Smt. M.S.Bharathi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEN OF I CLASS, SPECIAL

MOBILE MAGISTRATE :: KADAPA

Present:-Smt. M.S. Bharathi,

IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Magistrate, Kadapa

Monday, this the 29th day of August, 2016

C.C.No. 124 of 2014.

State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, Women U/G Police Station, Kadapa

….......Complainant.

Vs.

1) Syed Bavaji S/o late Syed Abdul Khader Basha, aged 25 years.

2) Syed Thaharunnisa W/o late Abdul Khader Basha, aged 55 years.

3) Syed Shareef @ Baba Shareef @ Munna S/o late Abdul Khader Basha, aged 22 years.

All are residing in Poosala Street, Yerramukkapalli of Kadapa City .

. . . Accused 1 to 3.

This case is comingon 26-08-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri. C.Hk. Moses

Jashuva, Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Women U/G Police Station, Kadapa has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 498-A r/w 34

IPC and Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act

2. The averments of the case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet in brief are as follows:-

On 06.06.2012 L.Ws 2 and 3 (Madakasira Abdul Hafeez and

Madakasira Naseema) performed the marriage of L.w.1 (Madakasira Baseerun) with A.1 in Star function hall as per Islamic customs and rites. At the time of marriage they presented dowry in the form of cash of Rs.2,50,000/- and 15 tulas of gold (7 tulas poola haram, 3 tulas necklace, 2 tulas ear studs, 2 tulas chain, 1 tula gold ring) to the accused towards dowry. Later L.w.1 joined A1 at his house.

Slowly A1 to A3 started subjecting L.w.1 to cruelty by harassing her both mentally and physically to get the Addl. Dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- from her parent's house to 2 get their mortgaged house release. Further accused pledged L.w.1's 3 tulas of gold in Muthoot finance. A1 is a Diabetic type-I patient. Since L.w.1 failed to coerce their unlawful demand, accused caught hold of her tuft of hair and caused dumb injuries to her. Later L.w.1 came down to her maternal house. Though she was in her maternal house, A1 telephoned and demanded her to get Addl. Dowry and caused mental agony to her. In order to set right his daughter's family, L.w.2 requested L.Ws 4 to 6 to mediate the said mater. Accordingly they went to the house of accused at Yerramukkapalli and chastised the accused to look after L.w.1 well and further informed that L.w.2 is not a capacity to coerce their unlawful demand of Addl. Dowry, for which the accused bluntly refused to allow L.w.1 in their house, unless she gets Addl. Dowry of Rs.1 Lakh. Later they returned and informed the same to L.w.2. Thereafter L.w.1 lodged a complaint before LW7 and

LW7 registered the case in Cr.No.87/2012 and L.w.7 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and L.W.8 took up further investigation and filed the charge sheet in this case. Hence, the case.

3. This case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/sec.

498-A of IPC and Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the accused persons.

4. On appearance of the accused persons the copies of documents as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to them.

5. The accused persons were examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C and explained the contents of charge sheet for which they denied the charge sheet allegations and hence charges U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.s 1 to 6 and got marked Ex.s P1 and P.2 are marked. PW1 who is defacto complaint, PW.2 is the father of PW1, PW.3 is the mother of P.w.1. P.Ws 4 and 5 are mediators and P.w.6 is the Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the complaint,

Ex.P.2 is the F.I.R.

3

7. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the evidence made against them by P.Ws 1 to 6 and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the offences charged under section 498-A of IPC and Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts ?”

10. POINT: In this case PW.s 1 to 6 were examined whereas PW1 who is the victim and defacto complainant deposed that on 06.06.2012 L.Ws 2 and 3 performed her marriage with A.1 in Star function hall as per Islamic customs and rites. At the time of marriage with A.1, L.Ws 2 and 3 presented cash of

Rs.2,50,000/-and 15 tulas of gold to the A.1 and A.2. After marriage with A.1, they lived happily for a period of one month. A1 to A3 started her harassing her both physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.4 Lakhs to get their mortgaged house and for release of the same. She informed the said fact to L.Ws 2 and 3 and they inturn told her that they have no capacity to give the amount. Then she informed the same to accused 1 and 2 for that they started harassing her. In the month of August, A1 to A3 harassed her and they beat her and necked out from their house. Then she went to her parents house, Later A.1 made a phone call to her stating that unless if you provide the money, you do not come to her house.

Then L.w.2 along with L.Ws 4 to 6 went to the house of the accused and asked the accused to look after her well and L.w.2 informed he has no capacity to give

additional dowry of Rs.4 Lakhs, for which the accused refused to take her into their

house. Later she gave a complaint to Mahila P.S., Kadapa which is marked as

Ex.P.1. She was examined by the police.

During the cross examination, she deposed that after marriage she used to reside in her mother-in-law's house upto 2.8.2012. After her marriage she 4 used to work as a Lecturer in Geethanjali Nursing College, Kadapa. She completed her B.Sc., Nursing course in Kadapa. She used to call A.2 as AMMA and in-turn she used to call her AMMA. After completion of her college A3 used to take back her in a vehicle to their house rarely. She along with A.1 to A.3 used to reside in accused family. She and A.1 borne the expenses of their marriage. At the time of marriage A.2 gave Nallapusala Danda to her. She adds that they also gave TWO tulas of gold chain to A1 at the time of marriage and 15 tulas of gold which was presented as dowry and all are ladies articles only. She did not mention in Ex.P.1 that A2 presented her Nallapusala Danda at the time of her marriage. After one week from the date of 2.8.2012 they held mediation. She gave evidence in Family

Court, Kadapa for maintenance case that he got admitted A1 in KIMS Hospital,

Hyderabad. She got interview letter from CRPF, Hyderabad and A.1 took her to

Hyderabad and they went there one day before interview. While A1 got down from the bus, he fell down on the ground and sustained injury to his leg. Later she admitted A.1 in the hospital and then she went for interview. To go to Hyderabad from Kadapa, we boarded into the bus one day night before. On 3.8.2012 I first joined A.1 in Oxygen Hospital, Secunderabad, later with the help of her friends on 4.8.2012, she shifted A1 to KIMS Hospital and A1 got treated under Arogya Sree

Card and I stayed with A.1 upto 16.08.2012. She did not mention in Ex.P.1 and in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement about the name of Liyakath. She denied the suggestions that there was no mediation held between them and she has not interested to marry A1 and without her consent, her parents performed her marriage with A.1.

11. P.w.2 who is father of P.w1 deposed that on 06.06.2012 he along with L.w.3 performed the marriage of P.w.1 with A.1 in Star function hall as per

Islamic rites and customs. At the time of marriage, they presented dowry in the form of cash of Rs.2,50,000/- and 15 tulas of gold as per demand of A1 and A.2.

They lived happily for a period of one month. P.w.1 committed a small mistake, due to that A.1 slapped P.w.1, as a result of which she fell on the ground and A.2 caught hold of P.w.1's tuft and dragged P.w.1 and beat her. On the same day P.w.1 5 informed him over phone about the said fact. On the next day he went to the accused house and informed P.w.1 and A.1 to adjust. Then on the same day A.2 told him that A.1 had sustained swelling injury on his leg and for that she herself invested the amount and got treated to A1. Later he returned to his house. After some days P.w.1 informed him through phone that A.2 again beat P.w.1 and necked out her from their house and she returned to his house in the evening. After three days he along with L.Ws 4 to 6 went to the house of accused for mediation, but the A.2 refused for the same and demanded to bring Addl. Dowry of Rs.4 Lakhs and stated that if they will not provide the amount of Rs.4 Lakhs, they will not allow

P.w.1 to enter into their house. Later P.w.1 gave a complaint before Women P.S.,

Kadapa.

During the cross examination, he stated that P.w.1 resided in the accused house for a period of six months. P.w.1 and A.1 both are well educated as they thought A1 was good man, so that they performed P.w.1's marriage with A.1.

He denied the suggestion that he did not state to the police that A2 slapped P.w.1 and dragged her by caught hold of her tuft and necked out from their house. At the time of giving the complaint before Women P.S., Kadapa by P.w.1, he was not present. He was examined by the police on the next day of lodging the complaint.

He did not state before the police on which date A.1 and A.2 beat P.w.1. L.Ws 4 to 6 are the inhabitants of his street. Prior to one day before leg fracture of A1, both

P.w.1 and A.1 went to Hyderabad for interview of P.w.1 for the post of RSI, but he do not remember the date when they went to Hyderabad and he do not remember the date when they returned to Kadapa and he did not went to Hyderabad. He denied the other suggestions.

12. P.w.3 who is mother of P.w.1 deposed that on 06.06.2012 she along with P.w.2 performed P.w.1's marriage with A.1 at Star function hall as per

Islamic rites and customs. At the time of marriage, they presented dowry in the form of cash of Rs.2,50,000/- and 15 tulas of gold to A1. Later P.w.1 joined with

A.1's family and they lived happily for a period of one month. Later A.1 to A.3 6 started harassing by not providing sufficient food and they used to beat P.w.1 and the accused demanded Pw1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.4 Lakhs. P.w.1 came to her house and informed the same to them. Then they made a mediation in the presence of L.Ws 4 to 6, but the mediation failed and A1 to A3 stated that unless

P.w.1 bring additional dowry, they will not allow P.w.1 to their house to lead marital life with A.1. Later she along with P.Ws 1 and 2 went to the police station to give the complaint.

During the cross examination, she stated that she do not know the police station and where it is situated. A1 and P.w.1 both are educated. They have not followed for conducting five ceremonies of Friday's after marriage, but they performed Nikka to P.w.1 and send her to A.1's house. She adds that they performed one Friday marriage ceremony. P.w.1 stayed at her in-laws house for a period of three months. P.w.1 used to work as Tutor in a Private Nursing College by staying in her in-laws house. After one month of marriage of PW1 and A.1, they both went to Hyderabad and there A1 met with an accident and he sustained a fracture to his leg, at that time Pw1 was also present with him. PW1 herself admitted A1 in a Hospital at Hyderabad. L.Ws 5 and 6 are friends of her son-in-law and they are the neighbours and they are residing near by their house. A1 to A3 are residing under one roof and she denied other suggestions.

13. P.w.4 who is the mediator deposed that on 06.06.2012 P.w.1's marriage was performed with A1 at Star function hall as per Islamic rites and customs. After marriage P.w.1 went to her mother-in-law's house and lived happily for a period of two months. A2 and A3 harassed P.w.1 and demanded for additional dowry of Rs.4 Lakhs in order to release the house which is mortgaged I came to know this fact through P.w.1. He along with L.Ws 5 and 6 went to A.1's house and told them that they are not having capacity to give additional dowry of Rs.4 Lakhs, but they did not heed our words and that unless they brought Rs.4 Lakhs they would not allow P.w.1 to their house. Having no option P.W.2 and P.w.3 went to

Mahila Police Station, Kadapa to give the complaint.

7

On cross examination he deposed that the accused are residing at

Pusala Street of Yerramukkapalli. He do not know whom the accused mortgaged their house. He went to A.1's house on September 7th of 2012. He denied the other suggestions.

14. P.w.5 who is another mediator deposed that on 06.06.2012 P.Ws 2 and 3 performed the marriage of P.w.1 with A1 at Star function hall as per Islamic rites and customs. At the time of P.w.1's marriage with A.1, P.Ws 2 and 3 presented dowry in the form of cash of Rs.2,50,000/- and 15 tulas of gold to A1 to A3. They lived happily for a period of some days. Later A1 to A3 demanded additional dowry to P.w.1. Later P.w.2 called him along with P.W.4 and L.w.5 for mediation, in that mediation the accused demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and further told that they are unable to adjust the amount, they would not take over P.w.1 to their house. Except this, he do not know anything about this case.

On cross examination, he deposed that the time taken to the house of

P.w.1 is 10 minutes from his house. He do not remember the date when police examined him. After lapse of eight months of P.w.1's marriage, he went for mediation. He do not remember on which date, he went for mediation. At the time of mediation, P.w.1, P.w.3 and accused were present in the accused house. He along with P.w.4 went for mediation. P.w.4 is the relative of P.w.1 and he is resident of Rajareddy Street, Kadapa. He do not remember when P.w.1 came to her parent's house, after mediation. He has no full knowledge about the case. He adds that he know the some extent of case particulars.

15. P.w.6 who is the Inspector of Police has deposed that he can identify the signature of L.w.7 in FIR. On 4.11.2012 at about 7.30 a.m., L.w.7 received a written complaint from P.w.1. Basing on that he registered a case in

Cr.No.87/2012 U/sec 498-A and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and he issued FIR to all the concerned officials which is marked as Ex.P.2. On the next day he examined

P.Ws 1 to 3 and recorded their statements. On 6.11.2012 he examined P.w.4, L.w.5 and P.w.5 and recorded their statements. On 8.11.2012 he took up investigation 8 from L.w7 and verified the same and found it on correct lines. The accused got anticipatory bail and after completion of investigation he laid the charge sheet in this case.

On cross examination he deposed that L.w.7 did not send P.w.1 for treatment. P.w.1 did not file any proof to show that they gave dowry to the accused.

L.w.7 did not examine any of the witnesses at the house of P.w.1. He adds that

L.w.7 examined P.w.4, L.w.5 and P.w.5 at Rajareddy Street where P.w.1's parents are residing. At the time of examination done by L.w.7, P.w.1 stated that she gave

Rs.2 Lakhs towards dowry. P.w.2 did not stated L.w.7 at the time of her examination that A1 slapped her. He adds that Pw2 stated that A1 beat P.w1 by holding her tuft. P.w.1 stated L.w.7 that A1 to A3 harassed her in the month of 2nd

August. He adds that she did not mention the specific year. He denied the suggestion that he did not verify the investigation done by L.w.7 and that accused never harassed P.w.1 at any point of time and his investigation is only table investigation.

16. Considering the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 6, P.w.1 who is the victim deposed that her marriage was performed on 6.6.2012 with A.1 and at the time of marriage her parents presented Rs.2,50,000/- and 15 tulas of gold and they lived happily for a period of one month. Later A1 to A3 started harassing her both physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.4 Lakhs to get their mortgaged house and for release of the same. In the month of August, A1 to A.3 harassed her and beat her and necked out from their house. Later A.1 made a phone call to her stating that unless if she provide the money, she did not come to his house. Then

P.w.2 along with P.Ws 4 and 5 went to the house of the accused and asked to look after her well and P.w.2 informed that he has no capacity to give Addl. Dowry of

Rs.4 Lakhs, for which the accused refused to take her in their house. Later she gave complaint in Mahila police station and Ex.P1 is the signature on the complaint and the learned counsel for defence argued that PW1 she stated in her cross examination that one week from the date i.e., 2.08.2012 they held mediation and 9 she admitted that she joined A1 in oxygen Hospital on 3.08.2012, later with the help of her friends on 4.08.2012 she shifted A1 to KIMS Hospital and got treatment under Arogya Sree Card and she stayed upto 16.08.2012. So, it creates a doubt mediation was held or not. To prove this PW2 and 3 stated that they along with

LW4 to 6 went to the accused house for mediation but mediation failed. In that mediation the accused stated that unless PW1 brings dowry of Rs. 4 lakhs they did not enter PW1 into their house. No suggestion was put by the defence counsel to

PW 2 and 3 on which date mediation was held. On perusing the evidence of PW1, though PW1 stated that one week from the date ie., on 2.08.2012 mediation was held and she also stated that she stayed with A1 upto 16.08.2012 and even the mediation was held by the elders as there was chances of re-union between them.

So, the arguments of the defence counsel that no mediation was held is not sustainable. PW2 who is the father of PW1 stated that the accused slapped P.w.1 as a result she fell on the ground and A.2 caught hold of P.w.1's tuft and dragged

P.w.1 and beat her. He further stated that he along with L.Ws 4 to 6 went to the house of the accused for mediation, but the A.2 refused the same and demanded to bring Additional dowry for an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs and stated that if PW1 is not unable to provide the amount of Rs.4 Lakhs, they will not allow her to enter into their house. P.w.3 who is the mother of P.w.1 stated that A.1 to A.3 harassing by not providing sufficient food and they used to beat P.w.1 and the accused demanded P.w.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.4 Lakhs and she came to know through PW1 and stated that they held mediation along with LWs 4 to 6 and the same was failed and the accused stated that unless PW1 brings additional dowry of Rs. 4 lakhs they will not allow PW1 to lead marital with A1. P.w.4 who is the relative of P.Ws 1 to 3 and who is the mediator deposed that P.w.1 and A.1 are lived happily for a period of two months and thereafter A.2 and A.3 harassed P.w.1 and demanded for additional dowry of Rs.4 Lakhs in order to release their house which is mortgaged by them. P.w.5 who is independent witness and who is also one of the mediator has deposed that P.Ws 2 and 3 are presented dowry of 10

Rs.2,50,000/- and 15 tulals of gold to A.1 to A.3. They lived happily for a period of some day and later A1 to A.3 demanded additional dowry to P.w.1. Later Pw.2 called him along with P.w.4 and another for mediation, in that mediation also the accused demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and further stated that if she is unable to adjust the amount, they would not take over P.w.1 to their house. The learned counsel for further argued that none of the witnesses not stated date, month and year of harassment. So, far as section 498-A is a continuous offence, for harassment date, time and year is not required. So, the argument of the defence counsel with regarding to the date, time and year of harassment is not sustainable. Nothing was elicited during the cross examination of P1 to 5, So, the evidence of PW1 to 3 is corroborating with the evidence of PW 4 and 5. The learned counsel for the accused argued that L.w.7 who made investigating officer was not examined by the prosecution, but in this case P.w.6 who is the Inspector of Police has identified the signature of L.w.7 and P.w.6 deposed about the investigation done by L.w.7 in all aspects. Non examination of investigating officer is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Though PW1 to 4 are interested witnesses their evidence is corroborating the evidence of PW5. Under these circumstances, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s 498-A IPC.

17. With regard to the Sec. 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.Ws 1 to 3 stated that they gave Rs.2,50,000/- and 15 tulas of gold to A.1 to A.3 at the time of marriage, but they have not filed any document to show about the giving of

Rs.2,50,000/- and 15 tulas of gold to A.1 to A.3. L.w.7 who is the investigating officer has also not seized any document to show about the giving of Rs.2,50,000/- and 15 tulas of gold to A.1 to A.3. In the absence of documentary evidence, it is not believable that P.Ws 1 to 3 presented dowry to A.1 to A.3. Hence, the prosecution is failed to prove that P.Ws 1 to 3 presented Dowry to A.1 to A.3 Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal for the offence U/s 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

11

18. With regard to Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.Ws 1 to 3 categorically stated that the accused demanded dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- to P.w.1 for release of the mortgaged house and in-turn P.w.1 informed the same to her parents i.e., P.Ws 2 and 3 and that P.w.2 informed the accused that he has no capacity to give additional dowry as demanded by the accused. In support of their version

P.Ws 4 and 5 stated that at the request of P.w.2, they held mediation with the accused and in that mediation also the accused demanded Rs.4,00,000/- and further stated that if they are unable to adjust the amount, they would not take over

P.w.1 to their house. Hence, it is very clear that the accused demanded

Rs.4,00,000/- to P.w.1 and in-turn P.W.2 stated that he has no capacity to give

Rs.4,00,000/- as additional dowry to the accused. Hence, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/sec 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

19. In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and that the accused 1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence U/s 498-A and accordingly they are convicted U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C. and further the accused are found guilty for the offence U/sec 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly they are convicted U/sec.248 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29 th day of August, 2016.

Sd/- M.S.BHARATHI

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Spl. Mobile Court, Kadapa.

When the accused persons questioned about the quantum of sentence, accused No. 1 stated that he is suffering with diabetics, accused No.2 stated that she did not commit any offence and accused No.3 stated that he is having two small children aged about 3 months and one year and he is the only person to look after them. Hence pleaded mercy.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to show lenient towards the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and it is also not flt case to release the accused under P.O. Act.

12

Accordingly the accused 1 to 3 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence U/sec. 498-A IPC and fine of

Rs. 2,000/- each (Rupees Two thousand only) in default of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and they are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence U/sec. 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. The remand period already undergone by the accused shall be set off U/s 428-A Cr.P.C. and both the sentences shall run concurrently. This court informed the accused persons about the right of appeal and they stated that they have sufficient means to appeal their case.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29 th day of August, 2016.

Sd/- M.S.BHARATHI

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Spl. Mobile Court, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW.1: M.Basheerun Nil. PW.2: M.Abdhul Hafeez PW.3: M.Naseerun Behum PW.4: S.M.Hussain. PW.5: Shaik Ansar ali PW.6:L.Sudhakar., D.S.P.,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P.1: Signature of the Complaint. NIL Ex.P.2: Original F.I.R

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: NIL . Sd/- M.S.B

IV A.J.C.J, KDP

FAC J.M.F.C., Spl. Mobile Court,

KADAPA.

// TRUE COPY //

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Kadapa.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SPECIAL MOBILE

MAGISTRATE :: KADAPA

Present:-Smt. M.S. Bharathi,

IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Magistrate, Kadapa

Wednesday, this the 14th day of September, 2016.

C.C.No. 127 of 2014.

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, C.K.Dinne P.S. . . . Complainant.

Vs.

1. Gajjala Venkata Subba Redddy, S/o Nadipi Venkata Reddy, 21 years, Gopulapuram village, C.K.Dinne mandal.

2. Gajjala Pedda Venkata Reddy, S/o Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, 45 years,

Gopulapuram village, C.K.Dinne mandal.

. . . Accused 1 and 2

This case is comingon 8-9-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri. P. Chandra Gupta Advocate

for the accused, and after hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over

for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kadapa C.K.Dinne Police station has filed charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 and 509 R/w 34 of IPC.

2. The averments of the case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet in brief are as follows:-

On 11-9-2012 at 11.00 a.m while LW.s 1, 4 to 6 (Lakshmi Devi, Venkata

Subbaiah, Venkata Ramana and B.Aliveli) attending their fields work in the limits of

Gopulapuram village, then A1 found pass on to his fields through the field of LW1 on seeing the same LW.s 1, 4 to 6 warned him not to pass on through there field as the crop was damaged. Later A1 and A2 came to Lw.s 1, 4 to 6 abused them in filthy language by using unparliamentary words and then A1 beat LW1 with reverse portion of sickle on her head and caused bleeding injury. This was witnessed by LW.s 2 to 6 and later LW1 got admitted in RIMS hospital, Kadapa for treatment. LW8 (H.C) recorded the statement of LW1 and LW9 (A.S.I C.K.Dinne P.S.) registered a case and took up the investigation. On 24.9.2012 LW10 (S.I of C.K.Dinne P.S) arrested the accused and 2 released them on bail by taking sufficient sureties and after completion of investigation he laid the charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3. This case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/sec. 324 and 509 R/w 34 of IPC. against the accused 1 and 2.

4. On appearance of the accused 1 and 2 the copies of documents as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to them.

5. The accused were examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C and explained the contents of charge sheet, for which they denied the charge sheet allegations and hence a charge U/Sec. 324 and 509 R/w 34 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6. In support of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.W.s 1 to 9 and got marked Ex.s P1 to P6. PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW.s 2 to 5 are the relatives of P.w.1, PW.6 is the Medical Officer, PW.s 7 to 9 are the Police

Officials. Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex P.2 is the 161 Cr.P.c Statement of PW3, Ex.P.3 is the Wound Certificate, Ex.P.4 is the Hospital Intimation, Ex.P.5 is the Original F.I.R and

Ex.P.6 is the Rough Sketch.

7. On Closure of prosecution evidence and on perusing the evidence of

P.Ws 1 to 9 the accused were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 9 for which the accused stated that they have no complexity with the evidences and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the offences

charged under section 324 and 509 R/w 34 of IPC. against the

accused beyond all reasonable doubts ?”

10. POINT: In support of case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.s 1 to 9. PW1 who is the defacto complainant and injured has deposed that on 11.9.2012 at about 11.00 a.m she along with LW.s 2 to 6 (Venkata Subbaiah,

Subba Reddy, Venkata Subbaiah, Venkata Ramana and B.Aliveli) went to their fields in the limits of Gopulapuram village. While they were cultivating their fields at that time warned the accused not to pass through their fields as the crops would damage, but the 3 accused did not heed their words. Later they informed the accused to bring his elders to pacify the matter. Later Lw.s 4 and 5 went away from there leaving behind her and LW6.

Then A1 brought A2 and abused her and LW6 in filthy language by using unparliamentary words. Then A1 and A2 hacked her with sickle on her head and she sustained severe bleeding injury and fell down on the ground and she became unconscious. Later she was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa by LW4. She lodged complaint before the police i.e., Ex.P.1. She was examined by the police.

During her cross examination, she deposed that his field is situated by the side of accused fields and in order to go to the fields of accused, one has to pass through their field. He did not mention in Ex.P.1 that I stated that the accused not to pass through their fields before occurrence of the incident. . L.Ws 2 to 6 belongs to her family.

There is a case pending in I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa against the accused and between them. He do not remember the date when he was examined by the police and he denied the suggestions that accused never damaged their crop and they foisted a case against them.

11. PW2 deposed that, about three years back while he was cultivated turmeric crop in his field. A1 used to go to his fields through their fields for that they objected him not to go through their fields, but the accused did not heed their words.

Later they informed the accused to bring his elders to pacify the matter. Later he along with LW5 went away from there leaving behind LW6 and PW1. Then A1 brought A2 and abused Pw1 and LW6 in filthy language by using unparliamentary words. Later he came to know through PW1 that she sustained injuries in the hands of A1 and A2. Then made a phone call to 108 and shifted PW1 to RIMS hospital, Kadapa. He was examined by the police.

During his cross examination, he deposed that his field is situated by the side of accused fields and in order to go to the fields of the accused, one has pass through their fields. L.w.2 is his paternal uncle and the L.w.3 is known to him and L.Ws 5 and 6 are his relatives. There is a case pending in I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Kadapa against the accused and between them. They have not obtained any injunction against the accused from not passing through their fields. He denied the other suggestions.

4

12. PW3 deposed that, PW1 and accused houses are situated side by side and in order to go to accused land he has to pass through the land of LW2. Except this he do not know anything about the case. He was not examined by the police. Hence he was declared as hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C statement was marked as Ex.P.2.

13. PW4 deposed that, On 11-9-2012 at about 11.00 a.m he along with

PW1 and LW6 are doing cultivation in their land. They saw A1 is passing to his fields through their land and warned him not to go through their land. But he did not heed their words and told him to bring elders. At that time PW1 and LW6 removing the grass and he along with PW2 went to madava. Later A1 brought A2 and abused PW1 and LW6 in filthy language and A1 beat PW1 on the reverse portion of sickle on her head and she sustained bleeding injury. LW6 raised the cries and intervened by seeing them A1 and

A2 left away. He called the ambulance and shifted PW1 to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa for treatment. He was examined by the police.

During the Cross examination he deposed that there was a Criminal case is pending against him along with L.w.2, L.w.6 and P.w.1 in C.C.No.134/2013 before I

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa. In order to go to the land of the A.1, he has to pass through their land only. Police examined him on the date of alleged incident. On the same day L.w.6 also examined by the police. In order to go to RIMS Hospital, they have to go through C.K. Dinne P.S., but we have not given any complainant in C.K. Dinne P.S.

and he denied the further suggestions.

14. PW5 deposed that, about 3 years back she along with PW.s 1, 2 and 4 are doing cultivation in their land. They saw A1 is passing to his land through their land and warned him not to go through their land. But he did not heed their words and told him to bring elders and he went away. At that time she along with PW1 removing the grass and PW2 and PW4 went to madava. Later A1 brought A2 and abused her and

PW1 in filthy language and A1 beat PW1 on the reverse portion of sickle on her head and she sustained bleeding injury. Then she intervened and raised the cries, on hearing of her cries Pw.s 2 and 4 came there by seeing them A1 and A2 left away. PW4 called the ambulance and shifted PW1 to RIMS hospital, Kadapa for treatment. She was examined by the police.

During the Cross examination, she stated that there was a Criminal case is pending against her along with P.Ws 1, 2 and 4 in C.C.No.134/2013 before I Addl.

5

Judl. Magistrate Court, Kadapa. In order to go to the land of the accused No.1, he has to pass through their land. Police examined her and P.w.4 on the date of alleged incident.

In order to go to RIMS Hospital, they have to go through C.K. Dinne P.S., but they have not given any complainant in C.K. Dinne P.S. and she denied the further suggestions.

15. PW6 who is the medical officer deposed that, on 11.9.2012 at about 12.00 p.m he was examined PW1 and he sent P.w.1 for Radiologist for taking x-ray in

MLC No.1523 and X-Ray NO.20977 Dt.12.9.2012 and Radiologist gave opinion that no fracture found on P.w.1 and he found A lacerated measuring 6 x 1 x ½ cms over center of head. one injury and he is of the opinion that the above injury is simple in nature and aged about 6 years and he issued the wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P.3.

During his cross examination, he stated that the injury can be caused by falling on the rough surface of the ground. When a witness shown police intimation letter, he stated that the signature contains in the police intimation belongs to him. He adds that the other particulars were filled by the House Surgeon. There is no signature and name of House Surgeon in police intimation letter and there was correction in month in police intimation letter.

16. PW7 A.S.I deposed that on 11.9.2012 he received the Hospital intimation from RIMS Hospital and he went to TMG ward and recorded the statement of

PW1. Ex.P.4 is the Hospital Intimation. Later he intimated to CK Dinne Police and submitted the records to C.K.Dinne Police on point of jurisdiction.

During his cross examination, he stated that there was correction iln Ex.P.4 in month column. He submitted the records of P.w.1 to C.K. Dinne Police Station on 16.9.2012, the time taken to reach C.K. Dinne Police Station from RIMS Hospital is half an hour.

17. PW8 A.S.I deposed that On 16.9.2012 while he was present in the

Police Station, he received hospital intimation over phone. Then he went to RIMS

Hospital, Kadapa at 10.00 a.m. PW7 submitted him the Hospital Intimation along with statement of PW1, then he examined PW1 at RIMS Hospital and recorded her statement. Later he came to the P.S and basing on the statement he registered a case in Cr.No.143/2012 U/Ss 324, 509 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR to all concerned officials which is Ex.P.5. On the same day he went to scene of offence situated at Gopulapuram 6 fields, there he drafted Ex.P.6 i.e., Ex.P.6 and there he examined Lw.s 2 and 3 and recorded their statements. Further investigation was done by LW10.

During his cross examination, he deposed that the distance between C.K.

Dinne Police Station to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa is 7 K.M., There was a delay in filing of the complaint and that there are no reasons mention of delay in filing the complaint in

Ex.P.5 (FIR). As per Ex.P.4 Hospital Report Dt.11.08.2012. He adds that he received the hospital intimation on 16.09.2012. He did not seize any material objects neither from the possession of the accused or P.w.1. He denied the suggestions that his investigation is only table investigation and he recorded the statements of P.W.1, L.w.2 and P.w.3 at the

Police Station.

18. PW9 S.I of C.K.Dinne P.S deposed that on 17.9.2012 he took up the investigation from PW8 and found the same on correct lines. On 24.9.2012 he examined

PW2, PW4 and PW5 and recorded their statements. On the same day A1 and A2 voluntarily surrendered before him in the Police Station. After identifying their particulars he arrested A1 and A2 and send them for judicial remand. Later he obtained wound certificate from PW7 and after the investigation he filed the charge sheet before the court. During his cross examination, he denied the suggestions.

19. The learned A.P.P. argued that the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 9 are corroborated with each other and hence the prosecution is proved the guilt of the accused and hence the accused are entitled for conviction.

20. The learned counsel for the accused argued that P.Ws 2 and 4 are not eye witnesses and P.w.3 is not supported the case of the prosecution and there is delay in registration of FIR and the evidence of Investigating Officer are not corroborated with each other and hence the prosecution is not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused are entitled for acquittal.

21. On perusing the entire evidence of P.w.1 to PW9, PW1 deposed that on 11.09.2012 at about 11.00AM while she was working in her fields along with L.Ws 2 to 6, they warned the accused not to pass through their fields as the crop would be damaged, but the accused did not heed their words and later L.Ws 4 and 5 went away from there leaving behind her and L.w.6 and that A.1 and A.2 came there and abused them in filthy language and A1 and A2 hacked her with sickle on her head and she sustained severe bleeding injury and fell down on the ground and she became 7 unconscious. Then she was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. She lodged the complaint

before the police. Ex.P1 is the complaint. PW2 is not the eye witness to the incident

and he came to know through PW1 and PW 4 is also not the eye witness to the incident and he stated that he along with PW2 went to Madava on hearing the cries of PW5 he intervened by seeing them A1 and A2 left away. So, far as the evidence of PW3, PW3 turned hostile and his 161 statement is marked as Ex.P2. To corroborate the evidence of PW1, the prosecution examined PW5 who is an eye witness and PW6 who is a doctor. PW5 stated that she along with PW1 while removing the grass and PW2 and 4 went to Madava later A1 brought A2 and abused PW1 in filthy language and A1 beat

PW1 on reverse portion of the sickle on her head and she sustained bleeding injury.

PW6 who is an doctor stated that laceration measuring 6x1 x ½ over center of head and issued Ex.P3 and opined that no fracture was found and injury was in simple in nature.

PW7 to 9 who are investigating officers and P.w.7 received hospital intimation on 11.9.2012 and after receiving the intimation, he went to TMG Ward and recorded the statement of P.w.1. In cross examination he admitted that he submitted the records of

P.w.1 to C.K. Dinne Police Station on 16.09.2012, but he has not given any explanation about the delay for sending the records to C.K. Dinne P.S, since the time taken to reach the C.K. Dinne P.S. from RIMS Hospital, Kadapa if half an hour. The learned counsel argued that he received hospital intimation on 11.09.2012 and recorded the statement of

PW1 and sent to CK Dinne police station on 16.09.2012 so there was delay in registration of the case. On perusing Ex.P5 and the delay was mentioned as Hospital intimation. So, the objection taken by the defence counsel delay in registration of FIR is not tenable one. P.w.8 stated that on 16.09.2012 he received the hospital intimation through phone and also received the statement of PW1 and he went to the RIMS

Hospital, Kadapa and he examined PW1 at RIMS Hospital. Basing on that he registered a case and drafted the rough sketch and Ex.P6 is the rough sketch. On perusing the

Ex.P.6 rough sketch also, there is no other way to go to the field of the accused, except the land of P.w.1 only and PW1, 2, 4 and 5 also stated the same facts. PW9 who is also an IO stated that he took the investigation from PW8 and arrest A1 and A2 and sent them for judicial remand. Hence, from the above said discussion, the evidence of P.Ws 1 is corroborating with the evidence of PW 5 and 6. Hence, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt against A1 only and acquitted against A2 8 for the offence u/sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

22. In order to attract section 509 of IPC “words, gesture or act

intended to insult the modesty of the women” who ever intending to insult the

modesty of any women, utters any word makes any sound, or gesture, or exhibit

any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture

or object shall be seen by such women or intrudes upon the privacy of such

women shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term it may extent to

three years and also with fine. PW1 and 5 simply stated that A1 and A2 abused her in filthy language by using un parliamentary words but they did not stated which words are used by the accused. so, mere abusing itself not attract section 509 of IPC. So, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the accused. Hence, A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

23. In the result, the accused No. 1 found guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and he is convicted U/sec. 248 (2) Cr.P.C. A2 is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and he is acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C, and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offence U/sec. 509 of IPC and they are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer to the Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14 th day of September, 2016.

Sd/- M.S.BHARATHI

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Kadapa.

When the accused being questioned about the quantum of sentence, he stated that he is studying B.Tech and having aged parents to look after well. Hence pleaded to take lenient view.

Considering the facts and Circumstances of the case it not a fit case to release the accused No.1 under P.O. Act. Accordingly the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence U/s 324 r/w 34 of IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default of fine he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The remand period already undergone by the accused shall be set off U/s 428 Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. This court informed the 9 right of appeal to the accused and he stated that he got sufficient means to appeal his case.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer to the Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14 th day of September, 2016.

Sd/- M.S.BHARATHI

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: B.Lakshmi Devi - Nil –

P.W.2: V.Venkata Subbaiah

P.W.3: D.P.Subba Reddy

P.W.4: V.Venkata Ramana.

P.W.5: B.Alivelu

P.W.6: Dr.Vardhan Reddy

P.W.7: G.Damodharam

P.W.8:V.Subramanyam.

P.w.9: P.Narasimha Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Complaint.

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3.

Ex.P3: Wound Certificate.

Ex.P4: Hospital Intimation.

Ex.P.5: Original F.I.R

Ex.P.6: Rough Sketch.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - NIL -

Sd/- M.S.B

IV AJCJ, KDP

FAC J.M.F.C., Spl. Mobile Court, KDP.

// TRUE COPY //

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Kadapa.

1

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by Spl.Mobile Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehen- Release on Commenc-Close of Judgment sion of bailement of trial trial 18-10-2012 18-10-2012 04-11-201204-11-2012 10-12-2013 18-12-2014 19-12-2014

Calender and Judgment in C.C.No: 16 /14 on the file of Spl.Mobile Judl.

Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

COMPLAINANT: RIMS P.S. in Cr.No. 103 / 12 .

Name of the accused Age Calling Religion Residence with

father's Name :-

Name of the accused with father's Name. Age Religion Residence

1234

1. Dayyala Radhakrishna, S/o Rmanjineyulu 30 yearsHinduD.No.43/121-4-2, Niranjan nagar, Kadapa

2. Dayyala Ramnjineyulu, s/o Gangaiah57 yearsHinduRamapuram mandal, Kadapa.

3. Dayyala Mahesh, s/o Ramanjineyulu23 yearsHinduChitluru village, Kadapa. Offence : under Sec. 326, 324 of IPC r/w 34 IPC.

Finding : Accused 1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence 324 of IPC r/w 34 IPC and found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 326.

Sentence : -In the result accused 1 to 3 found guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.324, r/w 34 of I.P.C., and they are Convicted U/sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. The accused 1 to 3 is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousands Only) each. In default of fine they shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The bail bond of accused shall stand cancelled after elapse of six months.

The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

A1 to A3 shall furnish a bond U/s. 437 (a) of Cr.P.C. They have to appeared before appellant court after receiving the summons with in six months from this date.

The right of appeal is intimated to the accused.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Kadapa.

Dis. No. Date:

2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT: KADAPA

Present: - Ms. M.S.Bharathi,

Judicial First Class Magistrate

Special Mobile Court, Kadapa

C.C.No. 16 /2014 .

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

RIMS police station. ....Complainant.

-Versus-

1. Dayyala Radhakrishna, S/o Rmanjineyulu, 30 years, D.No. 43/121-4- 2, Niranjan Nagar, Kadapa.

2. Dayyala Ramanjineyu;u, s/o Gangaiah, 57 years, Ramapuram mandal, Kadapa.

3. Dayyala Mahesh, 23 years, S/o Ramanjineyu;u, Chitluru village and Kadapa.

…. Accused 1 to 3.

This case is coming on today i.e., 18-12-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. M.Sudhakar naidu advocate for the accused having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police RIMS police station, Kadapa has laid the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.103/12 u/secs. 326, 324 of IPC r/w 34 IPC.

2.The contents of the Charge Sheet is as follows:-

On 18.10.12 at about 8.30 a.m the complainant (Avula Padmavathi) along with LW2 (Padigary Gangaiah) and LW3 ( Avula Yasodha) went 3 towards the house of A1 for questioning about their pestering the Avula

Radhakrishna, wherein the A1 beat the complainant with wooden plank on his head, when P.Gangaiah went to rescue the injured complainant, A2 beat him with iron blowing pipe on his right eye and A3 beat Gangaiah with stick on his back side and caused bleeding and swelling injuries. Then LW3 (Avula Yasoda) shifted the injured to RIMS hospital, Kadapa and got admitted them for treatment. On 18.10.2012 at 2.00 p.m upon a statement of LW1

Avula Padmavathi recorded by LW8 (V.Suresh Naidu) sent to RIMS P.S,

Kadapa and LW9 (G.Venkata Swamy) registered a case After the completion of investigation LW10 (G.Ghouse Ahammed) filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3.In this case cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/sec.326, 324 of IPC r/w 34 IPC against the accused 1 to 3.

4.On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/sec. 207 Cr.p.c and they were examined u/sec.239 Cr.p.c for the accusation levelled against them by explaining them the contents of charge sheet in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges U/sec. 326, 324 of IPC r/w 34 IPC. were framed against the accused 1 to 3. They denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked

Ex.s P1 to P9 and the learned A.P.P given up the evidence of LW.8 (V.Suresh Naidu).

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under sec. 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They 4 denied the same and reported no evidence on behalf of the accused. No oral and documentary evidence is filed on their behalf.

7.Heard arguments from both sides and perused the material on record..

8.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 326, 324 of IPC r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.?”

9.Point :- To Prove its contention the prosecution examined PW.s 1 to 8 and got marked Ex.s P-1 to P9. PW.s 1 and 2 are the injured victim in this case, PW.s 3 to 5 are the eye witness, PW6 is the doctor, PW's 7 and 8 are the investigating officer. Ex.P-1 is the 161 statement of PW1, Ex.P-2 is the 161 statement of PW3, Ex.P-3 is the 161 statement of PW4, Ex.P-5 is the Wound certificate of PW, Ex.P-6 is the wound certificate of PW3, Ex.P-7 is the FIR, Ex.P-8 is the hospital intimation and Ex.P-9 is the rough sketch.

10.The prosecution examined defacto complainant LW1 (Avula

Padmavathi ) as PW1. She deposed that about 9 months back at about 8.30 a.m while she was present at her house situated in Niranjan nagar. She came to know that the accused assaulted one Radhakrishna who is son of her sister for the sake of money knowingly the said information on the date of offence. She LW3 ( Avula Yasodha) and LW6 ( Buchupati Chinnagangulu) are present at tea bunk at that time one police constable came to the said place and asked her to show the house of the accused. When she questioned the accused regarding the assault of Radhakrishna A1 to A3 5 assaulted her. A1 beat her with a wooden plank ( Chekkapeta) and received bleeding injury on her head. A3 slapped on her cheek and A2 caught hold her --- and beat her. A2 to A3 assaulted her with hands and legs. She felt unconscious later neighbour shifted her to the RIMS hospital, Kadapa in an auto. She gave a complaint to the police, she examined by the police. The 161 Cr.P.C recorded her statement. Police sent LW1 to RIMS hospital,

Kadapa.

11.Coming to the evidence of PW2 who is the sister of PW1, deposed that at about 1 year back around 8.30 a.m while she was present in front of A1's house. She was informed – the PW1 by her son Radhakrishna was beat by

A1 to A3. On knowing the said fact PW1 and PW2 (P.Gangaiah) went to the house of A1's house is situated in Niranjan nagar. After some time she followed PW1 and LW2 to the house of accused. when PW1 and LW2 questioned the act of accused regarding the assaulting my son then A1 to a3 beat PW1 and LW2. She seen the assault made by A1 to a3 and also beat on the left side her for that she received bleeding injury. A1 to A3 beat PW2 on left side eye brow with iron bowing pipe. She also sustained bleeding injury one eyebrow. Later neighbour rescued PW1 and LW2 and shifted to

RIMS hospital, Kadapa. She was examined by the police.

In his cross examination she denied all the suggestion made by the defence counsel.

12.PW3 ( P.Gangaiah) he did not know anything about this case. He was informed by one Sanjeevamma who is her sister stating that Radhakrishna was assaulted. He was not examined by the police.

6

13.PW4 9 D.Bhaskar reddy) he did not witnessed the incident. He do not know anything about the case facts. He was not examined by the police.

14.PW5 (P.Chinnagangulu) he did not witnessed the incident. He do not know anything about the case facts. He was not examined by the police.

15.The prosecution examined by the doctor who gave treatment to PW1 and PW3. He deposed that on 18-10-2012 at about 9.15 p.m he examined

PW1 and found the following injuries: 1) a laceration measuring 3 X 2 X 1 over occipital region. Later he send PW1 to the radiology department to take x-ray and C.T brain. Radiologist given his opinion no fracture. He is the opinion that above injuries are simple in nature and may be due to fall on the stone with sharp edges. He issued wound certificate of PW1. Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate of PW1. He further deposed that on the same day he examined PW3 (P.Gangaiah) at about 9.50 p.m and found the following injuries: 1) laceration measuring 3 X 1 X ½ c.m over temporal region. Later he send PW3 to the radiology at give his opinion that there was fracture of temporal process of right zygomatic bone and zygomatic process of temporal bone. He is the opinion that the above injury is grevious nature and may be caused due to wind pipe. Ex.P-6 is the wound certificate of PW3 issued by him.

16.The prosecution examined PW7 ( G.Venkata Swamy) as traffic police.

He deposed that he worked as H.C at RIMS P.S, Kadapa from 12.2.2012 to 19.12.2013. On 18-10-2012 at 2.00 p.m while he was present in P.S he received hospital intimation along with statement of PW1 (Ex.P-1). Basing on

Ex.P-1 he registered a case in Cr.No. 103/2012 U/sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC 7 and submitted the FIR to all concerned officeials. Ex.P-7 is the FIR. Later he visited the RIMS hospital by securing the presence of PW1, PW3 and PW2 examined and recorded their 161 statements and visited the scene of offence and he prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. ex.P-9 is the rough sketch. By securing PW4 (P.Bhaskar reddy), PW5 (B.Chinnagangi reddy) and one Ramya was examined them and recorded their statements at the scene of offence. Further investigation was done by LW10 ( G.Ghouse

Ahemmod).

17.The prosecution examined PW8 (G.Ghouse Ahemmed) he verified the the investigation done by PW7 ( G.Venkata Swamy). On 4.11.2012 A1 to A3 voluntarily surrendered before him and he --- and released them on bail after obtaining wound certificate. He laid the charge sheet.

18.In this case PW1 (Avula Padmavathi) is the victim, PW2 (A.Yasodha) is the eye witness. PW.s 3 to 5 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The available evidence on record to speak about the things happened at the scene of offence is PW.s 1 and 2. The learned APP argued simply, because

PW.s 3 to 5 turns hostile. The entire case of the prosecution can not be thrown out. He argued that the evidence of PW.s 1 and 2 is not shaken by the defence side in any aspects. The medical evidence is also corroborating the case of the prosecution. As such the prosecution proved it's case. In the other hand the counsel for accused argued that, in this case there is not corroboration to the evidence of PW.s 1 and 2. More over PW3 (P.Gangaiah) whom the prosecution cited as eye witness turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He further argued that there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution. He pointed out PW2 deposed that PW3 8 sustained injury on her left eye brow. But as per wound certificate (Ex.P-6) he sustained injury on right eye brow. The counsel for accused argued that here are disputes between the accused and one Radha Krishna who is her sister's son LW2 ( A.Yasodha) for the sake of money and Radhakrishna got married the daughter of A2. In such a case her testimony cannot be relied upon.

19.As discussed supra now the only witness available on record to speak about the incidents happened at the scene of offence is PW.1. Now the question is whether the sole testimony of victim without corroboration can be relied upon or not. In a decision reported in 2012(2) ALT (Crl.) 407 between

Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs.State of Gujarat and Anr., decided on 21-10- 2011, the Hon’ble Apex court observed that “(ii) This Court has consistently held that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness.

That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction.

Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of 9 testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. (See: Vadivelu

Thevar v. The State of Madras; AIR 1957 SC 614;

Sunil Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi : (2003) 11 SCC 367; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150; and Bipin Kumar Mondal v.

State of West Bengal AIR 2010 SC 3638).”

20. On perusal of evidence of PW1, her evidence is consistent both in chief examination and cross examination. There are no significant contradictions in her evidence. Her evidence has not shaken at any place. According to

PW1, the incident happened on 18.12.2012 at 8.30 a.m. On perusal of

Ex.P-7 it was recorded by police on the same day at 2.00 p.m. PW1 was examined by the doctor i.e., PW6 in RIMS hospital, Kadapa on the same day at 9.00 a.m. The FIR was sent to the court on the same day at 10.30 a.m.

There is no delay at any stage. The medical evidence is also corroborating with the version of PW1. In her evidence PW1 as spoken about all the injuries mentioned in Ex.P-5 (Wound certificate ). On careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.s P-1, P-5 and P-7, her evidence is inspiring confidence of this court to believe her version.

21. Now coming to the defence taken by the accused 1 to 3 in the cross examination of PW1, injuries sustained by PW1 is self inflicted injuries and foisted a case against the accused 1 to 3. The counsel for accused also suggested to the doctor PW6, about the possibility to sustain the injury mentioned in Ex.P-5 (Wound certificate). He opined that these injuries are lacerated injury with clean cut edges. On perusal of evidence of PW2, in the cross examination she admitted that there was a disputes between their 10 family and A1 to a3's family with regarding to the money. But it is not the case of accused that previously PW1 gave any complaint against them. Moreover as discussed supra in the chain of incidents with regarding to the happening of incident, giving of compliant there is not delay at any point. In these circumstances naturally there is no necessity for PW1 to design a plan to give false compliant against the accused. On careful consideration of material on record I feel that the contradictions point out by the counsel for the accused are minor and they cannot thrown out the entire prosecution. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the material of record, I feel that defence taken by the accused 1 to 3 is unsustainable.

22. With regarding to the offence U/s. 326 of IPC there is no incriminating material on record to show that accused A1 to A3 committed an offence under sec. 326 IPC and they are not found guilty for the said offence.

23. In view of the foregoing discussion and basing on the material on record,

I feel that there is no reason to disbelieve the case of prosecution. It is clearly proved that A1 to A3 have beat PW.1 as stated by her in her evidence and they are committed the offence punishable U/Sec.324 I.P.C. r/w 34 of IPC,

Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has established its case against the accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/Sec.324, r/w 34 of I.P.C., The point is answered accordingly in favour of prosecution and against the accused.

In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.324, r/w 34 of I.P.C., and they are Convicted U/sec.248 (2)

Cr.P.C.

11

Dictated to the typist transcribed by her. Corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of December 2014.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.

Keeping in view of the nature of the offence and way of committing the same I feel that this is not a fit case to apply the provision of the section 360 of Cr.P.C for provisions of probation of offenders Act. 1958.

When questioned the accused A1 to A3 about the quantum oDictated to the typist transcribed by her. Corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of December 2014.f sentence to be imposed on them they stated that they are not committed any offence and pleaded to take lenient view.

Considering the submission of A1 to A3 keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. This court holds that it is not a fit case to take lenient view. The accused 1 to 3 are sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- ( Rupees Two Thousands Only) each. In default of payment of fine he shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

In the result accused 1 to 3 found guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.324, r/w 34 of I.P.C., and they are Convicted U/sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C.

The accused 1 to 3 is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousands

Only) each. In default of fine they shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The bail bond of accused shall stand cancelled 12 after elapse of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. A1 to A3 shall furnish a bond U/s.

437 (a) of Cr.P.C. They have to appeared before appellant court after receiving the summons with in six months from this date. The right of appeal is intimated to the accused.

Dictated to the typist transcribed by her. Corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of December 2014.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class

Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1 : Avula PadmavathiNIL P.W.2 : A.Yasodha P.W.3 : P.Gangaiah P.W.4 : P.Bhaskar Reddy P.W.5 : B.Chinna gangulu. P.W.6 : L.C.Vardhan Reddy P.W.7 : G.Venkata swamy P.W.8 : G.Ghouse Ahemmod

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1 : Statement of ComplainantNIL. Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.p.c statement PW3. Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P.4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P.5 : Wound certificate of PW1. Ex.P.6 : Wound certificate of PW3. Ex.P.7 : F.I.R. Ex.P.8 : Hospital Intimation. Ex.P.9 : Rough sketch.

Material Objects marked

Nil.

J.F.C.M. Kadpa.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEN OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE MAGISTRATE :: KADAPA

Present:-Smt. M.S. Bharathi,

IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Magistrate, Kadapa

Monday, this the 3rd day of October, 2016

C.C.No. 302 of 2014.

State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, Women U/G P.S, Kadapa.

….......Complainant.

Vs.

1. Dasari Sreenivasulu, S/o Ramanna, 21 Years, Letupalli village, Kamalapuram

Mandal, Kadapa District.

2. Dasari Ramanna, S/o Venkatesu, 50 Years, Letupalli village, Kamalapuram

Mandal, Kadapa District.

3. Dasari Balakka, W/o Ramanna, 48 Years, Letupalli village, Kamalapuram Mandal,

Kadapa District.

4. Medhara Nagamma, W/o Ganganna, 35 Years, Gandi Road, Sreeram Nagar,

Vempalli, Kadapa. . . . Accused 1 to 4.

This case is comingon 30-9-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri. S.Masthan Valli and Sri S. Ravi Kumar, advocates for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub- Inspector of Police, Women U/G Police Station, Kadapa has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P.Act.

2. The averments of the case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet in brief are as follows:-.

About 3 years back LW2 (Jagannadam Gangamma) performed the marriage of LW1(Dasari Nirosha) with A1. Later LW1 joined A1 at his resident. For some months they lived amicably. Later A1 developed illicit intimacy with other girl and informed that he doesn't need her. A1 told LW1 to take Rs.10,000/- and to leave his house and threatened to murder her. Further A2 to A4 also supported A1.

2

Accused used to abuse LW1 in filthy language, told that they would insult her in the streets by beating her and tortured her by informing that she did not bring any dowry, only performed the marriage. Accused demanded LW1 to get Addl. Dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/-from LW2's house. So saying A1 to A4 beat and necked LW1 out of the house. For the sake of dowry, accused harassed LW1. Due to unavoidable circumstances LW1 went to her maternal house. Later LW1 presented a report in

Mahila P.S. Basing on the strength of the complaint of LW1, LW7 (P.Jyothi WHC ) registered a case and took up investigation. After completion of investigation LW8 (Inspector of Police) laid charge sheet. Hence, the case.

3. This case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/sec.

498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P.Act against the accused 1 to 4.

4. On appearance of the accused persons copies of documents U/Sec.

207 Cr.P.C were furnished to them.

5. The accused persons were examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C read over the contents of charge sheet for which they denied the charge sheet allegations and hence a charges U/Sec. 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec.4 of D.P.Act have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6. In support of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.s 1 to 7 and got marked Ex.s P1 to P.5 are marked. PW1 who is defacto complaint, PW.2 is the mother of PW1, PW.s 3 to 5 are the elders of the said marriage, PW.s 6 and 7 are the Investigation Officers. Ex.P1 is the complaint,

Ex.P.2 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3, Ex.P.3 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement of

PW4, Ex.P.4 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW5. Ex.P.5 is the Original F.I.R.

7. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which the accused denied the evidence made against them by P.Ws 1 to 7 and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

3 “Whether the prosecution has proved the offences charged under section 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P.Act

against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts ?”

10. POINT: In this case PW.s 1 to 7 were examined, whereas PW1 who is the victim and defacto complainant deposed that about five years back LW2 (Gangamma) performed her marriage with A.1 at Badvel. After marriage A1 took her to Netupalli and they lived happily. Later A1 developed illegal intimacy with another lady and A1 informed her to take Rs.10,000/- to leave his house and threatened her to murder him. Then she informed the said facts to A2 and A3, but they informed her that she has to leave the house otherwise, they will murder her and perform 2nd marriage to A1. Later A.1 to A3 harassed her to bring additional dowry of one lakh and she informed the same to L.w.2 and she informed her to adjust with them. Later she went to accused house and stayed there for two days, but A1 to A3 harassed her for not bringing additional dowry and necked out her from their house. At the time of complaint she was pregnant after that she gave a complaint before the

Mahila P.S., Kadapa Ex.P.1 is the signature on the complaint and she was examined by the police.

11. During her cross examination, she stated that her marriage is love marriage and there is only one family belongs to their caste residing at the house of the accused. She did not state to the police at the time other examination that the name of the lady to whom A1 is having illegal contact and from where that lady belongs. At the time of her marriage itself her father is no more and that L.w.2 is a house wife. At the time of filing of this case she was pregnant. She denied the suggestion that A.1 to A.4 came to her house and requested her to come to their house for performing Sreemantham, for that L.Ws 2 and 3 refused for sending her with them. A1 put up separate family in Kadapa at Jyothi Chemicals. A4 is residing at Vempalli and she adds A4 left her husband and she used to reside in her mother- in-law's house. She is having a sister by name Saroja and she used to reside in her parents house. She cannot say on which date the accused demanded the

additional dowry to her. She gave a birth to a male child. She denied the suggestion

that she did not inform to the accused about the delivery of male child. She also 4 denied the suggestion that A1 to A4 came to her house and requested her to conduct naming ceremony for that she and L.Ws 2 and 3 were refused. She conducted naming ceremony to her child. A.1's grand father died when her child was aged about 7 months and she attended for the funerals of A.1' grand father.

She denied the suggestion that A2 and A.3 went for business purpose for months together and also denied the other suggestions.

12. P.w.2 who is the mother of P.w.1 has deposed that about 3 years back she performed P.w.1's marriage with A1 at Badvel. After the marriage, she went P.w.1 to Letupalli, Kamalapuram Mandal to lead marital life. They lived happily for a period of one year. A1 developed illegal contact with another woman and informed P.w.1 that to take Rs.10,000/- and leave him or otherwise they would kill her. At that time P.w.1 pregnant, A2 to A4 supported A1 and stated that if Pw1 did not leave their house they will beat her in the streets and accused further stated that her mother spent the amount only for the marriage and demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. Later P.w.1 informed the above facts to her. Later they went to the police station to give the complaint and she was examined by the police.

13. During her cross examination, she stated that one Akumalla

Naganna is her brother-in-law and Yerra Gangaiah is her husband and at the present he is no more. She blessed with four daughters (Saroja, Nirosha, Gowri and

Ganga) and they are all married and the 1st and 2nd daughter are living with her. The husband of first daughter leaved her and she is staying in her house and she will not perform second marriage of her first daughter. She went to the house of accused for two times and she cannot saw personally from whom A1 is having illegal contact with another woman. She admitted that A1 is not demanded an amount of Rs.1

Lakh to her, but he demanded P.w.1. She adds that P.w.1 informed her while P.w.1 is in the third month pregnancy that A.1 demanded P.w.1 for Rs.1 Lakh. She stated that to the police at the time of her examination that P.w.1 informed her in the third month pregnancy that A.1 demanded P.w.1 for Rs.1 Lakh. She did not conduct any mediation at the house of the accused. She denied the suggestion that A.1 put up separate family at Kadapa. She adds that he put up a separate family at 5

Maddimadugu of C.K. Dinne Mandal and she did not stated the above facts to the police. Nagamma is residing at Vempalli. She denied the suggestion that A.1 to A.4 did not harass P.w.1 and that they foisted a false case against the accused and that

A.1 came to her house for seeing his child and we beat the accused and send away and that A.1 stated that name ceremony of his child has to be celebrated in his house for that they refused.

14. PW. 3 who is eye witness to the harassment has deposed that about 3 years back police called him to the Police Station, then he put the signature on some written paper. Except this he do not know anything about the case. He was not examined by the police. Hence he was declared as hostile and his 161

Cr.P.C statement was marked as Ex.P.2.

15. PW.s 4 and 5 who are also eye witness to the harassment of accused are deposed that they do not know anything about this case. Hence they were decalred as hostile and their 161 Cr.P.C statements were marked as Exs. P.3 and P.4.

16. PW.6(A.S.I) deposed that on 16.07.2013 at about 11.30 a.m., P.w.1 came to Police Station and gave a written complaint and basing on that she registered a case in Cr.No.99/2013 U/s 498-A, 506 IPC and Sec.4 of DP Act and she issued FIRs to all the concerned Officials Ex.P.5 is the FIR. On the same day she examined P.w.1, P.w.2 and L.w.3 and recorded their statements. On 17.7.2013 she arrested A.1 at Old Bus Stand, Kadapa and produced before the Hon'ble Court for remand. Further investigation was done by L.w.8.

17. During his cross examination, she deposed that he was examined

P.w.1 at the police station, P.w.2 is the mother of P.w.1 and L.w.3 by name V.

Bujjamma is aunt of P.w.1. There are number of residential houses situated in and around of P.w.1's house and she did not examine any of the witnesses in and around of P.w.1 except L.w.3. She denied the suggestion that she registered the case as per the dictation given by P.w.1 and she did not record the statements of

P.Ws 1 and 2 and L.w.3.

6

18. PW.7 (DSP) deposed that on 19.7.2013 he took up investigation from P.w.6 and verified the investigation and found the same on correct lines. On 20.7.2013 he secured the presence of P.w.3, P.w.4 and P.w.5, examined them and recorded their statements. A2 to A.4 obtained anticipatory bail and after completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet in this case.

19. During his cross examination, he deposed that he examined P.Ws 3 to 5 at the police station and he denied the suggestion that he did not examine

P.Ws 3 to 5 and not recorded their statements and his investigation is table investigation.

20. The learned A.P.P. argued that the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and

P.Ws 6 and 7 are corroborated with each other and hence the prosecution is proved the guilt of the accused and accused may be convicted. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the independent witnesses turned hostile and P.Ws 1 and 2 are interested witnesses and hence the accused are entitled for acquittal.

21. Considering the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 7, P.w.1 stated that about five years back her mother performed her marriage with A.1 at Badvel and after marriage A1 took her to Netupalli village and after marriage they lived happily and later A1 developed illegal intimacy with another lady and A.1 informed her to take

Rs.10,000/- to leave his house and threatened her to murder him and she informed the said facts to A2 and A3 and inturn they informed that PW1 have to leave the house, otherwise they will murder her and perform 2nd marriage to A1. Later A1 to

A3 harassed her to bring additional dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and informed the same facts to LW2 and she inturn told PW1 to adjust with them. Later she went to accused house and stayed for 2 days, there A1 to A3 harassed her for not bringing additional dowry and necked out her from their house. At the time of giving of complaint she was pregnant. Later she gave a complaint to Mahila P.S and Ex.P.1 is the complaint of PW1. PW2 also deposed the same facts of PW1 and she came to know the above facts through PW1. But during the cross examination of PW1, she admitted that her marriage is love marriage and she did not stated to the police at the time of 7 her examination that the name of the lady to whom A.1 is having illegal contact and from where that lady belongs and PW6 also did not investigate the case whether A1 is having illegal contact with another women and where she belongs and PW2 also admitted in her cross examination that she did not saw personally from whom A1 is having illegal contact with another lady. So except bold allegations against A1 neither PW1 not PW2 did not stated the name of the lady to whom A1 is having illegal contact with another lady. So there was a suspicion with regarding to the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW2 stated that PW1` informed her while she was 3rd month of pregnancy A1 demanded of Rs. 1 lakh. But during cross examination she did not conduct any mediation at the house of accused. PW1 further stated that

A.1 put up separate family at Jyothi Chemicals, Kadapa. Where P.w.2 stated that he put a separate family at Madimadugu at C.K.Dinne Mandal. So the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 is inconsistent with each other. Whether accused put up a separate family at Kadapa or C.K.Dinne mandal. So there was a suspicion with regarding to the evidence of PW.s 1 and 2. To prove the case prosecution examined PW.s 3 to 5 but they are not support the case of prosecution. But they turned hostile and their 161

Cr.P.C statements were marked as Ex.P.2 to P.5 respectively. P.w.6 (I.O) who is an

Investigation Officer admitted in cross examination that there are number of residential houses situated in and around the house of P.w.1, but she did not examine any of the witnesses in and around of P.w.1, except L.w.3 (V. Bujjamma) who is aunt of P.w.1, but the prosecution has not examined the said V. Bujjamma who is aunt of P.w.1. On perusing the complaint all the accused are residing at

Vempalli but PW6 also not examined any of the witnesses in an around of the accused house situated at Vempalli to prove the harassment made by the accused persons towards PW1. Either P.w.6 or P.w.7 did not held any counsellings between

P.w.1 and A.1 and they simply register the case, examine the witnesses and filed the charge sheet. It is an admitted fact that no dowry was given to the accused at the time of marriage as PW1's marriage is love marriage. Moreover P.W.1 and P.w.2 are mother and daughter and they are interested witnesses. Though prosecution examined independent witnesses, none of the witnesses support the case of 8 prosecution and to support the version of PW1 also prosecution not examined LW3 who is the aunt of PW1 to speak about the harassment towards PW1. So non examining of LW3 is a fatal to the prosecution case. So the evidence of PW.s 1 and 2 is not trustworthy and not believable one and the material and exhibits placed by the prosecution is not helpful to the case of the prosecution and the prosecution is miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused are entitled for acquittal.

22. In the result, the accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec. 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P.Act and they are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.

Accused shall execute a bond U/sec. 437(A) Cr.P.C and that they shall appear

before the Appellate Court in the event of they receives summons within six months

from today. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer to the Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 3 rd day of October, 2016.

Sd/- M.S.BHARATHI

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Spl. Mobile Court, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW.1: D.Nirosha Nil. PW.2: J.Gangamma PW.3: Shaik Mabu Basha PW.4: N.Balaji PW.5: A.Sreenivasulu. PW6: P.Jyothi. PW.7:L.Sudhakar.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P.1: Complaint.- Nil - Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW4 Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW5. Ex.P.5: Original F.I.R 9

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: NIL

Sd/- M.S.B

IV A.J.C.J, KDP

FAC J.M.F.C., Spl. Mobile Court,

KADAPA.

// TRUE COPY //

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Spl. Mobile Court, Kadapa.

1

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by Spl.Mobile Magistrate of Ist Class,

Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehen- Release on Commenc-Close of Judgment sion of bailement of trial trial 08-10-201208-10-201205-11-201205-11-2012 11-06-2014 15-12-2014 19-12-2014

Calender and Judgment in C.C.No: 15/14 on the file of Spl.Mobile Judl.

Magistrate of Ist Class, Kadapa.

COMPLAINANT: RIMS P.S. in Cr.No. 98 / 12 .

Name of the accused with father's Age Religion Residence Name.

1234

ChristianD.No. 3/490, Rajareddy

1. Jala Joseph, S/o Bhushanam 59 years street, Kadapa.

2. Jala Santhosh Kumar, S/o ChristianD.No. 3/490, Rajareddy 27 years Josephstreet, Kadapa.

3.Bireddy Ramachandra reddy46 yearsHinduEguvapalli, Pendlimarri

4. Arigala Maheswara49 yearsHinduPaidikalva, Pendlimarri.

Offence : under Sec. 143, 447,427,323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

Finding :Accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.

143, 447,427,323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted

U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail of accused shall stand cancelled after elapse of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. A1 to A4 shall furnish a bond U/s. 437 (a) of Cr.P.C. They have to appeared before appellant court after receiving the summons with in six months from this date.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Kadapa. Re Marks : Explanation for the delay. From: The Judl. Magistrate of Ist Class Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Kadapa.

Dis. No. Date:

2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT: KADAPA

Present: - Ms. M.S.Bharathi,

Judicial First Class Magistrate Special

Mobile Court, Kadapa

Dated, this the 19 th day of December, 2014.

C.C.No. 15 /2014 .

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, RIMS police station.

....Complainant.

-Versus-

1. Jala Joseph, S/o Bhushanam, 59 years, d.No. 3/490, Rajaeddy street, Kadapa. (A1)

2. Jala Santhosh Kumar, S/o Joseph, d.No. 3/490, Rajareddy Street, Kadapa. (A2).

3. Bireddy Ramachandra reddy, 46 years, Eguvapalli, Pendlimarri. (A3)

4. Arigala Maheswara, 49 years, Paidikalva, Pendlimarri. (A4). …. Accused 1 to 4.

This case is coming on today i.e., 15-12-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. G.Ramesh reddy advocate for the accused having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police , RIMS police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 143, 447, 427, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC and in Cr.No. 98/2012 of RIMS PS alleging that :-

2. The contents of the Charge Sheet is as follows:-

In the year 2004 PW1 (G.Manikyamma) purchased the site from one

Venkateswara rao, about 7 months back got constructed three sheeted house, in one room PW1 was residing and in other two rooms lent the same for rent.

3

Two months after the construction of PW1 house, A1 and A2 visited PW1's house and demanded them to vacate the house, the said site belonged to them. For which PW1 told that they are having documents with regard to their ownership and informed about purchasing the same from Venkateswara rao.

As such they went away. Later accused filed a civil suit before the court over the said site against PW1. On that PW1 also filed a civil suit. Both cases are pending in the court. On 8.10.2012 at about 5.30 p.m while she was in the house, accused A1 to A4 and some others formed themselves into members of an unlawful assembly went to PW1's house armed with deadly weapons and threatened them with dire consequences to vacate the house, abused them in filthy language. So abusing accused criminally trespassed into PW1's house, caused mischief by throwing the TV, Sofa, cots and other articles in pell-mell condition. When she intervened A3 kicked PW1 in the stomach with his right leg, resulting which she fell down and raised cries. On hearing her cries, PW2 (D.Bhaskar) intervened, A2 picked up an iron rod and beat him on his head and caused bleeding injury. Further the accused and others caused mischief by damaging the compound wall and gate with a crowbar. Further accused threw the articles in pell-mell condition. Further the accused also threw stones over the sheets, resulting which the sheets were damaged. Accused further trespassed into house of PW4 (Mandala Lakshmi Narayana) and damaging the ceiling fan and accused further trespassed into house of PW5 (M.Annapurnamma) threw the articles in pell -mell condition, PW1 intervened accused abused her in filthy language and assaulted her with hands and legs.

PW.s 4 to 7 ( M.Lakshmi Narayana, M.Annapurnamma, G.Mahaboob basha and

A.Saradi) and others chastised and the accused went away from there. On the hospital intimation PW11 (B.D.Naik) recorded the statement of complainant on 8-10-2012. Later he forwarded the same to RIMS P.S on the point of 4 jurisdiction. Basing on the hospital intimation and strength of the complaint of

G.Manikyamma, PW12 registered a case. After completion of investigation he took up investigation and filed the charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3. In this case cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/sec. 143, 447, 427, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused 1 to 4.

4. On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/sec. 207 Cr.p.c and they were examined u/sec.239 Cr.p.c for the accusation levelled against them by explaining them the contents of charge sheet in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Charges U/sec. 143, 447, 427, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. were framed against the accused 1 to 4. They denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked

Exs. P1 to P8. The learned A.P.P, given up the evidence of LW's 4 to 6 ( M.Lakshmi Narayana, M.Annapurnamma and G.Mahaboob basha) and LW.s 8 to 11 ( D.Vandla Johnson, S. Santhaiah, Dr.B.Sreenivasulu and B.D.Naik) on behalf of defence, none were examined and no documents are marked.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, As there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the prosecution evidence, examination U/sec.

313 Cr.p.c is dispensed with. The counsel for accused reported no evidence on behalf of accused.

5

7. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused for the charges under section 143,447,427,323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

8. POINT:

To substantiate the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined

Pws 1 to 5 and Ex.s P1 to P 8 are marked.

Coming to the evidence of Pw1( G.Manikyamma) is a resident of

Kadapa. LW3 (G.Chinni ) is her daughter, LW2 (G.Baskar) is the neighbour and

LW4 to LW7 ( M.Lakshmi Narayana, M. Annapurnamma, G.Mahaboob basha and A.Saradi) are also residing in their locality. She know A1 to A4. Her husband purchased 5 cents site from one Venkateswara rao in the year 2004 and got registered sale deed in her favour. Subsequently she constructed three rooms in that site. she let out two rooms for the rent and she is residing in one room. After two months after the construction of her house A1 and A2 came to her house and demanded to vacate the house as the site belongs to them. For which she showed the documents with regarding to the owner ship. She told that, they purchased the site from one Venkateswra rao there after words then

A1 and A2 went away from that place. About two years back at 5.30 p.m while she was present in her house along with her daughter (LW3), A1 to A4 along with others came there and threatened her with dire consequences and abused her in filthy language as she did not vacate the house and trespassed into her house and damaged T.V, sofa, cots and cycle. Later she intervened A3 abused and kicked her on abdomen and she fell down. Mean while LW2 (Bhaskar) came to rescued her. Then A2 also beat LW2 with iron rod and caused bleeding injury. A1 to A4 damaged the compound wall, gate with crowbar. The neighbours LW.s 4 to 7 ( Mandla Lakshmi Narayana, Mythri Annapurnamma, 6

Gaguturu Mahaboob basha and Akki Dasari Saradhi) questioned the attitudes of the accused there after the accused went away from that place. LW5 and LW6 ( M.Annapurnamma and Gaguturu Mahaboob basha) telephoned to 108 ambulance and sent her and LW2 to the RIMS hospital, Kadapa. Police came to the hospital and recorded her statement that is Ex.P-1. Police examined her.

During cross examination she deposed that she do not know A1 to

A4. Police did not examined her. She filed the present case upon the information given by some one. There are civil disputes over the disputed property no such incident happened, the accused never came to her house and she was not present in the house on that day.

9. Pw2 deposed that( D.Bhaskar) he is a resident of Kadapa working as contract labour at electrical office, Industrial estate Kadapa. He know PW1 and

LW3 to LW7 and he know A1 and A2 but he do not know A3 and A4. On 8-10- 12 while he was returning from his office when he reached the house of PW1 some persons pelted stones to the house of PW1. He questioned the persons with regarding to their high handed action for that A2 beat him with rod and he sustained bleeding injury on head. On the intervention of neighbours the said persons went away from that place. He and PW1 was admitted in RIMS hospital with the help of 108 ambulance. Police examined him.

During the cross examination of PW2, he deposed that he was not present at the time of alleged offence. Police did not examined him and he do not know anything about his case.

10. Pw3 ( G. Chinni) deposed that she isresident of Kadapa and residing at Industrial Estate. At present she is residing Door.No.43/259-27 near electrical office, Industrial estate, Kadapa along with her parents. In the year 7 2004 her father purchased 5 cents in survey no. 907/1 from K.Venkateswara rao and Prathap reddy and the same was registered in favour of PW1 for a consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/- After purchasing the property after seven years they constructed three sheeted rooms. Out of three rooms, two rooms given for rent and they are residing in one room. After two months of construction A1 and A2 came to their house and demanded to vacate the said rooms as the site belongs to them. And they showned the documents with regarding to the site then the A1 and A2 went away. Later the accused filed a civil suit against them and they also filed civil suit against accused and the same is pending. On 8- 10-2012 at 5.30 p.m she and PW1 present in the house, A1 to A4 and others criminally trespassed into the house and abused in filthy language and demanded why you are not vacate the said site and A1 pushed PW1 she intervened and questioned A1 for that A1 to A4 threatened them with dire consequences and they damaged T.V., Sofa and cots. Then PW1 questioned

A3 for that he kicked PW1 on her abdomen due to that PW1 fell down on the ground. PW2 came there after hearing the cries of PW1 questioned the accused about the incident, A2 beat PW2 with a iron rod on his head and caused bleeding injury due to that PW2 also fell down on the ground. A1 to A4 and others damaged the compound wall, and gate with crowbars and also damaged the furniture of their tenants. A1 to A4 also dragged PW1 and beat her with hands and legs on the arrival of neighbours all the accused went away from that place. Later PW1 and PW2 admitted in RIMS hospital with the help of 108 ambulance. Police examined her.

During the cross examination she deposed that she was not present at the time of alleged incident. She did not know anything about the case.

Police did not examined her.

8

11. PW4 (A.Saradhi) deposed that she know PW.s 1 to 3 and LW.s 4 to 6 and she do not know the accused. She did not witnessed the incident. She do not know anything about the case. Police did not examined her.

12. PW5 (D.Mahaboob basha) deposed that at present he was working as C.I in Hindupur, II-town circle. Previously he worked as C.I, RIMS police station from 10-2-2009 to 21-9-2013. On 8-10-2012 he received hospital intimation i.e,

Ex.P-3 along with Ex.P-1. He registered the same as case in Cr.No. 98/2012, issued FIR, Ex.P-4 is the FIR. On 9-10-2012 he examined Pw.s 1 to 3 and recorded their statements at RIMS hospital. He went to the scene of offence along with LW.s 8 and 9 and seized the iron rod, stones and sheets under the cover of mahazar i.e, Ex.P-5. He also observed the scene and drafted rough sketch, i.e, Ex.P-6. He examined LW.s 4 to 6, PW4 and recorded their statements. On 5-11-2012 he arrested A1 to A4 and released them on bail.

LW10 (Dr.B.Sreenivasulu) who treated PW.s 1 and 2 and issued wound certificate i.e, Ex.s P-7 and P-8 wound certificates of PW.s 1 and 2 and opined “no injuries” . After the completion of investigation he laid the charge sheet.

In his cross examination he shown the address of PW1 as door no.

8/133-6, Prakash nagar, Kadapa in Cr.NO. 97/2012 which was shown by the accused and denied all the allegations.

13.In this case Pw1 (G.Manikyamma) purchased 5 cents from one

Venkateswara rao in the year 2004 and registered the site in her favour. Out of 3 rooms, she let out 2 rooms for rent and she is residing in one room. After 2 months after the construction of the house A1 and A2 came to her house and 9 told the said site belongs to them. They showed the documents to them.

About 2 years back while she was present in her house along with her daughter A1 to A4 along with other threatened them with dire consequences and abused her. When LW2 (D.Bhaskar) rescued her, A2 also beat with iron rod and he also sustained injury also. A1 to A4 damaged the compound wall.

Later neighbour rescued her. During the cross examination she deposed that she do not know A1 to A4. She filed the present case upon the information given by some one. No incidents happen and the accused never came to her house and she was not present on the date of incident. Police not examined her. Coming to the evidence of PW2 ( D.Bhaskar) while he was returned from his office. When he reached to the house of PW2, some persons pelted stones to the house of PW1. During cross examination of PW2 he was not present at the time of alleged offence and he do not know anything about the case. He was not examined by the police. Coming to the evidence of PW3 (G.Chinni) daughter of PW1, she deposed the same version of PW1. But in her cross examination she was not present at the time of the incident. She was not examined by the police. Coming to the evidence of PW4 who is Investigation

Officer, he stated with regarding to the registration of the case, recording of 161 statements, seizure and arrest of the accused.

14. Basing on the above said discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences

U/sec. 143, 147,427, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

The evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the offence committed by the accused A1 to A4. So benefit of doubt will be given to the accused. Thereafter the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

10

In the result A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence U/s. 143, 447,427, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.

248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail of accused shall stand cancelled after elapse of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. A1 to A4 shall furnish a bond U/s. 437 (a) of Cr.P.C. They have to appeared before appellant court after receiving the summons with in six months from this date.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court this, the 19th day of December, 2014.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1 : G.Manikyamma - Nil- P.W.2 : D.Bhaskar. P.W.3: G.Chinni P.W.4: A.Saradhi. P.W.5: D.Mahaboob basha.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1 : Statement of PW1. NIL. Ex.P.2 : 161 (3) Cr.PC Statement. Ex.P.3 : Hospital intimation. Ex.P.4 : F.I.R. Ex.P.5 : Under cover of Mahazar. Ex.P.6 : Rough sketch. EX.P.7 : Wound certificate of PW1. Ex.P.8 : Wound certificate of PW2.

Material Objected Marked :-

Nil.

J.F.C.M KADAPA.