[1 of 12] C.C. No. 75 of 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM II ADDL.
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT
PRESENT : SMT. POOJA KANDUKURI
II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum
II Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,
Medchal Malkajgiri District
Tuesday, this the 30 th day of August, 2022
C.C. No. 75 of 2018
Between:
The State of Telangana, through P.S. Kushaiguda, Rachakonda
..... Complainant
AND
A1) Meddi Lingaswamy, S/o. Muthaiah, Age : 35 Years, Occ : Lorry Driver, R/o. H.No. 2-64, Pittampally Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.
A2) Meddi Mallamma, W/o. Muthaiah, Age : 55 Years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No. 2-64, Pittampally Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.
A3) Meddi Muthaiah, S/o. Rajaiah, Age : 68 Years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 2-64, Pittampally Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.
..... Accused
This case has come up before me on 21-06-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor and M/s. K. Yadagiri Rao, Advocate, Learned Counsel for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The present complaint is filed by the defacto complainant N. Vijaya Lakshmi with Police,
Kushaiguda against her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law with following allegations.
That she got married to her husband/ accused no. 1 Linga Swamy on 03.06.2006 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. That it was an arranged marriage and on demand of her husband and in-laws her parents had given one lakh rupees Cash, 5 tulas gold and household articles as dowry and performed her marriage at her in-laws village i.e, Pittampally village.
2.That after marriage she joined her husband in the joint family at Pittampally Village. That her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brothers of her husband along with their families used to stay in [2 of 12] C.C. No. 75 of 2018 the joint family. That her husband was a lorry driver and he used to come home from duty once in 20 days or once in a month. That she lived in the joint family for two years during which period she was blessed with a boy.
3.That during her stay in the matrimonial house, in the absence of her husband, her mother-in-law and father-in-law used to subject her to physical and mental harassment for additional dowry of
Rs. 2 lakhs. That when her husbnad came home from his job they used to instigate him against her by telling bad things about her and they used to induce him to beat her. That at the instance of his parents, her husband used to and harass her physically and mentally under the influence of alcohol. That this situation was placed before the village elders and a panchayath was conducted in this regard but there was no change in the behavior of her husband or her in-laws. That unable to bear the harassment, the complainant went back to her parents house.
4.That she stayed in her parents house for four years after which her husband along with his elder brother Ravinder came to her parents house and took her back to the matrimonial house. That she stayed in the matrimonial house for one year during which period she gave birth to her daughter.
During the one year period, her husband and in-laws continued harassing her physically and mentally like before. That as such, on 03.09.2014 she again went back to her parents house. That on 14.05.2017 her husband again came to her parents house and informed that his younger brother was getting married. He declared that he was changed man and he will take good care of complainant and again took the complainant and the children to the matrimonial house at
Pittampally Village.
5.That since the time she again joined him at Pittampally village, he along with his parents started forcing her to sign on blank papers. And when she asked what the signatures were for, they informed that they want to get accused no. 1 married to some one else. That when she refused to sign on the blank papers, on 01.10.2017 her husband and in-laws beat her severely and tried to force her to sign on the blank papers. That she managed to escape from there and she came back to her parents house. That subsequently, she filed the present complaint.
6.Basing on this complaint, Police Kushaiguda registered a case in Crime No. 693 of 2017 against accused no. 1 to 3 for the offences under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, Section 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and the matter was investigated into. After completion of investigation, [3 of 12] C.C. No. 75 of 2018 charge sheet was filed against accused no. 1 to 3 for the offences under section 498-A, 323 of
Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
7.This Court had taken cognizance against accused no. 1 to 3 for the offences under section 498-A, 323 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and summons were issued to accused no. 1 to 3. On appearance of accused no. 1 to 3, they were examined under section 239
Cr.P.C. Charges are framed for the offences under section 498-A, 323 of Indian Penal Code,
Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Prosecution examined 6 witnesses on its behalf and got marked 2 documents i.e., Ex.P1 and P2.
After completion of prosecution evidence, accused no. 1 to 3 were examined under section 313
Cr.P.C. They reported no defense evidence. Arguments were heard on both the sides.
Now the point to be determined is whether prosecution proved guilt of accused no. 1 to 3 for the offences under section 498-A, 323 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?
8.The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-6 and marked Ex. P-1 complaint and Ex. P-2 F.I.R. PW-1 is the complainant herself, PW-2 Boya Yadamma is the mother and PW-3 Boya Ramulu is the father of PW-1. The PW-4 Smt. P. Devi and PW-5 Smt. P. Susheela are the neighhbors to the house of PW-2 and PW-3 at Kushaiguda.
9.PW-1 deposed that she was married to A-1 on 03-05-2006 and on the demand of A-1 to A-3 they gave Rs. 1,00,000/- ( one lakh) cash, 5 tulas of gold and other house hold articles as dowry. After the marriage she stayed with A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 and she was blessed with two children out of the wedlock. It is further deposed by her that, the A-1 is lorry driver and he used to go on duty and visits the house once in 15 or 20 days and that during the absence of A-1, the A-2 and A- 3 demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs. 2 Lakhs and used to beat her and when A-1 comes back, A-2 and A-3 used to instigate him by giving false information that she was not obeying them and A-1 used to beat her.
10.She further deposed that she approached the elders and the elders admonished the accused and asked them to look after her well but the accused continued the harassment and as such she came back to her parents house and stayed there for four years. That thereafter A-1 and his brother [4 of 12] C.C. No. 75 of 2018 came and apologized for their attitude and took her back to the matrimonial home but again the accused started perpetrating harassment on her and she stayed ther for one year and gave birth to a female child. She further deposed that due to the harassment of the accused, she again came back to her parents house on 03-09-2014. She further deposed that on 14-05-2017, A-1 came to her parents house as her brother-in-law’s marriage was fixed, and took her back promising not to harass her. But, thereafter, the accused harassed and beat her by insisting her to sign on blank papers stating that A-1 wants to perform second marriage, and that some how she escaped from the clutches of the accused and went back to her parents house and that she is staying there and lodged Ex. P-1 complaint.
11.PW-1 was cross examined at length. In her cross examination she admitted that there is no evidence to show that one lakh cash and 5 tulas of gold was give as dowry. She further admitted that the names of the elders in whose presence the alleged dowry was paid are not stated to the police or in the complaint. She also admitted that she has not produced any bills for purchase of the gold and household articles. She further admitted that she has not informed the names of the panchayat elders to the police in 161 Cr. P. C. statement or in her complaint Ex. P-1. She stated that Ex. P-1 was scribed by her.
12.The PW-2 who is the mother of PW-1 deposed that the marriage of her daughter was performed with the A-1 about 15 years back and at the time of marriage they gave One Lakh rupees cash, 5 tulas of gold and house hold articles as dowry. That after the marriage the husband of PW-1 used to harass her for additional dowry. That her daughter gave birth to a boy and after that the in-laws used to harass her daughter and they did not provide proper food to her and scolded her daughter in front of her. That after the birth of son, her daughterfell ill due to T.B. disease and she got her treated by keeping her daughter in her house and after she became well, A-1 took her back. She further stated that after one month, A1 again started harassment and started demanding additional dowry and demanded her to sign on blank papers to enable him to marry again and as such PW-1 came back to their house.
13.That Thereafter accused and his relatives came there and settled the matter and took PW-1 back to matrimonial home and that again after 10 days PW-1 came back to her house and at that time panchayat was held in the presence of the elders and PW-1 was taken back to matrimonial home [5 of 12] C.C. No. 75 of 2018 and thereafter she conceived second pregnancy. But the accused again perpetrated harassment on
PW-1 and she again came back to her. After one month A-1 again came and took her back and there she gave birth to a female child. She further deposed that the accused was again harassing
PW-1 and as such she took the new born baby with her and took care of her. That all the accused harassed PW-1 and insisted her to sign on blank papers to enable the Accused no. 1 to marry again. She also deposed that she gave Rs. 50,000/- on demand of the accused to purchase a house.
She further deposed that the Accused again took back PW-1 for the marriage of A-1’s brother and thereafter again harassed her and as such she came back to her parents house and was staying there and after waiting for a long period with fond hope that the accused will take her back, as there was no initiative from the accused, she lodged this complaint.
14.In the cross examination PW-2 stated that she has not informed to the police about payment of
Rs. 50,000/- to the Accused for purchasing a house. The other part of the cross examination is with regard to allied aspects of the family of the PW-2. She denied the suggestion that no dowry was paid at the time of marriage.
15.PW-3 B. Ramulu is the father of PW-1. He deposed that on 03-06-2006 PW-1 got married to A-1.
That A-2 is his sister and A-3 is his brother-in-law and they are A-1’s parents. After marriage for one and half year the accused were good with PW-1 and thereafter started harassing her. On the instigation of A-2 and A-3, A-1 used to harass PW-1 and she came to him and informed the same and on such information he went to her in-laws house and spoke to them and settled the matter.
Thereafter things were good for one year. That in the year 2009 PW-1 again came back to his house and informed that A-1 beat her. That as such he and his daughter and some elders went to
P.S. Narayanapuram and there a panchayat was held and PW-1 was sent along with the accused and in the said panchayat an agreement was executed.
16.PW-4 and PW-5 have deposed that they are the neighbors and reside near to the house of PW-2 and PW-3. They deposed that they know PW-1 since her child hood and she was married to A-1 and that after marriage PW-1 and A-1 lived happily for two years and there after A-1 started harassing PW-1 for additional dowry and used to beat her and she used to come back to her parents house and the parents used to send her back by settling the matter and that two panchayats were held for the said reason and they were present in the panchayat and in the [6 of 12] C.C. No. 75 of 2018 panchayat the accused demanded for divorce. PW-5 further stated that on one occasion when A-1 beat PW-1 she got severe bleeding injuries and came back and she witnessed the injuries.
17.I shall first discuss with regard to allegation of payment of dowry at the time of marriage of Pw-1 and A-1. In her cross examination, PW-1 stated that giving and taking of dowry was not reduced into writing. She also stated that the names of the elders in whose presence the dowry was paid was not informed to the police or in her complaint or in 161 Cr.P.C. statement. She also admitted that she herself is the scribe of Ex. P-1 complaint. As such the omission of not mentioning the names of persons in whose presence the dowry was paid either in the complaint or before the police during investigation is a serious lacuna which demolishes the case of prosecution with regard to payment of dowry to the Accused. No documents such as bills for purchase of gold or any other independent evidence either oral or documentary has been produced to prove the factum of payment of dowry at the time of marriage of PW-1 and A-1. In the absence of such evidence, it is very difficult to believe that any dowry was paid at the time of marriage.
18.In this regard it is pertinent to consider the evidence of PW-3 i.e. father of the PW-1 and husband of PW-2. In his evidence, PW-3 had not stated that the dowry of one lakh cash and 5 tulas of gold and house hold articles were paid at the time of marriage of PW-1 with A-1. This omission assumes much importance in as much as PW-3 is the person who is expected to provide the money for dowry, but astonishingly he has not spoken anything about the payment of dowry which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
19.PW-4 and PW-5 are said to be the neighbours of PW-1 and 2 at Kushaiguda. It appears that the said witnesses are strangers to the family of the Accused and PW-1 to 3. But they stated that at the time of marriage of PW-1 with A-1, one lakh cash and 5 tulas of gold and household articles were given as dowry. But PW-1 and PW-2 have not stated that the said dowry was paid in the presence of PW-4 and 5. Moreover, PW-4 and 5 being neighbors and strangers to the family, one cannot except that the dowry amount will be paid in the presence of the strangers. As such evidence of the PW-4 and 5 cannot be believed with regard to payment of dowry in their presence. Hence, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove that one lakh rupees cash, 5 tulas of gold and household articles were given as dowry at the time of marriage of PW-1 and A-1 and [7 of 12] C.C. No. 75 of 2018 accordingly the accused are found not guilty for the offence Under Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
20.Now coming to the charges under section 498A and 323 IPC. In the complaint it is stated that after the marriage, PW-1 stayed with her in-laws for 2 years and she gave birth to a male child. It is further stated that A-1 was lorry driver and he used to stay away from the house on his duty and used to visit the house once in 20 days or a month and that during his absence, A-2 and A-3 used to harass her to bring additional dowry of 2 laks from her parents and that when A-1 came back, A-2 and A-3 used to instigate him and on such instigation A-1 used to harass and beat her.
She further stated in the complaint that unable to bear such harassment she came back to her parents house at Kushaiguda and stayed there.
21.PW-2 is the mother of PW-1 and she deposed that the marriage of PW-1 was performed with A-1 about 15 years back and at the time of marriage cash of One Lakh rupees, 5 tulas gold and other household articles were presented by them. After the marriage A-1 used to harass PW-1 for
additional dowry. PW-2 deposed that after the birth of male child, PW-1 suffered with T.B.
disease and she got her treated and PW-2 was at her house during the treatment and after PW-1 recovered, her husband i.e. A-1 took her back.
22.Thus, there is a contradictory version between PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to PW-1 coming to her parents house due to harassment perpetrated by her in-laws. PW-1 deposed that after the birth of the male child, she left the in-laws house due to unbearable harassment perpetrated by the accused whereas PW-2 deposed that PW-1 suffered with T.B. disease and as such she stayed with her parents till she recovered form the disease and thereafter A-1 took her back. Therefore, the version of PW-1 that after the birth of male child, the in-laws harassed her for additional dowry and on that account she was forced to take shelter with her parents cannot be believed.
23.PW-2 in her evidence deposed that after A-1 took back PW-1 to matrimonial house, PW-1 stayed there for one month and thereafter the accused again started harassing PW-1 to sign on blank papers and A-1 used to say that he will marry again and as such PW-1 came back to her parents house and thereafter the accused and their relatives came and settled the matter and took PW-1 back to matrimonial home and that after 10 days the accused again started perpetrating [8 of 12] C.C. No. 75 of 2018 harassment on PW-1 and as such she again came back to her parents house. It is further deposed by her that again panchayat was held in the presence of the elders and accused took back PW-1 to matrimonial home and thereafter PW-1 conceived second pregnancy. That again PW-1 came back to her parents house during the 7th month of pregnancy, as the accused were perpetrating harassment and that after one month A-1 again took PW-1 back to his house.
24.PW-1 deposed that after she stayed for four years at her parents house, A-1 and his brother came and apologized for the behaviour of A-1 and took her back to matrimonial home and she further deposed that after going back she stayed in her in-laws house for one more year and she gave birth to female child.
25.PW-2’s version is that after going hack to matrimonial home, Pw-1 stayed there for one month and came back and panchayat was held and she was sent back to matrimonial home and she again came back after 10 days due to harassment of the accused and again panchayat was held and she was sent back and after one month she again came back in the 7th month of pregnancy and thereafter A-1 again took her back to matrimonial home. But, PW-1 has not stated any such thing that she repeatedly came to her parents house and she was again sent back to matrimonial home.
PW-1 also did not say anything about the panchayats said to have been held and there is contradiction between the version of PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to panchayats. As such the version of PW-1 and PW-2 are varying with regard to alleged harassment perpetrated by the accused and the contradictions, do not inspire confidence in this Court to believe the version of
PW-1 and 2.
26.PW-2 deposed that the accused used to harass PW-1 for additional dowry and send PW-1 to them for money to purchase a house and that they gave an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter the accused purchased a house and again used to harass PW-1. The said aspect of payment of 50,000/- is not stated by PW-1 either in her complaint Ex. P-1 or during her evidence before this
Court.
27.PW-3 father of the complainant/PW-1 deposed that in the year 2009 PW-1 came to him and informed that A-1 beat her and as such he and PW-1 and some elders went to PS Narayanapuram and a panchayat was held at that time and PW-1 was sent back to the matrimonial home. He [9 of 12] C.C. No. 75 of 2018 deposed that a written agreement was executed at PS Narayanapuram while sending back PW-1 with the Accused. He further deposed that he also approached police Chityala and there counselling was done to the accused. That after one year PW-1 again came back to him said that
A-1 beat her and he again approached P.S. Chityala and form there he went to Chowtuppal Police
Station where the C.I. of Police conducted counselling and again sent Pw-1 along with the accused.
28.PW-3, in his cross examination, admitted that he did not inform to the police during investigation that he went to the house of accused and counselled them and he denied the suggestion that he did not inform to the police that at PS Narayanapuram counselling was conducted to the accused and a written agreement was executed.
29.Also, the alleged written agreement executed at the panchayat has not been produced. PW-1 has also not stated anything about the said panchayat held at PS Narauanapuram. It is also not stated by PW-3 that PW-4 and 5 were present in the said panchayat held at PS Narayanapuram and PW- 4 and 5 also did not state about the said panchayat. When an agreement was reduced into writing while sending back PW-1 along with A-1, the prosecution should have produced the same, which would have been an important piece of evidence to show that the accused were harassing PW-1.
But for the reasons best known the prosecution had not produced the said important evidence and as such an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution case. PW-3 is working as
Assistant Sub-Inspector in Jail Department and he is not an illiterate witness. As such being an employee of the police department, he is expected to give the details of the case and concerned documents to the Police during the course of investigation. As such the evidence of the PW-3 also raises doubt on the prosecution case.
30.PW-2 further stated that the accused harassed PW-1 by demanding her to sign on blank papers so as to enable A-1 to marry again and on one day PW-1 suddenly came back to her house with bleeding injury to her mouth and stayed there for some days. But PW-1 has not stated anything about the said bleeding injury.
31.The version of PW-2 is that A-1 took back PW-1 at the time of marriage of his brother and thereafter PW-1 again came back to her stating that A-1 beat her and that she waited for long [10 of 12] C.C. No. 75 of 2018 period for the accused no. 1 to come and take her back and as he did not come, PW-1 lodged the complaint. But in Ex. P-1 complaint, it is alleged that on 01-10-2017, her husband (A-1) and in- laws (A-2 and A-3) beat her demanding her to sing on blank papers so as to enable A-1 to perform second marriage and that she escaped from them and came back to parents house. Ex. P- 1 complaint is lodged on 12-10-2017 i.e. after about 10 days after the alleged incident. But PW-2 stated that after coming back to parents house, PW-1 waited for long period for A-1 to come and take her back and as he did not turn up she lodged the complaint. As such it is clear that alleged dates in the complaint are imaginary and created for the purpose of the present complaint. Thus the said evidence of PW-2 raises doubt on the version of the prosecution with regard to the harassment perpetrated on PW-1 by the accused.
32.PW-4 and 5 are claiming to be present at the time of two panchayats said to have been held to settle the disputes between the PW-1 and A-1. But PW-1 has not stated about any such panchayats in which PW-4 and 5 claim to have been present. There is no whisper about the alleged panchayats either in the evidence of PW-1 or in the complaint. PW-2 and 3 also did not speak about the said panchayats and presence of PW-4 and 5 at that time. Moreover, in the villages, particularly in matrimonial matters, the male persons who are the village elders or caste elders are expected to be present. The female persons also may be present, but the main role in settling the matter will be that of the male members of the panchayat. It is not stated by PW-4 and 5 that any other panchayatdars were also present at that time. Moreover, PW-6, investigating officer admitted in his cross examination admitted that PW-4 and PW-5 are not the immediate neighbours of PW-1 and that he did not examine the immediate neighbours. Due to the above reasons, it does not inspire any confidence that PW-4 and 5 were panchayat elders and that any panchayats were conducted in their presence and as such their evidence cannot be believed.
33.PW-6 is the investigating officer who conducted investigation into the case and examined and recorded the statements of PW-1 to 5 and filed charge sheet against the accused. But, in his chief examination, PW-6 did not depose about the particulars of investigation done by him and what is the material he collected to establish guilt of the accused. In the cross examination he admitted that he did not collect any documentary evidence to show that dowry was given to the accused.
He also admitted that PW-4 and 5 are not immediate neighbours of PW-1. He further admitted that he has not examined any witness from Pittampally village where PW-1 has lead her [11 of 12] C.C. No. 75 of 2018 matrimonial life at the house of Accused. He stated that he does not know in whose presence panchayats were conducted. He admitted that PW-2 did not inform him that she gave Rs. 50,000/- and PW-3 did not inform him that on several occasions he gave groceries to PW-1. He also admitted that PW-3 did not inform him about the panchayat held at PS Chityala and PW-5 did not inform him that she saw PW-1 with bleeding injuries. From the said evidence of PW-6 it is clear that there several material omissions in the evidence of prosecution with regard to the alleged harassment perpetrated by the Accused on PW-1.
34.I have considered the entire oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The version given by PW-1 that during the absence of A-1 her in-laws harassed her for additional dowry of Rs. 2 Lakhs is not corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. PW-2 in her evidence has not spoken about any specific overt acts against the A-2 and A-3. With regard to harassment by A-1 also the version of PW-1, 2 and 3 are not corroborating with each other. PW-3 speaks about the incident where he himself went to the in-laws house and negotiated with the
Accused and sent back the PW-1 to matrimonial home, but PW-1 and 2 have not sated so. PW-3 further deposed about the panchayats held at P.S. Narayanapuram and P.S. Chityala but PW-1 and 2 have not stated anything about the said panchayats. The names of PW-4 and 5 the alleged panchayatdars are not stated by PW-1, 2 or 3 nor it is mentioned in the Ex.P-1 complaint. The evidence of PW-6 is contrary to the evidence of PW-4 and 5 and also there are material omissions in the evidence of PW-1 to 3. The alleged agreement said to have been executed at the PS
Narayanapuam panchayat was not produced. There are material contradictions in the evidence of
PW-1, 2 and 3 with regard to harassment perpetrated by the A-1 to A-3.
35.Section 498-A of I.P.C. contemplates that if the husband or relatives of the husband perpetrated cruelty against the wife to meet any illegal demand and harasses her on that account is liable for punishment. To prove the offence of cruelty, there must be unimpeachable and clinching evidence by the prosecution and the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. It is held in catena of decisions that in the matrimonial matter, particularly in criminal cases, the degree of proof to prove the offence is more than that required in civil cases. The parameters to prove cruelty in Civil matter is measured basing on preponderance of probabilities but in a criminal case the degree of proof to prove the charges are at higher degree and the evidence must be clinching and consistent. But, when the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the present [12 of 12] C.C. No. 75 of 2018 case is scrutinized, the version give by the PW-1 to 5 is creating a doubt with regard to the harassment and demand of additional dowry and beating by the accused and benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. In the above circumstances of the case, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I hold that accused no1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal.
36.IN THE RESULT, accused no. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under section 498-A, 323 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused no. 1 to 3 are cancelled and accused no. 1 to 3 are set at liberty. Sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time. There is no case property.
Typed by me directly in my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of August, 2022.
Sd/-
II Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum II Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Mechal Malkajgiri District.
:: Appendix of Evidence ::
Witnesses Examined
Prosecution : Defence :
Pw1 : M. Vijaya LaxmiNil
Pw2 : Boya Yadamma
Pw3 : B. Ramulu
Pw4 : P. Devi
Pw5 : Susheela
Pw6 : B. Srinu, Sub-Inspector of Police
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution : For Defence:
Ex.P1 : ComplaintNil
Ex.P2 : First Investigation Report
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
Nil
Sd/-
II Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum II Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Mechal Malkajgiri District.