CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I
CLASS - CUM - ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIRALA.
Present: Smt.J.Kathyayini , Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First , Chirala.
Friday, this the 01 st day of May, 2026
C.C.No.565 of 2020
Between:
The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala I Town Police Station. …Complainant
And
1.Boyalapalli @ Bovilapalli Jagadeesh, S/o.Venkatarao, aged 24 yrs, Caste by Nayibrahmin, Kunkalamarru village, of Karamchedu mandal.
2.Boyalapalli @ Bovilapalli Madhava Latha, W/o.Venkatarao, aged 40 yrs, Caste by Nayibrahmin, Kunkalamarru village, of Karamchedu mandal.
3.Boyalapalli @ Bovilapalli Venkatarao, S/o.Subba Rao, aged 48 yrs, Caste by Nayibrahmin, Kunkalamarru village, of Karamchedu mandal.
4.Boyalapalli @ Bovilapalli Rajesh, S/o.Venkatarao, aged 21 yrs, Caste by Nayibrahmin, Kunkalamarru village, of Karamchedu mandal. N/A of Nalla Cheruvu, Guntur.
... Accused/A1 to A4
Alleged Accused:
1.Kocherla Gopi, S/o.Mahendra, aged 20 yrs, Caste by Nayibrahmin, Kandukur.
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020
2.Kocherala Mahendra, S/o.Malakondaiah, aged 40 yrs, Caste by Nayibrahmin, Kandukur.
3.Lingayathula Padma, W/o.Sankar, aged 42 yrs, Caste Nayibrahmin, D.No. 2-20-78/5, Kummarikunta, Shilpanagar, Uppal, Hyderabad.
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 20.04.2026 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State Complainant and of Sri
B.Arogya Rao Learned Counsel for the Accused/A1 to A4 and upon perusal of record and upon hearing both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
// J U D G M E N T //
01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala I Town Police Station, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.280/2019 against the Accused/A1 to A4 for the offence punishable U/sec.498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P act of Chirala I Town Police Station.
02.The brief averments of the complaint are :-
The Defacto Complainant/L.W.1 – Kavuri Amulya is a resident of
BC colony of Chirala and studying GNM course at Ongole and completed intermediate education. While she was educating she was fallen in love with one A1- Kunkalamarru village and elder son of A2 and A3. Later they both married in love which their marriage was dislikes to the parents and relatives of both sides. However after marriage the L.W.1 and A1 went to
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020
Kunkalamarru village where the A2 to A4 refused to allow them into their house. As no other way the L.W.1 and A1 reached Vital nagar and being parents of the l.W.1 given their consent and asked them to live separately.
Then the L.w.1 and A1 lived in another thatched house of L.w.2 & 3. later
A2 to A4 used to visit to the house of A1 and instigated him to discard the
L.w.1. not only visited physically and mentally with demand of dowry from her parents. Under the influence of the provocation of A2 to A4, A1 discarded the L.W.1 and went out elsewhere from the house on 17.05.2019. L.w.1 waited for him for 10 days and finally she was complained in the P.S about missing of A1 and a case in Cr.No.169/2019
U/H of man missing was registered on 27.05.2019. After few days of the missing of A1, her in laws A2 and A3 phoned to l.W.1 and asked if she desired to continue her marital live with their son, she should arrange huge amount of dowry. Further A2 to A4 harassed her on phone by mentally.
When L.W.1 went to the in laws house for A1, they manhandled her and did not allowed into their house. Finally on 30.08.2019 the L.W.1 submitted the report in the P.S. After tracing of A1, Cr.No. 169/2019 will be disposed off.
Then L.W.6 – P.Suresh, Sub Inspector of police received the report of L.W.1 on 30.08.2019 and in turn registered the same as a case in
Cr.No.280/2019 , U/sec.498-A and sec 3 & 4 of D.P act. And submitted the
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020
F.I.R copies to the Hon’ble court and officers concerned and investigated the case.
During the course of investigation the L.W.6 examined the L.W.1 to 5 and recorded the detailed statements of his case. In this case no evidence established against A5 to A7 and except the LW.1 no other witnesses including her parents did not stated about the involvement of A5 to A7 and memo filed before this court to eliminate the words of A5 to A7 from the FIR. After that L.W.6 served notice U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused/A1 to A4. After completion of investigation L.W.6 –P.Suresh, Sub
Inspector of police of Chirala I Town P.S. filed charge sheet against the
Accused/A1 to A4, U/Sec.498-A IPC and sec 3 & 4 of D.P Act Hence the charge.
03. The case was taken on file for the offense against Accused/A1 to A4
Under Section.498-A IPC and sec 3 & 4 of D.P Act and summons served to them.
04. On appearance of Accused/A1 to A4, copies of case documents are furnished to them in accordance with the provisions of section 207 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020
05. Accused/A1 to A4 were examined Under Sec.239 Criminal Procedure
Code read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the offense
Under Sec.498-A IPC and sec 3 & 4 of D.P Act and charges framed
U/sec.240 Cr.P.C., pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried
06. During the course of trial, Prosecution has examined P.W.1 to
P.W.6 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 viz., Ex.P1 is the report dt.30.08.2019, Ex.P2 is the FIR in Cr.No.280/2019, Ex.P3 is the rough sketch of the scene of were got marked.
07. After closer of prosecution evidence, on 26.03.2026 Accused/A1 to
A4 examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C read over and explained incriminating material appearing against them in Telugu language for which they denied and did not requested for defense evidence
08. Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for defence.
09. Perused the entire material available on record.
10. Now the point for determination is:
i) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused/A1 to
A4 for the offense punishable under section.498-A Indian Penal Code
beyond all reasonable doubts?
ii) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused/A1 to
A4 for the offense punishable under section 3 & 4 of D.P.
Act beyond all reasonable doubts?
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020
In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 11.
Pws.1 to 6 out of six listed witnesses and Exs.P1 to Ex.P3 got marked . PW1 is the defacto-complainant cum victim, PW.2 and P.w.3 are father and
Mother of P.W1, P.W.4 and 5 are the independent witnesses and PW.6 is the investigating Officer.
12.The Stand of Accused/A1 to A4 are of total denial. They contended by way of suggestion that they never committed any offence and false case has been foisted against them by PW.1 for unleashing her personal vendetta .
13. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 supported by P.Ws.2 & 3 clearly establishes that the Accused/A1 to A4 have meted out P.W.1 with cruelty by demanding additional dowry and they are liable to be convicted under the leveled charges. She further stated that except contending that the Accused/A1 to A4 was implicated in this case, no plausible evidence has been put forth by the Accused/A1 to A4 to disprove the prosecution case and in the absence of any material effecting veracity of prosecution witnesses, this Court has to show no benevolent view against the Accused/A1 to A4 and he deserve to be punished with maximum imprisonment provided for the charged offences.
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020
14.Au contraire, the learned defense counsel by opposing the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the present case has been foisted by PW.1, only in order to settle her personal scores and version spoken by all witnesses is consistent and contradictory with each other and no sort of reliance could be placed on the same for posing conviction against all the Accused/A1 to A4. Therefore the
Accused/A1 to A4 are entitled to be acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt.
15.In view of rival contentions, entire evidence is perused and this
Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions of both sides.
16. POINT NO.1 :
In order to bring home the guilt of Accused No.1 under Section 498-A of IPC the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:
(1) that accused no.1 is the husband of PW.1.
(2) that accused no.1 to 4 subjected PW.1 to cruelty and such cruelty is of such nature which is likely to drive PW.1 to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (OR) that accused no.1 to 4 harassed PW.1 with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand of any property or valuable security.
17. It is the prime allegation of the prosecution is that the Accused/A1 to
A4 harassed PW.1 by demanding additional dowry by making themselves
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020 liable to be convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 out of six listed witnesses. Out of them PW.1 is the defacto complainant and victim and she is the person who set the criminal law into motion by preferring Ex.P.1 report
before the Police. P.W.1 deposed on oath before the court that on
02.09.2018 her marriage was performed with A1 and her marriage is love marriage and they lived for a period of 2 months. Accused/A1 to A4 harassed her both physically and mentally. In the year 2019, one Gopi came to her house and bring A1 to his house. Thereafter A1 did not come to her house the she made a phone call her father in law and asked about her husband/A1, then they replied that A1 did not come to her house. At first instance she filed missing case on 17.05.2019 for missing of her husband.
Thereafter she came to know that A1 residing in her in laws house and he gave a report to police against the A1 to A4.
In her cross-examination she deposed that as per marriage certificated issued by paster her marriage performed on 19-09-2019 with
A1, she admitted that she filed a case in crime no 140/2020 u/s 498A R/W 34 IPC and section 3 and 4 D.P ACT ,and SC& ST ACT against A1 to 7 in karamchedu PS. , She filed this case on 17-05-2019 against accused. She denied that she have close acquittance with one T. AJAY and see the close
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020 conversation with him by A1 due to that A1 committed suicide. She denied the all suggestion given by the learned defense counsel.
18. Turning to the evidence of P.W.2 – K.Lakshmikanthamma is the mother of P.W.1 stated in her evidence that P.w.1 and A1 got love marriage,
P.W.1 and A1 put up separate family in rented house at Chirala. They lived happily for some time. Later parents of A1 used to telephone to A1 and A1 went to his parents house. She came to know the facts through PW1, PW1 asked A1 to bring her to in laws house but A1 refused, A2,A3 bring A1 to their house without knowing the fact to P.w.1
During cross examination she deposed that A1 and PW1 residing in her house separately after their marriage, PW1 marriage is love marriage , but she did not know the date of marriage as she is an illiterate. She denied that
A1 committed suicide as PW1 closely move with one Ajay. She admitted that PW1 file case in crime no. 280/2019 in Karamchedu police station against accused. She denied the other suggestion.
19. Coming to the evidence of P.W.3 who is the father of P.w.1 stated that at that time of marriage P.W.1 is minor, later after attaining majority they performed the marriage of P.W.1 with A1 at Vital Nagar Church of Chirala.
After marriage P.W.1 and A1 put separate family. After 10 days family
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020 members of A1 telephoned to A1 and called him to their house and confined
A1 in their house and they are not allowed to A1 to come to the house of
PW.1. then himself and PW2 went to the house of accused and asked about
A1 to his family members , then they replied that they do not know where
A1 resides and also threatened them. Family members f A1 harraesd PW1 for want of dowry.after few months A1 came to the house of PW1 and beat her and went to his house. Later PW1 gave a report the police as A1 missing after that family members of A1 produced A1 before police. Then A1 and PW1 compromised and lead matrimonial life, after 15 to 20 days again
A1 harassed PW1 and left the company of PW1 on hearing the words of his family members.
During the cross examination he deposed that he stated before police as PW1 and A1 residing in his house separately, he did not know the date of marriage as he is an illiterate. He denied that A1 committed suicide as PW1 closely move with one Ajay. He admitted that after filing this case PW1 file another case in Karamchedu police station against accused and same was pending.
20. Turning to the evidence of P.w.4 – M.Ankamma stated that after marriage of P.w.1 and A1 lived happily for some period and they put
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020 separate family near by his house. Mother in law of P.w.1 quarreled with
P.w.1 for want of dowry. A1 missed for a period of one month. Then P.w.1 gave report to police. She further stated that she did not know anything about the facts of this case and in her cross-examination she deposed that at request PW1 she came to the court to give evidence and she denied all formal suggestions given by the prosecution.
21. P.w.5 – M.Raja Rao stated in his evidence that on after marriage of
P.w.1 and A1 lived happily for some period and they put separate family in his house. Later disputes arose between P.w.1 and A1 for money. Then the parents of A1 came to his house and bring him to their village. Since then
P.w.1 is residing with her parent’s house. P.w.1 and A1 used to quarrel with each other. During the cross examination he admitted that he do not know the reason for disputes between PW1 and A1, he denied all formal suggestions given by the prosecution.
22. Finally P.W.6 – P.Suresh, who is the investigating Officer in this case, goes to show about the registration of EX.P2 F.I.R on receiving of
EX.P1 report from PW1 on 30.08.2019. It is also show about his investigation. PW6 further deposed that during the course of investigation
LW1 to 5 and recorded their statements. On 22.09.2019 he served u/s 41-A
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020
Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After completion of investigation he file charge sheet against accused for the offense punishable under section 498A IPC and sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.act. During the cross examination he deposed that he did not enquired the date of marriage of PW1 with A1, PW1 also did not stated date and place of her marriage to him, he did not enquire the neighboring witnesses of PW1, PW11 gave report ON 17-09-2019 but he denied that
PW1 marriage was performed on 19-09-2019. he further admitted that PW1 did not stated before him as A2 TO 4 instigated A1 to left the company of
PW1, PW1 made a call to her in laws and enquired about A1, He further admitted that pw1 did not stat before him as she came to know that her husband residing withhA2 TO 4 . He further stated that PW2,PW3 stated
before him as PW1 and A1 residing in another portion in the house of PW2,
and LW1 to 5 did not stated after marriage PW1 and A1 went to the house of
A2 TO 4 then they refused to allow them to their house, then PW1 and A1 went to vital nagarl, chirala and after one month A2 to 4 used to visit the house of A1 and instigate A1 to discard PW1 for getting dowry from her parents. He further admitted that PW1 did not stated before him as PW1 went to the house of accused then A2 TO 4 beat her and necked out from their house, he denied the other suggestions given by the learned counsel
for accused.
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020
23. Upon careful consideration of the testimony of Prosecution Witness
No. 1 (P.W.1), it emerges that during her chief examination, she recounted her marriage with Accused No. 1 (A.1). She further stated that her marriage was performed with A1 on 2-09-2018 , but as per certificate issued by pastor in church her marriage was performed on 19-09-2019. She gave a report to the police on 17-05-2019 for missing of her husband/A1, PW1 file counter in D.P.O NO 75/2024 mentioned that her marriage was performed on 19-09-2019. The learned defense counsel raise objection at the time of report/EX.P1, PW1 marriage was not performed with the accused no.1 but she gave a false report against accused.PW1 further stated that she along with A1 put separate family at vital Nagar , Chirala in rented house but PW2 and 3 stated in their cross examination that PW1 and A1 residing in their house separately.PW4 and 5 are independent witnesses, PW4 stated that AT request of PW1she came to the court to give evidence, mother in law of PW1 quarreled with PW1 for want of dowry, A1 missed for one month then PW1 gave a report, except this one she do not know anything, but PW1 did not state about quarreled by her mother in law for want of dowry from her. PW5 did not state any overt act of accused.
24. Upon comparing P.W.1’s testimony in court with the contents of
Exhibit P.1, it becomes apparent that there are significant discrepancies between the two. In her testimony, P.W.1 did not clearly detail the manner,
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020 place, and mode of harassment by A.1 to A.4. Except for making omnibus allegations of dowry harassment, she did not specify dates or the nature of the alleged abuse to assess whether it constitutes cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, P.W.1 did not provide any explicit narration about the alleged incident and she gave an exaggerated version in her evidence. PW6 Who is investigating officer in this case admitted that PW1 did not stated before him as A2 TO A4 instigated
A1 to left the company of PW1, PW1 made a call to her in laws and inquired about A1and pw1 did not stat before him as she came to know that her husband residing with A2 TO A4. PW1 admitted that as per marriage certificate her marriage date on 19-09-2019. But this case registered on 30- 08-2019. on 02-09-2018 in the church, she again says that her marriage performed with A1 at church for certificate purpose on 19-09-2019. These inconsistencies between her court testimony and the allegations in Exhibit
P.1 significantly undermines the credibility of her version. Although the report mentioned continued harassment by both accused during conjugal life, P.W.1 failed to substantiate the said version before the court. Moreover, she did not specify the exact amount of additional dowry allegedly demanded by A1 to A4.
25. During cross-examination, both P.W.1 and P.W.2 admitted that after this case PW1 file another case in crime no 140/2020 in karamchedu
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020 police station against accused. This admission severely weakens the prosecution’s case and raises questions about the authenticity of the allegations. The learned counsel for defense file copy of F.I.R no 149/2026 in ongole Taluka police station filed by the PW1 against one Nujendla Babi u/s 115(2), 79,351920 r/w395) BNS and scetion 3(2) (va )of SC & ST ACT, , in that report PW1 stated that she along with N.Babi residing as wife and husband in one house D.NO.04-06-482 at Lambadi pet.while this case and divorce cases are pending PW1 file another case against Accused in crime no 140/2020 and file another case in crime no 149/2026 against N.Babi. It’s clearly shows the nature of PW1, which significantly undermines her credibility as a witness. Further more Mere allegations of dowry harassment without concrete evidence are insufficient to convict the accused under
Section 498A of IPC. Turning to the testimonies of P.W.2 and P.W.3 (parents of P.W.1), they contain several inconsistencies, making them unreliable. Notably, P.W.5 admitted during examination that he did not have firsthand knowledge of the facts. This clearly shows that P.W.5 lacks direct knowledge of the marital affairs between P.W.1 and A.1, rendering his testimony unhelpful to the prosecution.
26. Before parting out, it has to be held in precise that these vital inconsistencies appearing from the evidence of PW.1 and Ex. P1 report
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020 coupled with the admissions made the witnesses and makes the version of
PW.1 and her parents as highly unreliable and the same cannot be relied as they are not inspiring the confidence of the court . At this juncture is would be noteworthy to state that In Rajesh Yadav and Another vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in (2022) 12 SCC 200 (para 20), Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the aspects of appreciation of evidence, classified them in three categories i.e., (i) wholly reliable (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable; and held as under:
"20. We have already indicated different classification of evidence. While appreciating the evidence as aforesaid along with the matters attached to it, evidence can be divided into three categories broadly namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. If evidence, along with matters surrounding it, makes the court believe it is wholly reliable qua an issue, it can decide its existence on a degree of probability. Similar is the case where evidence is not believable.
When evidence produced is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, it might require corroboration, and in such a case, court can also take note of the contradictions available in other matters.
27. Thus, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, firstly, wholly reliable, secondly, wholly unreliable, and, thirdly, neither wholly
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020 reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way -- it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interested ness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.
29. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the dictum afore noted, on facts of the present case, this court holds that testimonies of PW.1 to PW.3 are unreliable and untrustworthy . As rightly contended by the learned counsel for defense, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 lacks credibility and the evidence let in by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of both the accused under offenses punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered against the prosecution.
30. POINT No.2 and 3:
The prosecution has alleged that during the conjugal life, all accused no 1 to 4 persistently demanded dowry from P.W.1’s parents, thereby rendering themselves liable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020
Prohibition Act. However, it is pertinent to note that there is no documentary evidence presented before the Court to substantiate the allegation of giving or taking dowry at the time of marriage. P.W.1 admitted that her marriage is love marriage and during her testimony, did not categorically assert that
A.1 received the specified dowry amount and gold ornaments as a consideration for marriage. The prosecution’s case, therefore, rests solely on oral assertions, which remain uncorroborated by any tangible evidence. As per Rule 3 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the
Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1998, it is mandatory for the parties involved to maintain a list of presents exchanged at the time of marriage. The rule specifies that:
1. A list of presents given to the bride must be maintained by the bride, while a list of presents given to the bridegroom must be maintained by the bridegroom.
2. The list must include the approximate value of the items, the name of the donor, and the relationship of the donor with the bride or bridegroom.
3. The list should bear the signatures or thumb impressions of both the bride and bridegroom.
4. Such a list should be prepared within six months after the solemnization of the marriage.
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020
In the present case, the prosecution has failed to produce any such list
before the Court to establish that A.1 accepted dowry from P.W.1's parents.
The absence of a duly maintained and authenticated list of presents seriously undermines the credibility of the allegation, especially when examined through the lens of the Dowry Prohibition Act’s statutory requirements. Regarding the allegation of demanding additional dowry during the marital life, it is important to reiterate that the Court, in its previous discussion under Point No.1, has already concluded that the prosecution's evidence does not convincingly establish any such demand.
Repeating the same finding, it must be stated that the evidence presented lacks the consistency and clarity necessary to substantiate the claim of
additional dowry harassment. The testimonies of P.W.1 and other witnesses
do not explicitly prove that A.1 and A.2 coerced P.W.1 to bring additional dowry from her parents. Thus, in the absence of concrete evidence, both the initial allegation of dowry acceptance at the time of marriage and the subsequent claim of additional dowry demand remain unproven. Therefore,
Points No.2 and 3 are answered against the prosecution.
31.In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020 of Accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.
No property is produced in this case. Hence no order is passed with regard to its disposal.
Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced me
in open court, this 1 st day of May, 2026.
Sd/-J.Kathyayini
Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,Chirala
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for
Prosecution Defence
P.W.1 – K.Amulya - None - P.W.2 – K.Lakshmikantham P.W.3 – K.Yacobu P.W.4 – M.Ankamma P.W.5 – M.Raja Rao P.W.6 – P.Suresh Sub Inspector of Police
Exhibits marked for
Prosecution Defence
Ex.P1 – Report of P.W.1, dt.30.08.2019 - NIL- Ex.P2 – F.I.R in Cr.No.280/2019 Ex.P3 – Rough sketch
Sd/-J.Kathyayini
A.J.C.J- A.J.F.C.M,
Chirala.
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I
CLASS - CUM - ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)
CHIRALA.
CALENDAR IN C.C.No.565 of 2020
Date of offence prior to report: 30.08.2019 Date of report: 30.08.2019 Date of apprehension of Accused: --- Date of release of Accused: --- Date of taken on file: 23.10.2019 Date of commencement of trial: 23.07.2025 Date of closure of trial: 08.04.2026 Date of Judgment: 01.05.2026
The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala I Town Police Station. …Complainant
And
1.Boyalapalli @ Bovilapalli Jagadeesh, S/o.Venkatarao, aged 24 yrs, Caste by Nayibrahmin, Kunkalamarru village, of Karamchedu mandal.
2.Boyalapalli @ Bovilapalli Madhava Latha, W/o.Venkatarao, aged 40 yrs, Caste by Nayibrahmin, Kunkalamarru village, of Karamchedu mandal.
3.Boyalapalli @ Bovilapalli Venkatarao, S/o.Subba Rao, aged 48 yrs, Caste by Nayibrahmin, Kunkalamarru village, of Karamchedu mandal.
4.Boyalapalli @ Bovilapalli Rajesh, S/o.Venkatarao, aged 21 yrs, Caste by Nayibrahmin, Kunkalamarru village, of Karamchedu mandal. N/A of Nalla Cheruvu, Guntur.
... Accused/A1 to A4
Offence: U/Sec.498-A IPC and sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act Plea of Accused/A1 to A4:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty
CC No.565 of 2020
AJCJ Court, Chirala APPR140005462020
Sentence or Order:-
In the result, Accused/A1 to A4 is found not guilty for the offense punishable Under section.498-A Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P
Act and accordingly they are acquitted for the same u/s.248(1) Criminal
Procedure Code. The bail bonds and sureties of the Accused/A1 to A4 if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per U/s.437-A Criminal
Procedure Code.
Explanation for delay:-
This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.498-A IPC and sec.
3 & 4 of D.P.Act against the Accused/A1 to A4. On appearance of
Accused/A1 to A4 before this court, copies of documents were furnished
U/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code. Accused/A1 to A4 were examined
Under Sec.239 Criminal Procedure Code read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the offence Under Sec.498 -A IPC after framing charge under Sec.240 Criminal Procedure Code, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial was commenced on 23.07.2025 and concluded on 08.04.2026 during trial PW.1 to P.W.6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 got marked. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, On 26.03.2026 accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Heard the arguments on both the sides. On 01.05.2026 Judgment pronounced.
Hence the delay.
Sd/-J.Kathyayini
Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,Chirala.
Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole.