Smt Kondabolu Sunitha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT,

VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: Smt Sunitha Kondabolu,

Judge, Prl.Family court-Cum- IV Addl.District Judge

Vijayawada

FAC/ Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 30 th day of July, 2024

S.C.No.16/2024.

(PRC No.34/2023 of VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vijayawada.)

1.Name of the accused1.Bitra Uma Kanth, S/o.Dhana Raju, 33 years, C/Padmasali, Patamata, Vijayawada, now at Sanath Nagar, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

2.Bitra Sakkubai, W/o.Dhana Raju, 59 years, C/Padmasali, Patamata, Vijayawada, now at Sanath Nagar, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

3.Udata Kiranmayi, W/o.Seshu Babu, 39 years, C/Padmasali, Patamata, Vijayawada, now at Sanath Nagar, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

2. ChargeU/s.304-B of IPC.

3. Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty

3. Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty

4. Sentence or orderIn the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.304-B IPC and they are 2 acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall remain in force for a period of 6 months and thereafter shall stand cancelled as contemplated under Section 437-A

Cr.P.C.

The property deposited in C.P.537/2023 i.e.,

MO1 two pieces of chunny, MO2/Iron hook and screws deposited shall be destroyed after appeal time is over and MO3 Infinix Smart phone broken screen used by the deceased shall be returned to PW1 Masanam Venu,

S/O.Sangaiah being father of the deceased and

MO4 Sea blue colour smart phone used by A1

Bitra Umakanth, S/o.Dhana Raju shall be returned to him after appeal time is over. Mos 1 to 4 shall be sent to committing Magistrate for disposal accordingly as provided Under Rule 226 of Criminal Rules of Practice.

5.Prosecution conducted Sri Ch.Vishnu Vardhan, Addl. Public Prosecutor, By:Mahila Sessions Judge’s Court, Vijayawada.

6.Name of the Advocate Sri.P.Gowtham Reddy.

for accused.

7. Cr.No. & Name ofCr.No.259/2023 of Penamaluru Police Station the Police station.

8. PRC No. & Name of thePRC No.34/2023 of VI Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Committed Court 3

This case is coming on this day of 30th day of July, 2024 for hearing before me and of hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram Sub-Division laid charge sheet against A1 to A3 in Cr.No.259/2023 of Penamaluru

P.S. for the offence U/s.304-B IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Bitra

Sahaja is wife of A1 and they were got married on 11.06.2020 at

Dwaraka Tirumala. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased gave a flat at Shamshabad, Gold jewellery worth of Rs.2 lakhs and

Rs.50,000/- as Dowry gift as requested by A1 and his parents. A1 is running a printing press at Vijayawada along with A2 none other than his father. The deceased and A1 were blessed with a daughter viz.,

Vedasri Deepthi. A3 is elder sister of A1 and she is living in the back side portion of building of A1 along with her son due to differences with her husband.

3. It is the further case of the prosecution that A1 looked after the deceased properly for a period of 1 ½ of year after the marriage.

Thereafter A1 along with A2 and A3 started harassment to the 4 deceased saying that the dowry brought by her was not sufficient to them. The parents of the deceased having known the demand of the accused came to their house 3 or 4 times and requested A1 to A3 not to harass the deceased. But there was no change in the behaviour of A1 to A3. Further A1 used to beat and torture the deceased very often on the instigation of A2 and A3 which was being informed by the deceased to her parents.

4. While so, on 21.03.2024 at 10.30 am the deceased Sahaja called her father over cell phone stating that A1 was suspecting her fidelity and harassing her physically and mentally and beat her. Later A1 refused the proposal of the deceased to celebrate the 2nd birthday of her daughter at the house of her parents at Hyderabad and there had been an altercation between the spouses on the said issue. There upon the deceased went into the bed room and bolted inside and later found hanging to ceiling fan with chunny. The deceased was shifted to Vijaya hospital and from there to Time hospital, where the duty doctor examined the deceased declared that she was died.

5. Basing on the report dated 22.03.2023 presented by father of the deceased, SI of police, Penamaluru P.S. registered a case in

Cr.No.259/2023 U/s.304-B IPC. Later a requisition was sent to conduct 5 inquest on the dead body of the deceased. The SDPO,, Gannavaram took up investigation and visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and got photographed the scene and seized two pieces of chunny and iron and screws and got prepared scene observation report and also prepared rough sketch on 22.03.2023 at 7 am.

6. The Tahasildar/Mandal Executive Magistrate, Penamaluru conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Government hospital in the presence of panchayatdars, blood relations of the deceased on 22.03.2023 at 11 am and recorded their statements. Later the dead body of the deceased was sent to Medical officer, Government hospital, Vuyyuru for autopsy. Later the SDPO, Gannavaram examined and recorded the statements of parents, other family members of the deceased and neighbours of the scene of offence.

7. A1 was arrested by the SI of police, Penamaluru P.S. on the instructions of SDPO, Gannavaram on 22.03.2023 at 6.30 pm and he was sent for remand. A2 and A3 were arrested on 29.03.2023 under the cover of mediators report and in pursuance of their confession seized broken screen Infinix company smart phone of the deceased and one plus company sea blue colour smart phone of A1 in the presence of mediators. On receipt of RFSL report after collecting final opinion from 6

Medical officers as to the cause of death of the deceased on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against A1 to A3.

8. The VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vijayawada has taken cognizance of the offence U/s.304-B of IPC against A1 to A3 and numbered the case as P.R.C.No.34/2023. After furnishing copies to A1 to A3 under Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada under Section 209 Cr.P.C. and after

numbering the same as S.C.No.16/2024, the case was made over to this court for disposal.

9. After appearance of A1 to A3 on hearing prosecution and accused, charge U/s.304-B of IPC was framed against A1 to A3, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10. In course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P23 and MOs1 to MOs4. Thus, the prosecution evidence is closed.

11. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating evidence depose against them and reported no oral and documentary evidence.

The case of the accused is total denial.

7

12. Heard the learned Addl.P.P. and counsel for A1 to A3.

13. Now, the point that arise for consideration is:

1.Whether the deceased Bitra Sahaja committed suicide by hanging in the house of A1 to A3 on 21.03.2023 within 7 years of marriage and soon

before her death had A1 to A3 subjected her to

cruelty in connection with dowry?

2.Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the offence U/s.304 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT No.1:-

14. The prosecution has to prove that the death of the deceased

Sahaja was homicidal and she was died within 7 years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty soon before her death to attract the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC.

15.The father of the deceased examined as PW1 lodged Ex.P20 report where it was alleged that his deceased daughter was subjected to harassment by A1 to A3 for additional dowry which was being informed to him by the deceased over phone. It is also mentioned in the said report that soon before her death on 21.03.2023 at 10.30 am the deceased called him over phone and informed that A1 was subjecting her to physical and mental harassment by beating and suspecting her 8 fidelity and insulting her parents. According to the recitals of Ex.P20 report the death of the deceased may be homicidal but not suicide.

16.The medical evidence brought on record under Ex.P13 PM report,

Ex.P14 RFSL report and Ex.P15 Final report discloses that the cause of death of the deceased was due to Asphyxia due to hanging. It is also found from the recitals of Ex.P16 scene observation report and Ex.P17 inquest report that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Since the deceased died within 7 years of marriage A1 to A3 were charge sheeted for the offence U/s.304-B IPC.

17.The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of parents, other blood relations and neighbours of the deceased to speak about the alleged harassment meted out to her by A1 to A3 soon before her death. But PWs1, 2 and 4 being parents and brother of the deceased,

PW3 & PW10 neighbours, PW5 to PW7 relations of the deceased did not support the prosecution version. It is only there evidence that the deceased committed suicide by hanging but they do not know the reasons for her death. PWs1 to 7 contradicted their statements before the police as well as Mandal Executive Officer under Ex.P1 to P12 &

P19 deposing that they did not state that due to the harassment of A1 to

A3 the deceased committed suicide by hanging within 7 years of her 9 marriage. The prosecution could not elicit any information from their cross-examination to establish the allegation levelled against A1 to A3.

18.The evidence of PW8 medical officer, who conducted autopsy under Ex.P13 and issued Ex.P15 final report based upon Ex.P14 RFSL report as to her opinion for cause of death of the deceased is not in dispute. The only incriminating evidence brought on record is the evidence of PW9 VRO, PW11 MRO and PW12 and PW13 Investigating officers.

19. It is the evidence of PW9 VRO that the scend of offence at the house of the accused was inspected by PW13 and seized MO1/two pieces of chunny and MO2/iron hook and screws under Ex.P16 scene observation report. It is also her evidence that inquest was conducted by PW11 under Ex.P17 inquest report in the presence of herself and other mediators. Her further evidence discloses that A2 and A3 were arrested under Ex.P18 mediators report and MO3 and Mo4 cell phones used by the deceased and A1 were seized. PW11 spoke about inquest conducted by him under Ex.P17 and opinion of the blood relations and panchayatdars.

20.It is found from the above testimony of PW9 that except MO1 and

MO2 no incriminating material was found at the scene of offence, out of 10 which MO1 was two pieces of chunny and MO2 is iron hook and screws of the door which was unbolted after suicide committed by the deceased. Above material is no way helpful to the prosecution case to prove any of the allegations levelled against A1 to A3.

21.As per the evidence of PW11 on the strength of the statements of the blood relations of the deceased, the panchayatdars concluded that due to harassment of A1 to A3 the deceased committed suicide. But none of the blood relations and neighbours of the deceased examined among them have corroborated the said opinion mentioned in Ex.P17 inquest report.

22. The scope of inquest U/s.174 Cr.P.C. is only in respect of cause of death. As such the opinion recorded under Ex.P17 inquest report that

A1 to A3 subjected the deceased to physical and mental harassment for

additional dowry, due to which the deceased committed suicide within 7

years of marriage is no way helpful to the prosecution case in the absence of any evidence brought on record.

23. PW12 spoke about registration of case under Ex.P21 FIR based on Ex.P20 report of PW1 and apprehension of A1. Further PW13 IO narrated the investigation conducted by him as to the examination of scene of offence under Ex.P22 rough sketch prepared by him and 11 inquest conducted over the dead body and examination of PWs1 to 7 and 10 and opinion collected from PW8. He also spoke about apprehension of A2 to A3 and seizure of Mos 1 to 4. But none of the prosecution witnesses except PW8 Medical officer, PW9 VRO and

PW11 MRO supported the investigation conducted by PWS12 and 13 and Ex.P20 report was not corroborated by PW1 being father of the deceased. Further more no incriminating evidence could be collected through Mos 3 and 4 cell phones like call data to connect A1 to A3 with the offence alleged against them.

24.It is apparent from the above discussed evidence that it could only be established by the prosecution that the deceased committed suicide by hanging within 7 years of her marriage. But absolutely no incriminating evidence could be brought on record by the prosecution to prove that death of the deceased was homicidal and soon before her death, the deceased has been subjected to physical and mental harassment by A1 to A3 for additional dowry within 7 years of her marriage to attract the offence U/s.304 IPC. Thus, point is answered.

12

POINT No.2:-

25. It is clear from the above discussion that the prosecution could not establish the charge U/s.304-B IPC against A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly point is answered.

26.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence

U/s.304-B IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall remain in force for a period of 6 months and thereafter shall stand cancelled as contemplated under Section 437-A

Cr.P.C.

27.The property deposited in C.P.537/2023 i.e., MO1 two pieces of chunny, MO2 Iron hook and screws shall be destroyed after appeal time is over and MO3 Infinix Smart phone broken screen used by the deceased shall be returned to PW1 Masanam Venu, S/O.Sangaiah being father of the deceased and MO4 Sea blue colour smart phone used by A1 Bitra Umakanth, S/o.Dhana Raju shall be returned to him after appeal time is over. MOs 1 to 4 shall be sent to committing

Magistrate for disposal accordingly as provided Under Rule 226 of

Criminal Rules of Practice.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of July, 2024.

IV Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada FAC/Mahila Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

13

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1Masanam Venu. PW.2Masanam Bharathi. PW.3Shaik Baajan. PW.4Masanam Sanjay Vara Kumar. PW.5A.Srinivasa Rao. PW.6U.Yatwik Sri Vasu. PW.7Gongura Venkateswarlu. PW.8Dr.P.Tejaswi. PW.9P.G.Sai Sarojini. PW.10Taslima Sultana. PW.11T.V.Satish. PW.12M.Arjuna Raju. PW.13Kaila Vijaya Paul.

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE: None EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Signature on the report of PW1. Ex.P2Statement of PW1. Ex.P3Statement of PW1. Ex.P4Statement of PW2. Ex.P5Statement of PW2. Ex.P6Statement of PW3. Ex.P7Statement of PW4. Ex.P8Statement of PW4. Ex.P9Statement of PW5. Ex.P10Statement of PW6. Ex.P11Statement of PW7. Ex.P12Statement of PW7. Ex.P13PME report dt.22.03.2023. Ex.P14RFSL report dt.12.05.2023. Ex.P15Final report dt.29.05.2023. Ex.P16Scene observation report dt.22.03.2023. Ex.P17Inquest report dt.22.03.2023.

14

Ex.P18Mediators report dt.29.03.2023. Ex.P19Statement of PW10. Ex.P20Report of PW1. Ex.P21FIR. Ex.P22Rough sketch. Ex.P23Letter of advice.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO1 .. Two pieces of chunny. MO2 .. Iron hook and screws. MO3 .. Infinix Smart phone. MO4 .. Sea blue colour smart phone.

IV Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada FAC/Mahila Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

15

TABULAR FORM

TO BE APPENDED TO THE JUDGMENT AS PER THE RULE 67 OF

CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE.

***

SESSIONS CASE NO.16/2024.

1Sessions Case :16/2024 Number 2PRC Number:PRC No.34/2023 of VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Vijayawada.

3Crime Number and :Cr.No.259/2023 of Penamaluru Police Station. Name of the Police Station 4Description of :1.Bitra Uma Kanth, S/o.Dhana Raju, 33 years, accusedC/Padmasali, Patamata, Vijayawada, now at Sanath Nagar, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. 2.Bitra Sakkubai, W/o.Dhana Raju, 59 years, C/Padmasali, Patamata, Vijayawada, now at Sanath Nagar, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. 3.Udata Kiranmayi, W/o.Seshu Babu, 39 years, C/Padmasali, Patamata, Vijayawada, now at Sanath Nagar, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. 5Date of

a) Offence: 21.03.2023

b) Complaint: 21.03.2023

c) Apprehension of : 23.03.2023 – A1 accused29.03.2023 – A2 & A3

d) Released on bail: 15.05.2023 – A1 26.04.2023 – A2 & A3

e) Committal: 04.01.2024

f) Commencement of: 21.06.2024 trial

g) Closure of trial: 08.07.2024

h) Judgment: 30.07.2024 16 6R e s u l t In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.304-B IPC and they are acquitted under Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to

A3 shall remain in force for a period of 6 months and thereafter shall stand cancelled as contemplated under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

The property deposited in C.P.537/2023 i.e.,

MO1 two pieces of chunny, MO2/Iron hook and screws deposited in C.P.No.537/2023 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over and MO3 Infinix

Smart phone broken screen used by the deceased shall be handed over to PW1 Masanam Venu,

S/O.Sangaiah being father of the deceased and

MO4 Sea blue colour smart phone used by A1

Bitra Umakanth, S/o.Dhana Raju shall be returned to him after appeal time is over. Mos 1 to 4 shall be sent to committing Magistrate for disposal accordingly as provided Under Rule 226 of

Criminal Rules of Practice.

7Explanation for delay: This case was taken on file U/s.304-B against in this Court:accused A1 to A3 on 02.05.2022 on the file of the VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vijayawada and made over to this Court and record received on 12.01.2024 and issued summons to accused A1 to A3. On 09.02.2024 charges U/s.304-B of IPC was framed against the accused A1 to A3.The trial schedule was issued on 10.06.2024. PW1 to PW3 were examined on 21.06.2024. PW4 to PW6 were examined on 24.06.2024. PW7 & PW8 were 17 examined on 25.06.2024. PW9 was examined on 01.07.2024. PW10 to PW12 were examined on 02.07.2024.PW13 was examined on 08.07.2024. On 12.07.2024 the accused A1 to A3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and posted for arguments. On 22.07.2024 heard arguments and posted for Judgment to 30.07.2024. On 30.07.2024 judgment was pronounced.

8Explanation for delay:The explanation for delay in PRC.No.34/2023 was in lower Court: submitted by the lower court separately.

Under the above circumstances, there is no delay in this Court.

IV Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada FAC/Mahila Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.

Copies to:

1) The VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vijayawada

2) The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City.

3) The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mahila Sessions Court, Vijayawada.

18 // True Copy// Superintendent, Mahila Sessions Court, Vijayawada.

19

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT,

VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: Smt Sunitha Kondabolu,

Judge, Prl.Family court-Cum- IV Addl.District Judge

Vijayawada FAC/ Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 22nd day of July, 2024

Crl.M.P.No.133 of 2024 in Crl.M.P.No.393 of 2024

in

Cr.No.338/2024 of Penamaluru Police Station)

Between:

1.Chekuri Jyothi, W/o.Prakash rao @ Prasad, Hindu, 45 years, R/o.Sai Neelima Apartments, Vinayaka Nagar, Kanuru, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. 2.Chekuri Prakash Rao @ Prasad, S/o.Ramadasu, Hindu, 56 years, R/o.Sai Neelima Apartments, Vinayaka Nagar, Kanuru, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

.. Petitioners/A1 & A2

And

The State, SHO,

Penamaluru Police station .. Respondent/complainant

This petition is coming on 19.07.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Ravindra Prasad, Advocate for petitioners/A1 & A2 and ofSri Ch.Vishnu Vardhan, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent and upon perusing the material papers available on record and having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 483 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. in Crime

No.383/2024 of Penamaluru Police Station registered for the offence under

Sections 302, 379, 120-B r/w.34 of IPC seeking to modify the condition im- posed while granting bail in Crl.M.P No.393/2024 dt.26.06.2024.

2

2.The petitioners/A1 & A2 involved in the offences under Sections 302, 379, 120-B r/w.34 of IPC were granted bail on executing a personal bond of

Rs.25,000/- with two sureties with conditions as per orders in Crl.M.P

No.393/2024 dated 26.06.2024.

3.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners/A1 & A2 and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor.

4.The Counsel for the petitioners/A1 & A2 submited that the petitioners/A1 and A2 are white ration card holders and they belong to very poor family and they are unable to produce sureties for Rs.25,000/- each.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that orders may be pronounced on merits.

6. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners/A1 & A2 are entitled to modification of bail orders?

7. POINT: As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of

Maharastra vs. Dadamiya Babu Miya Sheikh, AIR 1971 SC 1722 held that a surety bond is a contract and it is a question as to how far its terms can be considered to have been varied by any unilateral Act. Each bond it may be pointed out has to be construed on its own terms. But in construing the terms of surety bond for the production of an accused person, the purpose and object of executing it must be kept in view. Such a bond is executed for the purpose of ensuring the presence of the accused concern in court in which he is starting his trial for a criminal offence at the hearing of the case.

8.Coming to the case on hand, the petitioners/A1 and A2 who were granted bail on 26.06.2024 are unable to furnish personal bond for

Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties for a likesum each and on account of financial in capacity of their families they are languishing in jail despite granting bail. The prime object of the surety is to secure the presence of the accused for the purpose of concluding investigation and trial after filing 3 charge sheet. In consideration of the above facts, it is a fit case to reduce the surety amount by modifying the earlier bail order. Thus point is answered.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order dt.26.06.2024 in Cr- l.M.P.393/2024 in Cr.No.338 of 2024 of Penamaluru P.S. is modified to the extent that the petitioners/A1 and A2 shall execute a personal bond of

Rs.10,000/- each with a single surety for likesum each and other conditions shall remain unaltered.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer Grade-III, cor- rected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of July, 2024.

Sd/-Sunitha Kondabolu,

IV Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada FAC/Mahila Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Copy to

1. SHO, Penamaluru P.S. 2.The learned VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vijayawada.

3. The Counsel for the petitioners/A1 & A2.

//true copy// 4