1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF I CLASS : BHIMADOLE. PRESENT : - SMT. M. SUDHA RANI
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT, ELURU.
FAC/ JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BHIMADOLE.
Thursday, this the 9th day of January, 2020.
C.C.No.297/2017
Between:
State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Eluru. … Complainant
A n d:
Uppalapati Naga Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o. Rambabu, 27 years, C/Kamma, farmer, Perugugudem Village, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District. … Accused
This case is coming on 02.01.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for the Complainant, and of Sri Avula Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocate for the accused and the matter having been 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, Eluru Women Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.49/2016 against accused for the offence punishable Under
Sections 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 & 4 Of D.P Act,1961.
2.The brief facts of the case are that:-
The S.I of police Women Police station filed a charge sheet in
Cr.No.49/2016 under Section 498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 that P.W.1 is only daughter of P.W.2 and L.W.3-Rama Devi, and her marriage was solemnized with A1 that is 2nd son of A2 in Dwaraka
Thirumala and by that time parents of P.W.1 presented Rs.5,00,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold and sarey samanu worth of Rs.1,00,000/- to P.W.1. It is further submitted that, P.W.1 blessed with a female child and after that A1 took Rs.5,00,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold from P.W.1 for capital of 2 cultivation and later A1 informed that, he had loss in cultivation and used to come to house in late hours and later P.W.1 on enquiry came to know that, A.1 lost money by playing cricket gambling and the same was questioned by P.W.1 and that A.1, beat P.W.1 and demanded her Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents and also abused to kill her if she did not bring that amount. It is further submitted that, on 01.08.2014 at about 8.00 P.M the accused necked out P.W.1 with a demand of additional dowry amount. Then P.W.1 reached her parents house with her child. Then P.W.1 made attempts through the mediators to go to the house of the accused, but said attempts were for not fulfilled and P.W.1 waited till this day and finally filed report before this police as there is no change in the attitude of the accused. The report of P.W.1 was registered by P.W.9 as in case in Cr.No.49/16 under section 498-A r/w.34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of
D.P Act and he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, and recorded the statements of witnesses and served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the
A1, as A2 to A5 are not harassing the L.W.1, and filed charge of investigation against A1. After completion of investigation, PW.10 obtained permission for deleting the charge against A2 to A4, from DSP women Police Station, as there is no evidence of harassment against the P.W.1. Hence the charge against A1 only.
3.Case is taken on file, against the accused, for the offence U/Sec.498-A and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act.
4. On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. He was examined under
Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation is leveled against him is made known to him by explaining in Telugu. A charge under Section 498-A of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 D.P.Act, is framed against accused for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.To support the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 are examined, 3
Exs.P1 to P12 are marked. Ex.P1 is the report given by PW.1, to the Police.
Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.5. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of
L.W.6. Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW7. Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW.10. Ex.P6 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW8. Ex.P7 is the 161
Cr.P.C statement of LW9. Ex.P8 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW11. Ex.P.9 is the original F.I.R. Ex.P.10 is the rough sketch prepared at the house of complainant. Ex.P11 is the rough sketch prepared at the house of accused.
Ex.P12 is the orders of D.S.P., Women P.S., Eluru dated 28.10.2016. The evidence of LW.3-Vadlamudi Rama Devi and L.W.4-Vadlamudi Rambabu are given up by learned APP.
6.Accused is examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating evidence read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.
8. Now the point for determination is,
(i) Whether the complainant had proved the guilt of the accused
for the offence U/secs. 498-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
(ii) Whether the complainant had proved the guilt of the accused
for the offence U/secs. 3 and 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable
doubt?
9.After completion of investigation P.W.10 filed charge sheet against A1 only by deleting the names of remaining accused, as no case is made out against them. PW.10 also obtained the permission from D.S.P of women Police station for deleting the names of the other accused. P.W.1 did not protest the deletion of of the names of other accused and it shows that, she intentionally filed false report against the other accused also only to harass them.
4
10. As per the evidence of P.W.1 she gave report on 02.05.2016 and she was examined on the same date itself. Where as Ex.P1 report was on 02.05.2016, but it was registered on 18.06.2016 and P.Ws1 and 2 were examined by
P.W.10 on 17.06.2016, but not on 02.05.2016. As per the evidence of P.W.10 on 17.06.2016 P.W.1 came to the police station and presented typed report.
Thus the evidence of P.W.1 that on 02.05.2016, she gave report to Police, and they were examined by the police is contradicting with the evidence of P.W.10.
11.It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, her marriage was performed with A1 on 01.08.2012 in Dwaraka Thirumala and her parents presented Rs.5,00,000/- apart from 20 sovereigns of gold, sarey samanu worth of Rs.1,00,000/- by the time of her marriage. According to her, after birth of female child, the accused took Rs.5,00,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold from P.W.1 and spent the same for his vices and informed to P.W.1 that he sustained loss in cultivation and later he demanded P.W.1 to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/- otherwise he will kill P.W.1 and her daughter. She further deposed that, on 01.08.2014 at 8.00 P.M the accused necked out her along with her daughter and she went to her parents house and placed the matter before the elders but the accused and his family members, did not hear the words of elders.
Later, she gave report to the police.
During the cross examination she admitted that, she was examined by the police by the date of report and she got notice to the accused through her counsel on the date of Ex.P.1 report. She further deposed that, on 02.05.2016 she got typed Ex.P.1 report and on the same day she gave report to the police and subsequently she was not examined by the police and she further deposed that, she went to her parents house when she was carrying seventh month of pregnancy and gave birth to her daughter on 30.12.2013 and on 5th month she went to her in-laws house. She admitted that, in D.V.C 11/2016 she deposed that herself and accused put up separate family after the birth of her 5 daughter in the month of September-2014. She admitted that, she deposed in
D.V.C 11/2016, that she left her parents house on her own accord in the month of August, 2014 and in the month of September herself and accused put up separate family and after one month she left to her parents. She admitted that, the accused has sent the elders namely Garapati Sivannarayana, Paluri
Ramakrishna, Kethineni Srinivasa Rao, Musunuri Gangadhara Rao,
P.Dasaradhayya to her parents house for mediation. She denied the suggestion that her father refused to send her to matrimonial house. She admitted that, in spite of request of mediators she did not join the accused for marital life, and of the same was deposed by her in D.V.C No.11/2016. She deposed that, she was not willing to join the accused as there is a life threat.
12.One Vadlamudi Rambabu father of P.W.1 is examined as P.W.2 on the same lines of PW.1 regarding the dowry and the marriage of P.W.1 with A1 and that the accused spent Rs.5,00,000/- in cultivation,beating P.W.1 to bring
additional dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. He further deposed that, he placed
the matter before the village elders.
During his cross examination he deposed that, he cannot say the month, date and year of harassment caused by the accused for want of additional dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. He deposed that, P.W.1 was sent to her marital life while her daughter is aged about 5 months and P.W.1 stayed at the house of the accused for a period of one month. He deposed that, while P.W.1 and accused are staying at the parents house of accused, P.W.1 was necked outbyaccused, and that, after the birth of girl child of P.W.1, P.W.1 and accused lead marital life for a period of one month in the parents house and there after they put up separate family. He admitted that, the elders by name
Garapati Sivannarayana, Paluri Ramakrishna, Kethineni Srinivasa Rao,
Musunuri Gangadhara Rao, P.Dasaradhayya were sent by the accused to send
P.W.1 for her matrimonial home. He admitted that, he gave evidence as P.W.2 6 in D.V.C No.11/2016. Ex.D.1 relevant report of evidence of P.W.2 in D.V.C
No.11/2016. He deposed that, he is ready and willing to send P.W.1 for marital life if she is willing to join the accused.
13.PWs.3 to 9, who are independent witnesses are turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.
14. It is the evidence of P.W.10 investigation officer that she registered the case on the report of P.W.1, and prepared the rough sketch and recorded the statements of witness, and served Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused. She further deposed that, she filed charge sheet against A1 only and she deleted the names of A2 to A5, after obtaining orders from D.S.P Women Police Station for not filing charge sheet against the accused A2 to A5.
During her cross examination, she deposed that, on the receipt of Ex.P.1 report a counseling was held between P.W.1 and the accused. She admitted that, P.W.1 did not state before her that, she came to know about the bad vices of accused through her father.
15.Learned APP argued that, by examining P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.10 and by marking the relevant documents the prosecution proved the guilt of accused.
He argued that, though P.W.3 to 9 were turned hostile which is not fatal to the case and prosecution since there is no possibility to the out siders to witness the harassment of accused towards P.W.1 as said harassment is between four walls. He argued the elders of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is clearly corroborating that each other regarding the presentation of dowry, so also the harassment of the accused towards P.W.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents. He argued that, there is a life threat from the hands of accused to
P.W.1 and for that reason she is not willing to join the accused. Hence he prays to convict the accused as per law.
7
16.The defence counsel argued that, the P.W.1 herself voluntarily left the company of the accused and that there is no harassment of the accused towards P.W.1. He argued that, case filed against A.1 only, though P.W.1 gave report against A1 to A5 and it shows that, P.W.1 filed false complaint against the accused. He argued that, even as per Ex.P.1 report the said amount was given to P.W.1 and not to the accused. He argued that, there are several contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and 2, and that there is no incident took place as alleged by P.W.1 and 2. He further argued that, the mediators between P.W.1 and the accused though they examined as prosecution witness they did not support the case of prosecution and it shows that there is no such harassment as alleged by P.W.1 and he prays to acquit the accused under the benefit of doubt.
17.As per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 though they deposed that, parents of P.W.1 presented Rs.5,00,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold and sarey samanu worth of Rs.1,00,000/- to P.W.1 by the time of her marriage with A1, they could not produced any documents or any evidence to that effect. Even though they did not mention the names of the persons in whose presence they presented that amount to P.W.1. It is evidence of P.W.1 that the accused took that Rs.5,00,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold for investment in the cultivation and on enquiry she came to know that, her husband spent amount for cricket betting and other bad vices, and that, on 01.08.2014, the accused necked out her from his house with a demand of additional dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/-. But, she admitted that, she had deposed D.V.C No.11/2016 that in the month of September, 2014. Herself and the accused put up separate family after the birth of her daughter and stayed for one month. So which are quite contradicting with each other. She also admitted that, she deposed in
D.V.C 11/2016 that she came to know about the bad vices of accused in the month of January, 2014 and she went to delivery in her seventh month of 8 pregnancy and returned to the house of accused in the month of August, 2014.
She further admitted that, she had deposed before the Court in D.V.C No.
11/2016 that she left to her parents house on her own accord in the month of
August, 2014, and in the month of September herself and the accused put up separate family and after one month she left to her parents house. As per the above said admission of P.W.1, the report of P.W.1 that on 01.08.2014, the accused necked out her, is not true and it is fatal to the case of prosecution.
18.As per the Ex.P.1 report from 01.08.2014 till 02.05.2016 i.e., for about one year 7 months she waited with a fond hope that there may be a change in the attitude of the accused. Where as in her evidence before the Court she admitted that, the accused sent the elders by name Garapati Sivannarayana,
Paluri Ramakrishna, Kethineni Srinivasa Rao, Musunuri Gangadhara Rao,
P.Dasaradhayya to her parents house to mediation. So the contention of P.W.1 that, she waited with a hope of change in the attitude of accused is also not ture. She also admitted that, in spite of request of elders she did not join the accused for marital life and the same was also deposed by her in D.V.C 11/2016.
19. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2 i.e., father of P.W.1 he deposed that, after the birth of girl child to P.W.1 herself and accused lead marital life for a period of one month in the parents house of accused and then, they after put up separate family. Where as it is the version of P.W.1 that, in September, 2014 herself and accused put up separate family after the birth of daughter.
But she did not whisper about her stay in her matrimonial house after birth of her daughter. Except the uncorroborating evidence of P.W.1 and 2 There is no evidence regarding the harassment of accused for additional dowry is not established.
9
20.P.w.3 to 9 who are said to be independent witnesses, and mediators between but the parties were turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.
21.As per Section 498(A) of IPC, cruelty means__
Any willful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
life, limb or health(whether mental or
physical) of the woman;
Such cruelty is not established by the prosecution through the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.P1 report, by the accused towards PW.1.
22.Though P.W.10 investigating officer deposed regarding the registration of
FIR, preparation of rough sketch, recording the statement of witnesses, it is no way helpful to support the case of prosecution, to come to a conclusion that, there is a harassment by the accused towards P.W.1 for additional dowry.
Though P.W.2 denied that, he stated in D.V.C 11/2016 that he did not sent
P.W.1 for marital life in spite of request of the elders, the relevant portion of of deposition of P.W.2 is marked as Ex.D.2. As per Ex.D1, P.W.2 admitted that
Garapati Sivannarayana, Paluri Ramakrishna, Kethineni Srinivasa Rao,
Musunuri Gangadhara Rao, P.Dasaradhayya came to his house and requested him to sent the petitioner for marital life, but he did not send PW.1 for marital life.
23.With the above said observation, I safely came to conclusion that there is no cruelty by the accused towards P.W.1 with a demand of additional dowry.
Hence I answered this point in favour of the accused.
24.Point No.2:- As per Ex.P1, and as per evidence of PWs.1 and 2, alleged cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, 20 sovereigns of gold and sare saman were given to PW.1, but not to accused, which is not dowry, as per Section 3 of D.P.
10
Act. Moreover, those presentations were also not at all established, by the prosecution.
25.As rightly contended by the defence counsel, presentation of
Rs.5,00,000/-, 20 sovereigns of gold and Rs.1,00,000/- worth of sarey samanu to the accused, is not at all established by the prosecution and the harassment of additional dowry by the accused, is not at all proved, since no person was examined in whose presence, such demand is made for additional dowry.
26.With the above said observation, I opined that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act.
27.Hence, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.
28.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 498-A of
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and is acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force, for a period of six months.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, this the 9th day of January, 2020.
Sd/-M.Sudha Rani/
Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum
Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Eluru
Fac/Junior Civil Judge Cum
Judicial Magistrate Of I Class,
Bhimadole.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Complainant: For Accused: None
PW.1: Uppalapati Sai Mounika PW.2: Vadlamudi Rambabu 11
PW.3: Bolla Baby PW.4: Nalluri Eswari PW.5: Rayapati Lakshminarayana PW.6: Pavuluri Rama Krishna PW.7: Yalamarthi Rani PW.8: Garapati Srimannarayana PW.9:Pusuluri Gangadhararao PW.10: V.Kanthi Priya S.I of Police
Documents Marked
For Complainant:
Ex.P1: Report given by PW.1, to the Police. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.5 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.6 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.7 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.10 Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.8 Ex.P7: 161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.9 Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.11 Ex.P9: Original F.I.R Ex.P10: Rough sketch prepared at the house of complainant. Ex.P11: Rough sketch prepared at the house of accused. Ex.P12: Orders of D.S.P., Women P.S., Eluru dt. 28.10.2016.
For Accused:
Ex.D1:Relevant marked portion in the deposition of P.W.2 in D.V.C 11/2016 on the file of this Court. Mos. Marked:Nil
Sd/-M.Sudha Rani/
Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum
FAC/JCJ Cum JFCM., Bhimadole 12
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.297/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT, ELURU. FAC/ JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BHIMADOLE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence: Prior to 17.06.2016 Date of complaint / report: 17.06.2016 Date of apprehension of accused: --- Date of Release on bail: --- Date of taken on file: 08.09.2017 Date of commencement of trial: 14.06.2019 Date of close of trial: 03.09.2019 Date of sentence / order: 09.01.2020 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for delay : No avoidable delay took place.
Complainant: State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru Women Police Station -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accused: Uppalapati Naga Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o. Rambabu, 27 years, C/Kamma, farmer, Perugugudem Village, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence: Offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.
Finding : found not guilty.
RESULT: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and is acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force, for a period of six months.
Sd/-M.Sudha Rani/
PrincipalJuniorCivilJudgeCum
Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Eluru
Fac/Junior Civil Judge Cum
Judicial Magistrate Of I Class,
Bhimadole.
Seal Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G. Eluru.