reason for the death is concerned, as per the story of the prosecution, the accused harassed the deceased and hence she committed suicide. In order to prove the said conduct of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs1 to
11. PW11 is the Investigating Officer, he testified about the formal investigation. PW10 is the inquest mediator who was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Furthermore, PW9 is the VRO who was present at the time of conducting scene observation and seizure of M.O.1 and 2 from the scene of offence under the cover of Ex.P.3 mediator report.
21.The evidence of PWs9 and 11 is showing that PW11 conducted scene observation and only seized M.O.1 and 2 from the scene of offence. In the cross examination, he stated that he got affixed identification slips on M.Os.1, M.O.2 and now the said identification slips are not present on them. As rightly contended by the learned Addil.P.P., due to lapse of time, since M.O.1 is a ropes,the said gum of the identification slip might have lost its stickiness and hence it might not be present thre.
Further, M.O.2 is not weapon for the offence. It is only used to cut the rope M.O.1 to get down the dead body of the deceased. Furthermore, his cross examination did not elicit any material showing that his identification with regard to the M.O.1 and 2 is not believable. Therefore, the evidence of PW9 that M.O.1 and 2 seized from the scene of offence under the cover of Ex.P.3 is believable.
22.P.Ws.9 to 11 only testified about their part in investigation after commission of suicide of the deceased. PWs1 to 8 are the witnesses testified about the conduct of the accused towards the deceased. PW6 testified that he came to know that the deceased committed suicide. As his resiles from previous version, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor cross examined him with the permission of the court. In
S.C.No.52/2022 8 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
the cross examination of learned Addl.P.P, he denied the suggestion that he stated to police that the deceased informed him that the accused used to harass her demanding to bring additional dowry, sent out her from the matrimonial house, thereafter took back her to the matrimonial house and subsequently she committed suicide. He also denied the suggestion that he stated to police as in Ex.P.2 and deposing false to favour the accused. The cross examination of PW6 did not elicit any material supporting the case of the prosecution. In view of the Ex.P.2 contradiction, his evidence is not believable.
23.P.Ws.1 to 5, 7 and 8 only testified about the reason for the death of the deceased. They testified that due the harassment of the accused, the deceased committed suicide. It is the contention of the learned defence counsel that they are close relatives. Hence, their evidence is not believable. Admittedly they are relatives.
Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the injured. In case the evidence has a ring of truth, it is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon.
24.In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki & Anr. [AIR 1981 SC 1390], Hon'ble
Apex Court held:
“5A. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of P.W. 1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested" witness because she "is the wife of the deceased"For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most
S.C.No.52/2022 9 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the instant case P.W.1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents.”
25.In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P ., [AIR 2004 SC 5039], while dealing with the case Hon'ble Apex Court held:
“..Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle.
It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their presence.”
S.C.No.52/2022 10 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
26.In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh, [(2011) 4 SCC 324], their lordships held: “It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out.
If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the courts have to scrutinies their evidence meticulously with a little care.”
27.In view of the above legal position, it can safely be held that natural witnesses may not be labelled as interested witnesses. Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim. The evidence of a related or interested witness should be meticulously and carefully examined. In a case where the witness have some enmity with the assailant, the bar would need to be raised and the evidence of the witness would have to be examined by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny. However, this is only a rule of prudence and not one of law. Keeping the above principles in mind , now this court will appreciate the evidence let in by the prosecution.
Relationship is not a ground to hod that they are intrested witnesses. Furthermore, the allegation is relating to the matrimonial disputes between the accused and deceased. As the incident will take place in four walls of the house, it is not expected to get any other independent witness. However, a close scrutiny of their evidence is necessary.
28.In the cross examination of PWs5 and 7, Ex.D.2 and 3 contradictions are marked. Ex.D2 contradiction is relating to her statement of police that in spite of resistance of parents, A1 took back the deceased to his house on the date of Diwali.
S.C.No.52/2022 11 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
Furthermore Ex.D.3 goes to show that P.W7 did not state to police that PWs1 and 2 purchased motor cycle to the A1 prior to the marriage. They are pertaining to the alleged dowry given to A1 at the time of marriage and incident took place long before the death of the deceased. Furthermore, herein this case, the accused is not facing trial with regard to the alleged receipt of dowry. Therefore, Exs.D2 and D3 will not become material contradictions.
29.In the evidence of PW1, he stated that when the deceased was 4th month pregnant, A1 beat the deceased and necked out her from the matrimonial house, made a phone call to him at about 08 or 900 pm., and asked him to take back her to his house. Immediately he went there and took back her to his house. After one week, A1 came to his house and took back her to his house without his consent. Thereafter, after some time, A1 got Grama Volunteer job. Subsequently the deceased gave birth male child, He paid the hospital charges and took back them to his house. At that time, she resided along with him for a period of 5 months. During the said period she informed him that A1 used to beat her demanding to bring additional dowry. He further testified that in the 5th month pregnancy, she went back to her in laws house, subsequently on 18092020 he received information that she committed suicide.
30.P.W.1’s evidence goes to show that during the stay of the deceased at his house at the time of pregnancy and after birth of child, she informed him that A1 harassed her to bring additional dowry. But in Ex.P.1, the earliest version, he did not state the same. In the crossexamination of P.W.1, Ex.D1 was marked. It is relating to his signature on the promissory note. He further admitted that on 26112014 he borrowed Rs.1 lakh from A1 and executed promissory note in his favour, in the presence of G.Simhachalam and G.Sriramulu. It goes to show that PW1, the father of the deceased borrowed Rs.1 lakh from A1 and hence he executed promissory note in his favour.
31.In the cross examination of PW1, it is suggested to him that A1 demanded him to discharge the debt covered under Ex.D1, after demise of his senior paternal
S.C.No.52/2022 12 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
aunt and hence on the influence of G.Srinu (P.W.4), he submitted false police report against the accused. He also suggested to him that the deceased committed suicide due depression of abortion of the 2nd Pregnancy. Though he denied the said suggestions, his cross examination and Ex.D1.1 clearly shows that A1 himself lent money to PW1. In such circumstances, the question of demand by A1 to his wife to bring additional dowry and harassment to meet the said demand will not arise.
32.Furthermore, if it is the really case so, he would have mentioned the said fact in Ex.P.1. but, he did not state the same. In the evidence of P.W.5, she stated that her sister used to inform her that A1 has been harassing her demanding to bring
additional dowry, used to beat her in drunken state, A2 and A3 used to support him.
But as discussed supra, PWs1 and 2 did not state the same in Ex.P.1. Furthermore, in the cross examination of PWs1 and 2, it was elicited that in Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement, they stated that their daughter informed them that she is doing well and also in the said statement they did not state that A1 used to beat her demanding to bring
additional dowry. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 is not showing that soon before
the death of the deceased, the accused harassed the deceased, and in view of the said harassment only she committed suicide. Hence, it cannot be said that soon before death of the deceased, A1 harassed the deceased demanding to bring additional dowry.
33Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.1 to 8 goes to show that when the deceased was 4th month pregnant, A1 beat her and necked out her from the matrimonial house. The evidence of PW1, Ex.P.1 and the charge sheet averments goes to show that while their son is one year four months old, the deceased committed suicide. She was sent back to the parents house from the matrimonial house, when she was 4th month pregnant. It means that about 1 year 9 months prior to her death she was sent back to her parents house. PW1 to 8 did not state the reason for A1 necking out from the matrimonial house.
34.Furthermore, there is long gap of one year Nine months from the said act ad the date of commission of suicide. Furthermore immediately after it, within one
S.C.No.52/2022 13 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
week after coming back her parent’s house, even PW1 resisted A1 took back her to the matrimonial house. There is no mediation or any effort made by PW1 to sent back her,
A1 on his own took back her. In such circumstances, it can not be said that there is nexus between the said conduct of A1 towards the deceased while she was 4th month pregnant and her suicide.
35.In view of the above ratio relied by learned counsel for the accused in
Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), Heera Lal v. State of Rajasthan
(supra), Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr. v. The Inspector of Police (supra) and
Vunyala Gopal v. Lolakpuri Mahender (supra), as there is no nexus between the said act took place in the 4th month pregnancy of the deceased and A1, there is a long gap of time, it cannot be said that the said conduct abetted her to commit suicide.
36.In view of the foregoing discussion, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Result:
37.In the result, the A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences
U/sec.498A, 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. For the same they are acquitted U/sec.235(1) of
Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall stands canceled after six months from this date, U/sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1, M.O.2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me
on this the 17th day of April, 2023. Sd/ Dr.H.Amara Rangeswara Rao,
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,
Anakapalle.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
Prosecution Defence
PW1 : Gurrala Suri Apparao Nil PW2 : Gurrala Suri Demudamma P.W3 : Gurrala Sriram P.W4 : Gurrala Srinu P.W5 : Dandru Parvathi P.W6 : Gurrala Demudu P.W7 : Allam Demudamma P.W8 : Nakka Lakshmanarao
S.C.No.52/2022 14 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
P.W9 : Challa Yerukunaidu P.W10: Gurram Srinu P.W11: L.Bhaskararao, Inspector of Police, Anakapalle Town P.S
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
Prosecution: Defence:
Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1. NIL Ex.P.2: 161 statement of P.W6. Ex.P.3: Scene observation Report Ex.P.4: Inquest Report Ex.P.5: First Information Report Ex.P.6: Rough Sketch Ex.P.7: P.M Certificate Ex.P.8: F.S.L Report
Ex.D.1: Promissory note dt.26112018 Ex.D.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 Ex.D.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7
M.O.1: Rope M.O.2: Knife Sd/ Dr.H.Amara Rangeswara Rao,
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,
Anakapalle.
S.C.No.52/2022 15 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
CALENDAR & JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE:
ANAKAPALLE.
S.C.No.52/2022
P.R.C.No.5/2021 of XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Anakapalle Crime No.2015/2020 of Anakapalle Town Police Station Dr.H.Amara Rangeswara Rao, Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalle
Monday , this the 17 th day of April, 2023
State represented by Inspector of Police, Anakapalle Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.
...Complainant
Vs.
A1Dandru Govindababu @ Govindu, S/o Tatarao, age 28 years, r/o Dr.No.1243, Krishnapuram colony, Kothuru panchayat, Anakapalle Mandal. A2Dandru Tatarao, S/o late Peddabbai, age 62 years, r/o Dr.No.1243,Krishnapuramcolony,Kothuru Panchayat, Anakapalle Mandal. A3Dandru Venkata Laxmi, W/o Tatarao, age 56 years, housewife, r/o Dr.No.1243, Krishnapuram colony, Kothuru Panchayat, Anakapalle.
...Accused.
Charges framed :Sec.498A, 306 IPC Date of offence : 18092020 Date of complaint: 19092020 Date of Committal:17122021 Date of apprehension:10112021 Date of commencement of trial:22122022 Date of closure of trial: 31012023 Date of judgment: 17042023 Whether the accused is in jail or on bail: On bail. Prosecution conducted by: Sri Buddha Trinadha Rao, Addl.Public Prosecutor Whether the accused is defended or not: Sri.I.R.Gangadhar, Advocate for accused.
Explanation for the delay in Committal Court: Vide separate docket extract of Lower Court, is enclosed. Explanation for the delay in the trial Court: This case is filed by the Inspector of Police, Anakapalle Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City against A1 to A3 for the offence Sec.498A, 306 r/w 34 IPC Cr.No.2015/2020 and the same was committed to the Hon'ble District Court, Visakhapatnam by XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Anakapalle P.R.C.No.5/2021 as the case is triable by Court of Sessions. This case has been made
S.C.No.52/2022 16 Addl.Assist.Sessions Court/Anakapalli
Dt.17042023.
over to this Court (Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge's Court, Anakapalle) by the District Court, Visakhapatnam after assigning Sessions Case No.52/2022 as per the Proceedings Hon’ble District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The case was posted and accused was examined U/Sec.228 Cr.PC on 29112022. For fixing of schedule on 22122022. On 22122022 P.Ws.1 & 2 are examined and Exs.P1, D.1 are marked. On 23122022 P.Ws.3 to 7 are examined and Exs.P2, D2, D3 are marked. On 26122022 P.W.8 and 9 are examined and Ex.P.3 is marked. On 27122022 P.W.10 is examined and Ex.P.4 is marked. On 31012023 P.W.11 is examined and Ex.P.5 to 8 are marked. On 0702 2023 A1 to A3 examination U/Sec.313 Cr.PC, they denied the prosecution evidence. On 07022023 arguments heard. For Judgment on 17042023. On 17042023 A1 to A3 called present and judgment pronounced in the open Court vide separate.
Offence: Sec.498A, 306 r/w 34 IPC Finding of the Court:
In the result, the A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/sec.498A, 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. For the same they are acquitted U/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall stands canceled after six months from this date, U/sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1, M.O.2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,
Anakapalle.