Sri K.Nagaraja Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CUM

SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF VIDEO PIRACY CASES, HYDERABAD.

Present: Sri.K.Nagaraja Rao, XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this Twenty Seventh day of June, 2019.

CC No. 220/2012

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, South Zone, Hyderabad. …. Complainant

And

A1)Shaik Azmath, S/o Late Shaik Ali, Aged 38 years, Occupation: Pvt Employee in UAE, R/o H.No. 17-3-193/10/A, Talabkatta, Hyderabad. A2)Shareefa Begum W/o Late Shaik Ali, Aged 55 years, Occupation: Household, R/o H.No. 17-3-193/10/A, Talabkatta, Hyderabad. A3)Shaik Ahmed Ali S/o Late Shaik Ali, Aged 40 years, Occupation: Unemployee R/o H.No. 17-3-193/10/A, Talabkatta, Hyderabad.

(Accused No. 3 is separated vide CC No. 397/2015)

.... Accused Nos. 1 and 2.

This case is coming up for the final hearing before me on 17-06-2019 in the presence of Sri G.Daniel Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri Shaik Saifullah Advocate for the Accused and the matter is being stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The accused nos. 1 and 2 are facing trial for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC, section 406 of IPC, sections 4 and 6 of dowry prohibition act.

2)The gist of the prosecution case is as below:

PW1’s father gave Rs. 36,000/- for purchase of two wheeler to accused no.1. PW1’s father gave 21,000/- towards Jode ke rakam to accused no.1. PW1’s father gave household articles along with Rs. 25,000/- cash to accused nos. 1 and 2 in the presence of accused no.3.

2 On 10-11-2010 accused no.3 drove out PW1 from the house saying to bring Rs. 1 lakh from her parental house. Accused no.1 never used to maintain PW1 except beating her. When PW1 returned to her in laws house from her parental house, the accused locked her room and went away. When she was waiting outside the house, accused no. 3 came from behind and caught hold of her. Accused no.1 used to caught hold of PW1’s hair and forced her to eat the boiled head of goat for which she is averse. The accused no.1 suspected PW1 of illegal contact with her brother in law (elder sister’s husband) and abused him in the most filthy language.

3)On 14-06-2011 at 12 noon PW4 received a court referred complaint on the basis of which she registered a case in crime no. 189/2011 and took up investigation. She examined and recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 3.

4)She arrested accused nos. 2 and 3 and produced them before the court of law for judicial remand on 30-06-2011.

5)Accused no.1 was staying at Dubai, United Arab Emirates and was absconding.

6)After completion of the investigation she filed the charge sheet.

7)This case is taken on cognizance for the offences under section 498-A of IPC, section 406 of IPC, sections 4 and 6 of dowry prohibition act on 29-05- 2012.

8)On appearance of the accused nos.1 and 2 on 17-07-2015, copies of the documents as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. are furnished to the accused.

9)The case against accused no.3 is split up vide CC NO. 397/2015 on 17- 08-2015.

10)The accused nos.1 and 2 are examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. on 01-09-2015 and charges for the offences punishable under section 498-A of

IPC, section 406 of IPC, sections 4 and 6 of dowry prohibition act are framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

11)The prosecution examined PW1 to 4, got marked exhibits P1 to P26 to prove its case. The defence also got marked exhibits D1 to D3. The learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining prosecution witnesses.

12)Accused no. 1 is examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C on 02-04-2019.

The accused denied all the incriminating material and stated it is false. The accused further stated that he does not wish to be examined as a defence witness. The accused also stated that he has no defence evidence.

13)Accused no.2 is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C on 15-04-2019 withregard to the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence. The accused denied all the incriminating material and stated it is false. The accused further stated that he does not wish to be examined as a defence witness. The accused also stated that he has no defence evidence.

14)Heard the arguments.

15)Now, the point for determination is:

”Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of

IPC, section 406 of IPC, sections 4 and 6 of dowry prohibition

act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

16)POINT:-

Section 4 of dowry prohibition act

PW2 is PW1’s father who is the best witness for the aspect of demand of dowry.

He deposed that the accused demanded Rs. 25,000/- Jode ke rakam,

Rs. 36,000/- towards splendor motor bike, 14 tulas of gold articles, costly clothes and household articles.

During the cross examination it was elicited that PW2 did not participate in the marriage negotiations as he was out of the country at that time. The witness added that his family members used to inform him through phone about what transpired during the marriage negotiations.

Therefore, during marriage negotiations what was transpired as per the evidence of PW2 is only here say.

PW2 deposed that on 21-04-2003 he performed the marriage of his daughter by giving costly clothes and electrnic items worth Rs. 3,50,00/- on the demand of the accused.

4

PW1 who is the victim deposed that her father gave Rs. 21,000/- towards jode ke rakam to accused no.1, Rs. 36,000/- for purchase of a two wheeler to accused no.1, household articles and a cash of Rs. 25,000/- to accused nos. 1 and 2 etc. PW2 did not depose about giving of Rs. 21,000/- towards Jode ke rakam, Rs. 36,000/- to purchase a two wheeler, household articles and Rs. 25,000/- cash to accused nos. 1 and 2 specifically.

PW3 is the maternal uncle of PW1. He deposed that the Jode ke rakam was Rs. 25,000/- which they complied and they gave a two wheeler motor cycle worth Rs. 36,000/- and household articles. His evidence is not corroborated by PW2 who actually performed the marriage.

If we see the exhibit P1 complaint it was mentioned that one week earlier to the marriage on the demand of the accused particularly of accused no.2 and accused no.3, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and another sum of Rs.

36,000/- for splendor motor cycle were given in a simple ceremony. This is another new version regarding payment. The complaint does not show the said amounts are paid on the demand of the accused. The complaint does not show of any demand of Jode Ke rakam as deposed by PW2 and PW3 and payment of Jode Ke rakam.

Section 4 of dowry prohibition act is a penal provision and strict compliance is necessary. If we see the version of PWs 1 to 3 in comparison with exhibit P1 complaint there is no assertive evidence from the mouth of

PW1 about demand of any dowry before the marriage or at the time of marriage. PW2 evidence regarding demand of dowry is hear say as he did not participate in the marriage negotiations. However he deposed that he gave costly clothes, household articles and electronic items worth Rs.

3,50,000/- to the accused on their demand. PW3 who is the maternal uncle of PW1 deposed that they gave Jode ke rakam of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs.

36,000/- for a two wheeler and other household articles which is not spoken by PW2. He is also silent about either at that time of marriage or before the marriage the said items are given.

Let us discuss about any demand of dowry after the marriage. PW1 deposed that on 10-11-2010 accused no.3 drove out her from the house demanding Rs. 1 lakh from her parental house and she went to her parental house. But when she again joined her in laws house is not spoken by her, eventhough she deposed many events after she spoke about her going out of the home.

5

PW2 did not depose about PW1 coming to his house on 10-11-2010 specifically informing the demand of accused no.3 to bring Rs. 1 lakh.

Therefore, the evidence of PW1 that accused no.3 drove out demanding Rs. 1 lakh requires corroboration. If we see the further evidence of PW1 it does not show any demand of dowry at any point of time. PW2 deposed that when PW1’s 3rd issue was female child the accused necked out

PW1 from their house and the reason is he could not comply demand of Rs. 1 lakh. He further deposed that since 2010 his daughter is residing with him with her three children.

PW3 version is different. He deposed that accused no.1 used to beat

PW1 frequently and sent her to her parental house. His evidence does not show of any demand of dowry for sending PW1 to her parental house.

Regarding the fact of demand of dowry after the marriage, the witnesses specifically PWs 1 and 2 are not firm about the demand of dowry by the accused. Therefore, it is highly doubtful of demand of dowry by the accused after the marriage. Hence, this court finds that the accused nos. 1 and 2 did not commit any offence under section 4 of dowry prohibition act.

Section 6 of dowry prohibition act

It is not the grievance the PW1 that the accused did not return her stridana property and dowry. It is not the case of PWs 2 and 3 also.

For the said reasons, this court finds that the accused nos. 1 and 2 did not commit any offence under section 6 of dowry prohibition act.

Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code

PW1 deposed about all the family quarrels but did not depose about any willful conduct of the accused causing her grave injury either physically or mentally. Coming to PW2 his only grievance is that as he could not comply the demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- PW1 was necked out and not at all taken back.

His evidence is his son in law beat PW1 causing a fracture of her index finger is not supported by her PW1 herself.

PW3 evidence is the accused used to beat PWs 1 and sent her back to the parental house frequently. PWs. 1 to 3 are not corroborated each other withregard to the facts much less any substantial evidence of grave physical injury is established by the prosecution evidence. Coming to the grave 6 mental agony, PW1 deposed that her husband used to catch hold her hair and forced her to eat the boiled head of goat for which she is averse. This fact is not mentioned in exhibit P1 complaint. Therefore, it is a material omission which goes to the root of the case. Except that there is nothing in the evidence of PW1 alleging willful conduct of the accused resulting in the grave mental injury.

So far as the second limb of section 498-A of IPC is concerned PW1 deposed that she was necked out by accused no. 3 who is her senior brother in law on 10-11-2010 demanding additional dowry of Rs. 1 lakh. PW2 who is her father says PW1 was necked out due to his inability to comply the demand of accused. He further deposed that the accused never tried to settle the matter through elders nor accused no.1 talked with PW1 or with him. If really accused demanded dowry PW1 has to go through elders for mediation and accused do not come for mediation through elders for dowry.

Further, if accused demanded dowry they would have talked with PW2 or

PW1 regarding dowry. Hence, the accused demanded dowry and necked out

PW1 for that is highly suspicious. PWs 1 and are not corroborated regarding the driving out PW1. PW1 says accused no.3 drove out her (not her husband) where as PW2 evidence is due to his inability to pay Rs. 1 lakh PW1 was driven out. PW2 is not directly deposing about accused demanded him of any dowry. The mere not talking of the accused with PW2 or PW1 cannot be deduced as accused demanded Rs. 1 lakh dowry and drove out PW1. In this area the PWs 1 and 2 evidence is not clear and specific.

PW3 who is maternal uncle of PW1 did not depose about PW1 was driven out by the accused demanding additional dowry.

Hence, this court finds for the above discussion that the accused no.1 and 2 did not commit any offence under section 498-A of IPC.

Section 406 of Indian Penal Code

PW1 did not depose about criminal breach of trust as defined under section 405 of IPC.

As per the section 405 of IPC if any person being entrusted with any property dishonestly misappropriates it or disposes it commits criminal breach of trust. No such allegation of misappropriation or disposing of property is deposed by PW1.

7

Hence, this court finds the accused nos. 1 and 2 did not commit any offence under section 406 of Indian Penal Code.

For the aforesaid discussion, this point is decided in favour of the accused nos. 1 and 2 and against the prosecution by holding the prosecution is failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC, section 406 of IPC, sections 4 and 6 of dowry prohibition act.

In the result, the accused nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under section 498-A of IPC, section 406 of IPC, sections 4 and 6 of dowry prohibition act and they are accordingly, acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after six months from the Judgment under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. and the accused is set at liberty.

There is no property in this case.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by 0him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the Open Court this 27 th day of June, 2019.

XV Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined for

Prosecution: Defence: Nil PW1: Seema. PW2: Syed Sajid. PW3: Mir Sardar Ali.

8

PW4: Smt. P. Janakamma.

Exhibits marked on Behalf of

Prosecution:

Exb.P1: Complaint given by PW1 Exb.P2: Certified copy of the order in DVC No. 361/2012, dated 18-04-2017. (6 folios). Exb.P3: Certified copy PW1 evidence in DVC NO. 361/2012. (6 folios). Exb.P4: Certified copy of the evidence of Syed Sajed (PW1 father) in DVC No. 361/2012. Exb.P5: Certified copy of the evidence of PW1’s husband in DVC NO. 361/2012. Exb.P6: Certified copy of PW1 complaint to the protection officer. (2 folios) Exb.P7: Certified copy of the domestic incident report along with covering letter. (11 folios) Exb.P8: Certified copy of the marriage booklet issued by Andhra Pradesh State wakf board, Hyderabad. (6 folios) Exb.P9: Certified copy of the marriage certificate issued by Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Hyderabad. Exb.P10: Certified copy of Jahez articles list along with cash memos, photographs of the jahez articles and photographs of marriage 17 folios. Exb.P11: Certified copy biodata of PW1 husband given to his employer in Dubai. Exb.P12: Certified copy of the hypothecation of PW1 gold chain by PW1 husband and obtained a loan of Rs. 21,000/- from the cooperative bank at Darussalam. Exb.P13: Certified copy of cash memo, dated 21-08-2007 for purchasing gold articles for PW1 children by PW1. Exb.P14: Certified copy of the bonafied certificate of PW1 first child namely Shaik Adnan Exb.P15: Certified copy of the bonafied certificate of PW1 second child namely Shaik Ayan. Exb.P16: Certified copy of the bonafied certificate of PW1 third child namely Juveriya. Exb.P17: Certified copy of the school fee certificates of PW1 3rd child. (3 folios). Exb.P18: Certified copy of the medical prescriptions of PW1 third child namely Juveriya. (3 folios). Exb.P19: Certified copy of the registered gift settlement deed, dated 24-04- 2009 given PW1 mother in law to PW1 husband. (5 folios) Exb.P20: Certified copy of the FIR No. 72/2015, dated 28-04-2015 at Mirchowk police station given by PW1. Exb.P21: Certified copies of theletter, dated 13-12-2012 addressed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone (2 folios) Exb.P22: Certified copy of the Look Out Circular along with passport against PW1 husband. Exb.P23: Certified copies of the photographs sent by PW1 to co daughter in 9 law. (2 folios) Exb.P24: Certified copy of PW1 husbands government employment in United Arab Emirates as electrician. Exb.P25: Certified copy of the agreement of the sale of selling house property at Madinanagar by PW1 husband to Mohd. Waheeduddin. (5 folios) Exb.P26: First Information Report.

Defence: Exb. D1: Xerox copy of PW1 Passport. Exb. D2: Zerox copy passport of PW1 first child namely, Shaik Adnan. Exb. D3: Police held a media conference and got photographed PW1 younger brother as shown in Exb. D3 along with other accused.

M.Os. Marked.

Nil

XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CUM

SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF VIDEO PIRACY CASES, HYDERABAD.

Present: Sri.K.Nagaraja Rao, XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the Sixteenth day of April, 2018.

CC No.859/2011

Between:

The State through Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Begumpet, Secunderabad. …. Complainant

And

1P. Deepak Kumar, S/o P. Krishna Kumar, Aged 26 years, Occupation: Business, R.o H.NO. 3-1-1116/7. Venkata Ramana Colony, Surya Nagar, Mallapur, Nacharam, R.R. District. (A1 is expired) 2Smt. Padma Kala, W/o P.Krishna Kumar, Aged 47 years, Occ: Bangles Shop, R.o H.NO. 3-1-1116/7. Venkata Ramana Colony, Surya Nagar, Mallapur, Nacharam, R.R. District.

3P.Kalyana Kumar, S/o P. Krishna Kumar, Aged 24 years, Occ: Business, R.o H.NO. 3-1-1116/7. Venkata Ramana Colony, Surya Nagar, Mallapur, Nacharam, R.R. District.

.... Accused Nos.1, A3 and A4

This case is coming up for the final hearing before me on 20.03.2018 in the presence of Sri G.Daniel Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, L.N.Bhadriraju, Advocate for the Accused and the matter being stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 are facing the trial for the offences under section 498-A of IPC section 3 and section 4 of dowry prohibition act.

2)The Gist of the prosecution case is as below:

 PW1’s parents gave a sum of Rs. 2 ½ Lakhs towards dowry, The Hero

Honda the vehicle a gold ornaments worth 10 tulas, Silver ornaments

2 of 3 tulas, Rs. 50,000/- to purchase clothes and Rs. 1,00,000/- to purchase furniture etc.

The Accused suppressed the epilepsee of accused No. 1.

Due to the Epilepsee accused No.1 marriage was not consemnated.

Accused No.4 misbehaved with PW1 stating that he could satisfy the several requirement of PW1 as accused No.1 was not capable of doing sex with PW1.

Accused No.4 used to pic the hand of PW1 everyday compelling her to participate in sex with him.

In the month of August 2011, on one day the accused picked up a quarrel with PW1 took away her Mangal Sutram and drove out of the house.

3) On 09-09-2011 at 11.00 AM PW3 received a court referred complaint on the basis of which she registered a case in crime No. 95/2011 and took up investigation.

4) She examined and recorded the statements of PW1, PW2 and

Hemalatha(LW3).

5)During the course of investigation accused No. 2 expired on 29-09-2011.

6)Accused No.1 was arrested on 14-09-2011 and was produced before the court of law for judicial remand.

7)Accused No. 3 and accused No.4 obtained orders from the Honourable

High Court not to arrest them.

8)After completion of the investigation PW3 filed the charge sheet.

9)This court is taken on cognizance for the offences under section 498-A, section 506, section 420 of IPC, section 3 and section 4 of dowry prohibition act on 22-12-2011.

10)On appearance of the accused No.1, accused No.3 and accused No. 4 on 03-08-2012 copies of the documents as contemplated under section 207 of CrPC are furnished to the accused.

11)Accused No.1, accused No.3 and accused No.4 are examined under section 239 of CrPC on 23-07-2013 and charges for the offences under section 498-A of IPC, section 3 and section 4 of dowry prohibition act are framed against the accused, read/over and explained to the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

12)PW’s 1 to 3 are examined and exhibits P1 and P2 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Hemalatha (LW3).

13)After completion of the prosecution evidence accused No.1, accused

No.3 and accused No.4 are examined under section 313 of CrPC on 14- 12-2017 with regard to the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence. Accused denied all the incriminating material and stated that it is false. The accused further stated that they do not wish to be examined as defence witnesses. The accused also stated that they have no defence evidence.

14)As per orders in criminal MP. No. 310/2018, dated 14-02-2018 accused No. 4 is examined as DW1 and exhibits D1 to D5 are marked on behalf of the defence to disprove prosecution evidence.

15)The case accused no. 1 is abated on 18-01-2018 due to his committing suicide.

16)Heard the Arguments

17)Now the point for determination is:- “whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused

No.3 and accused No.4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the

offences under section 498-A of IPC, section 3 and section 4 of

dowry prohibition act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

18)Point:-

Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code

19)PW1 is the Victim. She deposed accused No.3 and accused No.4 threatened her not to disclosed about the convulsions of accused No.1 due to which the marriage was not at all consemnated. She further deposed accused No.4 misbehaved with her saying he would satisfy the sex as accused No.1 was not capable of doing sex with PW1. It is her further evidence that when her parents came to her in laws house to present clothes to the accused. The accused bet her father and drove them out of the house. Her evidence goes to show that in the month of august 2011 on one day, the accused picked up a quarrel with her, took her “Mangal Sutram” and drove her out of the house.

20)The crux of the point is whether there were any wilfull by accused no.

3 and accused No.4 attracting the first limb of the cruelty as per section 4 498-A of IPC admittedly PW1 did not sustain any physical grave injury.

She did not deposed of suffering from any grave mental ill health due to the willful act on accused No.4 or accused No.3.

21)PW2 is the father of PW1 is evidence corroborates PW1’s evidence their evidence is not sufficient to attract the provisions of section 498-A of

IPC.

22)Hence this court finds accused No.3 and accused No.4 did not commit the offence under section 498-A of IPC.

Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

23)PW1 deposes her parents gave a sum of Rs. 2 ½ lakhs towards dowry, a Hero Honda vehicle, 10 tulas of gold ornaments 3 tulas of silver ornaments and a cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- to purchase furniture. It lacks any demand was made by the accused for the above said items.

24)PW2 deposed that the accused demanded Rs. 4 to 5 lakhs and 20 tulas of gold articles but he agreed for Rs. 2 ½ lakhs cash 10 tulas of gold articles, 3 tulas of silver articles and for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards furniture and household articles. He further deposed of agreeing for giving a Hero

Honda Motor Byke and performed the marriage of PW1 by complying all

the aggrieved demands.

25)Exhibit P1 complaint shows the accused demanding 2 ½ lakhs dowry.

26)Under section 8-A of the dowry prohibition act the burden of proving that the accused had not committed the offence under section 3 and section 4 of the act shall be on the accused.

27)PW1 does not corroborate the exhibit P1 complaint so far as the demand of dowry by the accused even though there is no contradiction about giving of dowry between PW1 (victim) and her father (PW2) there is a direction regarding the demand of dowry from the side of the accused. Further PW1 admitted in her cross examination that her father was working in Osmania University as a clerk as on the date of her marriage.

28)Due to the contradiction between PW1 and PW2, further corroborates of PW2 regarding demand of dowry by the accused. Now such document showing the accused demanded dowry is produced.

5

29)The burden on the accused is not and as that of the prosecution. The accused can prove that he did not commit offence by showing the Lakune in the prosecution evidence and for that he need not examine himself by entering into the witness box.

30)For the above point out Lakune in the prosecution evidence regarding the demand of dowry the accused can be given a benefit of doubt.

Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

31)Section 3 furnished taking dowry the evidence of PW does not show to whom specifically the dowry of Rs. 2 ½ lakhs was given. Her testimony is a balled one saying the dowry of Rs. 2 ½ lakhs was given to the accused out of whom accused No. 1 (her husband) and accused No.2 (her father in law are no more). Similarly PW2 who is the father of PW1 gave a balled testimony that he complied the demand of the accused regarding the dowry of 2 ½ lakhs rupees cash and other articles. This Lacuna is sufficient to whittle down the prosecution case. In order to attract the penal provision the evidence must be specific pointing out the culprit.

Other wise the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Even though under section 8-A of the dowry prohibition act the burden lies on the accused to disprove. They did not receive any dowry they can take the benefit of doubt out of the deficiency of prosecution evidence disprove the prosecution evidence.

32)As such the evidence on record is not safe and sufficient to arrive at the guilt of the accused under section 4 of dowry prohibition act.

33)Hence the evidence on record is not safe and sufficient to arrive at the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 3 of dowry prohibition act.

34)For the aforesaid discussion, this point is decided in favour of the accused and against the prosecution by holding the prosecution is failed to prove home guilt of accused No. 3 and accused No.4 for the offences under section 498-A of IPC section 3 and section 4 of dowry prohibition act beyond all reasonable doubt.

35) In the result, Accused. No.3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences under section 498-A, section 420 and section 506 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of CrPC. There bail 6 bonds shall stand cancelled after 6 months from the date of the Judgment as per section 437-A of CrPC.

36)No property is deposited.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 16 th day of Aprilk, 2018.

XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW1- P Sailaja. PW2-S Sai kumar PW3-Smt. K Sridevi Defence: DW1- Vari. Kalyan Kumar

Exhibits marked on Behalf of Prosecution: Ex.P1-Complaint given by the PW1. Ex.P2 FIR Defence: D1 to D3 are the receipts towards the decreed amount. F.C.O.P.NO.18/2012. D4 and D5 are the bank counter foils vouchers. F.C.O.P. No.18/2012 M.Os. Marked. NIL

XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CUM

SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF VIDEO PIRACY CASES, HYDERABAD.

Present: Sri K.Nagaraja Rao, XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this Twenty Second day of June, 2019.

CC No. 281/2018

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. …. Complainant

And

1) G. Vishal Kumar S/o Late Anand Kumar Aged 28 years, Occupation: Pvt. Service, R/o Flat No. 104, Sree Plaza, Madhavi Nagar, Ferozguda, Balanagar, R.R. Dist.

2) G. Shobhamma W/o Late Anand Kumar Aged 63 years, Occupation: Pvt Service, R/o Flat No. 104, Sree Plaza, Madhavi Nagar, Ferozguda, Balanagar, R.R. Dist.

3) Santosh S/o Late Anand Kumar Aged 28 years, Occupation: Pvt. Service, R/o Flat No. 104, Sree Plaza, Madhavi Nagar, Ferozguda, Balanagar, R.R. Dist.

4) Bajrang S/o M. Satyanarayana Aged 30 years, Occupation: Financer R/o 60/C, Bansilalpet, Secunderabad.

5) Saritha W/o Late Ramu Aged 26 years Occupation: Pvt. Service, R/o Flat No. 104, Sree Plaza, Madhavi Nagar, Ferozguda, Balanagar, R.R. Dist.

(Accused nos. 3 to 5 are deleted from the charge sheet)

.... accused nos. 1 and 2.

This case is coming up for the final hearing before me on 13-06-2019 in the presence of Sri G.Daniel Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri A Chetan and Suresh Kumar, Advocates for the Accused and the matter is being stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The accused nos. 1 and 2 are facing trial for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC and section 506 part-1 of IPC.

2)The gist of the prosecution case is as below:

The accused harassed PW1 for dowry and also suspected her character.

The accused necked out PW1 from her matrimonial home stating they do not require PW1 and they would perform the second marriage of accused no.1.

2 Accused no.1 wanted to perform his second marriage with a woman whose marriage was already arranged with some other person. Accused no.1 and that woman ran away from the house. On police counselling that woman namely Shailaja returned to her home and her marriage was performed with some another person. During the elders panchayath accused no.1 promised orally that he look after PW1 and her child well. But he did not keep up his promise and did not take PW1 back. Accused no.2 abused PW1 in filthy language suspecting her character and further stated that PW1’s daughter was not borned to accused no.1.

3)On 01-06-2012 at 10.30 A.M. PW1 lodged a report with the police, on the basis of which M. Sadananda (LW6) registered a case in crime No.

116/2012 and handed over investigation to PW3.

4)PW3 examined and recorded the statements of PW1, PW2, Bandari

Bhagya Laxmi (LW2) and B. Nirmala (LW4).

5)On 02-06-2012, he arrested accused no.1 and produced him before the court of law for judicial remand on the same day.

6)He examined and recorded the statements of Devender (LW5) who is the locality person of PW1’s parents.

7)Accused no.2 surrendered before the learned 13th Addl. Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate on 29-08-2012 and was accordingly, released on bail.

8)After completion of the investigation he filed the charge sheet deleting accused nos. 3 to 5.

9)This case is taken on cognizance for the offences under section 498-A of IPC, sections 3 and 4 of dowry prohibition act on 31-10-2012.

10)On appearance of the accused on 15-02-2019, copies of the documents as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C are furnished to the accused.

11)The accused nos. 1 and 2 are examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. on 13-08-2014 and charges for the offences punishable under section 498-A of

IPC, sections 3 and 4 of dowry prohibition act are framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

12)The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3, got marked exhibits P1 and P2 to prove its case. The defence also got marked exhibits D1 and D2 to disprove the prosecution evidence. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Bandari Bhagya Laxmi (LW2).

13)After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C on 13-11-2018 with regard to the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence. The accused denied all the incriminating material and stated that it is false. The accused further stated that he does not wish to be examined as a defence witness. The accused also stated that he has no defence evidence.

14)The matter is posted for defence evidence on 27-12-2018. The learned counsel for accused reported no defence evidence.

15)Heard the arguments.

16)Now, the point for determination is:

”Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of

IPC, section 506 part-1 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code

PW1 who is the victim baldly testified that accused no.1 harassed her for dowry and he quarreled with her for dowry. The PW1 did not depose specifically the harassment meted out by her. The section 498-A of IPC prescribes a particular type of cruelty in its explanation divided into two limbs. Therefore any bald testimony of harassment for additional dowry does not come within the frame work of section 498-A of IPC. Further, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that in column no.4 of exhibit P2 FIR the type of information is shown as written but the exhibit P1 police report is a

Telugu type written and not hand-written. The meaning of written need not be hand-written and it may be a type written also. The purpose of the column no.4 to show the type of information is to know whether it is oral or written but not to know a typewritten or a hand written. The learned counsel

for the accused submitted that column no.14 of exhibit P2 FIR does not

contain the signature of informant. He also submitted that exhibit P1 report does not show any date and as such it is concocted. Merely because the exhibit P1 complaint does not show any date and does not show the 4 signature of the PW1 it cannot be said that exhibit P1 is concocted. Exhibit

P2 FIR received in the court on 02-06-2013 at 11.00 A.M. and there is no inordinate delay in receiving the First Information Report. Hence, the First

Information Report is true and genuine and there is no question of any concoction of it.

PW2 is the father of PW1. He deposed that the accused beat PW1 for

Rs. 1 lakh or for Rs. 2 lakhs additional dowry and PW1 sustained injury on her head. This is further development of the case by PW2 which PW1 did not depose. PWs 1 and 2 deposed about panchayats before Malakondalu and

Sadanand etc. But, no elder was examined to show that any harassment for dowry is the issue of the panchayath. Exhibit D1, the order of DVC case filed by the victim shows that DVC was allowed only to the extent of maintenance but not withregard to the domestic violence. In that way also this court finds that there is no cruelty on the part of the accused.

Therefore the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not sufficient to attract section 498-A of IPC.

Section 506 part 1 of Indian Penal Code

There is no iota of evidence regarding any crimimal intimidation as contemplated under section 503 of IPC as per the prosecution evidence.

Hence this court finds the prosecution evidence does not establish section 506 of IPC.

For the said reasons, this point is decided in favour of the accused and against the prosecution by holding the prosecution is failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 498-A of

IPC and section 506 part 1 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under section 498-A of IPC, section 506 part 1 of IPC and they are accordingly, acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after six months from the Judgment under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C. and they are set at liberty.

There is no property in this case.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the Open Court this 22 nd day of June, 2019.

5

XV Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined for

Prosecution: Defence: Nil PW1: G. Sukeshini. PW2: Raghu Tilak. PW3: S. Devender.

Exhibits marked on Behalf of

Prosecution: Exb.P1: Police report which contains the endorsement of M. Sadananda Rao, A.S.I. of Police. Exb.P2: First Information Report.

Defence:

Exb. D1: Certified Copy of order in DVC. No. 396/2012 on the file of IV MM. Exb. D1: Xerox copy of the legal notice given by A1 to PW1.

M.Os. Marked.

Nil

XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CUM

SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF VIDEO PIRACY CASES, HYDERABAD.

Present: Sri.K.Nagaraja Rao, XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this Twenty Fifth day of October, 2018.

CC No. 607/2011

Between:

The State through Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, North Zone, secunderabad. …. Complainant

And

S. Krishna Murthy, S/o Late. S. Rajeshwara Shastri, Aged 32 years, Occupation: Pvt Employee, R/o H.No. 8-3-339/349, Ground Floor, Viswa Shakti Apartments, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad.

.... Accused

This case is coming up for the final hearing before me on 23-10-2018 in the presence of Sri G.Daniel Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri Nagula Srinivas Yadav and Nagamani Kumar, Advocate for the Accused and the matter being stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The sole accused is facing trial for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC, section 506 of IPC, section 406 of IPC and sections 4 and 6 of dowry prohibition act.

2) The gist of the prosecution case is as below:

The accused beat PW1 and harassed her.

The accused started suspecting PW1 of illicit relationship with his elder brother.

PW1 attempted to commit suicide by burning herself.

The accused stayed at PW1’s parental house for three months in 2009 when he lost the job.

3)On 17-02-2011 at 11.30 A.M, PW5 received a court referred complaint on the basis of which she registered a case in crime No. 11/2011 and took up investigation.

2

4)She examined and recorded the statements of PW’s 1 to 4. She arrested the accused No.1 on 13-04-2011 and produced him before the court of law for judicial remand.

5) After completion of the investigation, she filed the charge sheet.

6) This case is taken on cognizance on 29-06-2011 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A of IPC, section 506 of IPC, section 406 of

IPC, sections 4 and 6 of dowry prohibition act.

7) On appearance of the accused on 03-09-2012, copies of the documents as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C are furnished to the accused.

8) The sole accused is examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. on 09-05- 2013 and charges for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC, section 506 of IPC, section 406 of IPC, sections 4 and 6 of dowry prohibition act are framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused.

The accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9) The prosecution examined PW’s 1 to 5 and got marked and exhibits P1 and P2 to prove its case.

10) After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C on 19-10-2018 with regard to the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence. The accused denied all the incriminating material and stated that it is false. The accused further stated that he does wish to be examined as a defence witness. The accused also stated that he has no defence.

11) Heard the Arguments.

12) Now, the point for determination is:

”Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, section 406 of IPC, section 506 of IPC, sections 4 and 6 of

dowry prohibition act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

13) POINT:-

Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code

14) PW1 is the victim who deposed about the accused was beating her, suspecting her and she also attempted to commit suicide. During the cross 3 examination of PW1 there is no suggestion from the side of the accused regarding PW1’s attempt to commit suicide. PW2, who is the mother of PW1 deposed in her chief examination that when PW1 was admitted in the hospital during 8th month of pregnancy she went to the hospital and found

PW1 was with burn injuries. She also deposed that during her stay at PW1’s house to help her for one month, the accused was beating PW1. There is no cross examination of PW2 (cross examination was treated nil). PW3 who is the neighbor of the PW1 also deposed that after six months from the marriage the accused started harassing PW1 physically and mentally for an

additional dowry. But, this is not the evidence of PW1 that she was harassed

physically and mentally for an additional dowry. PW3 did not face the cross examination as he was residing at Nynital in Uttarakhand state due to his mental condition is not good. Hence, the evidence of PW3 is eschewed.

PW4 is the neighbour of PW1’s parents. She did not depose about the accused beating PW1. But she deposed about the accused used to lock PW1 in the house while leaving to office. But as per her own evidence she came to know the said fact through the house owner. As such it is a hearsay evidence which is not good evidence.

15) If we see the complaint given by the PW1, she narrated about her attempt to commit suicide on 10-01-2009 in her 8th month of pregnancy due to physical and mental harassment of the accused. PW1 in her chief examination corroborated the exhibit P1 complaint about the said attempt to commit suicide.

16) The Learned defence Counsel for the accused argued that there is no documentary evidence to show PW1 sustained any burn injuries.

17) In first limb of section 498-A of IPC, cruelty under is any willful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide.

If any intentional conduct due to which there is likelihood to drive the woman to commit suicide comes under cruelty. In this case the PW1 attempted to commit suicide with fire. The nature of burn injuries and percentage of burn injuries is essential to know whether PW1 attempted to commit suicide. Mere the evidence of PW1 that she sustained burn injuries is not suffice to decide any attempt was made to commit suicide, so that this 4 court can believe there is a willful conduct of the accused which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. Therefore, it is the burden of the prosecution not only to establish the fact that PW1 attempted to commit suicide with fire sustaining burn injuries but also to establish the percentage of burn injuries and on which parts of the body of PW1 the said burns were suffered, to know whether there was any attempt to commit suicide by PW1.

Therefore, the mere oral evidence of PW1 does not establish the attempt of

PW1 to commit suicide with fire due to the willful conduct of the accused.

18) There is no evidence by PW1 who is a direct witness regarding the second limb of cruelty.

19) Hence, this court finds the accused did not commit any offence under section 498-A of IPC.

Section 406 of Indian Penal Code

20) There is no evidence of PW1 about misappropriation of her property.

Therefore, this court finds the accused did not commit an offence under section 406 of IPC.

Section 506 of Indian Penal Code

21) There is no evidence of PW1 that the accused committed criminal intimidation. Therefore, this court finds the accused did not commit any offence under section 506 of IPC.

Section 4 of dowry prohibition act.

22) PW1 in her evidence did not depose about the accused demanded any dowry. Therefore, this court holds the accused did not commit any offence under section 4 of dowry prohibition act.

Section 6 of dowry prohibition act

23) PW1 did not express any grievance of not returning the dowry to her or not returning her gold ornaments. Therefore, this court finds the accused did not commit any offence under section 6 of dowry prohibition act.

24) For the aforesaid discussion this point is decided in favour of the accused and against the prosecution by holding the accused did not commit the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC, section 406 of IPC, section 506 of IPC, sections 4 and 6 of dowry prohibition act beyond all reasonable doubt.

5

25) In the result, the sole accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 498-A of IPC, section 406 of IPC, section 506 of IPC, sections 4 and 6 of dowry prohibition act and he is accordingly, acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after six months from the Judgment under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

There is no property in this case.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the Open Court this 25 th the day of October, 2018.

XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined for

Prosecution: Pw1- S. Satya Seetha Rama Madhuri. PW2-B. Rukmini. PW3-K. Prasad Rao. PW4-K. Savitri. PW5-K. Sridevi.

Defence: Nil

Exhibits marked on Behalf of

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1-Complaint given by the PW1. Nil Ex.P2- FIR

M.Os. Marked.

Nil

XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CUM

SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF VIDEO PIRACY CASES, HYDERABAD.

Present: Sri.K.Nagaraja Rao, XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the Thirty First day of March, 2018.

CC No.1/2012

Between:

The State through Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, South Zone, Hyderabad. …. Complainant

And

1Syed Khaja Kaleemuddin, S/o Syed Khaja Kamaluddin Aged 32 years, Occupation: Service at Dubai, R/o H.No. 9-11-56/1, Khazi Galli, Golkonda, Hyderabad.

2Syed Khaja Kamaluddin, Aged 60 years, Occupation: Nil R/o H.No. 9-11-56/1, Khazi Galli, Golkonda, Hyderabad.

3Nafees Begum @ Khursheed Banu, W/o Syed Khaja Kamaluddin, Aged 54 years, Occupation: Household R/o H.No. 9-11-56/1, Khazi Galli, Golkonda, Hyderabad.

4Sana Fatima W/o Syed Basheeruddin, Aged 35 years, Occupation: Household R/o H.No. 9-11-56/1, Khazi Galli, Golkonda, Hyderabad.

5Anees Fatima W/o Syed Basheeruddin, Aged 34 years, Occupation: Household, R/o H.No. 9-11-56/1, Khazi Galli, Golkonda, Hyderabad.

.... Accused Nos.3 to 5

This case is coming up for the final hearing before me on 13.03.2018 in the presence of Sri G.Daniel Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, Advocate for the Accused and the matter being stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Accused Nos.3 to 5 are facing trial for the offences under Sections 498-

A of IPC, section 3 and section 4 of dowry prohibition act.

The gist of the prosecution case is as below:

The parents of PW1 gave Rs. 50,000/- towards Jode ke rakam 12 tulas of gold articles etc. to the accused. Accused No.1 demanded Rs. 10,000/- at one time and Rs. 20,000/- at another time. Accused No.1 bet PW1 demanding Rs. 2,00,000/-. The remaining accused used to instigate accused No.1 to demand Rs.

2,00,000/- Finally the accused locked the house, kept the keys with them and driven out PW1 to bring Rs. 2,00,000/- Accused No.2 to 5 also came to the parental house of PW1, abused her to bring Rs. 2,00,000/- and threatened to perform the second marriage to accused No.1.

3) On 03-12-2009 at 10.00 A.M S. Maheshwar Inspector of Police, women police station south zone, Hyderabad received a court referred complaint on the basis of which he registered a case in crime No. 298 of 2009 and took up investigation.

4) He examined and recorded the statements of PW1 Afzal Fatima (LW2)

Md. Ibrahim (LW3) and Md. Moinuddin(LW4).

5) Accused No. 2 to 5 obtained anticipatory bail and they were accordingly released on 06-02-2010.

6) After completion of investigation he filed a charge sheet.

7) This case is taken on cognizance for the offences under section 498-A of IPC section 3 and section 4 of dowry prohibition act on 03-01-2012.

8) On appearance of accused No. 3 to 5 on 25-07-2014 copies of the documents as contemplated under section 207 of CrPC. Are furnished to the accused. ( A1 case separated vide CC. No.86/2014).

9) Accused No. 2 case is abated.

10) Accused No.s 3 to 5 are examined under 239 of CrPC on 02-09-2014 and charges for the offences under section 498-A of IPC, section 3 and section 4 of dowry prohibition act are framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused.

11)The accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

12)The prosecution examined PW1 and got marked exhibits P1 to P3 to prove its case. The defence also got marked exhibits D1 to D7 to disprove the prosecution evidence.

13)The Learned Assistant public Prosecutor has given the evidence of Afzal Fatima (LW2), Mohd Ibrahim (LW3) and S. Maheshwar Inspector of

Police (LW5).

14)The evidence of Md. Moinuddin (LW4) is closed who is return to be dead.

15). After completion of the prosecution evidence accused No. 3 to accused No. 5 are examined under section 313 of CrPC on 21-03-2018 with regard to the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence.

The accused denied all the incriminating material and stated that it is false.

16) The accused further stated that they do not wish to be examined as defence witnesses. The accused also stated that they have no defence evidence.

17)Heard the arguments.

18)Now, the point for determination is:-

”Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

Accused No. 3to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

19)POINT:- SECION 498-A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

20)PW1 who is the Victim categorically deposed in her chief examination that she was driven out by accused No.s 3 to 5 demanding to bring Rs. 2,00,000/- and they also came to her parental house and abused her for not bringing Rs. 2,00,000/-.

21)The said facts are categorically mentioned in her complaint also.

22)During the cross examination of PW1 knowing was elisted learned counsel for the accused regarding the accused driving out PW1 from the house demanding to bring Rs. 2,00,000/-, the accused visiting her parental house and abusing her in not bringing Rs. 2,00,000/-. But when PW1 was recalled for further cross examination vide orders in criminal M.P.

708/2018, dated 20-03-2018. She categorically time during the hearing period an amicable settlement was reached between herself and accused in the persons of community elders and she was also bet Rs. 6,00,000/- through demand drafts. She also testified, she is not interested in prosecuting in accused and bet to release the accused.

23)The offences being the matters relating to the corpus of the family and PW1 has every liberty to settled the family issues through amicable settlement. Further reason due waitage is to be given to the request of PW1 that she is no more interested to prosecute the accused in view of the amicable settlement.

24)For the aforesaid discussion this point is decided in favour of the accused and against prosecution by holding the prosecution is failed to bring home the guilty of accused No. 3 to 5 for the offences under section 498-A of

IPC, section 3 and section 4 of dowry prohibition act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

25)In the result accused No. 3 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences under section 498-A of IPC section 3 and section 4 of dowry prohibition act and they accordingly acquitted under section 348(1) of CrPC.

Therefore bail bonds shall stand cancelled further six months from the judgment under section 438-A of CrPC.

26)No property is deposited in this case.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 31 th day of March, 2018.

XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined for

Prosecution: Defence: Pw1- Nil PW2-. PW3- PW4- G Bhu Laxmi, Distant Relative of PW1.

PW5- A Madhavi Latha, Sub Inspector of Police, North Zone. Exhibits marked on Behalf of Prosecution: Ex.P1-Complaint given by the PW1. Ex.P2-Order dated 03-04-2014 Ex.P3 Provisional intimation letter dated 20-02-2004. Ex.P4 Pass book of S.B.I. Ex.P5 Letter dated 28-11-2014 Ex.P6 FIR Defence: Ex. D1 Certified copy of Original Petition. Ex. D2 to D4 Omissions in Chief of PW1 Ex. D5 Handwriting M.Os. Marked. NIL

XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad.