1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
RAJAMPET
Present: Smt.M.Sandhya Rani,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
Rajampet.
Wednesday, this the 26 th day of April, 2023
CALENDER CASE NO.154/2015
BETWEEN: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Rajampet (U) Police Station.
::: Complainant
A N D
1. Kole Sri Hari Prasad, S/o Narasimhulu, aged about 33 years, Hindu, resident of D.No.6/77-G, T.Agraharam Street, Rajampet Town (A1)
2. Kole Rajeswari, W/o Narasimhulu, aged about 55 years (A2)
3. Kole Narasimhulu, S/o Pattabbi, aged about 59 years (A3)
4. Kole Narasimha Rao @ Naasimhulu, S/o Narasimhulu, aged about 30 years (A4)
5. Kole Vijaya Lakshmi @ Vijaya, D/o Narasimhulu, aged about 25 years (A5) A2 to A5 are residents of D.No.6/777-2, T.Agraharam Street, Rajampet Town.
::: Accused No.1 to 5
This case is coming on 13.04.2023 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt.K.Rehana Rasool, Learned Asst Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant; and of Sri.Shaik Jeelani, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Rajampet (U) Police Station laid
Charge Sheet in Cr.No.16/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 324 R/w 34 of IPC against Accused No.1 to 5.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that – 2
L.W.1 is de-facto complainant who is victim and injured. L.W.2 and
L.W.3 are parents of L.W.1 and residents of D.No.15/502, R.R. Street,
Kanakamahal center, Subedar Peta, Nellore Town. L.Ws.4 to 6 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and residents of T.Agraharam Street, Rajampet
Town respectively. L.W.7 is Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Rajampet
Town who treated L.W.1 and issued wound certificate. L.W.8 is H.C.No.595 of
Rajampet (U) P.S who is 1st Investigating officer. L.W.9 is the Sub-Inspector of
Police Rajampet (U) P.S who is 2nd Investigating officer in this case.
L.W.1 is resident of D.No.6/771, T.Agraharam Street, Rajampet
Town and living as a house wife. L.W.1 got married to Accused No.1 about 3 years back and blessed with one son. After some days of marriage Accused
No.1 started harassing L.W.1 and on that a criminal case was registered in III
Town, Nellore Town. After some days the Accused No.1 came to L.W.1 and compromised the matter in P.S with a condition of separate family at
Rajampet Town. Later the Accused No.1 started harassing L.W.1 without permitting her to talk with L.Ws.2 and L.W.3. Accused No.1 to 5 also harassed
L.W.1 mentally and physically.
On 02.02.2015 at about 10.30 PM when L.Ws.2 and L.W.3 visited
L.W.1 house, Accused No.1 not permitted L.W.2 and L.W.3 to enter into the house and abused them in filthy language and Accused No.2 and 3 bet them with hands and legs, at that time Accused No.2 thrown a knife from kitchen room, which struck on L.W.1 right hand middle finger causing simple bleeding injury. After knowing the same, L.Ws.2 and L.W.3 visited L.W.1 house on 03.02.2015 at about 8.00 PM. Then the Accused No.1 to 5 abused them in filthy language and bet L.W.1 with hands and legs and got admitted in 3
Government Hospital, Rajampet for treatment with the help of L.W.2 and
L.W.3. L.W.4 to L.W.6 are eye witnesses to the occurrence.
Basing on the recorded statement of L.W.1, L.W.8 registered a case in Cr.No.16/2015 U/sec.498A, 324 R/w 34 IPC of Rajampet (U) PS and investigated into the case.
During the course of investigation, L.W.8 examined L.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements, examined scene of crime. L.W.7 is the Medical officer, Government Hospital, Rajampet who examined L.W.1 and issued wound certificate has opined that the injury is simple in nature.
All Accused were granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble IV
Additional District Judge, Kadapa FAC Hon'ble III Additional District, Judge,
Rajampet vide Crl.MP.No.357/2015, dt.25.03.2015, as per orders of the
Hon’ble Court on 27.03.2015 all Accused surrendered before J.F.C.M,
Rajampet and were released on bail.
L.W.9 verified the investigation of L.W.8, obtained wound certificate from the Medical officer/L.W.7 Government Hospital, Rajampet, drafted charge sheet and filed in the Hon’ble Court.
Thus the Accused No.1 to 5 by their acts are liable to be punished
U/Sec.498-A, 324 R/w 34 IPC. Hence, the case.
3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under
Sections 498(A), 324 R/w 34 of IPC against Accused No.1 to 5.
4.On appearance of Accused No.1 to 5 before this Court, copies of documents were furnished as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5.During the course of examination under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, regarding the allegations of the Prosecution, the Accused No.1 to 5 have denied the same. When the charges, framed under Section 498(A), 324 R/w 4 34 of IPC, read over and explained to the Accused No.1 to 5 in Telugu for which the Accused No.1 to 5 have denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to
P.W.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. The evidence of L.W.2 was given up by the
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor endorsing P.W.1 and P.W.2 corroborated well and L.W.9 was given up as P.W.6 got examined and all documents are marked. Hence, the prosecution side evidence is closed.
7.During the examination of the Accused No.1 to 5 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, they denied the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses and the Documents. The
Accused No.1 to 5 have submitted that they have no evidence on their behalf.
Hence, the evidence on the side of the Defence is closed
8.Now the point for determination are
1. Whether the Accused No.1 to 5 committed cruelty against defacto
complainant and harassed her physically and mentally thereby
committed the offence under Sections 498(A), 324 R/w 34 of IPC ?
2. Whether the Prosecution could be able to bring home the guilt of
the Accused No.1 to 5 or the accusation leveled against them
beyond all reasonable doubt?
9. POINT No.1:
(a)To establish its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.
(b)The case of the prosecution is based on Ex.P1 complaint lodged by
P.W.1. It mentions that P.W.1 is a resident of T.Agraharam Street, D.No.6/771 of Rajampet Town and she is a Home maker. About 3 years back the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with Accused No.1 and they are blessed with one son.
5
She lived happily with Accused No.1 till some days after marriage, thereafter he started harassing P.W.1. On that a criminal case was registered in III Town
P.S, Nellore Town. During the pending of said case the Accused No.1 after few days came to P.W.1 and assured of taking care of her welfare and got settled the criminal case at III Town P.S, Nellore and on the pretext that he shall put separate family with her at Rajampet brought her to Rajampet and for few days kept separate family and then started harassing her. The Accused not permitted P.W.1 to talk with her parents and used to scold her. Then on 02.02.2015 at about 10.30 PM, when L.Ws.2 and 3 visited P.W.1 house, they were not allowed inside the house and also abused them. The Accused No.1 and 2 kicked with legs and bet with hands. Then the Accused No.2 in anger thrown a knife from kitchen room, which stuck on right hand middle finger of
P.W.1 causing simple bleeding injury. After knowing the same, L.W.2 and 3 visited P.W.1 house on 03.02.2015 at about 8.00 PM, then they were abused in filthy language. P.W.1 informed L.W.2 and L.W.3 about pain due to beating of Accused No.1 and 2, then they admitted her in Government Hospital,
Rajampet for treatment. Police came there and recorded her statement and found on correct lines.
(c)In the Chief examination on 21.10.2016, the defacto complainant examined as P.W.1 stated that now she is residing at Nellore and she is a house wife. L.W.2 and L.W.3 are her parents namely T.Venkateswarlu and
T.Adi Lakshumma. She does not know L.W.4 to 6 P.Siva Kumar, G.Hari Babu
Naidu, Y.Narasimha Reddy. Accused No.1 is her husband, Accused No.2 is mother in law, Accused No.3 is her father in law/K.Narasimhulu, Accused
No.4/K.Narasimhulu is her brother in law and Accused No.6 is her sister in law.
6
On 12.06.2011, her marriage with Accused No.1 was performed in a Kalyana Mandapam at Rajampet Town. They lived happy marital life for some period and due to wed clock she is blessed with one male child.
Thereafter her husband started to harass her and used to neglect her and her son. When the same is considered, P.W.1 specifically failed to explain for how long she lived happily with Accused and the reason for the harassment by her husband. The said negligence meted out to her as well as her child by her husband is not stated in Ex.P1 or Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statements.
In the continuation of Chief examination on 14.09.2022, P.W.1 further stated that she joined for marital life with her husband at Rajampet and they lived happily for six months only. It can be noticed that in the chief examination earlier she deposed that she lived happily with her husband for some period in accordance with Ex.P1. The same is however developed and specifically stated as 6 months appearing to be as an after thought. While the mother of P.W.1 examined as P.W2 deposed that P.W.1 lived happily with
Accused No.1 for 1 ½ years.
At her marital house, her in-laws, sister-in-law and brother-in-law i.e., Accused No.2 to 5 reside in the same house. At the time of marriage they presented Rs.4.00,000/- cash and 20 Savarams of Gold towards dowry. The same was conveniently omitted in the complaint under Ex.P1 and Sec.161(3)
Cr.P.C Statements as well as evidence of P.W.2. At the time of marriage they were told that Accused No.1 was working as Lecturer in College. After six months of marriage, Accused No.1 to 5 started harassing her for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and threatened that Accused No.1 would give divorce.
The same is not at all stated in Ex.P1 or Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statements. There 7 was no allegation of demand of additional dowry in Ex.P1 or Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statements. Therefore the same appears to be improved version.
Then she filed complaint at III Town P.S, Nellore. No particulars of the said complaint and the offence under which the said complaint was lodged is stated by P.W.1 in Ex.P1. Further deposed that Accused No.1 assured her that he would take care of her welfare and got compromised the case. Then Accused No.1 put separate house along with her adjacent to the house of her in-laws at Rajampet. Thereafter Accused No.1 taken care of her for 6 to 7 months. Then Accused No.1 to 5 again started harassing her for filing earlier case. The Accused not permitted her talking to her parents (L.W.2 and L.W.3) over phone and not permitted them to visit her.
While P.W.2 in this regard supported the same and stated in the evidence that P.W.1 concieved after eight months of her marriage. The
Accused started quarrelling with P.W.1 from her 5th month of pregnancy. They brought her to her house for delivery. After the delivery none of the Accused came to see boy child and not approached P.W.1. After 2 years, P.W.1 filed case at Nellore itself against Accused. Then Accused No.1 approached them and took P.W.1 to lead marital life and the said case was settled. The same was also reiterated by P.W.1 in further cross examination.
P.W.2 further deposed that thereafter the Accused harassed P.W.1 by not allowing them to visit P.W.1 nor to talk over phone with her, without their knowledge got her aborted due to which she became weak. It can be noticed from above evidence that the reason for said alleged harassment by
Accused was not stated by P.W.2. Further the aspect of said abortion was never stated by P.W.1 in Ex.P1 or in examination before Police.
8
Further P.W.1 deposed that on 02.02.2014, her parents came to visit her and at 10.30 PM the Accused not permitted her parents to see her, then a quarrel took place and Accused No.2, 5 kicked her with legs in her stomach and she was two months pregnant with child. While Ex.P1 mentioned that she was beaten by Accused No.1 and 2. That Accused No.2 thrown a knife over her and she resisted with her right hand receiving bleeding injury over middle finger. Accused No.4 caught hold of her tuft and dragged her out side and Accused No.3 abused her. Accused No.1 bet her by holding tuft. The presence of Accused No.3 to 5 or specific overt act on part of
Accused No.3 to 5 is not stated in Ex.P1 or Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statements.
Further deposed that her parents came to know about the Accused beating her and visited there, then Accused not permitted them to see her and went highhandedly upon them. She suffered severe pain in her stomach and bleeding, her parents shifted her to Government Hospital, Rajampet. The
Ex.P1 only stated that she sustained said pain due to alleged beating by the
Accused but not stated about bleeding due to said alleged assault. Police recorded her complaint statement in the Hospital. Witness identified the same marked under Ex.P1. Police examined her.
In the Cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that the earlier case filed by her in the year 2013 at Nellore was compromised. The Maintenance case filed in the same year and DVC Case filed in the year 2014 at Nellore were also compromised. Further admitted that she preferred Transfer Petition before
Hon’ble High Court for the transfer of present case to Nellore in the year 2017
after recording of her Chief examination in part.
That on 03.02.2014 i.e., on the next day she was taken to Hospital,
Ex.P1 was recorded at Hospital. She signed in Ex.P1 after going through its 9 contents. Ex.P1 was prepared as per her instructions. Further admitted that as per Ex.P1 and in above Chief examination she has stated that on 02.02.2015 at 10.30 PM her parents came to see her at Rajampet. The quarrel took place with Accused prior to the visit of her parents. Witness added that her parents came on the next day of the occurrence and she does not remember exactly about the same. Further stated that after the occurrence she called her parents over phone and informed the same and at night her parents did not come and came only in the next morning. She admitted that in Ex.P1 and in her Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement she has mentioned that her parents came to see her at 10.30 PM on 02.02.2015 and she does not remember exactly about the same. On perusal of Ex.P1 it is stated that her parents came to visit her on 02.02.2015 and Accused not permitted them to visit her. Later the alleged occurrence took place and on the next day on 03.02.2015 again her parents visited her after she informed the same in night hours. Since sufficient time lapsed from the date of alleged occurrence and date of evidence, P.W.1 not recollecting about exact details can be overlooked.
Further stated that she has received injuries all over her body and received bleeding injury in stomach. She cannot state how many injuries she sustained on her body during the said incident. On perusal of Ex.P4 it is clear that said bleeding was due to miscarriage. Further apart from said injury on right hand middle finger, no other injury noted by Doctor examined as P.W.5.
She denied that at the instructions of prosecution she has deposed in Chief examination which is though not stated earlier. Further denied that in the counselling held in the present case she denied to live even in separate house at Rajampet and demanded Accused No.1 to live with her at Nellore.
She admitted that the marriage expenses were borne by Accused family and 10 marriage took place at Rajampet. When the same is considered the complaint under Ex.P1 or Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statements are silent about the alleged demand for additional dowry. So when the marriage expenses are borne by
Accused themselves they demanding for additional dowry seem doubtful.
She admitted that on 02.02.2015, Accused No.2 came to visit her and she allowed her into her house. She denied that then she closed the door and hit her head at door. In the absence of specific evidence the same can be considered as blatant allegation. She does not know if L.W.6 is residing opposite to her house in first floor. She denied that on hearing the cries while she was hitting Accused No.2 to the door said L.W.6, came to their house then she opened the door and being elder considering her welfare Accused No.2 not preferred any complaint against her and being frightened that Accused No.2 would lodge a case against her inturn she filed the above case. The said L.W.6 examined as P.W.3 turned hostile and nothing was elicited from his evidence that could support the case of prosecution. Further the said allegations of the
Accused against P.W.1 are baseless.
She admitted Ex.P1 stated that the occurrence took place at 10.30
P.M on 02.02.2015 while in wound certificate the same shown to have been caused on 03.02.2015 at 8.00 P.M and the one mentioned in Ex.P.1 is correct.
However the Learned Defence Counsel not elicited about the same in the evidence of P.W.5.
She visited Hospital on 03.02.2015 but the same shown in wound certificate as 04.02.2015. In view of said discrepancies over the date of examination of P.W.1 by P.W.5, reasonable suspicion raises over Ex.P4 wound certificate and the prosecution failed to give any valid reason over the said aspect. Further denied that as her father got no sufficient means her marriage 11 was performed at Rajampeta at the expenses of Accused and she deposed in her chief examination to suit Ex.P1 though it was filed without cause of action and at the influence of L.W.3 she used to force Accused No.1 to put house at Nellore and she gave her earnings to L.W.2 and L.W.3 and intentionally filed false cases at Nellore to threaten Accused No.1 for putting family at Nellore. She denied that there is 400 feet distance between her house and house of inlaws at Rajampeta. When the same is considered though P.W.1 got stated that their house at Rajampet was taken adjacent to the house of other Accused, Ex.P6 rough sketch for the scene of offence do not support the said contention. Further P.W.6 admitted that he made no investigation with respect to identifying the house of Accused No.2 to 5.
(d)In the evidence of P.W.2 who is none other than the mother of
P.W.1 deposed on the same lines of P.W.1 in the Chief examination and further stated that P.W.1 received treatment for 15 days at Government
Hospital, Rajampet after alleged occurrence.
In the Cross examination by the Learned Defence Counsel, P.W.2 further stated that she did not state to Police about Accused No.1 aborting second pregnancy of P.W.1 without their knowledge. She came to know about the occurrence only through phone call of others. She does not remember the date of said occurrence. She denid that they came after two days of their visit at Rajampeta and abetted P.W.1 to foist false case and since the date of marriage they have compelled Accused No.1 to stay with them as Illatam son- in-law.
By the time they came to Rajampeta after the occurrence, Accused
No.1 absconded by locking the door by bolt and P.W.1 with child were found on the ground. The same not mentioned to Police, witness added that later 12 they informed to Police. On the said date they got into the bus at 05.30 AM in
Nellore to come to Rajampeta to see P.W.1 after the occurrence. On perusal of
Ex.P1 it can be noticed that P.W.1 mentioned about her parents reached her at 8:00 PM in night hours on said date. About 10.30 AM they reached Police station. P.W.1 studied Intermediate. She does not remember the time when her husband received phone call from said others after the occurrence.
She denied that on the said date P.W.1 herself bet Accused No.2 and to avoid any case she filed false case against Accused. Her husband does fruit selling business in Nellore. She denied that the Accused never harassed
P.W.1 as alleged and in the mediations held she prevented P.W.1 from going to marital home.
(e)In the evidence, P.W.3 and P.W.4 stated that they know each other,
P.W.3 identified Accused No.1 as husband of P.W.1. P.W.3 stated that he resided opposite to the house of Accused No.1 and P.W.1 at T.Agraharam.
They do not know about any marital disputes of Accused No.1 and P.W.1.
They do not know anything about the case. Police did not examine them.
P.W.3 and P.W.4 were treated hostile and APP sought to cross examine them wherein both denied that they stated as in Ex.P2 and P3 161(3)
Cr.P.C statements and deposing false to help the case of Accused.
(f)In the evidence of P.W.5, the Medical Doctor who examined P.W.1 deposed that she has been working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government
Hospital, Rajampet from 11.07.2011 to 30.09.2019. Further stated that on 04.02.2015 at 12:45 PM she examined P.W.1 and found the following injuries
1. Abrasion of 3x2 cm over right hand middle finger.
Patient complained of abdominal colic (pain) and bleeding PV (per vaginal) 13
History of three months Amenorrhoea (Missing Periods). Case seen by duty
Gynaecologist.
Ultra Sound Scan finding – An SLF (Single Life Foetus) 13 weeks one day EDD (Expected delivery date ) 11.08.2015.
She is of the opinion that the above injury No.1 is simple in nature with 17 to 19 hours duration and might have been caused due to blunt object. Accordingly she issued wound certificate under Ex.P4.
In the Cross examination, P.W.5 admitted that the said injuries can be sustained accidentally at the time of opening doors or windows forcefully. The patient complained that the injuries sustained by her was due to beaten by legs. She has given intimation to the Police.
(g)The Investigating officer who is examined as P.W.6 stated in the
Chief examination that presently he is working as A.S.I at Taluq P.S, Kadapa.
Previously he worked as Head constable at Rajampet (U) P.S from 07.03.2013 to 05.02.2016. Further deposed that on 04.02.2015 at about 3.15 PM he received hospital intimation of P.W.1 from Government Hospital, Rajampet. He visited the Hospital and recorded her complaint statement from 3.30 to 4.30
PM. He returned to P.S and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.16/2015
U/sec.324, 498A R/w 34 IPC of Rajampet (U) P.S under Ex.P5/FIR. He issued
FIR to all concerned. He again visited the Government Hospital, Rajampet, there he secured the presence of P.W.1, P.W.2, L.W.2 and recorded their statements.
On 05.02.2015 he visited the scene of offence at T.Agraharam of complainant and Accused No.1 house. There he secured the presence of
L.W.4, P.W.3, P.W.4 and examined them and recorded their statements. He observed the scene and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence under 14
Ex.P6. The Accused No.1 to 5 obtained anticipatory bail from Hon’ble IV
Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Later Accused surrendered before J.F.C.M.,
Court, and were released on bail. L.W.9 took up further investigation, verified his investigation and found on correct lines, L.W.9 received wound certificate, after completion of investigation L.W.9 filed charge sheet.
In the Cross-examination, P.W.6 denied that the rough sketch under Ex.P6 was prepared on 05.02.2015. The same was elicited by Learned
Counsel as there is correction in the date. He admitted that on the date of offence P.W.1 was living separately with Accused No.1, but Accused No.2 to 5 were present in the house on the date of alleged offence. He admitted that
Ex.P6 does not mention Accused No.2 to 5 residing separately. No investigation is made to know the residence of Accused No.2 to 5. He admitted that the crime scene house bearing D.No.6/771-G2 was shown opposite to house T.Annapurnamma W/o Venkata Seshaiah bearing D.No.6/789. He did not prepare crime scene observation Mahazar as no crime weapon was seized by him. He does not know if said Venkata Seshaiah opposite to crime scene house was working as Amin in Court. He did not examine said Venkata
Seshaiah or his wife. He denied that as Ex.P6 was prepared on 04.02.2015 at
Police station said correction took place. He admitted Ex.P1 statement of
P.W.1 does not disclose said harassment was with respect to demand of
additional dowry of cash or gold.
Likewise the statements of L.W.2, P.W.2 also does not mention demand of additional dowry. He admitted as per Ex.P1 the date of offence mentioned as 02.02.2015. While he received hospital intimation on 04.02.2015 at 3.15 PM. The distance between T.Agraharam and Government
Hospital, Rajampet is about 3 Kms and the distance to the T.Agraharam is 15 also 3 Kms and it takes 20 minutes to reach said places. There is delay of two days between the date of offence and Ex.P1. He denied that he did not examine P.W.3, P.W.4, L.W.4 on 05.02.2015 and prepared their statements at
Police station itself. He further added that reason for delay in filing complaint was explained in 8th column in FIR that after reaching of parents P.W.1 visited the Government Hospital.
He admitted that said 8th column of FIR does not mention when parents of P.W.1 reached after the alleged offence. He denied that no alleged offence occured and P.W.1 herself bet P.W.2 and apprehending that P.W.2 would prefer complaint against her as an after thought P.W.1 filed Ex.P1.
(h)The case against the Accused is that the Accused No.1 to 5 being husband and relatives of husband harassed P.W.1 both mentally and physically for additional dowry. To establish the same sufficient material has to be placed by the prosecution before this Court against the Accused. Firstly in the complaint under Ex.P1 and in Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statements there was no mention of demand of additional dowry by the Accused. But in the evidence, P.W.1 deposed about demand of Rs.1,00,000/- as additional dowry by the Accused. Further Ex.P1 is silent about alleged dowry presented at the time of marriage and the particulars of the elders in whose presence the said dowry was presented by parents of P.W.1 to the Accused. The Ex.P1 complaint mentions that the Accused have harassed P.W.1 but the reason for said harassment is not stated. The same is vague allegation and no specific overt act by each Accused is stated in Ex.P1. Further there is no mention of how said harassment shattered her mental and physical well-being. In the evidence, P.W.1 deposed that on 02.02.2015 at 10:30 PM the Accused not permitted her to meet her parents who visited her and also scolded them, 16 then bet her with hands and legs, during the said occurrence Accused No.2 in anger threw a knife at her leading to bleeding injury over right hand middle finger. The Ex.P1 specifically mentions of overt act of Accused No.1 and 2 only however in the evidence, P.W.1 stated by specifying act of all Accused appearing to be improved version. Also Ex.P4 wound certificate mentions the injury was due to beaten by legs. In the evidence P.W.1 developed the same and attributed act against each Accused where Accused No.1 and 4 held her tuft, Accused No.4 dragged her to outside by holding her tuft and Accused
No.3 abused her. Further the same being serious allegation and in case of any such occurence, in ordinary circumstances P.W.1 would reach Police station and report the same or would have raised hues and cries leading to the attention of neighbors. But there is no mention of neighbors who witnessed said occurrence either in Ex.P1 or in the evidence. Further Ex.P1 does not specifically mention who abused her parents and vaguely mentions they were abused. Also there is no other evidence to support occurrence on 02.02.2015 except her oral testimony. The Ex.P4 wound certificate is having complaint of miscarriage. But Ex.P1 is silent that on the said date P.W.1 was pregnant. The other injury to right hand middle finger if connected to alleged occurrence can only be considered after evaluating entire evidence.
The Investigating officer clearly admitted in the evidence that no investigation made with respect to residence of Accused No.2 to 5. Therefore it has to be construed that the house of Accused No.2 to 5 is not adjacent to their house as claimed by P.W.1. The Ex.P6 rough sketch is also not supportive in this regard. As no specific overt acts attributed against Accused
No.3 to 5 by de facto complainant in Ex.P1 or Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statements, it 17 has to be assumed that they are falsely implicated in the case. In view of the same no case is attracted against Accused No.3 to 5.
The independent witnesses examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4 turned hostile and nothing could be elicited from their evidence with respect to alleged harassment by the Accused or alleged occurrence dated 02.02.2015.
In view of the said inconsistent version the case against the Accused that the
Accused subjected P.W.1 to cruelty for additional dowry remains doubtful.
P.W.6 is only Investigating officer and his evidence can be considered to the extent of registering of the case and further investigation.
The Learned APP in support of the case of prosecution relied upon
a) State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt.Kalki and Anr (1981 SCC (2) 752
Dt.15.04.1981)
The above appeal by Special leave on behalf of the State of
Rajasthan is directed against the judgement of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court acquitting the Respondents convicted under Section 302 and Section 148 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for 2 years. The term interested witness came up for consideration, it was observed in the circumstances the only possible eyewitness who has no interest to protect the real culprit and falsely implicate the Respondent hence though the person is the wife of the deceased she cannot be called an interested witness. Further the discrepancies if any, in the evidence of P.W.1 are only normal errors expected of a normal person which are due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Accordingly the conviction was confirmed.
The said finding is not applicable to case on hand as apart from
P.W.2 who is mother to P.W.1, the other witnesses turned hostile.
18
b) Sucha Singh and Anr Vs State of Punjab ( Appeal (crl.) 1015 of 2002 Dt.31.07.2003)
The appellants were found guilty of offence punishable under
Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. It was observed by Hon'ble apex Court that it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to explain the injuries inflicted over
Accused. Further the discrepancies if any, in the evidence of P.W.1 are only normal errors expected of a normal person which are due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. The appeals found to be of no merit and dismissed.
The said finding is not related to marital discord and not relevant to the case on hand.
The Learned Defence Counsel on the other hand relied on
a) Shanmughavelu, appellant Vs State, respondent ( 2004 Crl L.J 2731 Hon'ble Madras High Court )
The appellant was convicted for dowry harassment and demand of dowry under Sections 498A IPC and Section 4 of D.P Act. It was observed
P.W.1 has not stated the exact time of demand of dowry. Delay in lodging of the complaint raises thick cloud of suspicion upon the prosecution case.
P.W.1 and the appellant are already separated. Held, allegations of demand of dowry and harassment based upon the solitary testimony of wife. The evidence of other witnesses was not direct and substantial. Accordingly the conviction was set aside allowing the appeal.
The said finding is applicable to the present facts of the case where only the evidence of P.W.1 is direct. Further the Ex.P1 is silent of the allegations of demand of dowry and the same is raised only in the evidence by 19
P.W.1. The Ex.P1 is vague with respect to the harassment meted out by the
Accused. Further there is no specific overt act against Accused No.3 to 5 with respect to alleged harassment and it is evident that they have been falsely implicated without any reliable material.
b) Shaik China Buda Vs State of A.P ( 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 294 (AP) )
The above appeal is filed against the judgement of conviction under Section 498-A IPC. The Charges under Sections 304B and 498-A IPC were framed against 6 Accused and the trial Court acquitted all the Accused and convicted only the Accused No.1. Held, there is no specific evidence against Accused No.1 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The evidence of prosecution witnesses are not corrobborative on material aspects and full of inconsistencies. Accordingly the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction against appellant.
In the above case, the deceased had committed suicide out of alleged harassment by the Accused. It was observed that as P.W.3 consulted an Advocate before giving the report under Ex.P1, in such circumstances it is unsafe to believe its contents as there would be every likelihood of improvement when once Advocate was consulted before filing the same.
Further there was no specific evidence against Accused No.1 and the report under Ex.P1 had blanket averment against all the 6 Accused.
As seen the said facts are not relevant to the case on hand. Therefore said finding is not helpful to the case of Accused.
c) State of U.P Vs Preetam & Ors ( 2011 AIAR (Criminal) 355 )
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
The said appeal arose for setting aside the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court. The facts of the case are with respect to the 20 offences under Sections 302 R/w 149 and 307 IPC. It was observed the delay of 17 hours in lodging FIR was not explained. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
The said facts are also not relevant to the case on hand. However in the present case there is explanation in the column of FIR that the de facto complainant waited for the reaching of her parents before filing the report.
Therefore said finding is not helpful to the case of Accused.
d) Indira Devi & Ors Vs State of Himachal Pradesh ( 2016 AIAR (Criminal) 731 )
It was observed the proposition of law that an injured witness is generally reliable is no doubt correct. But even an injured witness must be subjected to careful scrutiny if circumstances and materials available on record suggest that he may have falsely implicated some innocent persons as an afterthought on account of enmity and vendetta. The 3 appellants were arrayed as Accused along with their husbands for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 R/W Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. It was observed that in the cross-examination the Doctor admitted that the said injury was possible even by a fall on hard surface. There were no specific allegations against the appellants and the same were only developed later in the course of deposition in Court. Such allegation was without support from any independent witness. Accordingly the appeal was allowed releasing the appellants from the custody.
When the above finding is applied to the present facts of the case, there were no specific allegations against Accused No.3 to 5 in Ex.P1, further there was no mention for the reason of harassment from Accused No.1 and 2, there was no specific demand of additional dowry in either Ex.P1 or Section 21 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements, however the same was developed during the course of deposition in the Court raising a reasonable suspicion against the case of the prosecution. There is no independent witness for the alleged occurrence though it is stated that the parents of P.W.1 arrived there after knowing the same through the neighbours. The neighbours examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4 totally turned hostile. So there is no evidence before this Court with respect to the alleged harassment by the Accused on P.W.1 except her oral testimony.
The medical Doctor examined as P.W.5 deposed that the said injury on P.W.1 can be sustained even by forceful closing of doors or windows. Therefore the alleged occurrence on 02.02.2015 remains unestablished. Hence the ingredients of the Sections 324 IPC are not made out in the above case. So the said finding supports the case of Accused.
In view of the said circumstances of the case, the alleged harassment in the name of additional dowry as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman against Accused remained unproved. The provision of law under
Section 498-A stipulates that the harassment of a woman under this Section is with a view to coerce her or any person related her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. While Ex.P1 is silent of any demand of additional dowry on part of Accused. The implication of all the
Accused though they did not live under one roof show the allegations of the harassment and cruelty meted out by Accused against the de facto complainant as unreliable and untrustworthy. Therefore the ingredients of the
Section 498-A IPC are not attracted in the present case. Hence it is not safe to base conviction of the Accused and the Accused can be given benefit of doubt.
22
This Court therefore concludes and holds that the Prosecution had utterly failed to establish the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 5 for the offence under Sections 498(A), 324 R/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the Accused are entitled for acquittal.
Hence the point is answered against the prosecution.
11. POINT No.2:-
In the result, the Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 498(A), 324 R/w 34 of IPC and are acquitted for the same under Section 248[1] of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 5 shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of Judgment, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, it shall stand cancelled. The marked and unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of
Appeal time.
Typed to dictation to the Stenographer of this Court partly, typed partly by me, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 26 th day of April, 2023.
Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Rajampet.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined
S.No. On behalf of Prosecution On behalf of Defence
1.P.W.1: K.SuprajaNONE
2.P.W.2: P.Adilakshmi
3.P.W.3: Y.Narasimha Reddy
4.P.W.4: G.Hari Babu Naidu 5Dr.N.Dhana Sree 6P.Sreenivasulu
Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution:
23
Ex.P.1: Complaint of P.W.1
Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2
Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3
Ex.P.4: Wound certificate of P.W.1
Ex.P.5: FIR in Cr.No.16/2015 of Rajampet(U) P.S
Ex.P6: Rough sketch
Id/- M.Sandhya Rani
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Rajampet.
// True Copy //
Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rajampet.
24
CALENDER AND JUDGMENT
DISTRICT:KADAPA
Calendar AND Judgment tried by the Judicial .Magistrate of I Class: Rajampet.
Date ofReportApprehenReleaseCommencCloseJudgment OffencesionOn bailementOf trial Of AccusedOf trial 03.02.201504.02.201527.03.201527.03.201521.10.201603.02.202326.04.2023
Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.154/2015 on the file of J.F.C.M, Rajampet. Complainant: The S.H.O.,Rajampet (U) Police Station, in Cr.No.16/2015. Name of the accused withAgeReligionResidence father’s Name
1. Kole Sri Hari Prasad,Age 33 years Resident of D.No.6/77-G, S/o Narasimhulu, (A1)T.AgraharamStreet, Rajampet Town. ST Colony,
2. Kole Rajeswari, W/o Age 55 years, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa City. Narasimhulu, (A2)
3. Kole Narasimhulu, S/o A2 to A5 are residents of Age 59 yearsHindus Pattabbi, (A3) D.No.6/777-2, T.Agraharam
4. Kole Narasimha Rao @ Street, Rajampet Town. Age 30 years Naasimhulu,S/o Narasimhulu, (A4)
5. Kole Vijaya Lakshmi @ Vijaya,D/o Age 25 years Narasimhulu, (A5) Offence :Under Section 498(A), 324 r/w 34 of IPC
Finding :The accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty.
Sentence:The Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 498(A), 324 R/w 34 of IPC and are acquitted for the same under Section 248[1] of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 5 shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of Judgment, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, it shall stand cancelled. The marked and unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of Appeal time.
// True Copy //
Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani
Judicial Magistrate of I Class Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani
Rajampet. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Rajampet.
Remarks: Explanation for the delay 25
From: The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajampet. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.