Smt. K.satya Kumari

C.C.480 of 2015 Page 1 of 10

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM - ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE, AVANIGADDA

Present: SMT.K.SATYA KUMARI

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM - ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FRIDAY, DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

C.C. No. 480 of 2015

Between :

State Rep by its Sub Inspector,

Avanigadda Police station .... Complainant

And

Khaitepalli Venkateswara Rao, S/o Veera Bhadraiah,

Age 38 years, R/o Pedakallepalli Village, Mopidevi Mandal. ..... Accused.

This case is coming on 14-08-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the state and Sri.P.Nagendrudu learned Advocates for the accused appeared before this court and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police Avanigadda P.S has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.65/2015 for the offences punishable U/s. 498-A, 341, 342, 324 & 506 of

I.P.C.

2.The brief material averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

In the year 1999 the L.W.1 – Khaitepalli Lakshmi marriage was performed with

Accused. They were blessed with one daughter and one son. L.W.1 was working as conductor in R.T.c depot. Since, last few years the accused is harassing her mentally and physically by suspecting her character, due to which at about 10 months back she along with her two children went to her parents house. On 01-04-2014 at about 9.30 p.m when she was going to her house, the accused took her to his house in Pedakallepalli village on TATA Magic vehicle, beat her with long stick over her both legs, caught hold the tuft of her hair and threatened to give the gold ornaments. Then, with fear she gave her gold nanthadu, gold chain, gold pearl ring and silver anklets. On the next day morning the accused locked the house and went away. In his absence she came out from the house and informed it to her parents.

3.Subsequently, on 03.04.2015 at 04.00 pm she submitted police report to the

C.C.480 of 2015 Page 2 of 10 then S.I of police of Avanigadda P.S L.W.10. Basing on it he registered FIR in Cr.No.65/15 of

Avanigadda P.S. On 14-04-2015 the accused surrendered before L.W.10 and L.W.10 has served police notice to the accused U/s.41(1)(a) Cr.P.C. He conducted investigation. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

4.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A, 342, 324, 506 of IPC against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused copies of documents as contemplated U/s.207

The Code of criminal procedure (herein after Cr.P.C.) were furnished to the accused.

6.Accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences U/s.498-A 342, 324, 506 of I.P.C have been framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu.

Accused denied all the allegations leveled against him, pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

7.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and exhibited

Exs.P1 to P8 marked. On defence side Ex.D1 to D3 marked.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence as there is incriminating material appearing against the accused under prosecution evidence, accused examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him, for which he stated that he has no complicity with crime and reported no defence evidence.

9.To substantiate the case of the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P8 marked. On defence side Ex.D1 to D3 marked.

10.Heard arguments of the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

11.Now the point for consideration are :

1. “Whether the accused subjected PW1 to cruelty and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.498-A IPC?”

2. “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences U/Sec. 342, 324 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

C.C.480 of 2015 Page 3 of 10

POINT NO.1:- “Whether the accused subjected PW1 to cruelty and thereby

committed an offence punishable under Sec.498-A IPC?”

To bring home an offence U/sec.498-AIPC, the prosecution is to prove that first, a woman has been subjected to cruelty as contemplated in clause (a) or clause (b) to explanation of section 498-A IPC, secondly, that woman is or was married; thirdly that the cruelty has been practiced by her husband or his relatives. According to the explanation given to section 498-AIPC, cruelty for the purpose of that section 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 property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

12.On perusal of record, there is no dispute with regard to marriage between the

P.W.1 and Accused. The evidence of P.W.1 who is the Defacto complainant in this case she categorically stated that in the year 1999 her marriage solemnized with the accused, after their marriage they lead marital life, during their wed lock they blessed with two children and residing at Pedakallepalli Village, thereafter the accused started harassing P.W.1 stating that she did not bring any money from her parents. At that time of marriage the parents of P.W.1 gave Ac.0.20 cents agricultural land situated in Koduru village. The accused used to came to house in a drunken state and harassed P.W.1, on that P.W.1 went to her parents house. In the year 2009 August she was selected as R.T.C conductor and get job at Machilipatnam R.T.C depot. After joining the job the accused started harassing P.W.1 about her salary. In the year 2010, the accused beat P.W.1 indiscriminately, on that elders pacified the dispute. Even then the accused did not change his attitude, on that P.W.1 again went to her parents house and used to attend her duties at her parents house. The evidence of P.W.1 further stated that on 01-04-2015 at 9.30 p.m after completion of her duty, she boarded one Auto at Koduru road, when the Auto reached Modumudi bridge, the accused asked her to get down from the auto stating that he has to talk to her, on that P.W.1 got down from the auto. The accused, his brother in law and nephew of the accused took her to a TATA Magic. By that time the brother of accused Ankalu was beating her over her left thigh with chappal. The accused closed her

C.C.480 of 2015 Page 4 of 10 mouth and beat her head to TATA magic, burn over her neck with a siggerate and kept her under the seat of the TATA Magic and did not allow her to came out. They took her to

Pedakallepalli to their house. During the said night they confined her in their house. The accused beat her with a stout stick over her foot knees, thighs, fisted her over her face. Due to that she sustained bleeding from the nose. They beat P.W.1 till 2 or 3 am. During afternoon time her husband tried to hack her with a knife. Then, her son went to the sister in law’s house of accused, called her. When she knocked the door, the accused opened the door and went out side. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to her parents house and informed the said incident. On the next day she gave a complaint under Ex.P1 against the accused. In the Cross-examination of

P.W.1 discloses that Accused gave a legal notice to P.W.1 on 02-04-2015. But, she did know the contents of the said notice. In the Cross examination of P.W.1 further discloses that at present her both children are with her husband from June, 2015. P.W.1 and Tulasiram went to

Annavaram and performed puja at the temple. One Pirati Ramadevi who is the wife of the said Tulasiram gave police report against P.W.1 alleging that she have illegal intimacy with her husband and she took away him. She denied the suggestion that she colluded with

Tulasiram and filed a false case against the accused in view of illegal intimacy with the said

Tulasiram. Ex.D1 is the legal notice issued by Accused to P.W.1, Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the police report given by P.W.1 to police against the Tulasiram, Ex.D3 is the certified copy of police report given by the wife of the said Tulasiram against P.W.1 and Tulasiram and his relatives. Ex.D1 shows that the accused issued a legal notice on 02-04-2015 to P.W.1 to request her to come and join with him to lead marital life. P.W.1 in her cross-examination she admitted that she received the said notice, but she did not know the contents of that legal notice. The version of P.W.1 is not believable one, being a lady employee and working as a

R.T.C conductor she stated that she did not know the contents of the Ex.D1. Ex.D2 shows that P.W.1 gave a complaint against Tulasiram on 04-03-2015 alleging that the said Tulasiram misbehaved and caught hold the hand of P.W.1 in the meanwhile accused came there, upon seeing accused the said Tulasiram ran away. But, in the cross-examination P.W.1 she stated that she gave a police report against the said Tulasiram under Ex.D2. She further stated that

P.W.1 and said Tulasiram went to Annavarm and perform Puja at the temple. She further admitted that since 2002 on wards P.W.1 and accused were residing separately. Since, P.W.1

C.C.480 of 2015 Page 5 of 10 and accused are residing separately from 2002 onwards the question of cruelty does not arise. The evidence of P.W.1 is not inspiring the confidence to believe her evidence. Ex.D3 shows that the wife of the said Tulasiram gave a police report against P.W.1 alleging that

P.W.1 have illegal intimacy with the said Tulasiram. The said fact also admitted by P.W.1 in her cross-examination.

13.The contention of the Learned counsel for the Accused is that P.W.1 having illegal intimacy with one Tulasiram and she left the matrimonial house and foisted a false case against the accused and P.W.1 got married with the said Tulasiram and now she is living along with him.

14.The evidence of P.W.2 discloses that P.W.1 informed to her that the accused beat her with stick over her legs, thighs, back and neck. She also informed her that while she was coming from duty, accused beat her. Subsequently, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a complaint against the accused and P.W.1 is underwent treatment as in patient for a period of four days in the Hospital. In the cross-examination of P.W.2 reveals that P.W.2 did not have any personal knowledge about the incident.

15.The counsel for accused further argued that the facts and circumstances in the present case are not showing the circumstances to attract the indgedients of cruelty as contemplated in the explanation to Sec.498-A IPC. In this aspect this court relied upon a decision reported in 2011 (1) ALD (crl) 885 (AP) between Rajesh Gutta Vs State of

Andhra Pradesh and another, in which it was held that in para 11-

And in the complaint, here and there some

references were made regarding the demand of dowry.

It is well settled that mere demand of dowry will not attract an

offence under section 498-A IPC”.

In the said decision it was further held that,

Para-12: “There are two elements in the above said section which include the explanation, which clearly indicates ‘cruelty’ means by way of harassment driving a woman to commit suicide or to suffer with injury, second element of the said section indicates that the

C.C.480 of 2015 Page 6 of 10 harassment should be in connection with demand of dowry.”

Para-13: “On the entire reading of complaint, the above said ingredients are totally not attracted, more particularly, the petitioner in Crl.P.No. 4921 of 2010 against the mother-in- law of the victim girl”.

16. In this case the evidence of PW.1 stated that accused harassed her and beat her indiscriminately . P.W.2 stated that she came to know that the accused subjected P.W.1 to cruelty through PW1. The material on record is not showing such situation to attract the meaning of cruelty as contemplated in the explanation to Sec.498-AIPC. On perusal of Ex.P1 discloses that the husband of P.W.1 threatened her on that she gave her Gold chain with

Mangalsutra, Gold chain with Anjaneyaswamy dolor, Pearl ring, one pair of Siver anklets to accused. Thereafter, she confined in the house and locked the doors on 02-04-2015, on that she escaped and went to her parents house and informed about the incident. But, the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborating with the Ex.P1 allegations. The material on record is not inspiring confidence of this court to believe the prosecution case that accused subjected

PW1 to cruelty.

17. This court relied upon a decision reported in 2008 (3) law summary at page 204 (Supreme Court) in the case of State of A.P V. M.Mudhusudhana Rao,

Their lordships while dealing with section

498-A IPC held at para 11 that – the definition of “cruelty” as

mentioned in Sec.498-A stipulates that harassment has to be with

definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to her

to meet an unlawful demand. In other words, for the purpose of

Sec.498-A IPC, harassment simplicitor is not ‘cruelty’ and it is only

when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a

woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful

demand for property etc., that it amounts to ‘cruelty’ punishable

U/sec.489-A IPC. further in para 31-held that there is no direct

evidence other than the self serving testimony of PW1 regarding

C.C.480 of 2015 Page 7 of 10 the beatings and scolding.

18.In this case the evidence of P.W.4 to P.W.6 are not supported the case of the

Prosecution as they were turned as hostile. They did not say anything about the case. The evidence of P.W.1 discloses that she is living separately from her husband since 2002 onwards and the children of P.W.1 also residing with the accused even till date. Except the evidence of P.W.1 there is no corroborative and independent evidence on record to show that the accused harassed P.W.1. Thus, when the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for an offence U/sec.498-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled for acquittal by exercising benefit of doubt. In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused subjected PW1 to cruelty and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.498-A IPC. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and as against the prosecution.

19. POINT No.2: “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences U/Sec. 342, 324 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

With regard to the offences U/s.324, 342 of I.P.C:

In order to prove the guilt of the accused U/s.324,342 I.P.C the Prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:

1. that the P.W.1 sustained simple injuries.

2. that the accused caused injuries with dangerous weapons.

3. that the accused confined the P.W.1 in the house by locking the doors in his house.

20.The Learned A.P.P submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is consistent with regard to the overt acts of the accused over P.W.1. She further submitted that the evidence of

P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.7 coupled with Ex.P1, P2, P6 to P7 are corroborating with the evidence of

P.W.1 in all material aspects. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused confined her and caused simple injuries to her with dangerous weapons is believable. Therefore, prays to convict the accused.

21.On the other hand, the Learned defence counsel contended that the P.W.1 foisted a false case against the accused. The Learned counsel further submits that except the sole testimony of P.W.1 there is no independent witnesses to corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 in all material aspects. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not believable. Hence,

C.C.480 of 2015 Page 8 of 10 prays to acquit the accused.

22.In so far as the injuries over P.W.1 is concerned, P.W.1 in her evidence deposed that the accused beat her with a stout stick over her foot knees, thighs, fisted her over her face. Due to that she sustained bleeding from the nose. The evidence of P.W.2, her evidence is hearsay evidence and she came to know the incident through P.W.1. The evidence of

P.W.3, the Medical officer who examined P.W.1 and issued wound certificate Ex.P2, he found the following injuries:- 1.A contusion of size 28X15 cms present over left back of thigh, middle to front of lower 1/3rd of thigh through knee joint, brownish black in colour.

2.A contusion of size 8X6 ½ cms present over the right arm, brownish black in colour.

3.A contusion of size 4X3 cms present over the left arm, brownish black in colour.

4.An abrassion of size 2 ½ cms X 2 cms present over right elbow, blackish brown colour.

5. An abrassion of size 1X1 cms present over the nose, brownish black in colour.

6. A contusion of size 2 ½ cms present over occipital region.

Ex.P2 is not corroborating with the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the injuries over her left thigh, on her neck, on her foot knees. Ex.P2 is corroborating only one injury i.e., an abrassion present over the nose. Hence, it is not safe to believe the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the injuries over her. But, the evidence of P.W.3 shows that P.W.1 sustained simple injuries.

Accordingly, the Prosecution is successfull in establishing that P.W.1 sustained simple injuries, but the Prosecution failed to prove that the accused beat P.W.1 with a stout stick and caused the injuries over P.W.1 and also failed to prove that the accused confined rthe P.W.1 in the house by locking door. There is no material on record to prove the guilt of the accused

U/sec.324, 342 I.P.C. The Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused U/sec.324, 342

I.P.C.

23.With regard to the offence U/s.506 of I.P.C:

Except the evidence of P.W.1 there is no independent and corroborative evidence to prove the guilty of the accused u/s.506. The Prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused U/s.506 I.P.C.

24. In view of the foregoing discussion on point Nos.1 and 2, this court hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable

C.C.480 of 2015 Page 9 of 10

U/sec.498-A IPC, 342, 324, 506 of I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt. As such the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt and he is entitled for acquittal.

25.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/s 498-A, 342, 324, 506 IPC. For the same he is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled after appeal time is over.

Typed to dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 17 h day of August, 2018.

Sd/- K.Satya Kumari

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None.

P.W.1: Khaitepalli Lakshmi. P.W.2: Koduru Sitamma. P.W.3: Dr.V.D.R.Kumar. P.W.4: Ketharaju Narayanarao. P.W.5: Vekanuru Srinivasarao. P.W.6: Merakanapalli Venkata Subbarao. P.W.7: P.Siva Rama Krishna.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: Wound certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 Ex.P6: F.I.R. Ex.P7: Rough sketch. Ex.P8: Rough sketch.

FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.D1: legal notice issued by Accused to P.W.1,

Ex.D2: certified copy of the police report given by P.W.1 to police against the Tulasiram.

Ex.D3: certified copy of police report given by the wife of the said Tulasiram against P.W.1 and Tulasiram and his relatives.

C.C.480 of 2015 Page 10 of 10

M.Os. MARKED:

Nil.

Sd/- K.Satya Kumari

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

//True Copy//

M.C.24 of 2017 Page 1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, AVANIGADDA

Present: SMT.K.SATYA KUMARI

ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TUESDAY, DATED THIS THE 14nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

M.C.No. 24 of 2017

Between :

Perike Prasanthi, w/o Perike Pothu Raju,

D/o Gaddam Prabhakara Rao, Age 29 years,

R/o D.No.1-171, Seeethayalanka,

H/o Avanigadda Village & Mandal. .... Petitioner.

And

Perike Pothu Raju, s/o Sasthrulu, Age 31 years

Private Employee, R/o Nadellavaripalem

H/o Nadakuduru, Challapalli Mandal, Krishna Dt.

Presently working in Smart Drive Systems in India

Prakash Nagar, Begumpeta, Hyderabad. ..... Respondent.

This case is coming on 09-08-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.Chittiprolu Venkata Krishna Prasad Learned Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri.Mathi Venkateswara Rao, Learned Counsel for Respondent appeared before this court and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

ORDER

1.This petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner towards her monthly maintenance.

2.The brief material averments of the petition are as follows:

On 06-12-2014 at Church in Nadellavaripalem Village, Challapalli Mandal the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed as per Christian Rights and caste customs. At the time of their marriage the Petitioner completed MBA and respondent completed MCA and working in Smart Drive System in India, Begumpet,

Hyderabad. The parents of the Petitioner gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards Katnam to the respondent and also presented a Gold ring to the respondent. Immediately the parents of the petitioner sent the petitioner to lead marital life after fulfilling sakala lanchanams. The amount of Rs.2,00,000/- given by the parents of the petitioner, the amount was entrusted to the respondent for its improvement. Both the petitioner and respondent lead happy marital life

M.C.24 of 2017 Page 2 of 8

hardly for a period of Ten days only. Thereafter, the respondent harassed the petitioner on the ground that he knows through somebody that the petitioner suffered with kidney problem during her childhood and as such he is not liking the petitioner. Petitioner replied that during her childhood she suffered with small kidney problem and the same was rectified. But respondent and his parents did not heeded the words of petitioner and they further threatened the petitioner and harassed her physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-.

On 05-03-2015, the respondent and petitioner setup a separate family in Prakash Nagar of

Begampet in Hyderabad as the respondent is doing job therein. Therein also the respondent used to harassed the petitioner for additional dowry, the parents of the respondent also instigated respondent through phone. Finally, on 17-05-2015 respondent beat the petitioner indiscriminately and driven out her from the family house. Without any alternative the petitioner reached her parents house and narrated the entire incidents to her parents.

Thereafter, the parents of petitioner and elders of Seethayalanka namely Medikonda Gopala

Rao, Nadella Venkata Raju, Gorumuchu Ramadasu and Medikonda Sarath babu made their attempts for reunion in between the spouse. When their attempts are in progress in the month of October 2015 the petitioner went to Vijayawada for coaching of Bank job.

3.It is further submitted that, the Petitioner also made several phone calls to the respondent from Vijayawada and trying to convince him, but respondent abused the petitioner in filthy language and did not heeded the words of the Petitioner. After completion of coaching the petitioner return back and learn that respondent got issued a Regd.Legal notice to her with false and untenable grounds. On 02-01-2017 at about 9.30 p.m the parents of the respondent came to the parents house of the petitioner and threatened the petitioner for

additional dowry and warned her without giving additional dowry as demanded by them they

will perform another marriage to their son. On 03-01-2017, the petitioner presented a report against all the accused before Avanigadda police station, but there is no proper response from Avanigadda police. The Petitioner going to file private case against the respondent and his parents for necessary reddressal. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner to broken down their marital life. The entire fault lies upon the respondent. The respondent is an employee in Smart Drive Systems in India, in Begumpet of Hyderabad and getting salary of

M.C.24 of 2017 Page 3 of 8

Rs.40,000/-. The respondent also having landed property in Nadellavaripalem village and getting much income from those properties. The respondent is also having some other movable and immovable properties. The Petitioner is depending upon her parents for her livelihood. She requires Rs.15,000/- towards her monthly maintenance. Hence, the petitioner prays to grant maintenance Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner towards her monthly maintenance.

4.On service of summons, the respondent made his appearance through his counsel and got filed his counter denying the petition averments except the marriage with the petitioner. He submitted thatat the time of the marriage no dowry nor Pasupukumkuma contemplated as the petitioner completed her M.B.A and she is looking handsome with fair complexion. In fact the parents of respondent presented Gold chain worth of Rs.60,000/- and a gold ring worth of Rs.20,000/-. Immediately, their marriage was consummated. Both the

Petitioner and the respondent lead marital life for some time. During the wed lock no children were born to the petitioner through the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner did not revealed that she underwent treatment for her kidneys. Consequently due to her health problem she hesitated for cohabitation. Within one month after the marriage the petitioner sent to Kapuram formally to Nadakuduru village without any Sary and Cheera. The respondent is doing a private job at Hyderabad for his livelihood. Though the nuptial marriage was performed but the petitioner is not willing for cohabitation regularly. The respondent tried to convince the petitioner by way of counseling and requested the petitioner for medial checkup but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, she did not accepted for attending the medical adviser. The petitioner is sent to Hyderabad in the 3rd week of March, 2015 for leading matrimonial life with the respondent. The petitioner is stayed along with respondent till 18-05-2015 on which date in the absence of respondent, she left the matrimonial home even without informing to the respondent. In fact earlier to 18-05-2015 on the occasion the petitioner left the matrimonial home she reached her parents house twice and used to stay with her parents for a week or 15 days and the respondent came down and took the petitioner matrimonial home. All the way the petitioner stayed along with respondent at Hyderabad only 30 days or so. The petitioner is not interested to lead matrimonial life with the respondent.

Though the respondent waiting for her arrival but she did not returned to the matrimonial

M.C.24 of 2017 Page 4 of 8

home. The respondent personally, along with parents and elders by name 1.naligili Subba rao, 2.Kona Chinthaiah, 3.Dova Ramanayya, 4.Naligili Sreenu Babu and 5.Raghupathi babu rao of nandlavaripalem tried his level best to convince the petitioner for leading marital life. All the efforts of respondent in convincing the petitioner proved futile at her instance. The entire fault lies upon the petitioner. The respondent always ready and willing to lead marital life with the petitioner.

5.It is further submitted that the respondent got issued a registered notice to the petitioner through his Advocate calling her for re-union. The petitioner received the said notice and got sent a reply registered notice with false and untenable allegations. Having no other alternative the respondent filed I.D.O.P 191/2017 on the file of the District Court,

Machilipatnam for restitution of conjugal rights. As a counter blast the petitioner filed present petition. It is submitted that petitioner who completed M.B.A doing job and earning

Rs.20,000/- per month. The parents of the petitioner are employees. The respondent drawing

Rs.8,000/- per month at Hyderabad. Whatever he drawn not even sufficient to him. Besides that he has got aged parents. He has no properties of either movable or Immovable to his credit. It is submitted that there is no refusal or neglect on the part of the respondent. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

6.To prove the case of petitioner, the petitioner examined as P.W.1 . On the other hand, the respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 and R2 were got marked .

7.Heard and perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is :

“ Whether the respondent neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner having sufficient means if so she is entitled for maintenance (or) not?”

Point :

9. The evidence of P.W.1 is all most all reiterated the Petition averments. P.W.1/

Petitioner categorically stated that the respondent used to harassed her both physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-. The parents of the respondent also instigated to him. The respondent used to bite her all over her body and he enjoyed like a sadist. On 17-

M.C.24 of 2017 Page 5 of 8

05-2015, the respondent beat P.W.1 indiscriminately and necked out her. On that having no option, P.W.1 reached her parents house and informed the entire story to her parents.

Thereafter, her parents and elders by name Medikonda Gopala Rao, Nadella Venkata Raju,

Gorumuchu Ramadasu and Medikonda Sarath Babu made several attempts for reunion, but in vain. On that in the month of October 2015, she went to Vijayawada for coaching of Bank job. At that time she made several phone calls to the respondent from Vijayawada and trying to convince him, but respondent abused her in filthy language and did not heeded her words.

Thereafter, she came to know that the respondent got issued a legal notice to her with false and untenable grounds. On 02-01-2017 at 09.30 p.m., the parents of the respondent came to her parents house i.e., in Seethayalanka and threatened her for additional dowry, they warned her that without giving additional dowry as demanded by them they will perform another marriage to their son. On that aspect the Petitioner gave a complaint on 03-01-2017 against the respondent. The Police also conducted counseling in between the respondent and petitioner, but futile due to adamant behavior of the respondent and his parents. The

Petitioner further submits that there is no fault on her part to broken down their marital life.

The entire fault lies upon the respondent. The P.W.1 stated that at present she is depending upon her parents for her livelihood and she requires of Rs.15,000/- towards her maintenance.

The respondent is an employee in Smart Drive Systems in India, in Begumpeta of Hyderabad and getting salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. The respondent is also having landed property in

Nadellavaripalem village and getting much income from those properties. The respondent is also having some other movable and immovable properties. In the Cross-examination of

P.W.1, it discloses that P.W.1 completed M.B.A in the year 2010. She denied the suggestion that she is doing job at Vijayawada and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. P.W.1 admitted that the respondent gave a legal notice to her on 17-12-2016 asking her to join matrimonial life with him. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that she voluntarily left the matrimonial house and there is no fault on the respondent, hence she is not entitled to maintenance.

10.As against the above evidence the respondent himself examined as R.W.1 and

Exs.R1 and R2 were got marked. The evidence of R.W.1 is almost all reiterated the counter averments. The evidence of respondent is that he is drawing Rs.7,781/- per month at

M.C.24 of 2017 Page 6 of 8

Hyderabad and he is having aged parents. He had no properties of either movable or immovable. The petitioner is not interested to lead marital life with respondent. On 18-05- 2015, the petitioner left the matrimonial home. On that he along with his parents, elders by name Naligili Subba Rao, Kona Chinthaiah, Dova Ramanayya, Naligili Sreenu Babu and

Raghupathi Babu Rao of nandlavaripalem tried to convince the Petitioner to lead the marital life, but all the efforts futile at the behavior of the Petitioner. The entire fault lies upon the petitioner. The respondent is always ready and willing to lead the marital life with the petitioner. The evidence of respondent further discloses that he got issued a registered notice to the petitioner through his Advocate calling her for re-union. The Petitioner received the said notice and sent a reply registered notice with all false allegations. On that the respondent filed a Petition for Restitution of Conjugal rights. Thereafter, as a counter blast the Petitioner filed the present M.C against the respondent. The evidence of R.W.1 further discloses that the petitioner competed M.B.A and doing job and earning of Rs.20,000/- per month. It is an admitted fact that the Ex.R1 is the employment confirmation letter dt.28-07-2012, Ex.R2 is the copy of restitution of conjugal rights petition in I.D.O.P.No.191/2016. In the Cross-examination of R.W.1 he admitted that he is working in Smart Drive Systems India PVT LTD at Hyderabad and he joined in the company in the year 2012. He denied the suggestion that he is getting salary of Rs.40,000/- per month.

11.It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The Petitioner contended that the respondent used to harassed her for bringing

additional dowry amount and beat her and necked out her. On the other hand, the respondent

contended that the petitioner voluntarily deserted him and she is having sufficient means to maintain her and she is doing job and getting an income of Rs.20,000/- per month. The evidence of Respondent is discloses that he filed a Petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

After that the Petitioner filed the present M.C petition against the respondent. Though, the respondent stated in his counter that he sent the mediators by name Naligili Subba rao, Kona

Chinthaiah, Dova Ramanayya, Naligili Sreenu Babu and Raghupathi Babu rao for mediation to settle the matter to lead marital life with the petitioner, but he did not examined them to prove his contentions. Ex.R2 is the copy of restitution of conjugal rights petition filed by the

M.C.24 of 2017 Page 7 of 8

respondent it is clearly shows that he is ready and willing to lead the matrimonial life with the petitioner. The petitioner also admitted that the respondent got issued a legal notice to her calling her to come and join with him. But in the cross-examination of P.W.1 discloses that there is a life threat in the hands of her husband, hence she is not willing to join with her husband. It shows that the respondent filed the restituion of conjugal rights petition to escape from his liability and for showing there is no fault upon him. The Petitioner submitted in her chief affidavit that the respondent is an employee in Smart Drive Systems in India, in

Begumpeta of Hyderabad and getting salary of Rs.40,000/- per month, but the respondent denied that he is getting only Rs.7,000/- salary through his employment. The Petitioner also stated that her parents along with mediators by name Medikonda Gopala Rao, Nadella

Venkata Raju, Gorumuchu Ramadasu and Medikonda Sarath Babu made an attempts to lead marital life with the respondent, but those attempts are futile. Except stating the Petitioner about the mediation through mediators, but she did not examine them as a witnesses on her behalf. On the other hand, the petitioner also not filed any documentary proof with regard to the income of the respondent. She simply stated that respondent is getting an income of

Rs.40,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the income of the respondent, the court is of the view that the maintenance claimed by the petitioner is excessive. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that the respondent willfully neglected the petitioner on that reason Petitioner lived separately from the respondent. Even though he filed a restitution of conjugal rights petition, the respondent willfully neglected the

Petitioner, though he is having sufficient means of income to maintain the petitioner. It is well settled law that the respondent has to maintain his wife. Though the petitioner successfully in establishing that respondent has to means to maintain her, she did not produce any material relating to the exact monthly income of the respondent. Therefore, the court feels that it is just and probable to grant maintenance in reasonable manner. Hence, the Petition is partly allowed with out costs.

12.In the result, the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per month to the petitioner towards her monthly maintenance from the date of this petition.

M.C.24 of 2017 Page 8 of 8

Typed to dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 14 th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT:

P.W.1: P.Prasanthi. R.W.1: P.Pothuraju.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER: -Nil-

FOR RESPONDENT:

Ex.R1 - Employment confirmation letter dt.28-07-2012 of respondent. Ex.R2 - Copy of Restitution of conjugal rights petition in I.D.O.P No.191/2016 on the file of

Hon’ble District Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

M.Os. MARKED:

Nil.

Sd/-

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

//True Copy//

C.C.272 of 2016 Page 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE, AVANIGADDA

Present: SMT.K.SATYA KUMARI

ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

THURSDAY, DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

C.C. No. 272 of 2016

Between :

State Rep by its Sub Inspector,

Challapalli Police station .... Complainant

And

Sheik Hussaian, s/o Sheik Ismail, Age 23 years

Muslim, R/o Padamaraveedhi, Challapalli Village & Mandal. ..... Accused.

This case is coming on 14-08-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the state and E.Lakshminarayana, learned Advocate for the accused appeared before this court and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub-Inspector of Police Challapalli P.S has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s.324 of IPC.

2)The averments of the case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet in brief are as follows:

On 10-04-2016 at about 11.00 a.m L.W.1 – Mohamad Hakim went to his shop and observed that, at usually the tyres was keeping in front of his shop, then he asked the accused why you kept the tyres in front of his shop, on that the accused got angry and altercated with him, armed with stick, beat him over his left arm, left thigh, right knee, left index finger and caused bleeding injuries to him.

3)Basing on the report of L.W.1, L.W.7-SI of Challapalli Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.63/16 u/s.324 of IPC and investigated into the matter. During the course of investigation L.W.7 visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and examined L.Ws.1 to 5 as witnesses and recorded their statements. L.W.6 – Medical officer treated the L.W.1, issued wound certificate and opined that the sustained injuries are simple in nature. Hence,

Accused is liable to be punishable for the offence U/s.324 of I.P.C. Hence, the charge sheet.

C.C.272 of 2016 Page 2 of 5

4)This case was taken on file for the offence punishable u/s.324 of IPC against the accused.

5)On appearance of the accused copies of documents as contemplated U/s.207

The Code of criminal procedure ( herein after Cr.P.C.) were furnished to the accused.

6)Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges u/s.324 of IPC has been framed read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trial.

7)To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.P1 to

P4 were got marked.

8) After closure of the prosecution evidence as there is incriminating material appearing against the accused under prosecution evidence, accused examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him, for which he stated that he has no complicity with crime and reported no defence evidence.

9)Heard both sides. Perused the record.

10)Now the point for consideration is :

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence u/s. 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

11)To substantiate the case of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P4 were got marked.

12)To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s.324 of IPC, it is burden on the prosecution to prove the following ingredients.

1)that the accused caused hurt to P.W.1.

2) that it was caused voluntarily with the intention (or) knowledge to cause and,

3) that it had been caused by any instrument or weapon which is likely to cause death.

13)The Learned A.P.P submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 is consistent with regard to the overt acts of the accused over P.W.1. Therefore, prays to convict the accused.

14)On the other hand, the Learned defence counsel argued that the evidence of

P.W.1 is not corroborating with the wound certificate with regard to the injuries sustained by

C.C.272 of 2016 Page 3 of 5 him. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not believable. Hence, prays the court to acquit the accused.

15)In so far as the injury over P.W.1 is concerned the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.1 who is the injured person categorically stated that three days prior to 11-04-2016 accused was keeping the tyres across the shop of P.W.1 and in front of P.W.1’s office. While so during the evening of 10-04-2016

P.W.1 removed the tyres from the said place and kept them near the shop of accused.

Subsequently, on the next day at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.1 noticed that the said tyres were present in front of his shop. On that he questioned the accused. Then, the accused gave rash reply and abused him in filthy language and beat him with a stick over his left hand wrist, right knee, left ankle and foot. L.Ws.2 and 3 were present at the scene of offence and at the time of the alleged incident. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the police station and submitted Ex.P1 report.

16)The evidence of P.W.2 who is the brother-in-law of P.W.1, he stated that at about one year back in the month of April at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.1 asked the accused to remove the tyres present in front of the shop of P.W.1. On that the accused replied him that to do what ever he can. Subsequently, the accused beat P.W.1 with a stick over his left hand and left knee and beat him over the left foot. On that P.W.2, L.W.2 separated both parties and they shifted P.W.1 to Challapalli Police station.

17)Apart from the ocular evidence there is also medical evidence available on record i.e., the evidence of P.W.3, his evidence discloses that on 11-04-2016 at 1.30 P.M he examined P.W.1 and found the following injuries:-

1. An abrassion of size 5 cms length was present over left arm, red in colour.

2. An abrassion of size 6 cms long present over left thigh, red in colour.

3. An abrassion of size 4 cms long present over left knee, red in colour.

4. An abrassion of size 2 cms long present over left index finger, red in colour.

P.W.3 issued a wound certificate under Ex.P2 and he opined that the above said injuries are simple in nature. In the present case P.W.1 who is the injured person he categorically deposed that A1 beat him with a stick on his left hand wrist, right knee, left ankle and foot.

But, the medical evidence i.e., the evidence of P.W.3 coupled with Ex.P2 wound certificate of

P.W.1 discloses that there is an abrassion over left arm, left thigh, left knee and left index

C.C.272 of 2016 Page 4 of 5 finger. The injuries stated by the P.W.1 are not corroborating with the wound certificate issued by P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborating with the Medical evidence.

18)The evidence of P.W.2 who is the brother in law of P.W.1 in his cross- examination he stated that he did not stated before the police that P.W.1 sustained injuries over his left foot, left knee and left hand as the Police did not examine him. Which goes to show that P.W.2 is giving contradictory statement with regard to the injuries. Hence, it is not safe to believe the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to injuries sustained by P.W.1. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that he was not present at the scene of offence and at the time of alleged incident. The evidence of P.W.3 who is the medical officer in his cross examination it discloses that he did not noticed any injuries over the left wrist, left ankle and foot of P.W.1. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborating with the evidence of Medical officer. The accused disputing the injury over P.W.1. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the injury over him is not believable. In so far as the nature of injury is concerned, P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that accused beat him with a stick over his left hand wrist, right knee, left ankle and foot. Ex.P1 shows that accused beat P.W.1 on his hand, on his knee and on his left leg ankle with a stick. The evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborating with Ex.P1 with regard to specific overt acts. Medical evidence i.e., the evidence of P.W.3 clearly shows that he found noticed an abrassion over left arm, left thigh, left knee, left index finger and he opined that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are simple in nature. Though, the evidence of P.W.1 was not corroborating with the medical evidence, the evidence of P.W.3 that P.W.1 sustained simple injuries are believable. Accordingly, the prosecution is successful in establishing that P.W.1 sustained simple injuries, but failed to prove that accused beat P.W.1 with a stick and caused the said injuries to him.

19)The evidence of P.W.4 who is the Investigation Officer his evidence with regard to registration of F.I.R under Ex.P3, Examination of the witnesses, preparation of rough sketch under Ex.P4.

20)In this case so far as the motive is concerned accused obstructed the way by putting tyres in front of the shop of P.W.1. In the cross examination of P.W.1 it reveals that there are ill-feelings in between the P.W.1 and accused. Ex.P1 i.e., complaint given by the

P.W.1 also not corroborating with regard to the injuries sustained by P.W.1. Ex.P1 discloses

C.C.272 of 2016 Page 5 of 5 that accused beat P.W.1 on his hand, knee, left hand ankle with a stick. In this case,

Investigation officer did not seize the alleged stick from the scene of offence. Non seizure of crime weapon is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. In this case the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case that P.W.1 sustained simple injuries from the hand of the accused. Accordingly, the point is answered.

21)In veiw of the afore stated reasons, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/s.324 of I.P.C.

22)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 324 of IPC and he is acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall stands discharged after six months.

Typed to dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 16 th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE : None.

P.W.1: Mohamad Hakim. P.W.2: Kutubkhan. P.W.3: Dr.N.Rajesh. P.W.4: V.Manikumar.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE : -Nil-.

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1. Ex.P.2: Wound certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: F.I.R. Ex.P.4: Rough sketch.

M.Os. MARKED: Nil

Sd/-

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

//True Copy//

C.C.311 of 2018 Page 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM - ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE, AVANIGADDA

Present: SMT.K.SATYA KUMARI

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM - ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FRIDAY, DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

C.C. No. 311 of 2018

Between :

State Rep by its Sub Inspector,

Koduru Police station .... Complainant

And

1. Kosuri Sridar, s/o late Renukaiah, Age 27 years.

2. Kosuri Veerasamudram, w/o late Renukaiah, Age 50 years.

3. Kosuri Lakshmi Tirupathambha, D/o late Renukaiah, Age 25 years.

..... Accused

( All are the residents of Gadevaripalem village, Repalle Mandal, now residing at Hyderabad).

This case is coming on 16-08-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the state and the accused in person and appeared before this court and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The accused A1 to A3 have been arraigned before this court for the offences under sections 498-A IPC, Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act of Indian Penal code (herein after IPC).

1.The brief material averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 03-06-2017 L.W.1 – Yerrareddi Lakshmi Rajyam marriage was performed with A1 at Dwaraka Tirumala Temple. At the time of the marriage, L.W.2 mother of L.W.1 gave two acres wet land, cash of Rs.2,00,000/- being her Pasupukuma to A1 and A2 and also gave cash of Rs.1,00,000/- being Adapaduchu Lanchanam and presented Gold chain weighing about two savorings and one Gold ring to A1. Later, L.W.1 went to Hyderabad to lead her marital life with A1. Then, A2 and A3 of you i.e., mother and younger sister of A1 started harassing L.W.1 by blaming that she came to kapuram without sare samans and all the accused of you harassed her mentally and physically with a demand to depose of her land measuring about Ac.2.00 and to get money along with additional amount and finally they necked out her from their house.

2.Subsequently, on 20.10.2017 at 08.00 pm she submitted police report to the then S.I of police of Koduru P.S. Basing on it he registered FIR in Cr.No.146/17 of Koduru P.S u/s.498-A

IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act. He conducted investigation. On 04-05-2018 L.W.8 – S.I of Police,

Koduru P.S served police notice to the accused U/s.41(a) Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the Accused A1 to A3.

C.C.311 of 2018 Page 2 of 5

3.This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/s. 498-A IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of

D.P.Act against the accused A1 to A3.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of documents as contemplated U/s.207 The

Code of criminal procedure (herein after Cr.P.C.) were furnished to the accused.

5. Accused A1 to A3 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences U/s.498-A

IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act have been framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu.

Accused denied all the allegations leveled against them, pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P.4.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused examination under section 313

Cr.P.C. about the incriminating material against them from the prosecution evidence is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material against accused from the prosecution evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences

U/Sec. 498-A IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

10. To prove the prosecution case U/Sec.498A I.P.C. the prosecution must establish that the accused subjected the P.W.1 to cruelty. Sec.498-A I.P.C defines cruelty.

11. Section 498 reads as follows:

"498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- 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

C.C.311 of 2018 Page 3 of 5

(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 property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid 'cruelty' which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed herein before. Two specific instances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word 'cruelty' as is expressed by the legislatures: Whereas explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz.,

1. to drive the woman to commit suicide or

2. to cause grave injury or

3. danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity, in explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury. But the legislature thought it fit to include only coercive harassment which obviously as the legislative intent expressed is equally heinous to match the physical injury. whereas one is patent, the other one is latent. But equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute. Since the same would also embrace the attributes of 'cruelty' in terms of Section 498-A.

12.Further, under Section 3 of the D.P.Act, if any person after commencement of the Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more. Sub Section 2 of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is in the form of exclusion clause which provides certain things and presents do not fall within the definition of

Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, Sec.4 of the Act provides penalty for dowry demand.

13.There is no dispute that A1 is husband of P.W.1 and the remaining accused are relatives of A1. As per the story of the prosecution, all the accused harassed P.W.1 demanding to bring additional dowry, necked out her from the matrimonial house and even after mediation of elders, she did not take back her.

14.In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is the victim in the hands of alleged harassment of the accused. P.W.2 is Mother of P.W.1.

P.W.1 deposed that she gave a complaint against the accused under Ex.P1 at the instance of the elders, she have compromised with the accused. P.W.2 deposed that they have compromised with the accused. P.W.3 deposed that he did not know anything about this case.

P.Ws.1 to 3 did not support the case of the prosecution as they were turned as hostile.

15.As they resiles from their previous version learned APP cross-examined them with the permission of the court. The cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 did not elicit any material supporting the case of the prosecution. They also denied the suggestion that they stated to police as in Exs.P.2 to P4 and deposing false due to compromise with the accused. The cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 did not elicit any material supporting the case of the prosecution.

16. To prove its case, the prosecution marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. Ex.P.1 is the complaint of

C.C.311 of 2018 Page 4 of 5

P.W.1 . Exs.P.2 to P4 are the 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively.

17. It is settled law that the statements recorded by police u/sec.161 Cr.P.C can be used only to contradict the maker of the statement u/s.162 Cr.P.C. They can be only used for the purpose of contradiction and not for any other purpose. In view of Exs.P.2 to P4 contradictions, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not believable.

18.As the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and as no useful purpose will serve by examining the remaining witnesses, learned APP given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no single piece of evidence on record showing that all the accused harassed P.W.1 demanding to bring additional dowry, necked out her and did not take back her to meet the said demand.

20. In view of the afore stated reasons, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

21. In the result, accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/s 498-A IPC,

Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.A Act. For the same they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands discharged after six months. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal period.

Typed to dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 17 th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None.

P.W.1: Y.Lakshmi Rajyam. P.W.2: Y.Nagalakshmi. P.W.3: K.Padmavathi Vara Prasad.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : Nil

Ex.P.1: Complaint of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3

M.Os. MARKED:

Nil.

Sd/-

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

C.C.311 of 2018 Page 5 of 5 //True Copy//

C.C.883 of 2017 Page 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, AVANIGADDA

Present: SMT.K.SATYA KUMARI

ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

C.C. No. 883 of 2017

Between :

State Rep by its Sub Inspector,

Challapalli Police station .... Complainant

And

Potluri Sandeep, s/o Venkata Krishna Rao, Age 36 years r/o Gurunanak Colony, Vijayawada, driver of Car No.

AP07BV6620. ..... Accused

This case is coming on 17-08-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the state and Sri.V.Rama Rao, learned Advocate for the accused appeared before this court and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police Challapalli P.S has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s.304-A of IPC.

2.The brief material averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 30.7.2017 at about 7.30am one Namburi Laxmaiah (herein after deceased) proceeding along the Velivolu canal bund on Krishna River Karakatta road and when he crossed bridge, the accused driver of Car bearing No.AP 07 BV 6620 (herein after crime vehicle) proceeding from Vijayawada drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased from behind. As a result of which, he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Due to which he was died instantaneously.

3.On 30-07-2017, L.W.1 came to the police station and gave a written report ,

L.W.12 H.C.1061 registered the same as F.I.R in Cr.No.168/17 u/s.304-A of I.P.C and investigated into. During the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence and drafted scene observation report and prepared a rough sketch and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He conducted the inquest over the dead body of deceased.

L.W.10 – Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and gave his report. L.W.11

C.C.883 of 2017 Page 2 of 5

Medical officer conducted autopsy over dead body of deceased and issued report. On 02-08- 2017 L.W.13 S.I of Police arrested the accused, when he surrendered in the P.S. After completion of investigation the S.I of police of Challapalli P.S filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

4.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of IPC against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused copies of documents as contemplated U/s.207

The Code of criminal procedure ( herein after Cr.P.C.) were furnished to the accused.

6.Accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. Accusation has been read over to him in Telugu. Accused denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

7. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P.8 were got marked.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C about the incriminating material against him from the prosecution evidence. He denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the accused as well as the learned

Asst. Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

10.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the

offence U/Sec. 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

11.To substantiate the case of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P8 got marked on behalf of the prosecution.

12.To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s. 304-A of IPC, it is burden on the prosecution to prove the following ingredients.

13. Causing death by negligence is an offence under Section 304-A. It reads :

“Sec.304A. - Causing death by negligence.-- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or

C.C.883 of 2017 Page 3 of 5 with both.”

14. The meaning of criminal rashness and criminal negligence can be explained in the following words: criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.”

15. Insofar as Section 304-A IPC is concerned, it deals with death caused by doing any rash or negligent act where such death is caused neither intentionally nor with the knowledge that the act of the offender is likely to cause death. The applicability of Section 304-A IPC is limited to rash or negligent acts which cause death but fall short of culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An essential element to attract Section 304-A IPC is death caused due to rash or negligent act.

16. In view of the above legal position to prove the prosecution case U/s.304-A IPC, the prosecution has to establish that:-

1. the death of deceased,

2. the death was caused by the doing of a rash or negligent act of the accused.

17.The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 were not supported to the case of the

Prosecution as they were turned as hostile.

18.In so far as the death of the deceased concerned P.W.4 who is the father of the deceased, he stated that at about one year back on one day while he was present in Repalle , some unknown person telephone and informed to him that his son was met with an accident and he was died on the spot. Then, he rushed to the Avanigadda Government Hospital and

C.C.883 of 2017 Page 4 of 5 found noticed that his son was died. Later, he came to know that one Car hit his son near

Velivolu village. In the Cross-examination of P.W.4, he stated that he did not know the Crime vehicle bearing Number and he did not know the driver of the crime vehicle and he never witnessed the accident.

19.The evidence of P.W.5 who is the inquestdar his evidence discloses that the

Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and he drafted the inquest report under Ex.P4. He came to the conclusion that the deceased was died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 clearly shows that the deceased was died in the road accident.

20.The evidence of P.W.6 who is the Investigation officer, his evidence with regard to registration of F.I.R under Ex.P5, examination of the witnesses and drafting of scene observation report under Ex.P6, preparation of rough sketch under Ex.P7 and he took the

Photographs in the scene under Ex.P8.

21.In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the accused, there is no material evidence on record, as the material witnesses were turned as hostile due to compromised with the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 to 6 coupled with Ex.P1 to P8 prosecution established the fact of the death of the deceased, but failed to prove the rash (or) negligent driving of the accused.

22. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

23. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 304-A IPC. For the same he is acquitted u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after appeal time is over.

Typed to dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 20 th day of August, 2018.

sd/- K.Satya Kumari

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

C.C.883 of 2017 Page 5 of 5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None.

P.W.1: N.Basavamma. P.W.2: K.Srinivasa Rao. P.W.3: M.Kotaiah. P.W.4: N.Durgaiah. P.W.5: K.Venkateswara Rao. P.W.6: Y.Tirumaleswara Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.4: Inquest report. Ex.P.5: F.I.R. Ex.P.6: Scene observation report. Ex.P.7: Rough sketch. Ex.P.8: Photographs with C.D.

FOR DEFENCE : Nil.

M.Os. MARKED:

-Nill-

sd/- K.Satya Kumari

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

//True copy//