1/14 C.C.No.296 of 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
KAVALI.
Present: Sri K.P.Sai Ram,
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.
(FAC) Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali.
Monday, the 17th (Seventeenth) day of April, 2023.
C.C. No .296 of 2 017
Between:-
State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kavali II Town P.S. … Complainant. And:-
1.Laguthoti Kamakshaiah, S/o Chinnaiah, aged 32 years, Mala by caste, Chennur village, Dagadarthi mandal.
2.Laguthoti Chinnaiah, S/o Polaiah, aged 50 years, Mala by caste, Chennur village, Dagadarthi mandal
3.Laguthoti Nagamani, W/o Chinnaiah, aged 47 years, Mala by caste, Chennur village, Dagadarthi mandal.
4.Pandhi Nirusha, W/o Venkateswarlu, aged 30 years, Mala by caste, Chennur village, Dagadarthi mandal.
…Accused.
This case is coming on 31/03/2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and SriA. Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocate for A1 to A4, and upon perusing the entire material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kavali II Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 in Cr.No.37 of 2015 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and
Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2.The averments of charge sheet in nutshell as follows:-
(a)A1 to A4 are the residents of Chennur village of Dagadarthi Mandal.
Pw.1 is the de facto complainant. Pw.2 and LW2-Jyothi Ramanaiah are the parents of Pw.1. Pw.6 is the brother of Pw.1. About 4 years prior to lodging the report, the marriage of Pw.1 with A1 was performed at Chennuru as per Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage, the parents of Pw.1 gave 8 sovereigns of gold and cash of Rs.25,000/- to A1 as dowry. After the marriage, Pw.1 joined A1 in the marital home and lived happily for some period. Out of wedlock, Pw.1 gave birth to a son. Thereafter, A1 addicted to drinking and used to move outside as vagabond.
2/14 C.C.No.296 of 2017
He often returns to the house in drunken state and used to ill-treat and harass Pw.1 in connection with demand for additional dowry. On many occasions Pw.1 informed the elders viz.,Pws.3 to 5 who conducted mediations and advised A1 to lead happy marital life and not to harass Pw.1. Further they admonished A1 to change his behavior. The parents, elder sister and her husband also admonished A1 not to harass Pw.1 but there was no change in his attitude. Later, on one day A1 necked out Pw.1 from the matrimonial home and further demanded her to bring additional dowry from her parents. Though the parents of Pw.1 tried to convince A1 and joined Pw.1 in the matrimonial home, it proved futile. On one occasion A1 and his parents tried to kill Pw.1 by pressing her face with a pillow and also leaked domestic gas. As there is no change in the attitude of A1, Pw.1 went to police station on 10/03/2015 and lodged a report which was registered a case in
Cr.No.37/2015 for the offence under section 498-A, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
(b)During investigation, the investigating officer Pw.7 visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of Pw.1, 2, 6 and LW2- Jyothi Ramanaiah, examined them and their statements. The then Sub-Inspector of Police, Kavali II
Town P.S(LW8) took up further investigation, visited the scene of offence, observed the scene, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and secured the presence of Pws.3 to 5 examined them and recorded their statements. During investigation,
Pw.8 found that there was no prima facie accusation against A2 to A4 and also the ingredients of Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is not attracted and therefore, he deleted the names of A2 to A4. Pw.8 served Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to A1 with a direction to appear before police as and when directed without fail. After completion of investigation, the above charge sheet is filed. Hence, the charge.
3.Before taking cognizance, a notice was issued to the de facto complainant to file objections if any for deleting the names of A2 to A4 and Section 307 of IPC. The de facto complainant (Pw.1) filed protest petition and after following the procedure contemplated under law and as there were no prima facie accusations found against A2 to A4, this Court took cognizance for the offence under section 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and issued summons to A1 to
A4.
3/14 C.C.No.296 of 2017
4.On appearance of A1 to A4 before this Court, copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to them and when they were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C about the substance of accusations leveled against them in the charge sheet, they denied the same and hence a charge under Section 498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act were framed against A1 to A4, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.On behalf of prosecution, Pws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were got marked.
6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and further stated that they did not commit any offence and they were implicated in a false case on the false report of Pw.1. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witness nor marked any documents.
7.Heard the arguments on behalf of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.
8.Now the points for determination are as follows:-
(1) Whether A1 to A4 ill-treated and harassed Pw.1 prior to
10/03/2015 in connection with demand for additional dowry?
(2) Whether the prosecution brought home guilt of A1 to A4
beyond all reasonable dout for the offence punishable under
section 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act ?
9.POINT No.1:- The gravamen of the allegations against A1 to A4 are that the marriage of A1 with Pw.1 was performed in the year 2011 as per Hindu rites and customs at Chennuru village and at the time of marriage, the parents of
Pw.1 gave 8 sovereigns of gold and cash of Rs.25,000/- to A1 as dowry and thereafter, Pw.1 joined A1 in the marital home and lived happily for some period and thereafter A1 changed his attitude, addicted to bad vices like drinking and used move out as vagabond without doing any work and used to ill-treat and harass Pw.1 in connection with demand for additional dowry and he along with his parents necked out Pw.1 for not fulfilling their illegal demands.
10. Unfolding the case of prosecution, the de facto complainant was examined as Pw.1 and she deposed that her marriage with A1 was performed about 12 years ago as per Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage, 4/14 C.C.No.296 of 2017 her parents gave 8 sovereigns of gold, cash of Rs.1 lakh and household articles worth of Rs.50,000/- to A1 as dowry and after the marriage she joined A1 in the marital home wherein apart from her parents-in-law, A4 who is the sister of A1 was also present as she was deserted by her husband. According to Pw.1, from the date of marriage itself, A1 started ill-treating and harassing her in connection with demand for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and further stated that she is not suitable to A1 and so saying he used to beat her by catching hold her tuft of hair in drunken state. Pw.1 further deposed that she informed about the cruelty of A1 to her parents-in-law and his sister viz., A2 to A4 but they supported A1. Pw.1 claimed that she kept quiet without informing her parents and after two or three months and thereafter unable the harassment, she informed her parents. Pw.1 further deposed that after giving birth to male child, she came to her marital home along with new born baby but the accused did not provide proper food and they ill- treated and harassed her for not bringing additional dowry. According to Pw.1, on one day A1 to A4 necked her out from matrimonial home for not fulfilling their illegal demand of additional dowry. Pw.1 further deposed that on one day A1 took her to Dagadarthi dropped her there and went away and as she was not having money, she went to Sunnapubatti by walk along with her son, narrated the entire incident to a Tea shop owner who gave Rs.100/- to her and thereafter she went to her parents house and informed about the incident. Pw.1 further deposed that her parents informed the matter to the elders who conducted mediation with the accused wherein her parents gave cash of Rs.25,000/- to the accused and left her in the marital home. After one month, A4 again started demanding her to give
additional dowry and further instigated A1 to give divorce so that he can marry
another woman. Pw.1 further deposed that after two months, on one day A1 to A4 tried to kill her by placing pillow on her face and by pressing her and that she escaped from their clutches. After two weeks, on one day while she was sleeping along with her son, A1 to A4 leaked domestic gas and locked the door from outside and went away. Due to gas smell she tried to open the door but in vain and thereafter she removed the leaves and came out of the house. According to Pw.1 when she questioned A3 as to why they are torturing and trying to kill her, she was informed that they are trying to perform another marriage to A1 and going to get more dowry. According to Pw.1, she also asked A2 why they are harassing her for 5/14 C.C.No.296 of 2017 which he challenged to take whatever action she intends to take. According to
Pw.1, A1 directed her to die as she has no other alternative to sustain. Pw.1 deposed that she informed about the incident to elders who advised her to give police report and accordingly she went to police station and lodged Ex.P1 report to the police.
11. The mother of Pw.1 was examined as Pw.2 and she supported the evidence of Pw.1 in all material particulars.
12. The independent eyewitnesses were examined as Pws.3 to 5 but they failed to support the case of prosecution and turned hostile.
13. The brother of Pw.1 was examined as Pw.6 and he supported the evidence of Pw.1 in all material particulars. According to Pw.6 after the marriage of
Pw.1 with A1, his brother-in-law (A1) addicted to bad-vices and used to demand
Pw.1 to bring additional dowry and used to beat her for no fault of her. According to Pw.6, A1 to A4 ill-treated and harassed Pw.1 to bring additional dowry of
Rs.1,00,000/- in order to give the same to the husband of A4. Pw.6 further deposed that A3 and A4 used to harass Pw.1 in the morning while A1 used to harass Pw.1 in the evening in drunken state and further they threatened Pw.1 with dire consequences if she failed to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. Pw.6 further deposed that his sister Pw.1 used to make phone call to Pw.2 and used to inform the same and he used to advise Pw.1 to adjust in the marital home. According to
Pw.6, on one day he went to the house of A1 and at that time he found A1 has thrown away the household articles to outside and when he questioned Pw.1, A1’s sister heard the same and informed to A3 and they created panic in the house.
Pw.6 further deposed that A1 beat Pw.1 indiscriminately and after some time all the accused tried to kill Pw.1 by putting pillow on her face. Pw.6 further deposed that four days thereafter, A1 to A4 again tried to kill Pw.1 by leaking domestic gas and unable to bear the harassment of accused, Pw.1 came out of the house along with her son and questioned A1 to A4 for which A1 took Pw.1 to Dagadarthi forest in an auto, left her there and went away. According to Pw.6 they informed the village elders about the conduct of A1 to A4 who advised Pw.1 to lodged a report.
14. The then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Kavali II Town Police
Station was examined as Pw..7 and he deposed that on 10/03/2015 at about 5-00
PM Pw.1 came to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 report, basing on which, he 6/14 C.C.No.296 of 2017 registered a case in Cr.No.37 of 2015 for the offence punishable under section 498-
A, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and issued Ex.P5 F.I.R.
Pw.7 claimed that he examined Pw.1 and LW2-J.Ramanaiah in the police station and recorded their statements. According to Pw.7, on the same day he went to the scene of offence along with Pw.1 and her father at Santhinagar, Kavali where he secured the presence of Pw.2, Pw.3 examined them and recorded their statements.
15. The then Sub-Inspector of Police who is the investigating officer was examined as Pw.8 and he deposed that on 11/03/2015 he took up further investigation from Pw.7 and on the same day he visited the scene of offence situated at Dagadarthi mandal, observed the scene and drawn Ex.P6 rough sketch of the scene of offence. According to Pw.8, at the scene of offence he secured the presence of Pws.3 to 5 examined them and recorded their statements. Pw.8 claimed that his investigation revealed that A2 to A4 did not commit any offence and no offence is made out against the accused for the offence under section 307
IPC and therefore, he filed a memo deleting section 307 IPC and deleting names of
A2 to A4. Pw.8 further deposed that on 15/03/2015 he served section 41-A Cr.P.C.
to the accused with a direction to appear before him as and when directed and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
16. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the prosecution by examining the de facto complainant as Pw.1, her mother and brother as Pws.2 and 6 and the investigating officers as Pws.7 and 8 are clearly and clinchingly proved that A1 to A4 ill-treated and harassed Pw.1 in connection with demand for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and further tried to kill her by placing pillow on her face and leaked domestic gas. According to learned A.P.P., though the accused cross-examined Pws.1, 2 and 6 nothing could be elicited to show that they are innocent of the offence and they did not commit any offence much less the one alleged against them. According to learned A.P.P., the ill- treatment and harassment meted out to Pw.1 was within four walls of marital home and therefore, there is no remote chances of witnessing the incident by any third parties or neighbours and therefore, non-examination of any independent eyewitnesses to the incidents of ill-treatment and harassment meted out to Pw.1 in the hands of accused, is not fatal to the case of prosecution. He further argued that whenever a charges is framed against the accused for the offence under section 7/14 C.C.No.296 of 2017 498-A and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act, if the sole evidence of de facto complainant who is the injured eyewitness and victim in the hands of accused, inspires confidence of the Court, the same is sufficient to record conviction of the accused for the said offence. He further argued that the incidents of harassment as deposed by Pw.1 in her evidence is quite cogentand corroborating with Ex.P1 report and the same is supported by Pw.2 who is the mother to whom naturally the daughter share her agony and therefore, her evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground that her evidence is hearsay and inadmissible. He further argued that merely because the independent witnesses Pws.3 to 5 failed to support the case of prosecution, the same cannot be a sole ground to disbelieve the whole case of prosecution. He further argued that Pws.3 to 5 were only cited to speak about the mediation conducted by them with the accused and therefore, eventhough they did not support the case of prosecution, the other evidence available on record in the shape of Pws.1, 2 and 6 can be made basis to record conviction of the accused.
Hence, he prayed to convict the accused for the offences with which they are charged.
17. Per contra, the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 6 is highly unbelievable and cannot be taken into consideration since there are lot of improvements, omissions and contradictions in their evidence. He argued that the evidence of Pw.1 in the chief-examination is nothing but improvements which does not find place either in Ex.P1 report or in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement. He argued that when there are no specific incidents of harassment meted out to Pw.1 in the hands of accused at the marital home, the evidence of Pw.1 so also Ex.P1 report cannot believed. According to learned counsel, no where in Ex.P1 report or in her statement before the police, Pw.1 stated the exact dates and time when the alleged incidents took place. He further argued that even if the incidents as alleged in Ex.P1 report is believed to be true, nothing prevented Pw.1 or her family members to give report immediately after the incident. According to learned counsel, if really A1 to A4 tried to kill Pw.1 either by smothering or by leaking domestic gas, the normal tendency of any human being would be to approach the concerned police and would have lodged a report or at least would have informed about the incident to her kith and kin more particularly to her parents but in the present case on hand long after the alleged incident of 8/14 C.C.No.296 of 2017 attempt to commit murder, Ex.P1 report was filed which is sufficient to come to conclusion that Pw.1 has lodged Ex.P1 report after due deliberations and consultations with her parents and brother and introduced a coloured version. He argued that soon after the marriage of Pw.1 with A1, Pw.2 used to telephone to her daughter/Pw.1 and pressurize A1 to come and settle in her house as illatom son-in- law and when A1 refused to accept the said proposal, a false story was developed and implicated A1 to A4 in a false case. He further argued that the investigating officer Pw.8 after visiting the scene of offence, observing the scene and recording the statement of independent eyewitnesses and elders came to conclusion that section 307 of IPC is not established and the involvement of A2 to A4 is also not established and therefore he filed a memo before this Court deleting the offence under section 307 IPC and also deleted the names of A2 to A4. He further argued that after deleting the names of A2 to A4, the de facto complainant filed a protest petition and without following the procedure contemplated under law, this Court took cognizance against A2 to A4 for the offence under section 498-A IPC. He pointed out that as per the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the family members of husband should not be dragged into the mischief of offence under section 498-A of IPC even though they are unconnected with the marital disputes between the couple. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused relied upon a decision between Rajesh Kumar & Ors v.State of U.P1. He also relied upon another decision between Sushil Kumar Shama v.Union of India, Preeti Gupta v.State of
Jharkhand, Ramgopal v.State of Madhya Pradesh and Savitri Devi v.Ramesh Chand wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave comprehensive directions to the investigating officers not to drag the family members of husband under the mischief of section 498-A IPC. He further argued that except using the words ill- treatment and harassment to bring additional dowry”, no other specific incidents of harassment is pleaded in Ex.P1 report and the same was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and hence he prayed to acquit A1 to A4 for the offence with which they are charged.
18. It is an undisputed fact that the marriage of Pw.1 with A1 was performed at Chennur village, Dagadarthi mandal as per Hindu rites and customs.
It is common knowledged that parties to a marriage tying nuptial knot are 12017 SCC online SC 821 9/14 C.C.No.296 of 2017 supposed to bring about the union of souls. It creates a new relationship of love, affection, care and concern between the husband and wife. According to Hindu
Vedic philosophy it is sanskar-A sacrament; one of the sixteen important sacraments essential to be taken during one's lifetime. There may be physical union as a result of marriage for procreating to perpetuate the lineal progeny for ensuring spiritual salvation and performance of religious rites, but what is essentially contemplated is union of two souls. Marriage is considered to be a junction of three important duties i.e. social, religious and spiritual. A question of intricate complexity arises in this appeal where the factual scenario has very little role to play.In matrimony, there must be partnership, affection, caring and sharing.
No privilege of the ruler over the ruled can be claimed by the husband over the wife.
19. In the present case on hand after the marriage, Pw.1 joined A1 in the marital home and lived happily for some time and out of the wedlock Pw.1 gave birth to a male child. The record clearly goes to show that during the marital life,
Pw.1 lived with A1 for only two years up to the date of her giving evidence before the Court.Pw.1 claimed that she has been subjected to ill-treatment and harassment in connection with additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. According to
Pw.1, A1 to A4 who are the husband, in-laws and co-sister subjected her to cruelty and harassment. For the purpose of section 498-A of IPC, cruelty is defined in the section itself. In order to appreciate the evidence let in by the prosecution,it would be useful to notice the statutory provisions of Sec.498-A IPC which makes ‘cruelty’ by husband or his relative, a punishable one. The word ‘cruelty’ is defined in the explanation appended to the Sec.498-A IPC. Sec.498-A IPC with explanation reads as follows:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any properly or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
From the above statutory provision, a new dimension to the word ‘cruelty’ is defined. Clause-(a) of explanation to Sec.498-A IPC postulates that any willful 10/14 C.C.No.296 of 2017 conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide would constitute 'cruelty'. Such willful conduct, which is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman would also amount to 'cruelty'. Clause-(b) of the explanation provides that harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or failure by her, or any person related to her to meet such demand would also constitute 'cruelty' for the purpose of Sec.498-A IPC. The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be with a definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand. Having noticed the basic ingredients which are required to be proved in order to bring home an offence under Sec.498-A IPC, it is not relevant to appreciate the evidence let in by the prosecution. A careful perusal of oral testimonies of Pws.1, 2 and 6 coupled with
Ex.P1 report it clearly go to show that there is no allegation against the accused to the effect that A1 to A4 caused cruelty which is of such nation as it likely to drive
Pw.1 to commit suicide. Therefore, wilful conduct as provided under clause (a) of section 498-A of IPC would not attract to the facts of the present case on hand.
Coming to the cause (b) of explanation viz, harassment of woman with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security and failure by her to meet such unlawful demand, it is specifically pleaded by Pw.1 in Ex.P1 report that from day one of her marital life, A1 at the instigation of A2 to
A4 has been pressurizing her to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and they have been pinching Pw.1 on each and every trivial matters. According to Pw.1, A1 addicted to bad vices like drinking and after giving birth to a male child, A1 to A4 did not provide proper food to her and her child on the ground that she did not bring additional dowry from her parents and they have been abusing her in filthy language and used to beat her mercilessly. Nowhere in Ex.P1 report Pw.1 specifically deposed the exact dates or the approximate month and year when A1 to A4 subjected Pw.1 to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for
additional dowry. Though it is alleged in Ex.P1 report and deposed by Pws.1, 2 and
6 that a mediation took place wherein the elders directed Pw.2 and her husband
LW2-J.Ramanaiah to give a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards additional dowry and accordingly, the parents of Pw.1 gave a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the accused and 11/14 C.C.No.296 of 2017 further informed them that they are not in a position to pay remaining amount due to poverty, the above said fact remained as an allegation without any proof. Either in Ex.P1 report or in their evidence Pws.1, 2 and 6 did not refer the exact date when the mediation took place and in whose presence the parents of Pw.1 gave cash of Rs.25,000/- to the accused as additional dowry. The investigating officers
Pws.7 and 8 also failed to investigate as to who are the elders for the said mediation and in whose presence the parents of Pw.1 gave cash of Rs.25,000/- to accused as additional dowry. Except self-serving statement of Pw.1 in Ex.P1 report and self-serving testimonies of Pws.1, 2 and 6, there is no other believable evidence to establish the said fact. It is a settled proposition of law that small bickering in the marital home between wife on one side and husband and in-laws on other would not constitute cruelty within the meaning of section 498-A of IPC. If really A1 to A4 subjected Pw.1 to cruelty and harassment from day one of her marriage, nothing prevented either Pw.1 or her parents from lodging a report immediately after the alleged incident. There is no convincing evidence to show that after the said harassment, Pw.1 and her parents informed about the conduct of accused to any of elders for a mediation. When Pw.1 lodged Ex.P1 report complaining that from the date of her marriage, the accused are harassing her in connection with demand for additional dowry, the investigating officer Pws.7 and 8 ought to have been taken steps to examine the neighbours at the house of accused at Chennur village, Dagadarthi mandal. As seen from the record, the investigating officers Pws.7 and 8 did not examine any inhabitants of the locality at
Chennur village, Dagadarthi mandal. During cross-examination Pws.7 and 8 categorically admitted that they have not examined any independent witnesses or the neighbours of accused at Chennur village, Dagadarthi mandal. Pw.8 specifically admitted that except examining Pws.3 to 5 who are residents of Pw.1’s village and who are related to her, he has not examined any other witnesses from the locality of accused. Therefore, failure on the part of investigating officer to examine the inhabitants of the locality at the house of accused, is fatal to the case of prosecution. Pw.8 who observed the scene of offence viz., the house of accused at
Chennur village, Dagadarthi mandal and who prepared Ex.P6 rough sketch of the scene of offence wherein he has mentioned the names of inhabitants of the locality, failed to examine the immediate neighbours to ascertain whether the 12/14 C.C.No.296 of 2017 accused 1 to 4 have really ill-treated and harassed Pw.1 in connection with demand for additional dowry or not. Therefore, in this case except the interested testimonies of Pws.1, 2 and 6, there is no other evidence available on record to show that the accused 1 to 4 ill-treated and harassed Pw.1 in connection with demand for additional dowry. The evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 6 do not inspire confidence of the Court as regards the alleged overt acts of each accused in demanding Pw.1 to bring additional dowry. The inaction on the part of Pw.1 in complaining against the accused to village elders or to the concerned police immediately after the alleged incidents, raises any amount of suspicion as to the correctness of the said allegations.
20. In Ex.P1 report so also in the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 6 they specifically deposed that on one occasion all the accused tried to kill Pw.1 by putting pillow on her face and tried to press her and that Pw.1 escaped from their clutches and came out of the house. It is further alleged that on another occasion while Pw.1 and her son were sleeping in the house, all the accused conspired together and leaked domestic gas to kill Pw.1 and after smelling the gas, Pw.1 came out of the house by throwing the leaves and informed about incident to her parents who came and questioned A1 as to why they are trying to kill Pw.1 for which A1 to A4 challenged that if they did not pay additional dowry of
Rs.1,00,000/-, Pw.1 would be killed in someway or the other. The above incidents of attempt to kill Pw.1, is not proved in accordance with law. As per the investigating officer, Pw.8 he conducted investigation by visiting the scene of offence and examined the witnesses in the locality and came to a conclusion that A1 to A4 never tried to kill Pw.1 either by smothering or by leaking domestic gas and to that effect a deletioin memo was filed before the Court and thereafter, the de facto complainant filed a protest petition contending that she has got sufficient documentary evidence to prove the acts of A1 to A4 in trying to kill her by smothering or by leaking domestic gas. Except filing of the protest petition, Pw.1 did not try to enter into witness box and did not try to examine any witness on her behalf to establish the said facts. Therefore, the alleged incidents of attempt to murder, remained as an allegation without any proof. The record clearly go to show that immediately after the alleged attempt to murder of Pw.1, no police report is lodged or any mediation took place between the parties. A perusal of Ex.P1 report 13/14 C.C.No.296 of 2017 clearly go to show that Pw.1 came to her parents house, took shelter and thereafter when she came to know about A1 is going to have second marriage with another woman, she lodged Ex.P1 report. The probable circumstance to lodge Ex.P1 report clearly shows that when Pw.1 came to know that A2 and A3 are trying to perform second marriage to A1, she hurriedly lodged Ex.P1 report to police. There is no proper explanation from Pw.1 as to why she did not lodge report immediately after the alleged incidents of harassment meted out her in the hands of accused. If really Pw.1 wants to lead happy marital life with A1, when she was thrown out of the house for not fulfilling the unlawful demand of additional dowry, she ought to have issued a legal notice to the accused for restitution of conjugal rights but she did not do so till such time she came to know about the attempts of A2 and A3 to perform second marriage to A1. Therefore, the conduct of Pw.1 in keeping quiet without any legal action immediately after the alleged incidents, raises any amount of suspicion as to whether any incidents of harassment took place in the house of
A1 or not. It is a settled proportion of law that mere usage of words “ill-treatment and harassment to bring additional dowry” would not sufficient to attract the ingredients of ‘cruelty’ as defined in section 498-A IPC. Whenever cruelty is complained, the de facto complainant or her relatives should explain the details of harassment meted out to wife in the marital home including the dates or atleast month and year. In the present case on hand as already discussed supra, Pw.1 except giving an ominous statement that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh, she failed to give details of harassment meted out to her in the hands of accused and therefore, this Court has no hestigation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove ingredients under section 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
Accordingly,this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of accused.
21. POINT No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, this Court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of
D.P.Act.
14/14 C.C.No.296 of 2017
22. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and hence they are acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17th day of April, 2023.
Sd/- Sri.K.P.Sai Ram
Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Nellore (FAC)Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined:
For Prosecution For Defence
Pw..1: L.Rajani. None. Pw..2: J. Venkamma. Pw..3: J. Venkateswarlu. Pw..4: J. Srinivasulu. Pw..5: V.Srinivasulu. Pw..6: Jyothi Ravi. Pw..7: G. Srinivasulu, A.S.I of Police. Pw..8: Shaik Anwar Basha, Inspector of Police.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1Original report lodged by Pw.1.
Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3 recorded by the police.
Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4 recorded by the police.
Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.5 recorded by the police.
Ex.P5F.I.R. in Cr.No.37 of 2015 of Kavali II Town PS.
Ex.P6Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence:
Nil.
Material Objects marked
Nil.
Sd/- K.P. Sai Ram
Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Nellore (FAC)Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali.