1
APNE100005352016
Presented on : 13-12-2016 Registered on : 21-08-2018 Decided on : 30-07-2025 Duration : 8 years, 7 months, 17 days
IN THE COURT OF
Junior Civil Judge-cum Judicial Magistrate
AT ATMAKUR ,NELLORE
(Presided Over by L. JAGADEESH KUMAR)
CC/241/2018
Exhibit No.
Complainant(PROSECUTION): Sub Inspector of Police, Atmakur PS Through Police Station Officer ACB Nizambad 178, Atmakur Mandal.
ATMAKUR NELLORE
VERSUS
Accused: Shaik Abdul Subhahan Age: 42 Occupation : Jalaiah Nagar village of Atmakur Mandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State Complainant}: Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for Sri S.Mahadeva Reddy appearing for Shaik Abdul Subhahan Advocate appearing for , respectively. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence punishable under : 498-A of INDIAN PENAL CODE,
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 30-07-2025)
2
ORDER
1.The accused is/are acquitted of the offence/offences punishable under 498-A of INDIAN PENAL CODE, of 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.His bail bonds are cancelled. He is set at liberty.
3.After appeal period,
(a)The seized {property} destroyed/returned to (name and address)./confiscated to State
(b)The seized (Property2}be destroyed/returned to (name and address)./confiscated to State
(c)The seized (Property3) be destroyed/returned to (name and address)./confiscated to State
Date : 30-07-2025 (L. JAGADEESH KUMAR)
Junior Civil Judge-cum Judicial Magistrate
ATMAKUR NELLORE
Dictated on :
Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :
(L. JAGADEESH KUMAR)
Junior Civil Judge-cum Judicial
Magistrate
ATMAKUR NELLORE
3
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::
ATMAKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT
Present:Sri L.Jagadeesh Kumar
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur
Wednesday, this the 30th day of July, 2025.
Calendar Case No. 241 of 2018
Crime No. 178 of 2016 of Atmakur Police Station
Between: The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur Police Station… Complainant.
And
Shaik Abdul Subhahan, S/o.Chinna Khajamiya, aged about 42 years, Muslim, Jalaiahnagaram Village, Atmakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
… Accused.
This case is coming on 03.07.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri S.Mahadeva Reddy, Advocate for the accused 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 Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur PS, SPSR Nellore District filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.178/2016 for the offence
U/s.498-A of IPC.
2. (a)The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of PW1 was performed with her maternal uncle at 13 years of her age and she was blessed with a female child. Five months after the birth of that girl child, the husband of PW1 died.
Subsequently, there was some acquaintance between PW1 and the accused and the accused used to visit the house of PW1 frequently and friendship developed between them and later they also married at AS Pet
Dargah in the presence of the relatives of PW1. During their marital life, they were also blessed with two children PWs 2 and 3.
While so, the accused married one Noorjahan without consent of PW1.
PW1 questioned the accused about the marriage. The elders of the accused 4 intervened and pacified the matter and convinced PW1 not to file any case.
Out of fear, the accused visited the house of PW1 for few days but later the accused used to pick up quarrels with PW1, harassed her both physically and mentally and hatched a plan to discard PWs 1 to 3. In pursuance of his plan, during night time of one day, the accused visited the house of PWs 1 to 3, picked up quarrel with them, set fire to the marriage photos, family photos and also took away some connected records. He also changed his name in the ration card of PW1 and got mentioned the name of her first husband and also deleted the aadhar cards of PWs 2 and 3. When PWs 1 to 3 asked the accused about his cheating, he paid deaf ear to the words of PWs 1 to 3 and continuously harassed PW1 both physically and mentally.
While so, on 17.11.2015, PW2 went to the accused to request for return of his aadhar card for applying scholarship in the college, for which the accused grew wild against PW2, picked up quarrel with him and beat him. In turn, PW2 informed the same to PW1. Later, PW1 filed a maintenance case
before the Court. Later the accused visited the house of PWs 1 to 3 along
with his family members, picked up quarrel with them to withdraw the case and threatened them with dire consequences. Having afraid of the harassment of the accused, PW1 lodged a Private Complaint before the
Court.
PW4 registered the Private Complaint forwarded by the Court as a case in Crime No.178/2016 for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC. He secured the presence of PWs 1 to 3, LW4/Patan Jilani and LW5/Ravula Subbarathnamma, examined them and recorded their statements. He also visited the scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence. PW5 took up further investigation in this case and served notice U/s.41-A Cr.P.C on the accused. Later, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
3.On filing of charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance of the 5 offence U/s.498-A of IPC against the accused.
4.On appearance of the accused before this Court, copies of all the documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to him in compliance with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
5.The accused is examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC and a charge has been framed against the accused for the offence
U/s.498-A of IPC, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.
6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 5 on it's behalf and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of accused.
7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating evidence available in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence.
8.Heard both sides and perused the record.
9.Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution is able to drive home the guilt of
the accused for the offence punishable U/s.498-A of IPC
beyond reasonable doubt?
P O I N T :-
10. (a)In order to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence
U/s.498-A of IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused subjected
PW1 to cruelty. The explanation of 498-A of IPC is very much clear that cruelty means (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or 6 valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
(b)In this legal backdrop, as seen from the record, the second part of the offence can be safely brushed aside against the accused as there are no allegations of any harassment against the accused in respect of any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security.
(c)Coming to the first part of the offence, admittedly, the law is set into motion by PW1 by way of lodging a Private Complaint before the Court, which was forwarded to Atmakur Police for investigation and report. As seen from the Ex.P1
Complaint, it discloses that the there were no disputes between the couple and the entire tussle between them started when the accused said to have been married one Noorjahan in the year 2001. Since then the accused neglected PW1 and her children and thereby harassed them both physically and mentally.
On one day night, the accused also destroyed the evidence of his marriage with PW1 by threatening PW1 and her children. Moreover, the accused claimed that
PW1 was not his wife and PWs 2 and 3 were not his children. When the same was questioned by PW2, the accused even tried to kill PW2 by squeezing his neck and attempted to kill PW1 and PW3. Then PW2 and PW1 lodged a report before Atmakur police station. But police instead of registering the report lodged by PW2 and PW1, registered the report lodged by the accused against PW2 in Crime No.150/2015 for the offence U/s.448 and 324 of IPC and got arrested PW2. The accused had also taken away the five sovereigns of gold and cash of Rs.30,000/- of PW1.
(d)On the other hand, it is the contention of the accused that PW1 is not his wife nor PWs 2 and 3 are his children. The entire cross-examination of PW1 is on the lines that there is no marriage between PW1 and the accused. The learned counsel for the accused invited the attention of this Court to the admissions made by PW1 in her cross-examination.
During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, PW1 admitted that the house in which she is residing is in the name of her first husband. She also deposed that the elders fixed her marriage with the accused one day prior to the marriage at AS Pet. Her marriage was performed at a mosque 7 at AS Pet at about 6.30 pm. The parents of the accused did not attend the marriage.
On behalf of PW1, her grand father, her sister and brother-in-law attended the marriage. She does not know whether her marriage with the accused was performed as per Muslim Law and formalities or not. She never led marital life with the accused by staying in the house of the parents of the accused. She further voluntarily deposed that she used to go to their house with children now and then.
There was no voter identity card for the accused with her address at Atmakur. She does not remember whether photographs were taken at the time of her marriage.
She never saw any photographs of her marriage at any point of time.
From the above evidence of PW1 in her cross-examination, it indicates that she never resided along with the accused in the matrimonial home. PW2, who is the son of PW1, deposed in his cross-examination that the accused was residing in a rented house near Nalanda School, JR Pet and her mother used to go that house and come back. He further deposed that he visited his paternal grand father for about ten times. During that time, the accused was residing with his paternal grand father. He cannot say in which years the accused resided with them in their house.
(e)In order to establish the fact that the husband of PW1 is only Khajavali but not the accused, the accused, during the course of his examination U/Sec.313
Cr.P.C filed the certified copy, of the list of houses on which tax is imposed and the certified copy of list of voters of 20th ward issued by the Commissioner, Atmakur
Municipality under RTI Act and as seen from the said documents the name of
Khajavali is shown as the husband of PW1.
(f)Be it as it may, the direct dispute between the Court is not whether the accused is the husband of PW1 or not but it has bearing on the charge leveled against the accused for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC. The very definition of Sec.498-
A of IPC indicates that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman, to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore, if the accused is not the husband of PW1, the offence in question would not attract.
(g)Needless to mention that the burden heavily lies upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he is charged, 8 beyond reasonable doubt. The Private Complaint lodged by PW1, which was forwarded to PW4 categorically discloses that the tussle between the couple started when the accused married one Noorjahan in the year 2001. When such is the case, the Investigating Officer would have established that fact by collecting evidence.
But the record is absolutely silent about the marriage of the accused with
Noorjahan. Further, it is also alleged by PW1 in her Ex.P1 Complaint that the accused was claiming that PW1 was not his wife and PWs 2 and 3 were not his children. When such is the case, the Investigating Officers would have collected the evidence about the marriage between PW1 and accused by examining any witnesses or by collecting any documentary evidence. As per the statement of PW1, her marriage with the accused was performed at AS Pet dargah. But during the course of cross-examination, PW1 deposed that her marriage was performed in a mosque at AS Pet at about 6.30 pm. She denied the suggestion that no marriages would be performed at mosques. She does not know who was the ‘Khaji’, that performed the marriage. There was no any fixation of ‘Mehr’ for the marriage. She does not remember whether photographs were taken at the time of her marriage.
She never saw any photographs of her marriage at any point of time.
(h)The Investigating Officers PWs 4 and 5 would have collected evidence with regard to the mosque or dargah where the marriage is said to have been performed and by which ‘Khaji’ the marriage is said to have been performed. But there is no scrap of paper filed by the prosecution to establish that fact. Moreover, according to PW1, only her grand father, sister and brother-in-law attended the marriage. The prosecution even failed to let in the evidence of either the sister or the brother-in-law of PW1 to throw light on that aspect.
(i)Further, it is the allegation of PW1 in her Ex.P1 Complaint that on one day night, the accused trespassed into her house and committed theft of the evidence of her marriage with the accused such as their family photos and documents and while he was leaving the house, PW1 woke up and restrained the accused from taking away the documents, for which the accused threatened to pour acid and kill PWs 1 to 3 and took away the documents and set fire to them.
When coming to her evidence, she deposed as if the accused poured acid on 9 her and she sustained burn injuries on her right hand, right armpit and right thigh.
She further deposed in her cross-examination that she lodged a report before police when the accused poured acid on her. The neighbors also rushed to her house but the accused ran away. She does not remember the date, month or year of that incident.
Needless to mention that, as per the contents of Ex.P1 Complaint it was only a threat from the accused to pour acid. When coming to her evidence, she developed her version as if the accused poured acid on her, for the reasons best known to her. Had really, the incident in question happened, PW1 would have lodged a report before police and the neighboring witnesses would also have been brought into picture.
As seen from the entire version of PW1 in her Ex.P1 Complaint, her grievance is that the accused started neglecting PWs 1 to 3 after he married one Noorjahan.
In view of the very allegations of PW1 against the accused are reverberating around the marriage of the accused with Noorjahan and the very denying of the marriage by the accused with PW1, the evidence let in by the prosecution is hardly sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused U/Sec.498-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
The cardinal principle of Criminal Administration of Justice is that the onus is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. From the facts on hand, the prosecution failed to meet such parameters.
Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
11.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC. Hence, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be remained in force for another period of six months from the date of this judgment in compliance with Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation directly on computer, by Stenographer Grade-III of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of July, 2025.
Sd/-L.JAGADEESH KUMAR,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
ATMAKUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
10
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
PW1/Shaik Beebijan. - NONE – PW2/Shaik Sulthan Shareef. PW3/Shaik Shekhan Sha. PW4/M.Purnachandra Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police of Atmakur P.S. PW5/Shaik Khaji Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police of Atmakur P.S.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For prosecution: Ex.P1 is report given by PW1. Ex.P2 is Original FIR. Ex.P3 is the Rough Sketch. For Defence: NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
NIL
Sd/-L.JAGADEESH KUMAR,
JMFC, ATMAKUR.