C.C.No. 131/2018 1 Dated : 19-06-2024
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:BOBBILI
Present:- Smt. M.Rohini Rao, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili, FAC- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili
Wednesday, this the 19th day of June, 2024.
C.C.No. 131/2018 Between:-
State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Bobbili circle, Vizianagaram District.
..…… Complainant
And:
Meesla Rama Rao S/o Simhachalam, 39 years, Caste by Kapu, Kondakenguva village, Ramabadrapuram mandal.
..……. Accused.
This case came on 17-05-2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned APP for the prosecution and of M.Simhachalam, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1.The Inspector of Police, Bobbili circle L.W.12. S.Govindarao has laid down charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 498-(A) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act in crime no. 760/2017 of Bobbili Police Station against the accused.
2.The brief facts of the charge sheet as follows…
That about 19 years back LW1 Meesala Appalanarasamma legally wedded of the accused at Kondakenguva village of Ramabadrapuram Mandal, to their caste customs. At the time of their marriage, her parents (LWs 2 to 3 Attada Apparao and
Attada Ramanamma) gave amount of Rs, 2,00,000/- dowry and paraphernalia worth rupees of Rs 50,000/- and gold ornaments 5 tulas to the accused. Due to their wedlock she got one daughter by name Pavani and one son by name Ganesh. The accused treated her properly for a period of one month only. Thereafter the accused develop d dislike and started harassment to her both mentally and physically to bring
additional dowry of Rs 1, 50,000/- from her parents’ house. The accused used to bet
her brutally and made tortures to her. The accused failed to provide food and clothes to her and children. The accused used to abused in a filthy language and beat her often even without her fault and, the accused necked out from the house. Later the complainant came to her parents house along with her children, and LW1 to Lw3
C.C.No. 131/2018 2 Dated : 19-06-2024
Meesala Appalanarasamma, Attada Apparao and Attada Ramanamma informed the same to their village elders, (LW6 to LW8 Avala Guruvulu, Avala Thirupathi and Gorja
Satyam), they conducted panchayath in the village, the accused agreed before the village elders to taking the complainant and looked properly after that the accused taking the LW1 to Kondakenguva village, the accused looked her properly for few days, again started harassment mentally and physically for bring additional dowry of
Rs, 1, 50,000/- from her parents’ house. One month back, the accused taking the gold ornaments from her body, and necked out her from the house, she has no other alternative. Then she came to her parents house along with her children’s. Later LW 1 to 3 Meesala Appalanarasamma, Attada Apparao and Attada Ramanamma informed the same to village elders and they calling to the accused and conducted panchayath in the village, but the accused did not heed the elders and did not take her back the complainant and also demanded if they would pay Rs1,50,000/- additional dowry only he would take back the complainant. During the course of investigation, L.W.11
V.Mangamma registered a case in Crime No 760/ 2017 U/s 498 -A IPC of Bobbili Ps.
LW12 S.Govindarao took up the investigation and examined as many as 10 witnesses, recorded their statements, on 29.9.2017 served notice U/s 41 (a) Cr.PC to the accused. and after completion of investigation, L.W.12 S.Govindarao Inspector of
Police, Bobbili Circle, filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.
3. This case was taken on file for the offences punishable under 498-(A) IPC and
Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, against the accused.
4. After appearance of the accused before this Court, the relevant copies of case papers were furnished to him as required under section 207 of The Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973.
5. Then accused was examined under section 239 of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and accusation for the offences punishable under section 498-(A) IPC and Sec.
3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the accused, read over and explained to accused in Telugu language, whereupon he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 6 are examined and Ex.P.1 and P.2 are marked for the prosecution and the evidence of remaining witnesses are given up by learned APP and as such the evidence of prosecution side was closed.
C.C.No. 131/2018 3 Dated : 19-06-2024
7. The required examination of the accused under section 313 of The Criminal
Procedure Code,1973 has been examined and explained the evidence of P.W.1 to
P.W.6, he denied the same.
8. Thereafter, the accused has reported no defence evidence and accordingly defence side evidence was closed.
9. Heard the arguments of both sides.
10. Now the point that arise for determination in the case on hand is whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused for the offences punishable under
Section 498-(A) IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, beyond all reasonable doubt or not.“?
11. Point:
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perused case record, the case of the prosecution is that about 19 years back PW1 Meesala Appalanarasamma legally wedded to the accused at Kondakenguva village of Ramabadrapuram Mandal, to their caste customs. At the time of their marriage, her parents Attada Apparao and
Attada Ramanamma) gave amount of Rs, 2,00,000/- dowry and paraphernalia worth rupees of Rs 50,000/- and gold ornaments 5 tulas to the accused. Due to their wedlock she got one daughter by name Pavani and one son by name Ganesh. The accused treated her properly for a period of one month only. Thereafter the accused develop d dislike and started harassment to her both mentally and physically to bring
additional dowry of Rs 1, 50,000/- from her parents’ house. The accused used to bet
her brutally and made tortures to her. The accused failed to provide food and clothes to her and children. The accused used to abused in a filthy language and beat her often even without her fault and, the accused necked out from the house. Later the complainant came to her parents house along with her children, and Meesala
Appalanarasamma, Attada Apparao and Attada Ramanamma informed the same to their village elders Avala Guruvulu, Avala Thirupathi and Gorja Satyam, they conducted panchayath in the village, the accused agreed before the village elders to taking the complainant and looked properly after that the accused taking the PW1 to
Kondakenguva village, the accused looked her properly for few days, again started harassment mentally and physically for bring additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- from her parents house. One month back, the accused taking the gold ornaments from her body, and necked out her from the house, she has no other alternative. Then she came to her parents house along with her children’s. Later Meesala
C.C.No. 131/2018 4 Dated : 19-06-2024
Appalanarasamma, Attada Apparao and Attada Ramanamma informed the same to village elders and they calling to the accused and conducted panchayath in the village, but the accused did not heed the elders and did not take her back the complainant and also demanded if they would pay Rs1,50,000/- additional dowry only he would take back the complainant. To prove this allegation the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2.
12.Pw1 is the complainant and victim in this case, she clearly and categorically narrated that her marriage is solemnized with accused in the presence of elders at
Kondakenguva of Ramabhadrapuram Mandal as per Hindu caste custom. At the time of marriage, her parents presented two lakhs rupees as dowry, house hold articles worth value fifty rupees and 5 tulas gold ornaments, then she joined with the companion of the accused at Konda Kenguva village to lead conjugal life and they blessed with two children, elder daughter by name Pavani and younger son Ganesh.
They lead happy conjugal life for a period of one month and petty quarrel cropped up in between us and the matter is placed before elders. the elders resolve the issue and they joined and lead conjugal life. Thereafter the accused started harassed her physically and mentally and demanding her to bring additional dowry of rupees one lakh fifty thousand, and he came to the house in drunken state and beat her indiscriminately and he did not provide food to her and her children and did not provide basic amenities and necked out her and her children from the matrimonial home and demanding her to bring Rs.1.50,000/- as additional dowry. Later they approached the elders of Kondakenguva village, they instructed them to proceed due process of law as the accused did not heed the words of the elders. As she has no other go to join her parental home at Komatipalli village. Later she reported the incident to the police.
13. When the evidence of PW1 is testified she did not stated anything she only corroborating her evidence she admitted that the father of the accused and her mother are the brother and sister. With regard to the relation ship with both the family friendly talking terms are existed. Her younger sister is given marriage Relli Sankara Rao is the resident of Kondakenguva village. She further stated that her father having no landed property in his name, he is doing coolie works and feeding the children. He has no bank balance in his name. At the time of presentation of dowry she was present. At the first instance she deposed at the time of presenting the dowry, she was not present. Again she stated at the time of presentation of dowry she was present. The 2nd statement is correct. At the time of presentation of dowry herself, her father and her mother are present. Except her oral evidence, there is no documentary proof to show
C.C.No. 131/2018 5 Dated : 19-06-2024 that about the presentation of the dowry to A1. Her parents not purchased any house hold articles instead of presentation of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of the house hold articles. Her parents and myself alone present. Except her oral testimony, there is no documentary proof for presentation of house hold articles so also presented 5½ tulas gold presented to A1. There is no documentary proof for purchase of 5 ½ tulas gold.
She further categorically admitted that she had given report the Ramabhadrapuram police against the accused with regard to the harassment and cruelty meted out in the hands of accused that complaint is not registered. She had not given any proofs to the
Bobbili police. The matter is placed before Kondakenguva village elders to resolve the issues in between her and the accused. She cannot say the date and year of the panchayat. Her marriage performed at Kondakenguva village and she used to reside and lead conjugal life in Kondakenguva. Her family and her sister’s family were residing in Kondakenguva village after the consummation of the marriage. Her sister and her husband known the fact that they are placed the matter before the
Kondakenguva village elders. Even the domestic petty quarrels cropped in between her and accused and she adjusted and stayed at Kondakenguva village for a period of 10 days. After 10 days of the panchayat, her husband beat her and necked out her along with her children. She cannot say the date and year he beat her and necked out her and thrown from the matrimonial home. Further she stated that accused beat
PW1, she has not placed cogent evidence. There is no material placed before the
Court that accused harassed her by physically and mentally by abusing her and threatened her with dire consequences and also threatened her children and harassed them physically and mentally.
14.In support of contention of PW1, PW2 who is the mother of the PW1 deposed that her daughter PW1 marriage was solemnized with accused for the last 25 years back, at the time of marriage we gave dowry two lakhs and 5 tulas of gold ornaments and paraphernalia are presented to the accused. During their wedlock they blessed with two children the alleged accused harassed her daughter and beat her daughter in a drunken state after the delivery of two children. ”the in-laws of PW1 and sister in law used to harass her daughter and beat her daughter and demanding to bring additional dowry of rupees one lakh fifty thousand. After the delivery of children, the accused beat her daughter and taken away gold ornaments. The matter is placed before elders by name Avala Ramarao and Avala Guruvulu and Gorja Satyam and also presented the elders of the accused both the elders trying the pacify the issue and instructed them to re-union and lead conjugal life and the accused assured the elders to take back her daughter and her children and to look after their welfare property. But he did
C.C.No. 131/2018 6 Dated : 19-06-2024 not change his attitude and repeated the same acts. Again her daughter approached the elders and informing the attitude of the accused and they suggested them, even the elders reprimanded and stated number of times and he did not change his attitude as they wish to approach the police to take appropriate action. Accordingly police registered the case.
She clearly and categorically stated in her cross examination that the alleged accused is her relative. The father of the accused is her own brother. After come to the conclusion the accused is good person and given her daughter to marriage. There is good relation is existed in between her and her brother i.e., the father of the accused.
Prior to the marriage of her daughter had given two lakhs rupees to her brother as dowry at his residence in presence of four other persons. She cannot say the names of the persons who attended on that day. There is no documentary proof to show that about the presentation of the two lakhs rupees dowry to her brother for marriage, except her oral evidence there is no documentary proof. There is no documentary proof and other evidence about the presentation of the dowry to the accused family So also they presented paraphernalia and additionally fifty thousand rupees is presented
Except her oral evidence there is no documentary about the paraphernalia and
additional amount of fifty thousand rupees to the accused family Alter consummation
of marriage her daughter joined with the companion of the accused and begotten two children till the delivery of two children she stayed with the accused at Kondakenguva village. She admitted that as on the date of marriage her daughter and her son now used to cultivate the lands at Kondakenguva till the delivery of two children and thereafter also they used to cultivate the lands. The Aadhar and ration card stood in the Kondakenguva village in the names of the children, her elder grand daughter is joined at her village and two other children are Joined in Ramabhadrapuram. Her daughter and her son in law jointly feed the two other children for a period of one year.
Her grand son studied up to 2nd class at Kondakenguva, thereafter came to her village.
They provided the education to her grand children They reported to
Ramabhadrapuram police about the harassment meted out in the hands of the alleged accused. She is ready to produce the documentary proof abut the report is given to
Ramabhadrapuram police. She further admitted that after some time the alleged accused and the PW1 went to Ongole and various places for coolie works to meet the family expenditure, but the same is not stated by the Pw1. There is no corroboration between the evidence of PW1 and PW2.
The PW2 further stated that they are not filed any report before the police and informing that the alleged accused beat her daughter and taken away her gold ornaments. Except her oral evidence, there is no documentary proof about alleged
C.C.No. 131/2018 7 Dated : 19-06-2024 accused beat her daughter and taken away gold ornaments. She directly witnessing the harassment and cruelty meted out in the hands of the accused. Per contra, she stated that she came to know through her daughter about the harassment and cruelty meted out in the hands of the accused. She further stated that she had not stated the police she had directly witnessed the harassment in the hands of the accused. The elders by name Avala Guruvulu, Avala Ramarao, Gorja Satyam, Avala Tirupathi. The elders are the residents of her village and they are not her relatives. Prior to the placing the matter before the elders the alleged accused demanded the additional dowry. She cannot say the date and time as she is an illiterate. She stated differently
15. PW3 deposed that the marriage of the accused solemnized with PW1 for the last 25 years back. He came to know through the father of the PW1 at the time of marriage he gave an amount of rupees two lakhs as dowry and paraphernalia worth of
Rs.50,000/- and gold ornaments 5 tulas presented to the accused. Initially after the consummation of the marriage they lead happy conjugal life and blessed with two children and there after they quarrel with each other and the cases are also filed against him and one or two time the accused and PW1 quarrel each other in the village. The matter is placed before the elders and the accused promised to take back the PW1 to the matrimonial home but the accused did not take back the PW1 to the matrimonial home. As the PW1 placed the matter before the elders in many number times but the accused did not take back the petitioner.
During cross examination PW3 stated that he came to know about the presentation of the dowry for the purpose of marriage with the alleged accused. He further stated that as he was not acted as elder so that he has no personal knowledge with regard to the panchayat what negotiation held in between the spouse and the exact reason for the differences. He is the hearsay witness to the prosecution, he did not stated anything about the harassment and cruelty caused to the PW1 by the alleged accused. His evidence is not corroborated the version of PW1 and his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution case.
16. P.W.4 Avala Guruvulu deposed that he know PW1 to 3 and the accused. About 19 years back the marriage of PW1 is solemnized with accused at Kondakenguva village of Rambrapuram mandal as per the cast customs. At the time of marriage the parents of the PW1 presented dowry of Rs 2,00,000/- and also presented the gold ornaments. The accused not adorned any ornaments to the bride. Soon after of conjugating of marriage the PW1 joined with the companion of the accused to lead conjugal life at Kondakenguva village. During their wedlock there are domestic petty quarrels aroused in between them and to adjust with each other and lead their life.
C.C.No. 131/2018 8 Dated : 19-06-2024
During their wedlock they blessed with two children. They both are quarreled with each other and the accused beat the PW1 and she came to the parental home and stayed with her parents. Later the PW1 reported the incident to the police. There are two to three times panchayats held in the Police station but not in the village. He attended the marriage of the PW1. he came to know through the parents of the PW1 they presented Rs 2,50,000/- as dowry and also presented 5 tulas of Gold ornaments except this he do not know the remaining facts.
During cross examination, the PW1 stated that the parents of the PW1 not rich people. They are the agricultural coolies and feeding their children and leading their livelihood basing on the wages. He attended the marriage of the PW1 but he was not acted as elder for the marriage of PW1. He came to know about the presentation of the dowry to the A1 through the parents of the PW1. He came to know the through the
PW1 mother about the harassment and cruelty meted out in the matrimonial home.
The PW1 came to the parental home from Kondakeguva to Bobbili and later lodged the report. On the date of reporting the incident to the police he was accompanied in the police station on the same day. He know the marriage of the PW1 and presentations.
17.P.W.5 Avala Ramarao deposed that he know PW1 to PW4 and LW7 Avala
Tirupathi, and the accused. He is the distinct relative of the PW1 and the accused. The marriage of the PW1 with accused solemnized for the last 24 years back. In presence of the both the elders, the parents of the PW1 presented 2 Lakhs rupees as dowry, paraphernalia worth value 50 thousand rupees, 5 tulas of gold ornaments presented to the accused. After the marriage of the PW1 with accused lead happy conjugal life for a period of 2 years, thereafter some petty bickering aroused in between them. Again they conveyed the panchayat in presence of the elders, the PW1 send to matrimonial home to lead conjugal life. Even a petty domestic quarrels are existed in between them they adjusted with each other and the time 15 years is elapsed during their wed lock. During their wed lock they blessed with two children. After 15 years of the matrimonial life the accused demanded the PW1 to bring additional dowry of Rs 1.50
Lakhs from her parents. The matter is placed before the elders, the elders by names
Gorje satyam, Avalu Guruvulu, Avala Tirupati Rao, Gaddi Suryanarayana, Avala
Ramarao and himself conveyed the panchayat. In that panchayat the PW1 requested them to arrange the cloths to went to matrimonial home, later that PW1 informed them the accused did not change his attitude, he came in drunken state and beat her, under that pretext she reluctant to join with the companion of the accused as she has no security. They suggested the PW1 as the accused did not hear their words and
C.C.No. 131/2018 9 Dated : 19-06-2024 suggested her to report the incident to the police. Accordingly the PW1 reported the incident to the police.
During cross examination P.W.5 stated that the PW1 is not his nearest sibling.
The PW1’s marriage is solemnized for the last 25 years back. In his presence the dowry is presented to the accused and his family members. The presentation is not reduced into writing but in presence of the elders. Except his oral testimony there is no documentary proof to show that presentation of the dowry for the marriage of the PW1.
The PW1 reported the incident to the police after registering the FIR police called me to the police station. He do not know the contents of the Ex.P1. He further stated that he went to the police station on 26-09-2017. Police examined and ascertain the panchyat and I have given the details and the same is recorded. Police examined him in the police station but they are not examined him either in Kodakeguva or in
Komitapalli. He is not directly witnessing about the cruelty and harassment meted out in the hands of the accused, he came to know through PW1 and her parents in the panchayat as well as orally intimated to him about the cruelty and harassment. The panchayat was held at Komitapally as well as Kondakeguva. But he cannot say the date of panchayat held at Komitapally as well as kondakeguva. After the delivery of the children intermittently she came from the matrimonial home again they pacify the issue and send to the matrimonial home to lead conjugal life. The document is executed in favour of the Meesala Appalanarasamma on 27-06-2017 by the accused and his parents, but the PW1 did not willing to receive the said property and refused to stick on the document. According to said deed due to difference of opinion of the couple, the said document was executed, but not mention demanding of dowry. He came to know the details through the PW1 and her parents. He do not know whether she was migrated to some other place for doing coolie works for her sustenance and her children livelihood. Police came to the Komitipalli and examined me and recorded my statement. He stated to the police the accused harassed the PW1 physically and mentally whether they are written in the statement or not. He do not know whether the police refereed the case against the in-laws or not.
PWs 3 to 5 who are independent witnesses in this case were examined, they acted as elders, they conducted negotiations with regard to petty quarrels in between alleged accused and PW1, both are sailing the same lines, both are resident of Konda
Kenguva, they have well acquaintance with the alleged accused, the differences cropped up in between the PW1 and the accused. When the PW1 questioned the attitude of the accused he used to harassed the PW1 physically and mentally and she informed the harassment and cruelty meted out in the matrimonial home to the village elders by name Gorle Satyam, Gaddi Suryanarayana, PW3 to PW5, they conducted
C.C.No. 131/2018 10 Dated : 19-06-2024 counseling in between the accused and PW1 and explained the harassment of the accused towards PW1 and reprimanded his attitude. But they did not placed any cogent evidence before the Court, panchayat was not fruitful. Accused promised in front of the elders in the panchayat he look after her and her children properly and does not cause harassment to PW1. Number of times panchayat was held accused did not heed their words and whatever she intended to towards him, he expose his illegal intimacy and she will alone suffer the same no body will punish him. Further they stated that they came to know through PW1 the alleged accused demanded the
PW1 to bring dowry of Rs. 1,50,000/- from their parents. Accused did not heed the words the elders and refused to look after PW1 and her children. They categorically demonstrated that the alleged accused harassed her physically and they came to know through PW1, PW1 is relative. Further they stated that PW1 parents residential house is Bobbili. They do not know the details of the marriage and the date of the marriage and year of the marriage of the PW1 with accused. During their wed lock they blessed two children out which one is female child and one is male child. The village elders very much available at Kondakenguva village. As per their knowledge at the child hood age of the children they used to residing in Kondakenguva village.
There are bundle of contradictions in the evidence of PWs 2 to 5, they have no knowledge about the harassment meted out in the matrimonial home of PW1 in the hands of accused by PW1. There is no iota of evidence placed before the Court. PWs 3 to 5 evidence is not useful to the prosecution case, they did not stated anything about the presentations and when their marriage is performed, what are presentations to accused and what exact differences cropped up between them, they does not know only panchayat was held, that panchayat was not fruitful. They does not know whether that harassment and physical cruelty, mental cruelty meted out in the hands of accused, they came to know through PW1 it alone cannot be relied, their evidence is also not trustworthy, they may not corroborated what kind of harassment meted in the hands of accused towards P.W.1. There is no corroboration between PWs 2 to 5 independent witnesses, they did not corroborated with the version of PW1. They differently with each other. They are only hearsay witness to the prosecution case.
Their evidence is not corroborated that demanding additional dowry and very presentations of marriage is not proved by PW1 and not placed any material that her parents presented presentations at the time of marriage of PW1, the very fact of dowry is not proved by PW1, demand of additional dowry does not arise, it is not believable, demanding dowry doesn’t arise, in the absence of presentations for the marriage is not proved. The question of demanding additional dowry could not lie.
C.C.No. 131/2018 11 Dated : 19-06-2024
18. Further, it is relevant to mention Rule 5(c) of Dowry Prohibition Rules. It provides that “Any complaint shall be made either on the demand of dowry or accepting of dowry within a period of one year”. The case of prosecution is that the parents of
PW1.Meesala Appalanarasamma have given dowry to the accused at the time of marriage i.e., 19 years back. The present report lodged by P.W.1.P.Annapurna on 12- 09-2017. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the report was not made within one year from the date of giving of dowry. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove that parents of PW1 gave Rs.2,00,000/-, paraphernalia worth of Rs.50,000/-, 3 tulas of gold to the accused towards dowry at the time of her marriage with the accused.
Hence, this Court felt that the prosecution has failed to prove that cash of
Rs.2,00,000/-, paraphernalia worth of Rs.50,000/-, 3 tulas of gold was given to the accused towards dowry at the time of marriage with P.W.1. Meesala
Appalanarasamma.
19.Coming to the evidence of PW6 who is Investigation officer deposed that on 12- 09-2017 while she was in police station, she received court endorsement dated: 05- 09-2017 on receiving the complaint u/sec 156 clause 3 CrPC, she registered a case in crime number 760/2017 u/sec 498 (A) IPC and Sec 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Thereafter, she sent the PW1 and the accused to the counseling to the mediators through legal service authorities Bobbili. Later, she handed over the CD file to her superior officer Inspector of Police Govindarao he took up the further investigation.
During cross examination she stated that she received official memorandum along with the complaint copy with a direction to investigate the matter and file a report on 12-09-2017 on receipt of the court endorsement inspector of police Bobbili entrusted me to investigate the matter and register the case. She registered the case in crime number : 760/2017 Dt: 12-09-2017. As soon as receipt of the court endorsement on the same day she registered the FIR there is no delay on their part.
She admitted that initially she registered the case u/sec 498 (A) IPC alone. The PW1 did not filed any compliant before the Bobbili police directly prior to filing of the complaint before the court. She registered the FIR and handed over the file to the superior officer.
20.Coming to the evidence of PW7 who is another Investigation officer deposed that he received court endorsement as per the complaint made by the PW1 before this court same is forwarded to their police station to investigate and register the case.
Accordingly the PW6 WHC received the same and registered the FIR and thereafter
C.C.No. 131/2018 12 Dated : 19-06-2024 she issued original copies to the court and copies to all concerned. We for warded the
FIR and complaint copy to the District Legal services authority, Vizianagaram to conduct counseling in between the spouse. Accordingly they conducted counseling and forwarded the report to our police station. He received the report from the DLSA, he took up the further investigation in this case and he secure the as many as LWs 1 to 8 and examined them and recorded their detailed statements. On the next day I also secure the LWs 9 and 10 and examined them and recorded their detailed statements in Parr-II CD. On 29-09-2017 the marginally noted accused came to their police station and surrendered before them. Accordingly in due obedience of the
Honourable Apex court precedent he served Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused
with an instructions to appear before court whenever required and granted station bail.
After completion of his investigation he verified and found correct lines and laid charge sheet before this court.
During cross examination he stated that he received the court endorsement on 29-08-2017 and the FIR is registered on 12-09-2017. He admitted that the parents of the PW1 orally stated they presented the dowry and paraphernalia and gold ornaments to the accused and whose presence the above mentioned dowry were presented to the accused and specific names of the persons were not mentioned charge sheet averments. Initially on receiving the court endorsement complaint the
PW6 registered the crime under section 498-A IPC alone. The alleged offence relating to cruelty and harassment taken place at Kondakenguva village of Ramabhadrapuram
Mandal. He had not enquired to the PW1 at first instance whether she reported the incident to the Ramabhadrapuram Police. According to the statements of PW1 to 5 and other listed witnesses deposed before me as their Section 161 Cr.P.C statement the alleged offence is occurred at Komatipalli village. He further stated that according to his investigation, the dowry harassment is taken place at Kondakenguva village and cruelty and harassment meted out at Komatipalli village. He further admitted that according to the statement of PW1, the alleged accused looked after her properly for a period of one month during their wedlock a petty quarrels arose in between them and adjusted with each other till the delivery of two children thereafter the alleged accused necked out the PW1 and her children from the matrimonial home. As on the date of the necked out from matrimonial home she used to reside at Komatipalli village till the filing of the charge sheet. He cannot say the exact date of necked out by the alleged accused to the PW1 and her children from the matrimonial home. According to his investigation there is no specific duration stayed by the PW1 at Komatipalli village as on the date of registering the FIR she used to reside at Komatipalli. According to his
C.C.No. 131/2018 13 Dated : 19-06-2024 investigation the parents of the PW1 came to know through her daughter about the cruelty and harassment meted out in the matrimonial home in turn the parents of the
PW1 informed the cruelty and harassment to the other witnesses. The LW9 Suvvada
Mangamma and LW10 Barnala Santhu are the neighbors of the alleged accused house at Kondakenguva and he examined them and recorded their statements. He recorded the statements of LWs 9 and 10 at Kondakenguva village. The private complaint forwarded to their police station against the five accused according to his investigation no prima-facie case is made out against A2 to A5. Their names were deleted from the purview of the charge sheet vide Ex.P.1. According to his investigation the parents of the PW1 came to know the harassment and cruelty in the hands of the alleged accused through phone whenever they made phone call to her and whenever she made phone call to her parents she informed to her parents. The
LWs 9 and 10 are the direct eye witnesses to the occurrence. LWs 2 to 8 are the hearsay witnesses to the prosecution case. According to the statements of the witnesses are the hearsay witnesses to the prosecution. He had not examined the village elders of Kondakenguva village and so also at Komatipalli village. He do not know whether the spouse entered in to an agreement all the property owned by the alleged accused transferred in the name of the PW1 by way of agreement in the presence of elders but the transaction and convey the title in favour of the PW1 not effected for that reason she voluntarily came out from the matrimonial home except this there is no other reason and in order to harass the alleged accused and grab the properties of the accused false case is foisted against him.
21. In this regard, it is necessary to mention Section 498-A of The Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Section 498-A provides 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”. Explanation:- For the purpose of this Section, 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 the 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 valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Further, it is relevant to mention the principle of Hon'ble Apex Court on Section 498-A of The Indian Penal Code,1860.
In, Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala and another, 2009 (3) LS 11 (SC) = 2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 497 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that “ Meaning of Provision
C.C.No. 131/2018 14 Dated : 19-06-2024 would be applicable only to such a case where husband or relatives of husband of woman subjects said woman to cruelty and in order to understand meaning of expression cruelty as envisaged under Section 498-A, there must be such a conduct on the part of husband or relatives of husband of woman which is of such a nature as to cause woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of woman “ .
22.The learned counsel for accused filed decisions in 1). In The Supreme Court Of
India Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Criminal Appeal No. 416 Of 2020 [Arising Out Of
Special Leave Petition [Crl] No.2908 Of 2019] Kamlesh Kalra Versus Shilpika Kalra &
Ors.With Criminal Appeal No. 415 Of 2020 AArising Out Of Special Leave Petition [Crl]
No. 2371 Of 2020] [Diary No. 9972 Of 2019] Shilpika Kalra Versus Manish Kalra &
Ors. Wherein it was held that
12. After considering the decisions of this Court rendered in Vanka Radhamanohari vs Vanka Venkata Reddy (1993) 3 SCC 4 and Arun Vyas vs Anita Vyas (1999) 4 SCC 690, and the decisions of the High Court of Delhi in Asha Ahuja vs Rajesh Ahuja 2003 (68) DRJ 437 and S. K. Bhalla vs State of NCT of Delhi 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4384, the High Court held as under: “...........
11. As noted above, the allegations ofthe complainant are of harassment by the petitioners No.1 and 2 i.e. the husband and the motherinlaw.Admittedly the respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 are living separately since June 10, 2009 and there is no material to show that due to reconciliatory measures or for what reason the respondent No.2 failed to file the complaint on which the afore noted FIR was registered till 28th January, 2013, i.e. beyond the period of limitation of three years. Thus there being no justification for the delay in filing the complaint beyond the period of limitation and there being no allegation that the physical and mental harassment continued against respondent No.2 beyond June 10, 2009, petitioners No.1 and 2 are not liable to be proceeded under Section498A IPC. However, as noted above, Section 406 IPC is a continuing offence and every day of nonreturn of the istridhan articles would give fresh cause of action. Admittedly, after the registration of the FIR petitioner No.1 sought to return certain istridhan articles thereby fortifying the claim of breach of trust. However, one of the necessary ingredients for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC is entrustment and the complainantalleges entrustment of istridhan articles to petitioner No.2 and not petitioner No.1. 12. Thus, this Court finds no ground to quashthe FIR in question againstpetitioner No.2 for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC or the proceedingsthereto.” 13. As regards, the finding recorded by the High Court in respect of complaint/FIR filed under Section 498A IPC, we are of the firm opinion that the same does not call for interference. In the facts of this case, it is clear that the FIR filed in this regard in 2015 was time barred, having been filed much more than three years after the separation of Manish Kalra (husband) and Shilpika Kalra (wife) and the filing of the divorce petition by the husband, both in 2009. In the facts of the case, the reasons given by the High Court for quashing the proceedings under section 498A IPC are justified and do not call for interference by this Court.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the allegations of the complainant Shilpika Kalra with regard to nonreturn of the Stridhan articles and the charges under Section 406 against the Kamlesh Kalra (or even against Manish Kalra, Avnish Kalra and Suman Kalra) are not sustainable in law. It clearly appears that the filing of the criminal complaint is a pressure tactic, having been employed by the complainant Shilpika Kalra against her husband, motherinlaw, brother in law and
C.C.No. 131/2018 15 Dated : 19-06-2024 sisterinlaw, which is clearly an abuse of the process of Court, and is liable to be quashed in toto.
17. As such, we allow the Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2908 of 2019 filed by Kamlesh Kalra and quash the FIR no. 390 of 2014 under Sections 498A/406 IPC; and dismiss the Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petit0ion (Crl.)..... (Diary No.9972 of 2019) filed by Shilpika Kalra.
2). Another decision in The criminal Petition no.1958 of 2021 wherein it was held that 5.The petitioners have approached this Court, by way of the the present criminal petition for quashing C.C.No.567 of 2019.
6. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations in the complaint are false and have been made only for the purpose of arm twisting the petitioners into accepting her demands. He would further submit that the complaint could not have been entertained as it has been filed beyond the period of limitation set out under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the cognizance of the case itself is irregular and not in accordance with the requirements of law.
7. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti would also submit that the allegations made in the charge sheet as well as the depositions of the list of witnesses and the complainant do not make out any of the offences mentioned in the charge sheet. 9.Sri Raja Reddy Koneti would submit that once Section 354 of I.P.C is excluded from the charge sheet, all the other offences do not attract a punishment of more than three years and the limitation for filing a complaint under these provisions would be three years from the date of offence. In this case, all the allegations are related to offences prior to November, 2015 while the complaint was filed on 03.05.2019 which is clearly beyond the period of three years.
10. The de facto complainant has filed a counter affidavit denying all these allegations.
11. Smt. T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for de facto complainant would submit that the offences of Sections 498-A, 354, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C are continuing offences and as such, the complaint is within limitation. She would further submit that the de facto complainant had been harassed even after she returned to her parental home on 22.11.2015 as the de facto complainant and her child were neglected and forced to live in the house of her parents despite the ill health of the de facto complainant and her child and the examples of harassment are the fact that none of the petitioners had performed or attended the Annaprasana function of her son or the tonsure ceremony of her son on the ground that she had not fulfilled their illegal demands. Apart from this, the harassment continued as no treatment was provided for the child of the de facto complainant and nobody visited at the time when surgery was performed in the year 2018. 12.A perusal of the record shows that the complaint was originally filed under Section 498-A, 354, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. After investigation, the investigating officer has filed a charge sheet dropping the charge under Section 353 of I.P.C while including Section 509 of I.P.C. However, the trial court took cognizance under Sections 498-A, 354, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. There is no reason recorded, by the Magistrate, as to why cognizance was being taken under Section 354 of I.P.C when the investigating officer had dropped the said provision and why cognizance was not taken under Section 509 of I.P.C when the investigating officer had included the said provision in the charge sheet. Further, the Magistrate has not recorded even a brief note setting out his satisfaction for taking cognizance. In view of the clear non application of mind, this Court would have to set aside the said order of cognizance. However, setting aside the order of cognizance would only result in a remand of the case to the Magistrate and the issues raised by the petitioners would remain unanswered. In that view of the matter, the objections
C.C.No. 131/2018 16 Dated : 19-06-2024 raised by the petitioners and the rebuttals of the defacto complainant are being considered to ascertain whether the said C.C.No.567 of 2019 requires to be quashed.
15. This would leave only the provisions of Section 498-A and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Even if Section 509 of I.P.C is taken into account, the period of limitation would be restricted to three years from the date of the offence.
16. It is the case of the petitioners that the de facto complainant left the company of the 1st petitioner on 22.11.2015 when she went back to the house of her parents. This fact is accepted by the de facto complainant in her counter filed before this Court. A perusal of the allegations in the complaint filed by the defacto complainant and the allegations in the charge sheet would show that allegations relate to incidents of harassment up to the time she went back to the house of her parents. The gap between the date on which the de facto complainant went back to the house of her parents and the date on which she filed her complaint is more than three years. This would result in the complaint under Sections 498-A, 509 or 506 of I.P.C being barred by limitation.
18. The specific allegation in relation to the event which took place after 22.11.2015 as contained in the complaint are that, firstly, no money was given by her husband or her in-laws for the treatment of her son despite being asked. Secondly, the petitioners had misbehaved with the elders who sought to reconcile the de facto complainant and her husband after she had been pushed out of the matrimonial home by her husband and Thirdly, the Annaprasana and other functions connected to the son of the de facto complainant and the 1st petitioner were boycotted by the petitioners to coerce the de facto complainant to bring money and dowry. The allegations in the charge sheet are a replica of the allegations in the complaint. Section 468 of Cr.P.C prescribed the period of limitation in which the complaints have to be filed in relation to offences prescribed under that provision.
19. This leaves the question of whether the further incidents mentioned alleged by the de facto complainant which have also been reiterated in the charge sheet, would amount to such acts of harassment which would result in the period of limitation being extended. The allegations in relations to the later period are allegations of neglect and refusal to visit or meet the de facto complainant or her child. It would have to be seen whether this behaviour would attract any of the provisions contained in the charge sheet.
20. Section 506 of I.P.C stipulates punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation which is defined in Section 503 of I.P.C as follows: Whoever threatens another with any injury to hisperson, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
19. Section 509 of I.P.C reads as follows: Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, [shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.
22. Section 498-A reads as follows: 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—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. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “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
C.C.No. 131/2018 17 Dated : 19-06-2024 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 valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
23. These actions of neglect would not fall within ambit of Section 498-A of I.P.C.
24. In the circumstances, it would have to be held that the complainant, filed by the de facto complainant, is beyond the period prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
25. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti would also rely upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Kalra vs Shilpika Kalra & Ors., dated 24.04.2020 in
crl.A.No.416 of 2020 to contend that complaints filed beyond the period of limitation
prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C would have to be quashed. A perusal of the said Judgment would show that the Hon’ble Supreme Court after reviewing the earlier Judgments on this subject, had held that a complaint filed more than three years after separation of the couple would have to be held to be barred by limitation.
26. In the circumstances, this Criminal Petition is allowed and C.C.No.567 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet is hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
3). Another decision in 2003(1) A.P.L.J,1(SN) Crl.A.No. 1263 of 2002 wherein it was held that
Indian Penal Code 1860, Sec. A There is no allegation of ind of additional dowry in the laint or in the statement under 161 of Cr.P.C. as such mation (b) cannot be applied – Explanation (a) is not attracted SS the ingredients of ination (a) are satisfied-Hence rder of acquittal is justified. Held: To constitute an offence hable under Section 498-A the and or his relative must have cted the women to cruelty. In the nation to Section 498-A IPC cruelty fined under two heads. In nation (a) cruelty is described as an any wilful conduct which is of a nature as likely to drive a woman nmit suicide or to cause grave or danger to life limb or health. In nation (b) the cruelty is also bed as to mean harassment of the n, 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 valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Inasmuch as the allegation of demand of additional dowry does not find place in the complaint or in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C the possibility of the acts or omissions on the part of the respondents falling within Explanation (b) of Section 498-A IPC is ruled out. To attract the offence of cruelty, as referred to in explanation (a), the prosecution should establish that the woman was driven to commit suicide or grave injury or to deter her life, limbs or health is caused by the accused. That being the situation the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC cannot be said to have been established by the prosecution. Appeal dismissed.
4). Another decision in 2003 (1) APLJ 434 (HC) Bomma Ilaiah vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By Public ... on 9 January, 2003 wherein the Honourable High Court of AP held that Indian Penal Code 1860 Sec. 498-A In order to constitute cruelty it is not only necessary to establish, the evidence on record does not disclose that there was cruelty on the part of the accused which was of such a nature as was likely to drive P.W.1 to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life or limb, or mental or physical health.
13. In so far as clause (b) is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 does not disclose that P.W. 1 was harassed by A1 with regard to any demand for additional dowry. On the other hand, the evidence on record discloses that there was no demand of dowry by A1 or his parents. Perhaps that was the reason why the lower Court gave a finding that there was no demand for dowry by the accused.
C.C.No. 131/2018 18 Dated : 19-06-2024
14. The above discussion clearly shows that either clause (a) or clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498-A does not attract in this case.
10. on the ground that she was not doing the work properly. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 3 does not disclose any cruel treatment or harassment by the accused to P.W.1. On the other hand, their evidence is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 5). Vadala Vinay Kumar vs State Of A.P. on 2 January, 2006 wherein it was held that In the entire evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, what is stated by them is "Then, the deceased informed us about the ill-treatment and the behaviour of the accused". Nothing was spoken as to what was that ill-treatment and the behaviour of the appellant. The allegation made in the complaint is that the appellant evinced interest in political activities and was addicted to alcohol and used to ill-treat the deceased by beating, insulting and demanding her to bring the money. But, the said allegation, in my considered view, appears to be omnibus. May be he was evincing interest in political activities and addicted to alcohol and ill-treating the deceased by beating. But, that is not sufficient requirement to attract the provisions of Section 498-A, IPC. According to Section 498-A, IPC the Wife must have been subjected to cruelty and the cruelty must be as defined in Clause (a) and (b) of the Explanation to Section 498-A, IPC. As already observed, the ill-treatment of the appellant should come within the meaning of cruelty and has to be sound, hence, I am of the considered view that evincing Interest in political activities, and the omnibus allegation such as, the appellant was ill-treating the deceased by beating, insulting and demanding her to bring money, would not come within the meaning of Cruelty as defined under Section 498-A, IPC in any marital life, It cannot be said that there was total harmony and it is not uncommon between the wife and husband to have some petty quarrels, which in my considered view, cannot be termed as 'cruelty' to attract the provisions of Section 498-A, IPC.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 498-A, IPC. In the light of the acquittal recorded by this Court, the fine amount, if any paid by the appellant, shall be refunded to him.
The counsel further filed the deposition of PW1 in MC 31 of 2017 on the file of
AJFCM Court, Bobbili wherein it was stated that It is true that I stayed at respondent’s house for a period of 10 days after that I stayed at my parents house. It is not true to suggest that the respondent sending money to our maintenance as I stayed at my parents house. It is not true to suggest that my parents are having landed properties. I have no objection to examine the attestors and scribe of the said agreement. I am not wiling to join with the respondent if the respondent execute document with regard to properties in my name. The respondent executed an agreement and intended to transfer some of the properties in favour of the petitioner though it is executed by the respondent in favour of petitioner but she did not join with matrimonial home.
Now coming to the present case, P.W.1 to P.W.5 have deposed that accused harassed P.W.1. for bringing additional of Rs.1,50,000-00 . Even, if the version of
P.W.1 to P.W.5 is true that accused demanded P.W.1. for additional dowry but it is settled Law that a mere demand for dowry, in the absence of coercion, can not be held to be cruelty within the meaning of Explanation to Section 498-A of The Indian
C.C.No. 131/2018 19 Dated : 19-06-2024
Penal Code, 1860. Further, Section 498-A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 would be applicable only to a case where husband or relatives of the husband of woman subjects said woman to cruelty, and in order to understand meaning of expression cruelty as envisaged under Section 498-A, there must be such a conduct on the part of husband or relatives of the husband of woman, which is of such a nature as to cause woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of woman “. But, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence for showing that there was such a conduct on the part of accused , which caused P.W.1. to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of P.W.1. In these circumstances, there is no comprehensive evidence on record that the alleged accused harassed Pw1 physically and mentally and demanding additional dowry and he has not present substantial evidence. There is no corroboration and comprehensive evidence on record the alleged accused harassed PW1 physically and mentally and demanded additional dowry and that harassing physically and mentally not proved by the prosecution case, the independent witnesses not corroborated with P.W.1. There are bundle of omission and contradictions, that omission and contradictions not proved by the Investigation officer. In these circumstances version of prosecution is not believable, not trustworthy. Hence, this Court is opinion that accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence, by the aforesaid detailed discussion and by following principle of
Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court felt that the prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient
materials for establishing that accused harassed P.W.1. for demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, this Court felt that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, Point is answered against the prosecution.
23.In the light of above discussion supra, it is clear the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 498-(A) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
24.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-(A) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the above said offences.. The accused is ordered to continue on bail for about 6 months and directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) U/s.437-A Cr.P.C, to appear before
Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.
C.C.No. 131/2018 20 Dated : 19-06-2024
Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open the court on this the 19th day of June, 2024.
Sd/- M. Rohini Rao
Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bobbili. FAC- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bobbili.
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined:
For Prosecution:
P.W.1:Meesala Appala Narasamma.
P.W.2:Attada Ramanamma
P.W.3: Gada Suryanarayana
P.W.4:Avala Guruvulu
P.W.5:Avala Ramarao
P.W.6:V.Mangamma
P.W.7:S.Govindarao
For Defence : Nil
Exhibits Marked:
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint given by PW1 to Bobbili Police .
Ex.P.2 : First Information Report.
For Defence : Nil
Material Objects :
For Prosecution: Nil
For Defence : Nil
Sd/- M. Rohini Rao
Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bobbili. FAC- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bobbili.