1
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::
KAKINADA
Present:- Sri K.Mothilal III Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada
Monday, this the 7 th day of April, 2025
SESSIONS CASE No. 309 of 2023
(P.R.C.No.40/2020 of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada in Cr.No.184/2019 of Sarpavaram P.S.)
STATE represented by it’s Sub Inspector of Police,..Complainant
Sarpavaram Police Station.
Vs
1. Duvvi Simhadri @ Duvva Simhadri S/o Suryanarayana, A/30 years, C/Yadava, D.No.2-123/a, Vakatippa Village,
U.Kothapalli Mandal...Accused
2. Gontuboyina Suryanarayana @ Suribabu W Gunduboyina Suribabu S/o Papayya, A/44 years, C/Yadava, Cloth Business, R/o D.No.13-2-1M/247, Jaggayya Cheruvu, Pithapuram Mandal.
This Sessions Case coming up before me on 12.03.2025 for arguments in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/ Complainant and of Sri.R.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the accused and on perusal of the material on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court, delivered the following:-
// J U D G M E N T //
1.The State represented by it’s Sub- Inspector of Police, Sarpavaram
Police Station has laid down chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2.The quintessence of prosecution case is that one Ginjala Anantha
Lakhshmi is herein after called as deceased. The deceased is the daughter of 2 the de-facto complainant LW1 Ginjala Krishna Kumari and LW2 Ginjala Ganga
Raju. The deceased had completed 1st year Intermediate. The parents of the deceased wanted to get married the deceased. On that they searched for the bridegroom. On that they have informed the same to their distant relative LW7
Eagala Suryavathi, who arranged a marriage with her relative A1 and she acted as a mediator for the talks of the marriage. On that, in the month of
Sravanamasam, the parents of deceased and their relatives had a talks with the accused A1 in the presence of both the relatives and elders. In that marriage proposal talks, A1, who is bridegroom and his brother-in-law A2 demanded the parents of the deceased dowry of Rs. 4 Lakhs and a motor cycle. On the demand of A1 and A2, the parents of the deceased conceded with a condition that to pay 4 Lakhs amount with 3 phases. First phase amount 1 Lakh after completion of pandal erection and turmeric ceremony, secondly 1 Lakh at the time of marriage and thirdly after completion of marriage within 1 year deposit in the Bank on the name of deceased and to give a motor cycle to A1 after marriage. In Sravanamasam betrothal function was held at the house of the deceased at Vakalapudi village. In that betrothal function A1 gave a gold ring and a cell phone to the deceased with a mobile number 9494654950 and in turn, the parents of the deceased gave cash of
Rs. 3,000/- to A1 as marriage gifts. After that the deceased and A1 used to talk with each other over cell phones and shared their feelings with each other.
On 19-04-2019 marriage pandal erection and turmeric ceremony were held at the house of the deceased. After that, on 20-04-2019 LW1-mother of deceased, LW9 (Ginjala Appayamma), LW10 (Mediboyina Subhadra), LW4-
Gandhalu and the mediator LW7 (Eagala Suryavathi) went to the house of the
A1 at U. Kothapalli village with cash of Rs.1 Lakh and where they gave the same to A2. After taking Rs.1 Lakh dowry, A2 demanded to give the entire dowry amount of Rs.4 Lakhs at a time so saying he returned the said Rs.1
Lakh dowry to the parents of deceased. A2 also threatened if they do not give 3 the entire dowry amount of Rs.4 Lakhs at a time, the marriage will not be happened with Al and asked them to go away from that place immediately. On 26-04-2019, A2, two elders and mediators, LW7 went to the house of the deceased. At the time, LW1 and her son LW3 were present and they requested and told to them that as the elders in the village are not present and asked them to come one next day. Later A1 and A2 demanded the parents of the deceased to return the cell phone and gold ring, which were given to the deceased as marriage gift by A1, stating that they are not evincing interest for the marriage with the deceased and take a decision not marry the deceased and abstained from the earlier decision. On that on 28-04-2019, the mother of deceased and her relative Ginjala Peda Gangaraju went to the house of marriage mediator LW7 at U. Kothapali and handed over the cell phone and gold ring to be handed over the same to the accused. Later LW1 returned to her house. The deceased asked LW1 as what was happened and what A1 told about the marriage. LW1 has narrated all the facts to the deceased. On hearing the shocking news, the deceased worried a lot and disgusted over her life and she felt the acts and decision of the accused as ashamed. On the same day ie. 28-04-2019, mother of deceased went to the house of her sister house at Valasapakala village to get back her brother-in-law LW4(Gandhalu) to console the deceased leaving the deceased alone at the house. At the time, the deceased went to her relative house of LW6 (Ginjala Durga Prasad) and took his cell phone 9014489857 and talked to A1 cell phone number 7780665308 and A1 demanded the deceased if they failed to give the dowry amount of Rs.4 Lakhs at a time, he will not marry her. The deceased after having talked with A1 she disgusted over her life thinking that her reputation and image will be defamed with the relatives as well as in public. She had shared her bad feelings with her relative LW6 (Ginjala Durga Prasad). After that the deceased went to her house and at that time nobody was present in the house. The deceased went into the bed room and committed suicide by 4 hanging to a ceiling fan with a Nylon rope tied around to her neck. After some time, mother of deceased and LW4 (Kollubouyina Gandhalu @ Kollumellu
Gandhalu) went to the house and found the deceased was hanging to a ceiling fan with a nylon rope and immediately, they removed and untied the nylon rope and got down the deceased and took the deceased to Trust
Hospital, Sarpavaram, Kakinada in an Auto for treatment, where the Doctor examined the deceased and declared that the deceased was brought dead to the Hospital. On receipt of death intimation of deceased from the Trust
Hospital, Sarpavaram, Kakinada the LW16-S.Tulasi Ram, S.I of Police visited
Trust Hospital, Kakinada and recorded the statement of LW1. Basing on the death intimation of the deceased and statement of the LW1 (Ginjala Krishna
Kumari), LW16 S.Tulasi Ram, S.I of Police registered the same as a case in
Cr.No.184/2019 U/S 174 Cr PC (Death due to Hanging) of Sarpavaram Police
Station on 28-04-2019 at 10.00 PM, submitted the original FIR along with the original death intimation and statement of the LW1 to the Honble Mandal
Executive Magistrate court, Kakinada Rural Mandal and Copies of FIR to all the concerned officers and on 29-04-2019 took up further investigation and visited the scene of offence and observed the scene of offence in presence of mediators LW12 and LW13 (Mohammad Raja and Ramala Suribabu) and got drafted an observation report and seized a Nylon rope under the cover of mediators report and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and photographed the scene of offence in different angles. Later the LW16 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 29 04-2019 from 10.30 PM to 12.30 PM by the inquest Panchayatdars LW12 to LW14 (Mohammad Raja, Ramala Suribabu and Eagala Chakramma), in presence of blood relatives of the deceased and witnesses and after completion of inquest the dead body of the deceased was forwarded to the Professor, Department of forensic medicine, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada for autopsy with corpse of the dead body of the deceased and photographed the dead body of 5 the deceased in different angles. Basing on the inquest report and statements of the witnesses, alter the section of law into 306 r/w 34 IPC and section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 from 174 Cr PC (Death due to hanging) of
Sarpavaram Police Station on 29-04-2019 at 5.00 PM and submitted the original altered FIR along win the original Inquest report to the Honble Court.
During the course of investigation, LW16-S.Tulasi Ram, S.I of Police examined the witnesses. LW15-Dr.P.Uma Maheswararao, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued postmortem report with his opinion that the approximate time of death less than 24 hours prior to PM examination. The cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.
During the course of investigation, the LW17-M.Gopala Krishna, S.I of Police took up further case and he examined the LW10 and LW11 (Mediboyina
Subhadra and Morukurthi Manga Nagaratnam) and recorded their detail statements. On 06-06-2019, A1 voluntarily Surrendered before the Hon'ble
Special JFC Magistrate, Kakinada and A1 was sent to judicial custody and thereafter he was released on bail. A2 obtained anticipatory bail. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid down against A1 and
A2.
3.The Learned Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,
Kakinada having taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC, registered the crime as a Preliminary Registered Case in
P.R.C No.40/2020 and committed the case to the District and Sessions Court,
East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, where the PRC was registered as a
Sessions Case in S.C.No.309/2023 and made it over to this Court (III Addl.
Assistant Sessions Judge's Court of Kakinada).
4.A1 and A2, pursuant to summons has appeared before the Court, reported means to defend them in the course of trial as such charges under
Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been 6 framed, read over and explained to them in their regional dialect, whereupon they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and that therefore they were put on their trial.
5.The theory of defence is one of total denial.
6.During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 10 have been examined for the prosecution and got marked on it’s behalf Exs.P1 to P13 and M.O.1 and
Ex.D1 is marked on behalf of accused.
7. Thereafter, A1 and A2 have been examined under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C, explaining them the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution, who having heard denied the incriminating circumstances and reported to have no defence evidence, resulting closure of defence evidence and thereafter heard arguments of prosecution and defence and perused the record.
8. Now the Points that arise for determination in the Sessions Case on hand are:-
1. Whether the accused had canceled the marriage alliance with the deceased/Ginjala Anantha Lakshmi for nonpayment of dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- that had driven her to commit suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan with a plastic thread, they would be guilty of abetment.
2. Whether A1 and A2 demanded dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- and a motor cycle from the parents of deceased/Ginjala Anantha Lakshmi?
3. Whether the prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilt of accused beyond a shadow of doubt?
9.Point Nos.1 to 3: The prosecution alleged that A1 and A2 have committed the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and the prosecution has shown the number of list witnesses in charge sheet from LWs 1 to 17 out of them, LW2 7 (Ginjala Gangaraju), LW5 (Ginjala Appala Swamy), LW6 (Ginjala Durga
Prasad), LW11 (Morukurthi Manga Nagaratnam), LW13 (Ramala Suribabu),
LW14 (Eagala Chakramma) and LW17(M.Gopala Krishna) were given up by the prosecution without examining them and out of the LWs, LW17 was died, due to which, his evidence was closed.
10. As per the evidence of PW1, it appears that herself is the mother of deceased, LW2 (Ginjala Gangaraju) is her husband, LW3 (Ginjala
Seshagiri)/PW2 is her son, LW4 (Kolluboina Gandhalu @ Gandhalu) is brother-in-law of PW1 and LW5 (G.Appala Swamy) and LW6 (G.Durga
Prasad) are also the brother-in-laws of PW1. LW7 (Eagala Satyavathi), who is examined as PW4 is the mediator for the marriage of deceased with A1. LW8 (G.Srinu) is the Sarpanch of Vakalapudi Village. LW9 (G.Appayamma) is another marriage elder, LW10 (M.Subhadra) is the sister in law of PW1 and
LW11 (Manga Nagaratnam) is her mother. In view of the evidence of PW1 appears that LW7/PW4 and LW9/PW5 are the independent witnesses and the remaining witnesses from PWs 2 and 3 to 8 are the close relatives of PW1.
11. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10. As per the evidence of PW1, she deposed that the deceased is her daughter, who completed intermediate and PW1 intended to marry the deceased and accordingly informed the same to LW7/PW4 by name Satyavathi, who brought the marriage proposal with A1 and accordingly, the marriage discussions were held in the house of A1, in which there was a demand of Rs.4,00,000/- and bike as dowry and the same was accepted by PW1 with a condition to give Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of
Pellirata and Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of marriage and the remaining
Rs.2,00,000/- to be deposited in the name of deceased after one year of the marriage and the marriage affiance was held in which A1 presented a gold ring and a mobile to the deceased and PW1 presented Rs.3000/- to A1 for wearing apparels and accordingly, on the event of pellirata, PW1 and her 8 relatives went to the house of accused and offered Rs.1,00,000/- but A1 and
A2 refused to take Rs.1,00,000/- and in turn demanded the entire dowry of
Rs.4,00,000/- at once and later, A1 got informed through LW7/PW4 as A1 not having any interest to marry with the deceased and PW1 came to know on the date of alleged offence, the deceased made a phone call to A1 through a mobile of neighbor and immediately after the phone conversation, she committed suicide and immediately she has taken to the Trust Hospital, where the doctors declared as her daughter dead and later, the police Sarpavaram came and recorded her statement, which is marked as Ex.P1 for the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.
12. PW2 deposed that there was a marriage proposal of the deceased with
A1 through LW7/PW4 and the demand of dowry is of Rs.4,00,000/- and bike and the said proposal was failed after completion of the marriage affiance due to the reason, A1 and A2 demanded the entire dowry at once though they agreed to receive such dowry in spells and finally, he came to know that the deceased made a phone call to A1 through the mobile of LW6(Ginjala Durga
Prasad) and after the said phone call, the deceased went into the house and committed suicide. As per the entire evidence of PW2, it is clear that all the incidents deposed by him is nothing but a hearsay evidence came to know through PW1 only.
13. PW3 deposed that he is brother-in-law of PW1 and as per the marriage proposal brought by LW7/PW4 to the deceased with A1, PW1 agreed to give dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- in spells and accordingly, PW1 went to the house of A1 in his auto along with some other relatives to offer Rs.1,00,000/- in a first spell but A1 and A2 refused to take such Rs.1,00,000/- and also demanded the entire dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- at once.
14. PW4, who is a marriage mediator for the proposed marriage between
A1 and deceased, deposed that PW1 agreed to give dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- 9 on demand of family of accused in spells and accordingly, PW1, herself and others went to the house of A1 to give Rs.1,00,000/- under first spell but the same was refused by A1 and A2 by demanding the entire dowry at once and even in the chief examination, PW4 categorically deposed that at the time of such marriage or dowry discussions, A1 was not present and the family of A1 as well as A1 having a good reputation and accordingly, she informed to the family of PW1 to give deceased in marriage with A1. As the evidence of PW4 appears as contrary to her earlier statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the learned APP got permission to declare PW4 as hostile and even in the cross examination PW4 never gave evidence in favour of the prosecution and the relevant portions of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement are marked as Ex.P2 to P4.
15. As per evidence of PW5, who is grandmother of deceased has deposed in her evidence that the marriage alliance of deceased with A1 was fixed through PW4 and A2 demanded the family of deceased to provide dowry of five lakhs to A1 to marry the deceased, but the family of deceased, after negotiations, agreed to provide dowry of four lakhs and out of such amount, one laksh was agreed to be paid at the time of Pelli Rata, one lakh at the time of marriage, and two lakhs to be paid six months after the marriage in the name of deceased and A1 and she attended for the ceremony of marriage affiance and A1 have provided ring and cell phone to the deceased and A1 of you came to the house of deceased, subsequent to marriage affiance and that on Saturday, she, PW1, PW4, PW3 went to the house of A1 and attempted to handover one lakh to A2 but A2 refused to receive one lakh and threw away one lakh while demanding four lakhs and they all returned home while weeping and four days thereafter, the deceased committed suicide as the proposed marriage was cancelled subsequent to performance of marriage affiance 16. PW6, who is the paternal aunt of deceased, has deposed in her 10 evidence that the marriage proposal of deceased with A1 was arranged through PW4 and marriage discussions are held in the house of A1 of you at
U. Kothapalli and A1 , A2, parents of A1 of you and sisters of A1 have participated in the marriage discussions and herself, PW1, PW3, PW4 and
PW5 had participated in the marriage discussions, A2 demanded PW1 dowry of five lakhs during marriage discussions and on that PW1 agreed to provide dowry of four lakhs, and out of such amount, one lakh to be paid at the time of erecting Pelli Rata, one lakh at the time of marriage and two lakhs was to be deposited in the name of deceased one year after the marriage and marriage affiance took place on one Saturday of Sravana Masam. A1 presented a
Saree, Ring and cell phone to the deceased and the deceased and A1 used to speak to each other over cell phone and Pelli Rata was erected on a Friday and she, PW1, PW5, PW4, the mother of PW1, PW3 went to the house of A1 on the next day of erecting Pelli Rata and sometime after their visit, A2 came to the house of A1 of you and PW1 offered to A2 one lakh as part of dowry and on that A2 of you received one lakh and threw it aside while demanding two lakhs and they came back to their houses with unhappiness in the face of
PW1 and four days thereafter, having received death intimation of deceased, she went to the house of PW1 and notwithstanding marriage affiance, A1 of you refused to marry the deceased until payment of entire dowry, which led the deceased to commit suicide.
17. As per the evidence of PW7, who is an acting Sarpanch of village
Valasapakala that after the incident when A1 and A2 refused to take
Rs.1,00,000/- and when demanded the entire dowry at once, PW1 and deceased approached him and informed the incident and in turn, he advised
PW1 to cancel the marriage proposal as the family of A1 appears as greedy people for money and also advised the deceased to continue her studies for which, the deceased accepted and later, he called A2 and his wife through 11 known persons and enquired the matter.
18. PW8, VRO has deposed in his evidence that on 29.04.2019 the SI of
Sarpavaram PS telephoned to him with a request to come over to the scene of offence to stand as a witness for the scene observation report, whereupon he visited the scene of offence in between 8-15 and 8-30 AM on the even date, where the SI seized Nylon rope and packed it in a cover in his presence and in the presence of one Suribabu and the SI of Police prepared scene observation report in their presence and obtained their signatures thereon and
S.I of Police shot six photographs of crime scene in their presence and thereafter, they were brought to the Government General Hospital, where the inquest report was drafted at the Mortuary room and the Sub Inspector of
Police got shot four photographs of mortal coil of the deceased in their presence and the blood relatives of deceased were present while holding inquest and during inquest, it was held that the refusal of accused to accept one lakh as part of dowry while demanding payment of entire dowry of four lakhs in lump sum after marriage affiance, led the deceased to commit suicide 19. PW9 Dr. P. Uma Maheswara Rao, Professor, Rangaraya Medical
College, Kakinada has deposed that on 29.04.2019 at 12-45 noon he received requisition from the SHO of Sarpavaram PS to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased/ Ginjala Ananantha Lakshmi, female, 25 years, whereupon at 1-00 PM, he commenced postmortem examination over the mortal coil of deceased and concluded by 3-00 PM and on his examination he had found ligature mark in front of the neck above the thyroid cartilage running obliquely upwards and backwards on both sides of the neck and the total length of ligature mark is measuring 22 Cms and width of 0.5 Cms and the gap between the left end and right end is measuring 9
Cms and whereas the ligature mark is absent on the back of the neck and on the front of neck, the ligature mark is measuring 10 Cms below the chin and 12 and 6 CMs above the supra sternal notch and on left side the ligature mark is measuring 8 CMs below left ear and 6 cms from angle of mandible and on right side, it is 5 CMs below the right ear and 4 Cms below the angle of mandible and the ligature mark on both sides extending on to the back of the neck obliquely, the base of ligature mark is hard, brown and parchment like and margins are abraded and ecchymosed and there is no definite pattern on the base of ligature mark and on cut section of ligature mark, the subcutaneous tissues are white and glistening and on dissection of neck :- 1.
The ribbon muscles of neck on both sides are contused corresponding to ligature mark with ecchymosis into the surrounding soft tissues and the hyoid bone is intact, 2. Multiple old, healed hesitation cuts present on both wrists and no other external or internal injuries are seen over the dead body, except the antemortem ligature mark and corresponding ante mortem neck structures findings and he is of the opinion that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of Hanging.
20. PW 10 Sub Inspector of Police, has deposed in his evidence that on 28.04.2019 at 9-15 PM, he received death intimation from the Trust Hospital,
Kakinada, whereupon he rushed to the Hospital, where he recorded the statement of PW1 and basing on its strength, he registered the FIR as a case in Cr.NO.184/2019 under Sec. 174 of Cr.PC for suspicious death and thereafter, the mortal coil of deceased by name Ginjala Anantha Lakshmi has been sent to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada, for autopsy. on 29.04.2019 at 8-30 AM, he visited the scene of offence. he secured the presence of PW8, LW 13 / Ramala Suribabu and in whose presence he drafted scene observation report, shot photographs of crime scene and seized the nylon rope used for committing suicide and thereafter, he proceeded to the
Government General Hospital of Kakinada, where he has examined and recorded statements of PWs 1 to 5 and PW7, LW2/ Ginjala Gangaraju, LW5 / 13
Ginjala Appalaswamy, LW6/ Ginjala Durga Prasad, shot photographs of mortal coil of deceased, held inquest over the dead body of deceased and sent dead body of deceased for autopsy and he altered Section of Law from 174 Cr.PC to Sec. 306 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and that on 30.04.2019, he received Postmortem Certificate and further investigation of crime has been handed over to LW17/M.Gopala Krishna, S.I of Police and that on 22.06.2019, examined PW6, LW11/ M. Manga Nagaratnam and recorded their statements and that on 04.07.2019, laid down Charge sheet.
21. As per the case of prosecution, PW1 having a daughter (deceased) and a son and her daughter studied upto intermediate and they decided to marry the daughter and accordingly they informed to LW7/PW4, who brought the marriage alliance with A1 and accordingly, the marriage discussions were happened in which there is a demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- but the family of PW1 offered to give dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- with a condition to give such
Rs.4,00,000/- in the nature of spells like Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of erecting sacred stick (locally called as pelli rata), Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of marriage and the remaining Rs.2,00,000/- to be deposited in the name of deceased i.e., after one year of the marriage. PW1 deposed that at the time of marriage discussions, A1 demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and thereby the family of PW1 agreed to give Rs.4,00,000/- dowry in the nature of spells as stated above. As per PW1, there is no presence of A2 while discussion of such dowry demanded or agreed. The prosecution examined PW2, who is the son of PW1 and as per the evidence of PW2 in chief he deposed that A2 demanded to provide dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- at least and the said dowry amount is to be given in spells and finally, he deposed that he was not present at the time of such marriage discussion with regard to alleged dowry. As per the evidence of
PW1 appears that A1 directly demanded dowry for the marriage and whereas, as per PW2 the dowry was demanded A2 directly. Here, the demand of dowry 14 either by A1 or by A2 is not corroborated in between the evidence of PW1 and
PW2.
22. As per the evidence of PW1, it was decided to held marriage affiance of
A1 with deceased in the month of August, 2018 and accordingly, the marriage affiance was took place in which the relatives of both families have attended and A1 presented a gold ring, a saree and a mobile to the deceased and in turn, the family of deceased presented Rs.3000/- for purchasing wearing apparels and accordingly, the marriage date was fixed to be solemnized on 23.05.2019. The all witnesses i.e., PW2 to PW7 have categorically deposed the marriage affiance was took place in which the family of A1 presented a gold ring, mobile to the deceased and whereas, the family of PW1 presented
Rs.3,000/- to A1 and there is no contradictions among the above all witnesses with regard to the aspect of performing marriage affiance and also presentations. The counsel for accused argued that there is no such presentation of gold ring, mobile etc., in the occasion of marriage affiance and admitted the marriage affiance without any presentations. No doubt, as per the record, PW1 or the prosecution did not file any kind of photographs showing such presentations as alleged by PW1 in the occasion of marriage affiance. Moreover, during the cross examination of PW1, she deposed as
“Although photographs and videograph are taken to cover the event of
marriage affiance, the photographs and videograph are in the custody of
A1. I did not attempt to secure from the photographer of such
photographs and videographs of marriage affiance.” Though there is a denial on the part of the accused as no such presentations were took place in the marriage affiance and though there is a strong allegation on the part of
PW1 with regard to such presentations, she did not give any sufficient reason or explanation for not securing such photographs and videographs of marriage affiance.
15 23. As per the case of prosecution and as per evidence of PW1, the day of erecting pelli rata being fallen on Friday and the family of PW1 decided to go to the house of A1 on the next day i.e., Saturday and accordingly, they went to the house of A1 and offered Rs.1,00,000/- and by that time the maternal uncle of A1 by name Suribabu, A2 and other relatives were present and immediately after offering Rs.1,00,000/-, A2 demanded the entire dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- at once and accordingly, the offered amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was refused and due to the attitude of A2 while demanding such entire dowry at once, PW1, her family members and other elders came back. The prosecution examined
PW2, who is son of PW1 and as per his evidence, he did not accompany his mother as on the date of offering Rs.1,00,000/- to A1 and also he was not participated in such a discussion when the said Rs.1,00,000/- was refused with a demand to provide the entire amount of Rs.4,00,000/- dowry at once.
Hence, it appears that the evidence of PW2 is a hearsay evidence as he came to know the same through PW1 and others. The prosecution further examined
PW3, who is brother in law of PW1 and as per his evidence, he deposed that he brought his auto and taken PW1, LW10 (M.Subhadra), LW9 (G.Appayamma) and LW7 (Eagala Satyavathi) to the house of A1 to offer
Rs.1,00,000/- and all of them waited for two hours for A2 and at first A2 came there and later, A1 came to his house and after discussions, A2 involved and refused to take Rs.1,00,000/- and demanded the entire dowry at once. As per the earlier Section 161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW3, there is no such statement as PW1 and others have went to the house of A1 in the auto of
PW3 and PW3 also admitted in his evidence as he omitted to say before investigating agency as PW1, himself and others went to the house of A1 in his auto to offer Rs.1,00,000/-. The prosecution further examined LW7 as
PW4, who is mediator for the marriage proposals in between the deceased and A1, who deposed in her cross examination as “I do not know whether
A1 informed the family of deceased after bridal looks that he prepared to
16
marry the deceased without any dowry. No village elders were present
while PW1 offering Rs.1,00,000/- to A2 as part of dowry.” As per the case of prosecution, PW4 is a mediator for the marriage proposals of A1 with the deceased and as per PW1, PW2 and PW3, they alleged that when they intended to offer Rs.1,00,000/- as part of dowry but A2 refused to receive the same and demanded the entire dowry at once. But, as per the evidence of
PW4, it appears that she simply deposed as she does not know that the accused No.1 intended to marry the deceased without any dowry. Moreover, as per PWs 1 to 3, to offer Rs.1,00,000/-, PW1, PW3, mother of PW1,
Kolluboina Gandhalu, PW4, Mediboyina Subhadra and G.Appayamma went to the house of A1 but as per the evidence of PW4, she deposed that no village elders were present at the time of offering of Rs.1,00,000/- to A2.
24. As per PW1, after refusal to receive Rs.1,00,000/- and demand of the entire dowry at once, PW1 and others returned to their house and later, she informed the same to the deceased and they were caught in sorrow and thereafter, they approached a Sarpanch of village, Vakalapudi by name Ginja
Srinu and informed about the attitude of accused and in turn, the said
Sarpanch enquired with the deceased whether to continue her studies or to marry with him and then the deceased agreed to continue her studies and the
Sarpanch also advised to cancel the marriage proposal with A1 and later,
PW1 and deceased came back to the house. The said Sarpanch by name
Ginja Srinivasa Rao was examined as PW7 and as per his evidence appears that he advised PW1 and deceased to cancel the proposal of marriage with A1 under the impression that the accused are greedy of money and also advised the deceased to continue her studies. With regard to the refusal of dowry of
Rs.1,00,000/- and also demand of the dowry at once, PW7 is a hearsay evidence as he came to know about such refusal and demand through PW1.
The prosecution further examined PW3, who also deposed that PW1 and 17 deceased approached PW7, who advised to cancel the marriage proposal and also advised the deceased to continue her studies in evidence in chief. But, during cross examination he deposed that he was not there when PW1 and deceased visited PW7 by informing about refusal and demand of dowry by the accused and he came to know the same through PW1.
25. As per the evidence of PW1, it is the evidence that after the refusal of
Rs.1,00,000/- and demanded the entire dowry amount and basing on the advice of PW7 (Sarpanch), PW1 came to know through PW4 as A1 informed
PW4 that he is not interested to marry the deceased and immediately PW1 informed the same to the deceased about the cancellation of the marriage proposal. During the evidence of PW1, she never deposed as if after deciding of cancellation of marriage proposal, the gold ring and mobile phone were returned to A1 was not stated at any point of time. But, PW2 deposed that he was informed by PW1 as PW1 advised the deceased to return the gold ring and mobile phone. Whereas, PW3 categorically deposed that PW1 entrusted the gold ring and mobile phone to LW7/PW4 to hand over the same to A1.
Whereas, PW4 deposed that PW1 returned gold ring and mobile phone but the same were retained with her without handing over the same to A1till the date of her evidence and she further deposed that she did not return the gold ring and mobile to A1 with a hope to settle the disputes. So, though the prosecution witnesses have stated that after deciding to cancel the marriage proposals, A1 was handed over the gold ring and mobile phone is not believable and moreover, PW1 herself not stated in her evidence that the gold ring and mobile phone were handed over to A1 through PW4. Here, the counsel for accused strongly denied about the presentations of gold ring, mobile etc., in the marriage affiance and as discussed above there is no proof filed by the prosecution to that effect.
26. As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, there are several 18 omissions, which are not covered either in Ex.P1 complaint or in their respective Section 161 Cr.P.C statements and the above witnesses have stated certain things for the first time before this Court and they admitted the same as they omitted to say such things earlier. As per PW1, she admitted about her omissions as “I omitted to state before the investigation officer
both at Trust Hospital and Government Hospital about the date or month
or venue of holding marriage discussions. I also omitted to state before
investigating agency about the family members and elders before whose
presence marriage discussions are held. I omitted to say before
investigation officer that A1 demanded Rs.5,00,000/- dowry, bike and
gold chain. I also omitted to state that I offered Rs.3,00,000/- or
Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry. I omitted to state that I agreed to provide dowry
of Rs.4,00,000/-. I omitted to state before investigation officer that A1
after marriage affiance and before demise of deceased, visited the
deceased in my house twice or thrice and thereafter he used to speak to
the deceased over phone. I omitted to say before investigation officer
about the names of my family members and relatives before whose
presence I have allegedly provided dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- to A1. I
omitted to say before investigation officer that the Sarpanch of
Vakalapudi village by name Ginjala Srinu enquired the deceased whether
she would continue her studies and thereafter advised her to continue
studies for which, she agreed to continue her studies. I omitted to say
before investigation officer that A1 through the mediator of marriage by
name Eagala Satyavathi informed that he was not interested to marry the
deceased. I omitted to say before investigation officer that I approached
my brother in law for informing him about the cancellation of proposed
marriage. I omitted to say before investigation officer about the dates or
venue, where and when I approached the Sarpanch and informed him
about the attitude of accused.” The above omissions are admitted by PW1, 19 which are not stated by PW1 either in narration of Ex.P1 or in the subsequent investigation process and the said omissions are nothing but the statements given for the first time before this Court, which are appear to be material to be stated by PW1 in the earlier statements. The said omissions are confronted through the evidence of PW10, who is investigation officer of this case and who deposed as “PW1 omitted to state that she and the deceased were
caught in sorrow. PW1 omitted to state about the presence of deceased
when she met Sarpanch of Vakalapudi. PW1 omitted to stated that A2
and his wife accompanied by marriage mediator by name Eagala
Satyavathi came to their house, speak to her and left her home. PW1
omitted to state under Ex.P1 about the reason for the deceased to
commit suicide and about suspicion drawn against some persons for
the deceased to commit suicide.” As per the evidence of PW10, investigation Officer with regard to the omissions of PW1 appears that PW1 even not stated the main allegation at the earliest point of time i.e., the reason behind to commit suicide by the deceased including a mere suspect behind the incident of suicide. PW2 also admitted with regard to omissions made by him in the earlier and as per him, he deposed as “ I omitted to say before
investigation officer that I send my mother and other relatives to the
house of A1 for holding marriage discussions. I omitted to say before
investigation officer that I came to know through my mother about the
dowry related discussions held in the house of A1. I omitted to say
before investigation officer that A1 through LW8 (Ginjala Srinviasa Rao)
informed us about cancellation of marriage proposal.” The said omissions are appears as material and moreover, as per the entire evidence of PW2, it is also appear that he never participated either in marriage negotiations or at the event of handing over of Rs.1,00,000/- and making demand to give the entire dowry at once. So, the evidence PW2 is an hearsay evidence. Moreover, the above said omissions are also admitted by PW10, who deposed as “PW2 20
omitted to state that LW6 by name Ginjala Durga Prasad informed him
that the deceased through his mobile phone spoke to A1 and thereafter,
she entered into house while weeping. PW2 omitted to state that A1
visited his house and met deceased twice or thrice after marriage
affiance. PW2 omitted to state he came to know through his mother what
was conspired at the house of A1 when his mother offered Rs.1,00,000/-
dowry. PW2 omitted to state that his mother went to the house of
LW4/PW3 to bring him to their house to console the deceased. PW2
omitted to state that he received phone call from LW6 (Ginjala Durga
Prasad) while he was attending to his duties in Sugar Factory.” As per omissions made by PW2 and also as per evidence of PW10 , it appears that
PW2 has stated a new aspect before this Court for the first time as if, he was informed by LW6 that the deceased made a phone call with A1 and had a conversation and thereafter went into the house and also he received a phone call from LW6. The said omissions are material one but nowhere stated by him during the process of investigation.
27. As per the evidence of PW3, there are certain admitted omissions and
PW3 admitted about his omissions as “I omitted to say before investigation
officer that A1 used to visit the deceased in her house after marriage
affiance and they used to speak with each other over mobile phone. I
omitted to say before investigation officer that the deceased was caught
in sorrow for cancellation of marriage.” The above said omissions are also admitted by PW10 Investigating Officer, who deposed as “PW3 omitted to
state that he took PW1 and others in his auto to the house of A1 for
dowry discussions. PW3 omitted to state that the accused demanded
Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry and the family of deceased reported their inability
to pay dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and the family of deceased offered
Rs.3,00,000/- and after negotiations, the family of deceased agreed to
21
provide dowry of Rs.4,00,000/-. PW3 omitted to state that the dowry
discussions were held in the house of A1. PW3 has omitted to state
specifically the presence of PW5 while offering Rs.1,00,000/-. PW3 has
omitted to state that A2 received Rs.1,00,000/- with his hands and threw
it away. PW3 omitted to state that A1 and A2 known to have visited the
house of PW1 on the next day of discussion about the proposed
marriage and on that, PW1 informed them that there were no relatives to
have discussions and on that, the accused went away.” As per the admitted evidence of PW3 and evidence of PW10 appears that PW3 has omitted the material aspects with regard to the allegation of demand of dowry and also the allegation of A2 received Rs.1,00,000/- with his hands and later thrown it away.
28. PW7, who is Sarpanch of village also admitted his omissions by deposing as “I omitted to say before investigation officer that on hearing
from PW1 and deceased about the attitude of accused in refusing to
accept Rs.1,00,000/- as part of dowry, I felt that the accused are greedy
people for money and as such, I advised the deceased and PW1 to
cancel the proposed marriage, besides advising the deceased to
continue her studies. I omitted to say before investigation officer about
the name of person through whom I secured A2 and his wife. I omitted to
say before investigation officer that PW1 went to the house of A1 on
28.04.2019 and returned to A1 the gold ring and mobile phone.” The above omissions are also admitted by PW10, who is Investigation Officer of the case and he deposed as “PW7 omitted to state specifically that the
deceased accompanied by PW1 approached him in the month of April,
2019. PW7 omitted to state that he called PW1 and the deceased, after
A2, his wife and marriage elders went away and advised them to cancel
the marriage proposal stating that the accused are greedy people for
22
money. PW7 has omitted to state that the date when PW1 accompanied
by the deceased and beat him.” As per the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, after A1 informed through the marriage mediator (PW4) for cancellation of marriage and immediately PW1 informed the same to the deceased and thereafter went to the house of PW7 and informed him about the nature of accused and in turn PW7 advised them to cancel the marriage and also advised the deceased to continue her studies for which the deceased accepted. But, as per the admitted omissions of PW7 as well as the evidence of PW10 appears that
PW7 never stated in the process of investigation that PW1 met him accompanied with the deceased. So it appears that the deceased never come to PW7 along with PW1.
29. As per the case of prosecution and as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is alleged that A1 and A2 demanded the entire dowry at once, it is not possible to the family of A1 and as such, the proposal of marriage was cancelled and on that the deceased and PW1 were felt unhappy and later,
PW1 went to the house of LW4/PW3 (Kolluboyina Gandhalu) to bring him to the house of PW1 to console the deceased and later, she returned to house and came to know through neighbours that the deceased contacted with A1 over a phone and A1 told the deceased that he would not care even if she ends her life and accordingly, she went into the house and committed suicide in the bed room. PW2 also deposed that he attended in a private company and while he was working, he came to know that the deceased committed suicide for the reason of cancellation of marriage as A1 and A2 demanded the entire dowry at once. PW3 also deposed as PW1 came to him and informed about the cancellation of the marriage and later, he came to know that the deceased committed suicide and he brought down the deceased from the position of hanging to a ceiling fan with a nylon rope and later, the remaining witnesses PWs 4 to 8 also deposed that the deceased committed suicide.
23
Here, the very allegation of the prosecution and PW1 is that A1 soon before the committing of suicide by the deceased, the deceased contacted over a phone and made a heat conversation and in result of such heat conversation, the deceased committed suicide in the house. Here, PW1 and other witnesses never stated the name of neighbor through whom they came to know as there was a heat phone conversation happened in between A1 and deceased, which resulted into committing suicide. Moreover, the prosecution alleged that soon before the committing suicide, the deceased made a phone call to A1 through a mobile (SIM No.9014489857) to the mobile of A1 (SIM
No.7780665308). But, the call details of such mobile number 9014489857 is not filed before this Court and moreover, there is no record placed before this
Court to show that the mobile No.7780665308 is that of belongs to A1. As per chargesheet, it is categorically mentioned that the deceased went to
Vakalapudi i.e., her sister’s house and she took the phone of LW6 (Ginjala
Durga Prasad) and made a phone call with A1. Here, the prosecution to establish such aspect as if the deceased made a phone call to A1 through the phone of LW6 is not proved before this Court for the reason that the LW6 was not examined and he was given up by the prosecution basing on the VRO report whereabouts of LW6 are not known. Here, the prosecution examined
PWs 1 to 7 with a view to prove that A1 made a heat phone conversation with deceased and the same was resulted into committing suicide of deceased and as per their evidence, it is very clear that they all came to know about such heat phone conversation through neighbours or LW6 (Ginjala Durga Prasad).
No doubt, LW6 was not examined in this case and also he was given up by the prosecution. No witnesses of prosecution has stated the name of neighbor, who informed about the alleged heat phone conversation to PW1 or to any other. Moreover, as per the evidence of PW1, she admitted as “I was
not there while the deceased spoke to A1 with the cell phone of neighbor
before committing suicide. I do not know about the neighbor from whose
24
cell phone the deceased spoke to A1. My neighbor informed me about
the deceased speaking to A1 through cell phone but I do not know the
name of my neighbor.” Though PW1 has made such serious allegation as the reason of such phone conversation, the deceased committed suicide and the same was informed by her neighbor but in her evidence she is not even in a position to say the name of such neighbor, who informed such phone conversation and PW1 saying that the person is her neighbor in one hand and in another hand, she simply saying that she does not know the name of her neighbor. So, the version of PW1 in her evidence cannot be believable.
30. As per the prosecution case, A1 is the brother in law of A2 and A2 also participated in negotiations of dowry and A2 has refused to take offered dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and demanded to pay the entire dowry at once and thereby,
A2 also committed the offence against deceased along with A1. Though as per chargesheet the relation in between A1 and A2 is mentioned as A1 is the brother in law of A2 but as per the evidence of PW, she simply deposed as if
A2 is a resident of Pithapuram and A1 used to work in cloth store of A2 at
U.Kothapalli village but PW1 or any other prosecution witnesses deposed about such relation as A1 is brother in law of A2. Moreover, the main allegation of prosecution is that the deceased committed suicide and soon
before such suicide, the deceased made a phone call to A1 and had made a
conversation which resulted into such offence of committing suicide. Here, there is no any direct or indirect evidence on the part of prosecution to show that A2 is also reason for such suicide of the deceased.
31. To prove the offence of abatement of suicide, it is primary duty of the prosecution to prove the specific abatement of accused to commit such suicide and as per Section 107 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, which reads as follows.
A person abets the doing of a thing, who:
25
1. Instigates any person to do that thing; or
2. Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
3. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
As per the above Section of law appears that the main ingredients to prove an offence of abatement are instigation, engaging other in conspiracy and intentionally aids. In the present case, the prosecution alleged that before committing suicide the deceased had a heat phone conversation with A1, which is not proved by the prosecution and the reason behind such commission of committing suicide is A1 and A2 demanded dowry. Here, the prosecution did not establish such nature of A1 and A2 either directly or indirectly committed such offences by way of such instigation or engaging persons in conspiracy or intentionally aids. So, it appears that the important three ingredients are not proved by the prosecution to show that A1 and A2 have abeted the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of the above ingredients to prove such abetment, the mere anticipation by the prosecution to say that the phone conversation and the demanding of dowry is the cause of offence of committing suicide by the deceased is not considerable. The prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 7 and none of the witnesses have stated the exact reason for committing suicide except their unproved allegation as
LW6 or some other neighbor have informed PW1 as the deceased committed suicide for the reason of demanding dowry and phone call conversation. But, there is no evidence showing the manner in which the deceased was forced or threatened or abeted to commit such suicide. The prosecution alleged that A1 and A2 have committed an offence of Section 306 of IPC i.e., abetment of suicide. In order to prove such offence under Section 306 of IPC, at first instance the prosecution shall establish any of the three material ingredients 26 to prove such mode of abetment on the part of accused. But, there is no such substantive evidence on the part of prosecution to prove such any of the material ingredients of abetment. So, it appears that the prosecution failed to prove such abetment and in the absence of substantive evidence, it also appears that the prosecution failed to establish that A1 and A2 have committed the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
32. The prosecution further alleged that A1 and A2 also committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of DP Act as A1 and A2 demanded PW1 to provide the entire dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- at once and otherwise, A1 will not marry the deceased due to such unlawful demand of dowry, the deceased committed suicide. The counsel for accused argued that there is no such dowry involved in the marriage proposal of deceased with A1 and also A1 never participated in the dowry negotiations for the reason that A1 intended to marry the deceased without any dowry. No doubt, the marriage mediator i.e.,
PW4 categorically deposed as she does not know that A1 intended to marry the deceased without any dowry and also A1 informed the same to the family of PW1. Except the said evidence, PW4 never specifically deposed that A1 intended to marry the deceased only on the demand of dowry. As per the evidence of PW4 further appears, she admitted that at the time of marriage and dowry negotiations, A1 was not present. To attract the offence under
Section 306 of IPC, there should be the evidence of prosecution to show that there is no other alternative for the deceased except to commit suicide in reaction of the acts of accused.
33. To prove the alleged offence punishable under Section 4 of DP Act, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and out of them all have deposed as if there was demand of dowry. But, all the prosecution witnesses have deposed in an inconsistent version of the quantum of demand of dowry and there is no clear connection of the demand of dowry in the same manner among the evidence 27 of all witnesses. As per PW7, who is Sarpanch of Valasapakala village, he advised PW1 and deceased to cancel the marriage with a presumption that the family of accused appears as greedy people for money. If A1 and A2 are the greedy people for money, there was possibility of retaining the offered amount of Rs.1,00,000/- at the first instance and thereby would demand remaining Rs.3,00,000/- at once. But, in the present case, it was not happened like that. Moreover, even after such demand of dowry at once, there was no possibility to come or visit A2 and his wife to the house of PW1 to settle the marriage A1 and deceased. Moreover, PW1 admitted in her evidence as if, there is no any agreement with regard to demand and agreed dowry for marriage of the deceased with A1.
34. As per PW1, after she approached PW7 along with deceased and informed about the attitude of A1 and A2 in demanding the entire dowry at once, PW7 advised them to cancel the marriage and later, PW1 returned gold ring and mobile phone to A1 through PW4. Here, right from the date of making such unlawful demand dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- at once till the date of Ex.P1 complaint given by PW1, PW1 never approached any Police Station to lodge any complaint to move such unlawful demand made by A1 and A2 into a legal motion. As per the prosecution case and evidence of defacto complainant, it is very clear that for the first time, the defacto complainant has raised dispute of such allegation of making unlawful demand of dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- only after the deceased committed suicide and as per the evidence of PW1, it is also clear that neither A1 nor A2, nor family members of A1 made any kind of unlawful demand either before marriage affiance ceremony or after the marriage affiance.
35. The prosecution further alleged that A1 and A2 have committed the offence of Section 4 of D.P Act and as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution is able to prove the such offence against A1 and 28
A2 and the counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution did not prove the alleged offence under Section 4 of D.P Act beyond reasonable doubt and moreover there are inconnection in between the evidences of prosecution witnesses with regard to such demand of dowry. Here the prosecution relied upon the authorities like AIR 1983 SC Page 1219, LAWs (Madras MAD)- 2008 -4-36 dated 01.04.2008, 1997 Crl.L.J Page 4331 and a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case in between Mrutumjay Biswas Vs
Pranab and another dated 08.08.2013. The court has perused the above said all authorities and found that the said authorities are not applicable for the present facts of the case.
36. In view of above discussion, it appears that the prosecution has also failed to establish such alleged demand of dowry against A1 and A2.
37. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and
A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The property M.O.1 Nylon rope deposited in CPR No.7/2024 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and
Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 7 th day of April, 2025.
Sd/ Sri K.Mothila III Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada.
29
// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution:
PW1:Ginjala Krishna Kumari
PW2:Ginjala Seshagiri
PW3:Kolluboyina Gandhalu
PW4:Eagala Suryavathi
PW5:Ginjala Appayamma @ Booramma
PW6:Mediboyina Subhadra
PW7:Ginjala Srinivasa Rao
PW8:Mohammad Raza
PW9:Dr.P.Uma Maheswara Rao
PW10:S.Tulasi Ram, S.I of Police
For Defence: NONE
Documents Marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1:Statement of PW1
Ex.P2:Relevant portion made in the statement of PW4 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P3:Relevant portion made in the statement of PW4 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P4:Relevant portion made in the statement of PW4 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P5:Scene Observation
Ex.P6:Inquest Report
Ex.P7:Postmortem Report
Ex.P8:Death Intimation
Ex.P9:FIR in Cr.No.184/2019 registered under Sec. 174 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P10:Altered FIR
Ex.P11 : Rough Sketch
Ex.P12:Four Photographs of deceased 30
Ex.P13:Eight photographs covering scene of offence together with CD
For Defence:
Ex.D1:Relevant portion made in the statement of PW4 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C
Material Objects marked
M.O.1:Nylon Rope
Sd/ Sri K.Mothilal III Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge Kakinada 31
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::
KAKINADA
Present:- Sri K.Mothilal III Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada
Monday, this the 7 th day of April, 2025
SESSIONS CASE No. 309 of 2023
(P.R.C.No.40/2020 of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada in Cr.No.184/2019 of Sarpavaram P.S.)
Complainant:STATE represented by it’s Sub Inspector of Police, Sarpavaram Police Station. Description of the :1. Duvvi Simhadri @ Duvva Simhadri S/o Accused Suryanarayana, A/30 years, C/Yadava, D.No.2- 123/a, Vakatippa Village, U.Kothapalli Mandal.
2. Gontuboyina Suryanarayana @ Suribabu W Gunduboyina Suribabu S/o Papayya, A/44 years, C/Yadava, Cloth Business, R/o D.No.13- 2-1M/247, Jaggayya Cheruvu, Pithapuram Mandal. Charge:Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Plea of the Accused:Not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty Sentence or Order:In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The property M.O.1 Nylon rope deposited in CPR No.7/2024 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
DATES OF
Occurrence:28.04.2019 32
Complaint:28.04.2019
Committal Order:24.09.2021
Appearance :27.02.2024
Commencement of trial:04.11.2024
Closure of trial:18.11.2024
Sentence or Order:07.04.2025
Explanation for the delay:
The entire case record was received from the Hon’ble District &
Sessions Judge’s Court, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. Charges
were framed on 18.03.2024 and summons were issued to listed witnesses, fixing schedule for trial. The evidence of prosecution was commenced on 04.11.2024 and the same was closed on 18.11.2024. The prosecution examined on it’s behalf PWs1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P13 and M.O.1. That on 05.12.2024, A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating material available against them and reported no evidence. Hence, evidence of defence was closed on 18.11.2024. That on 12.03.2025, heard arguments of prosecution and defence and thereby Judgment is pronounced. The delay; if any is accordingly answered.
Sd/ Sri K.Mothilal III Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada. Copies submitted to:-
1. The Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, through the Principal District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram for favour of information.
2. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram for favour of information.
3. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.
4. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada.
5. The Director of Prosecution, O/o. DGP & IGP Complex, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
6. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Kakinada.
7. Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada