1
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
PROHIBITION AND EXCISE COURT :: AT CHITTOOR.
Present: Smt.K.V.L.Hima Bindu,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor.
Wednesday, the 5th (Fifth) day of October, 2016.
C.C.No.185 of 2014
Between: State represented by the SubInspector of Police,
Kanipakam Police station. ...Complainant.
And:
1. T.S.Mohan, age 34 years, S/o T.Subramanyam, Kakaragutta village, near Eethamakulapalli village, Irala Mandal, Mutharasi by caste.
2. T.Mangamma, age 60 years, W/o T.Subramanyam, Kakaragutta village, near Ethamakulapalli village,
Irala Mandal, Mutharasi by caste. ...Accused.
This case coming before me for final hearing on 28.9.2016 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V.Venkatachalam, Counsel for the accused 1 and 2 and upon perusing the evidence and material papers on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanipakam P.S., filed charge sheet against
A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under sections 498 (A) and 324 IPC and Sec.4 of DP Act in Cr.No.55/2013.
2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are that the marriage of defacto complainant was performed with A1 on 5.5.2003 at Kanipakam temple as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage they lead happy marital life and begot one daughter and son namely Rajyalakshmi and Rahul.
Since one year from the date of complaint, A1 got addicted to alcohol and having extra marital relationship with a lady. A2 motherinlaw of the defacto complainant used to harass her physically and mentally by demanding to bring 4 sovereigns of gold jewels and cash from her parents house. Though she expressed the poor financial status of her parents, A1 and
A2 did not head her words and harassed her. On the intervening night of 25/2682013 at 12 'o' clock A1 came home in intoxicated state and picked 2 up quarrel with the defacto complainant demanding to bring dowry from her parents due to which some altercation took place and A1 caught hold of her tuft, pushed her down and hit her head to the grind stone (Rubbu Rolu) and beat her with a small wooden plank (Peeta) on her head causing injuries.
Later her brother admitted her to the Government Head Quarters Hospital,
Chittoor for treatment.
3. Based on the MLC intimation and statement of defacto complainant on 26.8.2013 a case was registered vide Cr.No.55/2013 for the offences punishable under Sec.498(A) and 324 IPC and Sec.4 of DP Act by SI of
Kanipakam P.S., against A1 and A2. During the course of investigation SI of police examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 2.9.2013 SI arrested A1 and A2 at Maddipatlapalli bus stop, Irala Mandal and sent them for judicial remand. The Medical Officer who treated the injured issued wound certificate opining that the injuries are simple in nature. After completion of investigation after receipt of relevant documents, on satisfaction that it disclosed the guilt of the accused, SI of police filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the aforesaid offences.
4. The case was taken on file for the offences U/S.498 (A), 324 IPC and
Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act against A1 and A2 and the same was numbered as
C.C.No.367/2013 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,
Chittoor.
5. After appearance of A1 and A2 copies of documents were furnished to them U/S.207 Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 were examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. Charges
U/sec.498 (A), 324 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act against A1 and A2 were framed, read over and explained to them for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the said case was transferred to this Court vide proceedings of the Hon'ble District and Sessions
Judge, Chittoor and subsequently numbered as CC.No.185/2014 on the file
of this Court.
6. Therefore the prosecution was directed to adduce the evidence on their behalf to substantiate the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence leveled against 3 them upon which they got examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P8 on their behalf.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined u/s313 Cr.P.C by placing the incriminating circumstances appearing against them for which they denied the same once again and pleaded not guilty.
However the accused did not choose to adduce any defense evidence on their behalf.
8. Heard the APP for the State and counsel for A1 and A2.
9. Now the point which stood for determination is :
Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offences U/sec.498 (A), 324 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?
10. Point :
It is the case of prosecution that A1 being the husband of PW1 harassed her demanding additional dowry and further assaulted her. That A2 who is the motherinlaw of PW1 also harassed PW1 and when she was admitted in the hospital for treatment of the injuries sustained due to assault by A1, her statement was recorded by police based on which prosecution was launched against the accused.
11. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the marriage of PW1 was performed with A1 on 5.5.2003 at Kanipakam Temple as per Hindu rites and customs. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that no dowry amounts were presented at the time of marriage. It is the contention of PW1 that after she begot two children that A1 developed illicit intimacy with another lady, got addicted to alcohol and so started harassing her mentally and physically demanding additional dowry. To substantiate the said contention prosecution got examined PW1 to PW7 in this case of whom PW1 is the defacto complainant and the victim herself. PW2 is the mother of PW1 and PW3 is the brother of PW1. PW4 and PW5 are alleged to be the independent witnesses and the neighbours of the matrimonial house of PW1 and as such has acquaintance with regard to the alleged harassment perpetrated by A1 and A2 upon PW1. PW6 is the doctor who treated the injured and PW7 is the investigating officer.
4
12. PW1 being the defacto complainant and the victim herself, her testimony assumes much importance. Critically examining the same she categorically deposed before this Court with regard to the fact of her marriage and their having lead happy marital life for some time. However it was her contention that from the past 4 to 5 years prior to the lodging of the present complaint, that the accused started harassing her demanding to bring dowry from her parents. Further that he got addicted to alcohol and used to return home in a drunken condition and assault her. Added to it he developed illicit intimacy with one lady named Vimala and when she questioned him of his acts, that he used to reply that PW1 did not bring anything from her parental house and so demanded additional dowry.
Though she explained that her parents were not having the financial capacity to meet his demand, the accused did not listen. Being so on 25/26.8.2013 at about 12 mid night the accused returned home in a drunken condition and when PW1 questioned him as to why he was spending all his income on alcohol, he in turn questioned her who she was to prevent him and saying so hit her with a stick over her ribs and lift chin. He caught hold of her tuft and pushed her on the grinding stone (Rubbu Rollu) causing bleeding injuries.
That hearing her hues and cries PW4 and PW5 rushed to her house and rescued her from the hands of A1. That immediately PW1 telephoned to her brother PW3 who came and shifted her to the Government Hospital, Chittoor for treatment. The present prosecution was launched against the accused based on the statement of PW1 recorded at the hospital.
13. Though PW1 contended that PW4 and PW5 are the direct eye witnesses to the alleged harassment perpetrated by the accused upon her,
PW4 while deposing before this Court contended that the present case was filed by PW1 against the accused as her husband was not transferring his land onto her name. Surprisingly this witness further stated that the accused never demanded additional dowry nor harassed PW1 at any point of time.
The other eye witness PW5 also deposed on parallel lines with that of the testimony of PW4. Both these witnesses were declared hostile and cross examined by the learned APP but however nothing could be elicited from them to suggest that they were won over by the accused or that they were deposing false to help the accused. Thus there are no independent witnesses 5 to corroborate the testimony of PW1 with regard to the allegations levelled against the accused. However it cannot be ignored that it is only the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity. If the testimony of a witness seems to be trustworthy and reliable throughout then a conviction can also be based on the testimony of the sole witness and the testimony of the victim will always be on the higher pedestal. Further it cannot be ignored that merely because the testimony of the victim stood uncorroborated in light of the independent evidence, the same cannot be entirely brushed aside and the true test is whether the testimony of PW1 stood unshaken even when subjected to crossexamination. Usually in matrimonial offences the harassment perpetrated upon the victim will be within the four corners of the house and in such circumstances it cannot even be said that the neighbours of the matrimonial home of the victim did not corroborate the case of PW1.
14. Added to it, it was the case of PW1 that on the alleged date of incident i.e., on 25/26.8.2013 it is PW4 and PW5 who rescued her from the hands of
A1 when he was assaulting her. It was never the case of PW1 that PW4 and
PW5 are totally acquainted with regard to the alleged harassment perpetrated upon her throughout. Her complaint as well as her statement
before the police only reflects that PW4 and PW5 are witnesses to the alleged
assault of A1 upon PW1, which however they did not choose to support.
Thus proceeding further to ascertain if the other evidence on record suffices the alleged contention of PW1, PW2 the mother and PW3 the brother of PW1 both together corroborated the testimony of PW1 in its entirety. They categorically reiterated that on the alleged date of incident at about 11 pm
PW1 telephoned her and informed them that the accused came home in a drunken condition and hit her with a grinding stone (Rubbu Rollu) causing bleeding injuries. That on the next day in the early morning both of them together went to the house of PW1 and has taken her to the Doctor for treatment. Though PW2 failed to disclose the specific date of incident PW3 categorically revealed that on 25/26.8.2013 at about 12 mid night PW1 telephoned them and informed them that when she questioned A1 as to why she was wasting the money for drinking and neglecting them, that in turn A1 assaulted her with grinding stone (Rubbu Rollu) and Wooden plank (Peta) causing injuries over her head and left jaw. That as they did not have any 6 transport facilities that they went to her matrimonial home on the next day in the early morning hours and took her to the Government Hospital for treatment. Thus the testimony of PW1 to PW3 stood corroborated with each other with regard to the alleged incident which is stated to have taken place on the intervening night of 25/26.8.2013.
15. Now proceeding further to appreciate the alleged injuries sustained by
PW1, prosecution got examined PW6 who is the doctor who treated PW1 and issued Ex.P5 wound certificate. As per PW6 the injured was brought to the hospital on 26.8.2013 at about 8 am alleged to have sustained the said injuries due to assault by her husband during midnight hours. That on his examination he noticed abrasion over left side of forehead and swelling over left side of mandible (lower jaw). The said injuries were opined to be simple in nature and might have been sustained around 6 to 12 hours prior to his examination. Though it was suggested to PW6 that such injuries are possible due to fall while climbing steps hastily which he admitted, there is nothing brought on record to show that the said injuries could have been caused in the manner as suggested by the accused. Further it was confronted that there is a correction in the place of time mentioned in Ex.P5 upon which PW6 explained that inadvertently the time was mentioned as 8.05 am which is in fact the time when he examined her and so he made the relevant correction and put the time at which she is alleged to have been assaulted and moreover affixed his initial near the said correction. Thus the alleged correction cannot be said to have been made subsequently or to suite the case as it stood properly explained and irrebutted. It is admitted by PW6 during the crossexamination that PW1 was not accompanied by any persons and so he has specifically mentioned in ExP5 as self. With regard to the said aspect there can be two possibilities (1) that in fact it is PW1 who herself came to the hospital for treatment and was not accompanied by any persons and (2) that even though accompanied to the hospital no persons were present besides her when she was examined by the doctor. Though the doctor has specifically mentioned that she was not accompanied by any persons and so he mentioned it as self, the same cannot be considered fool proof in the absence of any material to show that PW6 in fact enquired PW1 if any persons or her relatives accompanied her to the hospital. There is no 7 clarification given by PW1 or PW6 with regard to the said aspect. Even if presumed that PW1 herself went to the hospital and was not accompanied by PW2 and PW3 as alleged, as already mentioned above they are mere circumstantial witnesses having ascertained the facts of the case and the alleged harassment perpetrated upon PW1 through her. Even if presumed for a moment that PW2 and PW3 has not accompanied PW1 to the hospital along with her, that does not effect the veracity of the testimony of PW1 and
PW6 as the factum of sustaining of the alleged injuries stood cogently established.
16. Appreciating Ex.P5 wound certificate in light of the testimony of PW6 it goes to show that on 26.8.2013 PW1 was examined by him wherein he has noticed abrasion over left side of forehead and swelling over left side of mandible (lower jaw). As per PW1 on 25/26.8.2013 around midnight A1 assaulted her with a wooden plank (peeta) on her left side of the chin, caught hold of her tuft and pushed her on to the grinding stone (Rubhu Rollu) due to which she sustained injuries over her forehead. The places of the injury as reported by PW6 to have been noticed on PW1 are in total confirmation with the places of the injury as contended by PW1 victim herself and PW3 who is her brother who is alleged to have gained knowledge with regard to the said fact through PW1. Thus it can be said that prosecution amply established the fact that PW1 sustained injuries on the alleged date of incident.
17. The crux of the case is whether the alleged injuries were caused by A1 as contended and whether the said accusation leveled against A1 is sufficient enough to hold that he perpetrated cruelty or harassment upon PW1 to attract the ingredients of the offence U/sec. 498(A) IPC, to constitute ' harassment' the following ingredients are essential:
(i) women should be tormented, i.e., tortured either physically or mentally through constant interference or intimidation;
(ii) such act should be with a view to persuade or compel her to do something which she is legally or otherwise not expected to do by using force or threats;
(iii) intention to subject the women should be to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill unlawful demands for any property or valuable security.
8
18. Ingredients of 'cruelty' as contemplated under section 498A IPC are of much higher and sterner degree than the ordinary concept of cruelty applicable and available for the purpose of dissolution of marriage i.e., divorce. In constituting 'cruelty' under section 498A, the acts of conduct should be either such that may cause danger to life, limb or health or cause 'grave' injury or of such a degree that may drive a woman to commit suicide.
Not only that such acts or conduct should be 'willful', ie., intentional. So to invoke the provisions of Sec. 498A, the tests are of stringent nature and intention is the most essential factor. The only test is that acts or conduct of guilty party should have the sting or effect of causing grave injury to the woman or are likely to cause danger of life, limb or physical or mental health.
19.Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. The impact of complaints, accusations or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the sensitivity of the individual victim concerned, the social background, the environment, education, etc. Further, mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the intensity of sensitivity and the degree of courage or endurance to withstand such mental cruelty. In other words, each case has to be decided on its own facts to decide whether the mental cruelty was established or not. Mohd. Hoshan V. State of AP 2002 AIR SCW 3795. The conduct on the part of the husband alone is not sufficient, but it should be accompanied by the necessary intention on his part. Otherwise, every act of the husband in a family bickering between the spouses should have to be considered as wilful conduct on his part attracting the offence of cruelty punishable under Sec.498A IPC”.
20. Admittedly no dowry was presented at the time of marriage. PW1 is also contending that her parents are not having the financial capacity to present any additional dowry to meet the unlawful demands made by the accused. With this regard it was argued by the counsel for the accused that having not received even a single pie at the time of marriage towards dowry and having lead happy marital life for nearly 10 years, that itself reflects that the accused never perpetrated any harassment upon PW1. Further it was argued that admittedly A2 along with her husband is staying in a separate 9 house from that of A1 and in such circumstances there is remote possibility of
A2 to perpetrate any harassment upon PW1. Further it was stressed upon that a private complaint was filed under DVC Act against the present accused including the name of the fatherinlaw of PW1. That if her fatherinlaw too was part in perpetrating any harassment upon PW1 why then he was not arrayed as an accused in the present case. In light of the said argument that it was contended that in fact PW1 pressurized A1 to get transferred the property standing in the name of her fatherinlaw and insisted A1 to transfer the same onto her name and that as he did not accept for the said proposal that she filed this false case against the accused. It is hard to understand when the parents of PW1 are in no better financial position then how PW1 taken such an independent step of falsely implicating her husband and motherinlaw which involves her personal life. Further if A1 has no complaints against PW1 except that he was pressurizing him to transfer the said property onto her name, if both wife and husband are amicably staying together for 10 years nothing prevents him from getting transfered the said property and preserve his peace and marital relationship. In the back ground of the fact that no dowry amounts were in fact presented at the time of marriage and having lead happy marital life for over a period of time, it is least believable that they have dragged their relationship to the verge of breaking for the sake of the property which in fact will not make much difference whether it stands in the name of wife or the husband when their marital ties are preserved. Thus this court is of considerable opinion that the argument tendered by the counsel for the accused has no force. Thus it lends credence to the accusations made by PW1 against her husband of having developed illicit intimacy with another lady, having got addicted to alcohol and harassing her.
21. It cannot be ignored that the court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. It is probable that the witnesses while deposing before the Court would be eager to see that justice is done to the victim while ignoring the fact that they failed to disclose all the material facts before the police when they came in to secure the evidence. Inspite of that fact if the facts elicited before the Court are consistent throughout and pointing out towards the guilt of the accused, 10 leaving no doubt with regard to the complicity of the accused in committing the said offence, the case of the prosecution can be said to have been established.
22. As held in C.Magesh and others etc., Vs State of Karnataka 2010 (2)
ALD (Crl) 147 (SC) “In criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasise, consistency is the key word for upholding the conviction of an accused. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eyewitness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its credibility. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that “no man is guilty until proven so”, hence utmost caution is required to be exercised and always there must be a string that should join the evidence of all witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses”.
23. As held in Iqbal Moosa Patel Vs State of Gujrat reported in 2011 (2)
ALD (Crl.) 148 (SC) The principle as to what degree of proof is required is stated by Lord Denning in his inimitable style in Miller Vs Minister of
Pensions. (1947) 2 AII ER 272: “That degree is well settled. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it permitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with sentence 'of course; it is possible but not in the least probable; the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Smelling doubts for the sake of giving benefit of doubt is not the law of land”.
24.Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Sucha
Singh and another Vs State of Punjab, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl) 506 (SC) = (2003) 7 SCC 643 where this court has reiterated the principle in the following words: Exaggerated devotion to be rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence.
Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred 11 guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. (see Gurbachan Singh Vs Satpal Singh, AIR 1990 SC
209) Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect.
One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish.
25. The testimony of PW1 to PW3 corroborated with the testimony of PW6, who is a doctor who treated her, clearly goes to show that PW1 sustained injuries on 25/26.8.2013. The time of injuries as contended by PW1 was during midnight hours and as opined by PW6 they were sustained 6 to 12 hours prior to the time of his examination. Further when PW1 was examined by PW6 she has clearly stated before him that the said injuries were caused due to the assault by her husband based on which a medico legal case was registered and intimation given to the police. It is based on Ex.P2 which is the statement of PW1 recorded at the hospital by HC 2121 that ExP6 FIR vide
Cr.No.53/2013 was registered against A1 and A2 and investigated into.
Perusal of Ex.P2 complaint reveals that it is free from embellishments and exaggerations and seems to be trustworthy and reliable. No person would resort to self inflict any injuries during midnight hours only with the sole intention of filing a false case against her husband and inlaws during early morning hours. There is also nothing brought on record to suffice that the said injuries were self inflicted or to show that they were caused when she has taken her cattle for grazing. Even if presumed to be true for a second, sustaining such injuries due to cattle during night hours is least probable. The nature of injuries and the point of injuries specifically disclose that the points of impact were clear which is mostly possible in cases of specific assault.
Though PW4 and PW5 stated that PW1 filed this false case against the accused in order to pressurize them to transfer the property onto their name,
PW1 could as well lodge a complaint but there is no necessity for her for self 12 inflicting any injuries. Added to it she has not suppressed any details and her fare submission that no dowry amounts were presented at the time of marriage makes her testimony even more credible. Mere admission during the course of crossexamination that after filing of this case she rejoined her husband and they lived together for a period of 5 months, does not exonerate the accused from having committed any such offence. It is pertinent to note that on the said suggestion PW1 explained that during the said period the accused did not even provide food to her. The fact that PW1 returned to her matrimonial home and stayed there for five months at the most speaks of her conduct to lead happy marital life and in case her endeavor was only to seek property, she would have not joined her husband until the said property was transferred onto her name. Merely because her fatherinlaw or the other family members were not inculpated in the present case or that she filed other proceedings under DVC Act will not falsify the grievance ventilated by
PW1.
26. Appreciating the testimony on record, there is no direct evidence to speak with regard to the complicity of A2 or that she perpetrated any harassment upon PW1 or demanding additional dowry. Though PW2 deposed that A1 and A2 together harassed PW1 demanding additional dowry, in the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence to speak with regard to the overt acts of A2, specific taunts or accusations, the guilt of A2 cannot be said to have been established.
27. Keeping this aspect on one side, prosecution cogently established the fact that PW1 sustained injuries on 25/26.8.2013. The testimony of PW1 to
PW3 seems to be inspiring confidence and trustworthy with regard to the fact that it is only A1 who assaulted PW1 and caused the said injuries. Though there is no cogent and reliable evidence to speak with regard to the fact that
A1 had developed any illicit intimacy with another lady, the contention of
PW1 to PW3 that A1 used to return home in a drunken condition and used to assault PW1 seems to be reliable in light of the established injuries. It is not necessary that in all the cases the woman must be driven or forced to commit suicide and it is enough if it is cogently established that the specific acts of the accused are such as to cause bodily harm or injury to the victim.
13
Further if at all it was a single act, in all probability PW1 would not have preferred to give her statement to police leading to prosecution. It cannot be ignored that the husband cannot be let into treat his wife as his own object and deal with it in any manner of his choice. Undoubtedly the accused has not demanded any dowry nor received any dowry at the time of marriage.
This being so the testimony of PW1 to PW3 merely goes to show that the accused demanded PW1 to bring additional dowry but however the said details find no place in entire record and it is not even the case of PW1 to
PW3 that subsequent to the demands any amounts were paid towards
additional dowry. Thus no offence U/s. 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act can
be said to have been established. At the same time it cannot be ignored that the factum of cruelty as contemplated under the first limb of S.498A IPC stood cogently established and as per settled principles the cruelty or harassment need not always be in demand of dowry. As mentioned above
Ex.P5 wound certificate cogently establishes the said fact of injuries upon
PW1. There is no hesitation to hold that the said injuries were caused by A1 only. Only because PW1 did not reiterate the series of accusations, her complaint that the accused used to return home in a drunken condition and assault her cannot be ignored as trivial act. When the injuries on PW1 stood established and moreover pointing that the said injuries were caused by A1 only, the physical assault being part of cruelty, definitely speaks of the guilt of the accused. Thus in all it can be said that prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of A1 for the offences U/sec.498(A) and 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
28.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences U/sec.3 and Sec.4 of DP Act and are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. A2 is found not guilty for the offences U/sec. 498 (A) and 324 IPC and she is acquitted U/sec.
248(1) CrPC. The bail bonds of A2 executed earlier shall stands cancelled after lapse of six months. No property. However A1 is found guilty for the offences U/sec. 498(A) and 324 IPC and convicted U/sec.248(2) CrPC.
Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of October, 2016.
Sd/K.V.L.Hima Bindu Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh., and Excise, Chittoor.
14
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:For Defence : PW1 Subbamma, defacto complainant NONE PW2 Rajamma PW3 Janardhan PW4 A.Hemachandra PW5 T.V.Malarkodi PW6 Dr K.Sinivasulu PW7 C.Lakshmikanth SI
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 : Complaint of PW1 Ex.P3 : Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW4 Ex.P4 : Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW5 Ex.P5 : Wound certificate Ex.P6 : FIR in Cr.No.55/2013 Ex.P7 : Hospital intimation Ex.P8 : Rough sketch of scene of offence.
For defence: Nil
M.Os Marked NIL
Sd/ K.V.L.Hima Bindu, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh., and Excise, Chittoor.
Quantum of sentence:
Heard A1 with regard to the quantum of sentence. It was the plea of
A1 that he is doing coolie work and that he is the sole bread winner of their family and that his parents are also dependent on him and that if he is sent to imprisonment his entire family would be put to severe hardship and agony and hence requested this court to take a lenient view.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the gravity of the offence provisions of PO Act or Sec.360 CrPC are not applicable to this case. Thus this court is of considerable opinion that sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine would meet the ends of justice.
In the result, A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ for the offence U/sec.
498(A) IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ for the offence U/sec. 324 IPC and 15 in default of payment of fine shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for each count. A1 is informed of his right to appeal. The period of remand if any shall be set off under Sec.428 CrPC.
Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of October, 2016.
Sd/ K.V.L.Hima Bindu, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh., and Excise, Chittoor.
// True Copy //
Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh., and Excise, Chittoor.
16
IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, CHITTOOR.
CALENDER CASE NO. 185/2014 Date of offence:25/26.08.2013
Date of complaint:26.08.2013
Date of taken on file:19.10.2013
Date of apprehension of accused:02.09.2013
Date of commencement of trial:30.03.2015
Date of close of trial:01.08.2016
Date of sentence of order:05.10.2016
Complainant:State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanipakam Police station.
Particulars of the accused:
1. T.S.Mohan, age 34 years, S/o T.Subramanyam, Kakaragutta village, near Eethamakulapalli village, Irala Mandal, Mutharasi by caste.
2. T.Mangamma, age 60 years, W/o T.Subramanyam, Kakaragutta village, near Ethamakulapalli village, Irala Mandal, Mutharasi by caste. U/Secs.498(A) and 324 IPC and Sec.3 and Nature of offence Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
Found not guilty for the offence U/sec.3 and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Finding of the court Found guilty for the offence U/sec.498(A) and 324 IPC.
Sentence of Order
In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences U/sec.3 and Sec.4 of DP Act and are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. A2 is found not guilty for the offences U/sec. 498 (A) and 324 IPC and she is acquitted U/sec. 248(1) CrPC. The bail bonds of A2 executed earlier shall stands cancelled after lapse of six months. No property. However A1 is found guilty for the offences U/sec. 498(A) and 324 IPC and convicted U/sec.248(2) CrPC.
Quantum of sentence:
Heard A1 with regard to the quantum of sentence. It was the plea of A1 that he is doing coolie work and that he is the sole bread winner of their family and that his parents are also dependent on him and that if he is sent to imprisonment his entire family would be put to severe hardship and agony and hence requested this court to take a lenient view.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the gravity of 17 the offence provisions of PO Act or Sec.360 CrPC are not applicable to this case. Thus this court is of considerable opinion that sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine would meet the ends of justice.
In the result, A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ for the offence U/sec. 498(A) IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ for the offence U/sec. 324 IPC and in default of payment of fine shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for each count. A1 is informed of his right to appeal. The period of remand if any shall be set off under Sec.428 CrPC.
Sd/- K.V.L.Hima Bindu,
SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
PROHIBITION AND EXCISE ,
CHITTOOR
To
The Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge,
Chittoor.
Dis No. /2016