Sri. L.Venkateswara Rao

C.C.No. 415/2021 I ACMMC/VSP. 1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI L. VENKATESWARA RAO

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Friday, this the 24 th day of September, 2021

Calendar Case No.415/2021

Between :

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. … Complainant

And

1. Vakada Mohan Krishna, S/o. Late Vakada Krishna Rao, Age 38 Years, Caste by Yadava/Golla, R/o. D.No.37-10-19/5, Ayyappa Nagar, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam City.

2. Smt. Padmavathi Vakada, W/o. Late Vakada Krishna Rao, Age 60 Years, Caste by Yadava/Golla, R/o. D.No.36-92- 195/1, Burma Camp, Pattabhi Reddy Gardens, Visakhapatnam City.

3. Vakada Leela Prasad, S/o. Late Vakada Krishna Rao, Age 44 Years, Caste by Yadava/Golla, R/o. D.No.57-24-95/1, Thammadapalem,UrvasiJn.,Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam City.

4. Vakada Someswara Rao, S/o. Late Vakada Krishna Rao, Age 40 Years, Caste by Vadaya/Golla, R/o. D.No.36-92-352/a, Burma Camp, Visakhapatnam City.

5. Koppala Romavathi, W/o. Koppala Prasad, Age 36 Years, Caste by Mala, R/o. D.No.37-10-120/1, Pattabi Reddy Gardens, N.G.G.Os Colony, Visakhapatnam City.

6. Vakada Radha Rani, d/o. Late Krishna Rao, Age 30 Years, Caste by Yadava/Golla, R/o. D.No.36-92-195/1, Burma Camp, Pattabhi Reddy Gardens, Visakhapatnam City.

… Accused 1 to 6

This case is coming on 23-04-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for state and Sri. K.A. Seshu Kumar, Learned Counsel

for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

C.C.No. 415/2021 I ACMMC/VSP. 2

JUDGMENT

The brief averments of the prosecution case are that P.W.1/Smt. Vakada

Triveni Satya Devi presently residing at her parents house from last three months. Opposite to PW-1 house the A.1 used to reside, after that A.1 got acquainted with PW-1. Suddenly A.1 came to PW-1 house and informed to her parents that he likes to marry PW-1, the parents of PW-1 accepted the proposal of A.1 and performed the marriage of PW-1 with a.1 on 14.12.2016 at Ahvana

Kalyana Mandapam, Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage, the parents of PW-1 gave cash of Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry, ½ tula gold ornaments, Rs.40,000/- towards Adapaduchu katnam and

Rs.2,50,000/- towards purchase of gift articles and marriage expenses to A.1 to

A.6 on their demand and after marriage, PW-1 joined her conjugal life with A.1 at the house of her in-laws. In that house PW-1 along with A.1 to A.4 and A.6 are resided under one roof near to the house of A.5 also used to reside.

LW-5/Patnala Sravani neighbour used to come to her house frequently. After that A.1 looked after her well for some days. Then A.1 and A.2 started harassing

PW-1 by saying that if they perform A.1 marriage with another girl they would have not much dowry and thereby harassed PW-1 with fallacious words. After a few days a.1 took one rented house near to his parents house to lead conjugal life. After that A.1 was much addicted to bad vices and used to play rummy play cards in cell phone and avoided PW-1. Then A.1 regularly used to go to his parents house and listen to their words and subjected PW-1 to cruelty. After that PW-1 came to know that A.1 is having physically medical defects and unable to bless children, on that PW-1 took A.1 to KGH for treatment and after diagnosis the doctors declared that A.1 is not having chance to give birth to children and he is unfit. Then PW-1 question A.1 about his health condition, on that A.1 replied that A.2, A.5 and A.6 knows his health problem, then she questioned her in-laws about A.1 health condition, in turn they replied that they

C.C.No. 415/2021 I ACMMC/VSP. 3 doesn’t know about A.1 health problem and gave false reply. After that one day while A.1 went for duty, at the same time her elder brother-in-law A.3 came to PW-1 while she was present alone in kitchen room, then A.3 caught PW-1 from backside and kissed her and told that his brother A.1 was not capable for conjugal life, so A.3 asked PW-1 to fulfill his sexual desire and caused sexual harassment. Immediately, PW-1 rescued from A.3 and came out from the house, then PW-1 informed the same to A.1 and A.2 against A.3. Then they replied that it’s not a mistake to maintain physical relation with A.3, as he is brother-in-law to her. Then PW-1 refused for their words and became depress, at the same time her younger brother-in-law a.4 told A.1 to leave PW-1 and perform another marriage. As A.4 also performed 2nd marriage. Thus A.4 insisted A.1 and subjected PW-1 to cruelty. A.1 used to harass PW-1 by threatening that if PW-1 informs about their problems to anyone, A.1 will end

PW-1 life and thus A.1 threatened PW-1 with dire consequences. A.1 further harassed PW-1 to bring additional dowry, gold and vehicle to have luxurious life. After that their harassment became unbearable, then on 15-04-2020, PW-1 left her in-laws house and went away to her parents house. The PW-1 sent a laywer’s not to A.1 to take her to his house and look after he well. Inturn A.1 sent a counter notice to PW-1 with baseless allegations against PW-1. Hence,

PW-1 lodged a police report against accused. Basing on the report of P.W.1,

L.W.8/Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.

48/2020 for the offences under sections 354, 354-A, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act . During the course of investigation, L.W.8 inspected the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch, examined material witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. During the course of investigation, L.W.8/Sub-Inspector of

Police served notice to A.1, A.2, A.5 and A.6 to appear before him on or before 10-07-2020. Accordingly, on 09.07.2020 A.1, A.2, A.5 and A.6 appeared before

IO and obtained surety bond from them and released them on bail bonds. A.3

C.C.No. 415/2021 I ACMMC/VSP. 4 also appeared before IO and obtained bail bonds with sureties on 29.12.2020 and A.4 also appeared before IO and obtained bail bonds with sureties on 02.01.2021 and released them and after completion of investigation, L.W.8 filed the charge sheet against the accused.

2. The case was taken on file for the offences U/Secs. 354, 354-A of IPC against A.3 and Section 498-A of IPC Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act against A.1,

A.2, A.4 to A.6.

3.After the accused made their appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused is examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 354, 354-A of IPC against A.3 and Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act against A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 for which theyh pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution though cited 8 witnesses in the charge sheet examined

P.Ws.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. The remaining evidence of L.Ws 2, 4 to 7 has been given up by APP and the evidence of L.W.8 has been closed.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence leveled against him in the evidence of P.W.1 and accused reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for

the offences punishable U/Secs. 354, 354-A, 498-A I.P.C and

Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubt or

not”?

C.C.No. 415/2021 I ACMMC/VSP. 5

P O I N T:

9.P.W.1/Vakada Triveni Satya Devi in her evidence stated A.1 is my husband, A.2 is her mother-in-law, A.3 and A.4 are brother, A.4 and A.6 are sisters of A.1. Her marriage with A.1 was performed on 14.12.2016 at Ahvanam

Kalyanamandapam, Murali Nagar in the presence of elders as per Hindu Rites,

Caste and Customs and after her marriage she joined with A.1 and they both lead conjugal life for 10 days at her in-law’s house. Later she and A.1 took a separate house and stayed there for a period of 3 years and she did not bless any children during their wedlock. She further stated due to misunderstandings with the accused family, she gave a report to the police. She does not remember the contents of the report. She identified her signature on the report which is marked as Ex.P1.

10.P.W.2/TM. Nagamani, mother of P.W.1 deposed in the same lines of P.W.1 and she stated that only due to misunderstandings between P.W.1 and accused family, P.W.1 gave a report against accused to the police and she does not know the contents of report. Both P.Ws 1 & 2 did not support the case of prosecution on any aspect and turned hostile. Hence learned APP declared them as hostile and their 161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Exs.P2 & P3 respectively.

11.In the cross examination by the defence PWs 1 and 2 and categorically stated that both entered into compromise in this case and obtain mutual divorce from Hon’ble Family Court and they have no objection to acquit the accused.

12.The prosecution has not examined any other witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. Since P.Ws.1 & 2 who are material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and did not depose anything about the assault or criminal force of the accused towards them, hence, it can be concluded without any hesitation that the prosecution has failed to prove the

C.C.No. 415/2021 I ACMMC/VSP. 6 charges against accused under Sections 354, 354-A, 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Hence, it is held prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, accused are entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, accused 1, 2, 4 to 6 are found not guilty for the charges punishable U/Secs. 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and so also

Accused No.3 is found not guilty for the charges punishable under Section 354, 354-A of IPC and hence they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused 1 to 6 shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me through video conferencing on this the 24th day of September, 2021.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor Defence

P.W.1 : Vakada Triveni Satya Devi -NONE- P.W.2: M. Naga Mani

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 on report Ex.P.2 :U/sec 161 CrPC statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3 :U/sec 161 CrPC statement of P.W.2.

For Defence

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil I ACMM/VSP.

C.C.No. 415/2021 I ACMMC/VSP. 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No. 415 /2021

DATE OF

ApprehensioCommenSentence Release Close of OffenceFilingn ofcement ofor on BailTrial AccusedTrial Order 01020304050607

Prior to28.01.21A.1, A.2, A.5A.1, A.2, A.523.09.2123.09.2124.09.21 and A.6 onand A.6 on 01/07/2020 09.07.202009.07.2020

A.3 onA.3 on 29.12.202029.12.2020

A.4onA.4on 02.01.202102.01.2021

Complainant:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women P.S., Visakhapatnam City.

Name and description of accused:

A1. Vakada Mohan Krishna, S/o. Late Vakada Krishna Rao, Age 38 Years, Caste by Yadava/Golla, R/o. D.No.37-10-19/5, Ayyappa Nagar, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam City.

2. Smt. Padmavathi Vakada, W/o. Late Vakada Krishna Rao, Age 60 Years, Caste by Yadava/Golla, R/o. D.No.36-92-195/1, Burma Camp, Pattabhi Reddy Gardens, Visakhapatnam City.

3. Vakada Leela Prasad, S/o. Late Vakada Krishna Rao, Age 44 Years, Caste by Yadava/Golla, R/o. D.No.57-24-95/1, Thammadapalem, Urvasi Jn., Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam City.

4. Vakada Someswara Rao, S/o. Late Vakada Krishna Rao, Age 40 Years, Caste by Vadaya/Golla, R/o. D.No.36-92-352/a, Burma Camp, Visakhapatnam City.

5. Koppala Romavathi, W/o. Koppala Prasad, Age 36 Years, Caste by Mala, R/o. D.No.37-10-120/1, Pattabi Reddy Gardens, N.G.G.Os Colony, Visakhapatnam City.

6. Vakada Radha Rani, d/o. Late Krishna Rao, Age 30 Years, Caste by Yadava/Golla, R/o. D.No.36-92-195/1, Burma Camp, Pattabhi Reddy Gardens, Visakhapatnam City.

C.C.No. 415/2021 I ACMMC/VSP. 8

Offence: U/Sec. 354 IPC – Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, Sec.354-A IPC - Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, U/Sec. 498-A IPC – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty, Section 3 of D.P. Act –

Penalty for giving or taking dowry, Section 4 of D.P. Act – Penalty for demanding dowry,

Finding: Accused 1 to 6 are found not guilty

Result:In the result, accused 1, 2, 4 to 6 are found not guilty for the charges punishable U/Secs. 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and

Accused No.3 is also found not guilty for the charges punishable under Section 354, 354-A of IPC and hence they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused 1 to 6 shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay and remarks: No Delay This case was taken on file against accused for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 354, 354-A, 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act on 27.02.2021

Copies of the documents furnished to accused on 19.04.2021. Accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Secs. 498-A of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act against A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 and u/Secs. 354, 354-A of

IPC against the A.3 on 19.04.2021. P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and got marked

Exs.P1 to P3. Heard arguments of both sides on 23.09.2021. On 24.09.2021

Judgment has been pronounced.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

1CC No. 410/2020 I ACMMC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI L. VENKATESWARA RAO,

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Wednesday, this the 22 ndDay of September, 2021

Calendar Case No. 410/ 20 20

Between :

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. … Complainant

And

1) Vaddadi Ganesh, S/o. Koteswara Rao, 29 Years, Kapu by caste, R/o. D.No.22- 21-7, Ambedkar Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2) Vaddadi Koteswara Rao, S/o. Pydithalli, 60 Years, Kapu by Caste, R/o. D.No.22-21-7, Ambedkar Colony, Peda Gantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City.

3) Vaddadi Vedhamatru Devi, W/o. Koteswara Rao, 50 Years, Kapu by caste, R/o. D.No.22-21-7, ambedkar Colony, Peda Gantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City. … Accused 1 to 3

This case is coming on this day i.e. 21-09-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for state and Sri. G. Vasudeva Rao, Learned

Counsel for accused 1 to 3 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The brief averments of the prosecution case are that the marriage of PW- 1/Vaddadi Divya Vani took place with accused No.1 on 14.03.2019 at Sri Surya

Function Hall, Kanithi Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam as per Hindu rites and caste customs in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage, parents of

P.W.1 gave cash of Rs.9,00,000/- towards dowry, Rs.1,00,000/- towards adapaduchu katnam, 20 tulas silver and 5 tulas gold and sare articles to the accused on their demand and their marriage was registered by the SRO.

2CC No. 410/2020 I ACMMC/VSP

Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam on 22.03.2019. Later PW-1 and A.1 went to

Kerala on 24-03-2019 and from there to Maldives for Honeymoon trip. When they were in hotel room A.1 started consuming liquor and smoking and upon which PW-1 asked A.1 that before marriage he informed her that he is not in a habit of drinking and smoking and for which he became furious against her, pushed her down forcibly and also abused PW-1 with foul language. A.1 stated that PW-1 and her parents are 3rd class people, the dowry given by her parents is equal to three months salary for him and he is not at all interested in her and he married her at the coercion of his parents. A.1 burnt the hand of PW-1 with cigarette smoking and thereby subjected PW-1 to various kinds of ill-treatment.

When PW-1 questioned A.1 for ill-treating her, he stated that he is having no interest towards her, he is interested in marrying his nearest relative by name

Bhagya, as they offered him Rs.30,00,000/- towards dowry. During their stay in the hotel, PW-1 health was not good, but A.1 did not mind her. PW-1 and a.1 returned to Gajuwaka from honeymoon on 01-04-2019. The parents of PW-1 came to the house of PW-1 and questioned as to why they are harassing PW-1, for which A.1 to A.3 assumed to take good care of PW-1 and beseeches them as such they kept quiet. Later, on 13-04-2019, A.1 went on for work as Civil

Engineer in Bahwasn Engineering Company LLC (B.E.C) Sultanate Muscat and asked PW-1 to get passport to enable her to take with him. After leaving to

Muscat, A.1 did not talk with PW-1 properly and make calls now and then. A.1 to A.3 harassed PW-1 both mentally and physically. As and when PW-1 informed

A.3 that A.1 not talking with her properly, A.3 talked with PW-1 in sarcastic manner and A.2 also used obscene words towards her. When she informed her sister-in-law that she could not able to work in the house alone, her sister-in-law also used obscene words towards PW-1. Later, on 04/05/2019, PW-1 applied passport and she got passport on 09-05-2019 and as she gave the address of

A.2 and A.3, PW-1 has requested A.3 to take delivery of the same. Then A.3 3CC No. 410/2020 I ACMMC/VSP informed that PW-1 would send the passport with A.2 to NAD Kotha Road and further asked PW-1 to collect the same to there and did not come to in-laws house. When PW-1 informed that she would return to their house and keep the passport with them, but A.3 paid deaf ear. PW-1 informed the matter to A.1 and for which A.3 contacted over phone and abused at various kinds, on the pretext that PW-1 informed A.1 against A.3. On 17-05-2019, PW-1 along with her parents went to the house of A.2 and A.3 and parents of PW-1 informed that A.1 is not talking with PW-1 and what are the reasons, for which A.2 revolted the parents of PW-1 and raised hand to beat them. Then PW-1 appraised the facts to the elders and they convened meeting at Anakapalli Vuda Corporation, A.1 to

A.3 attended and when they questioned about the reasons for not taking PW-1, what is the mistake with her and as to why A.1 is not talking with her. For which, A.1 to A.3 informed that A.1 is not having interest to lead conjugal life with PW-1, making phone calls is will and wish of their son and later went away from there. After some days, her sister-in-law’s husband met the parents of PW- 1 and informed that A.1 is having no interest to lead conjugal life with PW-1 and he would return the dowry given by them. Therefore, PW-1 lodged complaint against the accused. Basing on the report of P.W.1, L.W.13 registered a case in

Cr.No.201/2019 for the offences under section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and endorsed the investigation to LW-14. During the course of investigation, L.W.14 inspected the scene of offence, examined material witnesses and recorded their detailed statements and after completion of investigation, L.W.14/Sub-Inspector of Police, Gopalapatnam P.S., verified the same and filed the charge sheet against the accused.

2. The case was taken on file for the offences U/Sec.498-A of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the accused.

4CC No. 410/2020 I ACMMC/VSP

3.After the accused made their appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused are examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution though cited 14 witnesses in the charge sheet examined

P.Ws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. The remaining evidence of L.Ws 3 to 12 has been given up by APP and the evidence of L.Ws 13 and 14 has been closed.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence leveled against them in the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and accused reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for

the offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and

4 of D.P. Act beyond all reasonable doubt or not” ?

P O I N T:

9.P.W.1/Vaddadi Divya Vani in her evidence stated accused No.1 is her husband, A.2 and A.3 are her in-law. Her marriage with accused No.1 took place on 14.03.2019 at Sri Surya Function Hall, Gajuwaka as per Hindu rites and caste customs. After marriage, she joined with accused No.1 and lead her conjugal life for a period of 15 days. Later some misunderstandings arose between herself and accused then they got separated and ever since, they are living separately. She further stated due to such misunderstandings, she gave a 5CC No. 410/2020 I ACMMC/VSP report to the Gopalapatnam Police, Visakhapatnam and she does not remember the contents of the report. She identified her signature on the report which is marked as Ex.P1.

10. P.W.2/J. Venkata Ramana, father of PW-1 deposed in the same lines of PW- 1 and stated that after marriage, PW-1 joined with accused No.1 and they both lead conjugal life for a period of 15 days. Later some differences arose between them and ever since they are living separately. PW-1 gave report against

Accused out of differences only and does not remember the contents of the report.

11.In the cross examination by the defence PW-1 categorically admitted that both entered into compromise in this case and also in the divorce OP filed jointly by both of them for Rs.20.00 lakhs. Out of Rs.20.00 lakhs, PW-1 received

Rs.10.00 lakhs from accused already and the remaining Rs.10.00 lakhs payable to her as per the understanding at the time of hearing of mutual divorce OP and

She and PW-2 also stated that they have no objection to acquit the accused in this case in view of compromise.

12.P.Ws 1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution on any aspect and turned hostile. Hence learned APP declared them as hostile and their 161 Cr.P.C.

statements are marked as Exs.P2 and P.3 respectively.

13.The prosecution has not examined any other witnesses to prove the charges against the accused 1 to 3. Since P.W. 1 who is material witness did not support the case of prosecution and did not depose anything about the harassment of accused 1 to 3 towards her and so also PW-2, it can be concluded without any hesitation that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused subjected P.W.1 to cruelty either mental or physical so as to held them liable for the charges under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

6CC No. 410/2020 I ACMMC/VSP

Hence, it is held prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as as result accused are entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result, accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charges punishable U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and hence they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused 1 to 3 shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me through video conferencing on this the 22nd day of September, 2021.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor Defence

P.W.1 : Vaddadi Divya Vani -NONE- P.W.2 : J. Venkata Ramana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 on report Ex.P.2 :U/sec 161 CrPC statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3 :U/sec 161 CrPC statement of P.W.2.

For Defence

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

I ACMM/VSP.

7CC No. 410/2020 I ACMMC/VSP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No. 410 /2020

DATE OF

ApprehensioCommenSentence Release Close of OffenceFilingn ofcement ofor on BailTrial AccusedTrial Order 01020304050607 Prior to28.01.20A.1 onA.1 on21.09.202121.09.2122.09.21 05.09.201929.10.201930.10.2019 A.2 and A.3A.2 and A.3 onon 21.11.201921.11.2019

Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gopalapatnam P.S., Visakhapatnam City.

Name and description of accused:

1) Vaddadi Ganesh, S/o. Koteswara Rao, 29 Years, Kapu by caste, R/o. D.No.22- 21-7, Ambedkar Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2) Vaddadi Koteswara Rao, S/o. Pydithalli, 60 Years, Kapu by Caste, R/o. D.No.22-21-7, Ambedkar Colony, Peda Gantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City.

3) Vaddadi Vedhamatru Devi, W/o. Koteswara Rao, 50 Years, Kapu by caste, R/o. D.No.22-21-7, ambedkar Colony, Peda Gantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City.

Offence: U/Sec. 498-A IPC – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty, Section 3 of D.P. Act – Penalty for giving or taking dowry, Section 4 of D.P. Act – Penalty for demanding dowry,

Finding: Accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty

Result: In the result, accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charges punishable U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and hence they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused 1 to 3 shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay and remarks: Due to Covid-19 non functioning of courts, the delay occurred and no witness was detained beyond three days.

8CC No. 410/2020 I ACMMC/VSP

This case was taken on file against accused for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act on 28.01.2020 Copies of the documents furnished to accused on 19.04.2021. Accused were examined

U/s.239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against them on 19.04.2021. P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Heard arguments of both sides on 21.09.2021 and posted for judgment on 22.09.2021. On 22.09.2021, Judgment has been

pronounced vide separate.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

1

CC No. 471/2017

I ACMMC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI L. VENKATESWARA RAO,

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Thursday, this the 23 rdDay of September, 2021

Calendar Case No. 471 /20 17

Between :

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. … Complainant

And

1) Potnuru Murali Krushna, S/o. Mohan Rao, Age 29 Years, Vysya by caste, R/o. LIG 299, 7th Phase KPHB colony, Hyderabad,

2) Kpotnuru Mangathayaramma, W/o. Mohan Rao, Age 53 Years, Vysya by caste, R/o. D.No.38-44-2-1, Ranapratakp Nagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam City.

3) Potnuru Mohan Rao, Age 60 Years, Vysyaw by Caste, R/o. D.No. 28-44-2-1, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam city. … Accused 1 to 3

This case is coming on this day i.e. 22-09-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for state and Sri. G. Kumara Swamy, Learned

Counsel for accused 1 to 3 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The brief averments of the prosecution case are that the marriage of PW- 1/Korada Apoorva took place with accused No.1 on 07.03.2015 at Tirupathi as per Hindu rites and caste customs in the presence of elders. At the time of her engagement, parents of P.W.1 gave Rs.1,00,000/- worth of gold, Rs.50,000/- worth of material to the accused on demand and at the time of marriage

Rs.10,00,000/- worth of gold, Rs.50,000/- towards clothes, Rs.50,000/- worth of saresamans was given to the accused on their demand. Rs.2,00,000/- was 2

CC No. 471/2017

I ACMMC/VSP spent for marriage. At the time marriage of PW-1, A.1 is working as Associate

Manager in Cigniti Technology and after her marriage PW-1 was sent to

Marripalem for her in-laws house for matrimonial life. PW-1 stayed 16 days in her in-laws house. Later, she went to Hyderabad with her husband as her husband is working in Hyderabad and they took house at Kukatpally,

Hyderabad. At Hyderabad her husband used to ask her that is having any affairs with any one if she not tell about that he will commit suicide. After that

PW-1 started to come to Visakhapatnam to her parents house but in the mean while her in-laws contacted her and took her to her in-laws house. After 5 days her husband came to Vizag and harassed her by beating her. Later her husband and in-laws including brother-in-law harassed her that the dowry she brought is not sufficient. Later her husband took her to Hyderabad along with her in-laws.

After two days her parents and mother-in-law returned back. Then her husband restricted her not to make calls to her parents. Then her father frightened and went to her in-laws house and started for Hyderabad. Then the same was informed to her by her in-laws. Then she informed to her husband. When her parents came to Hyderabad, her husband told her that to spit on her parents face and slap with chappal and parents. Her husband forced her to walk nudely on the high way. Then her father kept her at her father’s friend house and left for Visakhapatnam. Then her parents raised the dispute in the elders and then her husband came to compromise and told her parents that her husband will look after her well and took her in laws house. Then her husband met with accident and she went to her husband. Then she went to yatras to Kanipakam,

Kalahasthi, Tirupathi. But her husband continued harassment and threatened not to tell about the harassment to her parents. Later when she along with her husband went to Srikakulam then her husband told all her relatives that her and her parents is of bad character. Later on 30-05-2015, they conducted a meeting 3

CC No. 471/2017

I ACMMC/VSP and in that meeting also her husband abused her parents. Later her husband and in laws harass her to bring Rs.3,00,000/- additional dowry from her parents house. Due to that her parents gave 50 grams gold to her in-laws in the presence of elders. Previously, Rs. 25,000/- Rs.15,000/- was deposited into the bank account No.30044927655, SBI, Green Remit Card on 30.03.2015,

Rs.40,150/- on 31.03.2015 was deposited. Her husband beat her due to the chatting with Deepthi friend and due to the less amount salary was given to her husband. On 07.07.2015, her husband beat her and caused injuries on private parts. On 08.07.2015 her family friends informed the same to her parents and her parents brought her to Visakhapatnam on 09.07.2015 for treatment purpose. Due to harassment of the accused, PW-1 lodged complaint against the accused. Basing on the report of P.W.1, L.W.8 registered a case in

Cr.No.117/2015 for the offences under section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. During the course of investigation, L.W.8 inspected the scene of offence, examined material witnesses and recorded their detailed statements and after completion of investigation, L.W.8/Sub-Inspector of Police, Women

P.S., verified the same and filed the charge sheet against the accused.

2. The case was taken on file for the offences U/Sec.498-A, 323 of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the accused.

3.After the accused made their appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused 1 to 3 are examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A , 323 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4

CC No. 471/2017

I ACMMC/VSP

5. The prosecution though cited 8 witnesses in the charge sheet examined

P.Ws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. The remaining evidence of L.Ws 2 to 6 has been given up by APP and the evidence of L.Ws. 7 and 8 has been closed.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence leveled against them in the evidence of P.W.1 and accused reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for

the offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A, 323 I.P.C and Sections 3,

and 4 of D.P. Act beyond all reasonable doubt or not” ?

P O I N T:

9.P.W.1/K. Apoorva in her evidence stated accused No.1 is her husband, A.2 and A.3 are her in-laws. Her marriage with accused No.1 took place on 08.03.2015 at Tirupathi as per Hindu rites and caste customs. After marriage, she joined with accused No.1 and lead her conjugal life and both lead conjugal life for 15 days at her in-law house, thereafter PW-1 and A.1 went to Hyderabad where they stayed for three months. During their wedlock she doesn’t bless any children. Later some misunderstandings arose between herself and accused then they got separated and ever since, they are living separately. She further stated due to such misunderstandings, she gave a report to the Women Police,

Visakhapatnam in the year 2015 against the accused and she does not remember the contents of the report. She identified her signature on the report which is marked as Ex.P1.

5

CC No. 471/2017

I ACMMC/VSP

10.P.W.2/Dr. Korada Prabhakar Rao, father of PW-1. Deposed in the same lines of PW-1 and stated that after marriage, PW-1 joined with accused No.1 at her in-laws house and they both lead conjugal life only for 15 days and they had gone to Hyderabad. In Hyderabad PW-1 and a.1 lived together for 3 months.

Later some differences arose between them and ever since they are living separately. He also stated that during their wedlock PW-1 did not bless any children and she gave report against Accused out of differences only and does not remember the contents of the report.

11.In the cross examination by the defence PWs 1 and 2 categorically admitted that they compromised outside the court and both A.1 and PW-1 decided to obtain mutual divorce from the court and the said mutual divorce petition is coming today for their evidence and they have no objection to acquit the accused in this case.

12.P.Ws 1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution on any aspect and turned hostile. Hence learned APP declared them as hostile and their 161 Cr.P.C.

statements are marked as Exs.P2 and P3 respectively.

13.The prosecution has not examined any other witnesses to prove the charges against the accused 1 to 3. Since P.W. 1 who is material witness did not support the case of prosecution and did not depose anything about the harassment of accused 1 to 3 towards her, it can be concluded without any hesitation that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused subjected P.W.1 to cruelty either mental or physical so as to held them liable for the charges under Section 498-A. 323 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Hence, it is held prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as as result accused are entitled for acquittal.

6

CC No. 471/2017

I ACMMC/VSP

14.In the result, accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charges punishable U/Sec. 498-A, 323 I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and hence they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused 1 to 3 shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me through video conferencing on this the 23rd day of September, 2021.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor Defence

P.W.1 : K. Apoorva -NONE- P.w.2 : Dr. Korada Prabhakar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 on report

Ex.P.2 :U/sec 161 CrPC statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.3 :U/sec 161 CrPC statement of P.W.2.

For Defence

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil I ACMM/VSP.

7

CC No. 471/2017

I ACMMC/VSP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No. 471 /201 7

DATE OF

ApprehensioCommenSentence Release Close of OffenceFilingn ofcement ofor on BailTrial AccusedTrial Order 01020304050607 Prior to22.03.19A.1 on A.1 on 22.09.202122.09.2123.09.21 10.07.201814.10.2015,14.10.2015, A.2 and A.3A.2 and A.3 onon 13.09.201513.09.2015

Complainant: State represented by the Inspector of Police, Women P.S., Visakhapatnam City.

Name and description of accused:

1) Potnuru Murali Krushna, S/o. Mohan Rao, Age 29 Years, Vysya by caste, R/o. LIG 299, 7th Phase KPHB colony, Hyderabad,

2) Kpotnuru Mangathayaramma, W/o. Mohan Rao, Age 53 Years, Vysya by caste, R/o. D.No.38-44-2-1, Ranapratakp Nagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam City.

3) Potnuru Mohan Rao, Age 60 Years, Vysyaw by Caste, R/o. D.No. 28-44-2-1, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam city.

Offence: U/Sec. 498-A IPC – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty, Section 3 of D.P. Act – Penalty for giving or taking dowry, Section 4 of D.P. Act – Penalty for demanding dowry, 323 IPC –

Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt

Finding: Accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty

Result: In the result, accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charges punishable U/Sec. 498-A, 323 I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and hence they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused 1 to 3 shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

8

CC No. 471/2017

I ACMMC/VSP

Explanation for delay and remarks: The prosecution did not produce the witnesses by time to time and non functioning of courts due to Covid-19, the delay occurred and no witness was detained beyond three days.

This case was taken on file against accused for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 498-A, 323 I.P.C and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act on 16.05.2017. Copies of the documents furnished to accused on 12.09.2017. Accused were examined

U/s.239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A, 323 of I.P.C and

Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against them on 20.04.2021. P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Heard arguments of both sides on 22.09.2021 and posted for judgment on 23.09.2021. On 23.09.2021, Judgment has been pronounced vide separate.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

1

CC No. 1394/2019

I ACMMC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI L. VENKATESWARA RAO,

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Thursday, this the 23 rdDay of September, 2021

Calendar Case No.1 394 /20 19

Between :

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. … Complainant

And

1) Kamma Taranikanth, S/o. K.V.N. Murthy, 32 Years, Brahmin by caste, R/o. Flat No.302, Sun N Sea Apartment, C-Block, East Point Colony, Visakhapatnam.

2) Kama Venkata Narayana Murthy, s/o. Late Taranirao (Died)

3) Kamma Ambica, W/o. K.V.N. Murthy, 64 Years, Brahmin by Caste, R/o. Flat No.302, sun N Sea apartment, C-Block, East Point Colony, visakhapatnam.

4) Madugula Sravya, W/o. Rishi Madhav, 33 Years, Brahmin by Caste, R/o. D-29, Casa Garnde Aldea Apartments, Thoraipakam, Chennai. … Accused 1, 3 & 4

This case is coming on this day i.e. 22-09-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for state and Sri. Subrahmanyam, Learned

Counsel for accused 1 , 3 and 4 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The brief averments of the prosecution case are that the marriage of PW- 1/Davuluri Neelima took place with accused No.1 on 26.03.2016 at Vijayawada as per Hindu rites and caste customs in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage, parents of P.W.1 gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, gold chain, gold ring to A.1 as dowry and Rs.30,000/- as Adapaduchu lanchanams given to A.4.

After marriage A.4 went to Hyderabad. After marriage PW-1 joined to her 2

CC No. 1394/2019

I ACMMC/VSP husband for conjugal life at East Point Colony, Visakhapatnam, both lead together for their conjugal life for a period of two months. Later A.1 to A.3 started harassing PW-1 both physically and mentally. PW-1 informed the same to A.4 and and asked PW-1 to come to Hyderabad and she will inform her brother Tarani. PW-1 and A.1 went to Hyderabad and at their A.4 stated false statement to A.1 and tried to separate them. On 25-12-2016, A.1 sent PW-1 went to the house her neighbour (LW-5/Velagapudi Uma Maheswara Rao) and informed about the harassment to LW-5. He called the A.1 and gave counselling and advised him to take her to the house of A.2 and A.3. But there is no change in the behaviour of A.1 to A.3 and harassed PW-1 both physically and mentally.

Later A.1 is used to talk phone severely and chatting with others. On suspicion,

PW-1 checked his phone in the month of May 2017 and she came to know that

before marriage A.1 is having illegal contacts with call girls and chatting with

brokers. PW-1 informed the same to A.2 and A.3 and they also supported A.1.

PW-1 went to her parents house and informed the same to her parents and they asked the A.1 to A.3 about their behaviour A.1 accepted his mistake and take

PW-1 to Visakhapatnam and living separately. But, A.1 did not stay along with

PW-1 and went to the house of A.2 and A.3. PW-1 cannot bear the harassment and went to her neighbour (LW-6/Varanasi Sitaramaiah), LW-6 tried to call A.1, but A.1 did not listen his words and vacated the house. On 11-06-2018, A.1 resigned his job and leave PW-1. A.1 to A.3 harassed her both mentally and physically with active of A.4. Hence, PW-1 lodged complaint against the accused. Basing on the report of P.W.1, L.W.10 registered a case in

Cr.No.140/2018 for the offences under section 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act. During the course of investigation, L.W.10 inspected the scene of offence, examined material witnesses and recorded their detailed statements 3

CC No. 1394/2019

I ACMMC/VSP and after completion of investigation, L.W.10/Sub-Inspector of Police, Women

P.S., verified the same and filed the charge sheet against the accused.

2. The case was taken on file for the offences U/Sec.498-A of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the accused.

3.After the accused made their appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.During pendency of this case, A.2 reported died and filed death certificate of A.2. Hence, case against A.2 is abated on 22.07.2021.

5. The accused 1, 3 and 4 are examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution though cited 10 witnesses in the charge sheet examined

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The remaining evidence of L.Ws 2 to 7 has been given up by APP and the evidence of L.Ws. 8 to 10 has been closed.

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

Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence leveled against them in the evidence of P.W.1 and accused reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for

the offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and

4 of D.P. Act beyond all reasonable doubt or not” ?

4

CC No. 1394/2019

I ACMMC/VSP

P O I N T:

10.P.W.1/Davuluri Neelima in her evidence stated accused No.1 is her husband, A.2 and A.3 are her in-laws. A.4 is the sister of A.1. Her marriage with accused No.1 took place on 26.03.2016 at AVijayawada as per Hindu rites and caste customs. After marriage, she joined with accused No.1 and lead her conjugal life and both lead conjugal life for 1½ year at her in-law house, thereafter PW-1 and A.1 shifted to a separate house at Yendada where they stayed for six months. During their wedlock she doesn’t bless any children.

Later some misunderstandings arose between herself and accused then they got separated and ever since, they are living separately. She further stated due to such misunderstandings, she gave a report to the Women Police,

Visakhapatnam in the year 2018 against the accused and she does not remember the contents of the report. She identified her signature on the report which is marked as Ex.P1.

11. In the cross examination by the defence PW-1 categorically admitted that both entered into compromise in this case before elders and she has no objection to acquit the accused in this case in view of compromise.

12.P.W-1 did not support the case of prosecution on any aspect and turned hostile. Hence learned APP declared them as hostile and her 161 Cr.P.C.

statement is marked as Ex.P2 respectively.

13.The prosecution has not examined any other witnesses to prove the charges against the accused 1, 3 and 4. Since P.W. 1 who is material witness did not support the case of prosecution and did not depose anything about the harassment of accused 1, 3 and 4 towards her, it can be concluded without any hesitation that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused subjected P.W.1 to cruelty either mental or physical so as to held them liable for the charges 5

CC No. 1394/2019

I ACMMC/VSP under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Hence, it is held prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as as result accused are entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result, accused 1, 3 and 4 are found not guilty for the charges punishable U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and hence they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused 1, 3 and 4 shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me through video conferencing on this the 23rd day of September, 2021.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor Defence

P.W.1 : Davuluri Neelima -NONE-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 on report

Ex.P.2 :U/sec 161 CrPC statement of P.W.1.

For Defence

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil I ACMM/VSP.

6

CC No. 1394/2019

I ACMMC/VSP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No. 1394 /201 9

DATE OF

ApprehensioCommenSentence Release Close of OffenceFilingn ofcement ofor on BailTrial AccusedTrial Order 01020304050607 Prior to22.03.19A.1 on A.1 on 22.09.202122.09.2123.09.21 10.07.201810.07.2019,10.07.2019, A.2 and A.3A.2 and A.3 onon 12.07.2018,12.07.2018, A.4 onA.4 on 18.09.201918.09.2019

Complainant: State represented by the Inspector of Police, Women P.S., Visakhapatnam City.

Name and description of accused:

1) Kamma Taranikanth, S/o. K.V.N. Murthy, 32 Years, Brahmin by caste, R/o. Flat No.302, Sun N Sea Apartment, C-Block, East Point Colony, Visakhapatnam.

2) Kama Venkata Narayana Murthy, s/o. Late Taranirao (Died)

3) Kamma Ambica, W/o. K.V.N. Murthy, 64 Years, Brahmin by Caste, R/o. Flat No.302, sun N Sea apartment, C-Block, East Point Colony, visakhapatnam.

4) Madugula Sravya, W/o. Rishi Madhav, 33 Years, Brahmin by Caste, R/o. D-29, Casa Garnde Aldea Apartments, Thoraipakam, Chennai.

Offence: U/Sec. 498-A IPC – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty, Section 3 of D.P. Act – Penalty for giving or taking dowry, Section 4 of D.P. Act – Penalty for demanding dowry,

Finding: Accused 1, 3 and 4 are found not guilty

Result: In the result, accused 1, 3 and 4 are found not guilty for the charges punishable U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and hence they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused 1, 3 and 4 shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

7

CC No. 1394/2019

I ACMMC/VSP

Explanation for delay and remarks: Due to Covid-19 non functioning of courts, the delay occurred and no witness was detained beyond three days.

This case was taken on file against accused for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act on 26.04.2019. Copies of the documents furnished to accused on 30.07.2019. Accused were examined

U/s.239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against them on 22.07.2021. P.W.1 was examined and got marked

Exs.P1 and P2. Heard arguments of both sides on 22.09.2021 and posted for judgment on 23.09.2021. On 23.09.2021, Judgment has been pronounced vide separate.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

1CC No. 323/2015 I ACMMC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI L. VENKATESWARA RAO,

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Thursday, this the 23 rdday of September, 2021

Calendar Case No.323/2015

Between :

State represented by the Inspector of Police, Arilova Zone, PM Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. … Complainant

And

Dokkara Nagarjuna, s/o. Appa Rao, Age 24 Years, Yadava Caste, R/o. D.No.18-354, Netaji Nagar, Chinagadili. … Accused

This case is coming on 22-09-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for state and Sri. Ch. Ravi, Learned Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The brief averments of the prosecution case are that P.W.1/Anuradha acquainted with the accused and they exchanged their phone numbers and on 30.07.2014, accused went to her college and called PW-1 through phone to come to his house, she did not accept her offer and on her return from college, she got down the bus at Netaji Nagar bus stop, the accused came there and told her to go somewhere. The she wept and did not accept . Then accused called his 2nd sister Urimiti Annapurna to help them. But she admonished them and called her parents, elder sister and his husband. They sent her from their house but she refused. They sent the accused from that place to elsewhere.

Accused trapped the PW-1 under the guise of love with sexual intention developed intimacy with her she also loved her accepting his proposal as he promised to marry her, he had taken her to his house though she refused to 2CC No. 323/2015 I ACMMC/VSP come. There when his parents and sisters opposed to his proposal, he reversed his version and broke his promise to marry the PW-1 He changed his tone by saying that he did not know her though he talked to her daily in his mobile.

Then PW-1 lodged complaint in the police station. Basing on the report of

P.W.1, L.W.6/Inspector of Police, Arilova Zone, PM Palem P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.722/2014 for the offences U/Secs.417, 354-A of IPC. During the course of investigation, L.W.6 inspected the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. Police arrested the accused on 05.02.2015 and after completion of investigation, L.W.6/Inspector of Police,

Arilova Zone, PM Palem P.S., filed the charge sheet against the accused.

2. The case was taken on file for the offences U/Secs. 354-A and 417 of IPC against the accused.

3.After the accused made his appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused is examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 354-A(i)(ii) & 417 IPC for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution though cited 6 witnesses in the charge sheet examined

P.Ws.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. The remaining evidence of L.Ws 2 and 4 has been given up by APP and the evidence of L.Ws. 5 and 6 has been closed.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence leveled against him in the evidence of P.Ws 1 & 2 and accused reported no defence evidence.

3CC No. 323/2015 I ACMMC/VSP

7. Heard both sides.

8. The point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for

the offences punishable U/Secs. 354-A (i)(ii) & 417 of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt or not” ?

P O I N T:

9.P.W.1/victim in her evidence stated she is resident of Shiva Sankar Nagar,

Arilova, Visakhapatnam. She know accused, he used to reside in their neighbouring street at Arilova. About 7 years back out of some misunderstanding she gave a report against the accused to the police. She does not remember the contents of report at present. She identified her signature on the report which is marked as Ex.P1.

10.P.W.2/Ommi Srinivasa Rao, father of PW-1 deposed in the same lines of

PW-1 and he stated that accused is their neighbour, about 7 years back out of some misunderstandings, PW-1 gave a report against the accused to the police.

He does not, remember the contents of report at present. Both P.Ws 1 & 2 did not support the case of prosecution on any aspect and turned hostile. Hence learned APP declared them as hostile and their 161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Exs.P2 & P3 respectively.

11.In the cross examination by the defence Pws 1 and categorically admitted that both entered into compromise in this case.

12.The prosecution has not examined any other witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. Since P.Ws1 & 2 who are material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and did not depose anything about sexual harassment and insulting modesty of P.W.1, it can be concluded without any hesitation that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused subjected P.W.1 to sexual harassment and insulted her modesty so as to held him liable for the 4CC No. 323/2015 I ACMMC/VSP charges under Sections U/Secs. 354-A & 417 of IPC. Hence, it is held prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as a result accused is entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable

U/Secs. 354-A (i)(ii) & 417 of IPC and hence he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me through video conferencing on this the 23rd day of September, 2021.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor Defence

P.W.1 : Ommi Anuradha -NONE- P.W.2 : Ommi Srinivasa Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 on report Ex.P.2 :U/sec 161 CrPC statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3 :U/sec 161 CrPC statement of P.W.2.

For Defence

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil I ACMM/VSP.

5CC No. 323/2015 I ACMMC/VSP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No. 323 /2015

DATE OF

ApprehensiCommenSentence Release Close of OffenceFilingon ofcementor on BailTrial Accusedof Trial Order 01020304050607 Prior to23.02.1505.02.201505.02.201522.09.2122.09.2123.09.21 28.11.2014

Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Arilova Zone, PM Palem P.S, Visakhapatnam City.

Name and description of accused:

Dokkara Nagarjuna, s/o. Appa Rao, Age 24 Years, Yadava Caste, R/o. D.No.18- 354, Netaji Nagar, Chinagadili.

Offence: U/Sec. 354-A(i)(ii) IPC – Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment and Sec. 417 IPC – Punishment for Cheating

Finding: Accused is found not guilty

Result: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable

U/Secs. 354-A (i)(ii) & 417 of IPC and hence he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay and remarks: The prosecution did not produce the witnesses time to time, due to Covid- 19 non functioning of courts, the delay occurred and no witness was detained beyond three days.

This case was taken on file against accused for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 354-A (i)(ii) & 417 of IPC on 25.02.2015. Copies of the documents furnished to accused on 20.02.2019. Accused is examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/Secs.354-A(i)(ii) & 417 of IPC against him on 16.10.2019. P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Heard arguments of both sides on 22.09.2021. On 23.09.2021 Judgment has been

pronounced.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.