M. Ushashree

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPECIAL MOBILE

COURT) AT KHAMMAM.

Present: Smt M.Ushashree,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Spl. Mobile Court, Khammam

Dated this the 25th day of October , 2019

C.C. No:80 of 2019 (Old C.C.No.126/2015 on the fle of I AJFCM, Khammam)

(Cr. No.44/2014 of Women P.S. Khammam)

Between: The State, through S.I of Police, Women Police Station Khammam

................Complainant.

And

A1: Sriramoju Raja Sekhar, S/o Jaya Prakash, 33 Years, Viswabrahmin, Software Engineer, R/o Flat No.301, Sanjana Market, Hyderabad. A2: Sriramoju Kamala Devi, W/o Jayaprakash, 62 Years, Viswabrahmin A3: Sriramoju Jaya Prakash, S/o Chandra Shekar, 68 Years, Viswabrahmin, Rtd Executive Engineer, R/o Flat No.202, Main Enclave, Kishnapuram, Hanumakonda, Warangal District A4: Molmoori Anuradha, W/o Raj Kumar, 40 years, Viswa Brahmin, Lecturer, R/o Vijaypal Colony, Hanumakonda, Warangal District A5: Molmoori Raj Kumar, S/o Venkataiah, 41 years, Viswa Brahmin, Lecturer, R/o Vijaypal Colony, Hanumakonda, Warangal District A.8: Gajjela Veeranna, S/o Jagannatham, 40 years, Marriage Bureau Mediator, R/o Warangal

............Accused

This case came before me for fnal hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P, for the State, and Sri J.Sharath Kumar Reddy, Learned counsel for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The complainant lodged a private complaint with regard to an ofence U/sec 498-A, 506 IPC, Sec 3 and 4 of D.P. Act as against A1 to A5 and U/Sec.506 IPC against A.8. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23-5-2014 at 11:45 hrs the complainant came and lodged a report stating that her marriage was performed wtih A1 on 11-8-2012. at the time of the marriage 10lakhs dowry was given and gold chain, gold ring, adabaduchu katnam and household articles , double cot bed, Tv, Almarah and fridge was given to her. And later on the instigation of the her inlaws A1 used to harrass her mentally and physically and demanded additional dowry. A1 used to work as software engineer in TCS

Company and he used to behave abnormally. And one day she found her husband diary and suit case and she came to know that her husband had illegal intimacy 2 with another women since 7 yrs and this was known to husband parents, and he continued this relation now also. When she asked her husband about the same he threatened , abused and beat her and when her husband and in laws came to the police station on 6-1-2014 they agreed to pay an amount of 17,50,000/- . Hence the case.

2. The case was taken on fle for the ofence under section 498-A, 506 IPC and sec 3 and 4 of DP Act against accused A.1 to A.5, U/Sec.506 IPC against Accused

A.8 basing on the charge sheet and numbered as C.C.No. 126/2015 on the fle of

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

3. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished to them as required

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused were examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C, the charge for the ofence U/sec. 498-A, 506 IPC and sec 3 and 4 of DP Act against accused A.1 to

A.5, U/Sec.506 IPC against Accused A.8 was framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu. For which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. As per the orders of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khammam the case i.e., C.C.No. 126/2015 is transferred from I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Khammam to Special Mobile Court, Khammam vide Proceedings Order Dis.No.5,

dated 4-1-2019 and re-numbered as C.C.No.80/2019.

5. In trial, prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to P3 through them and closed its evidence.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence all the accused were examined U/s.313

Cr.PC. by explaining the Incriminating evidence found against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Now, the point that arises for consideration is

1) Whether accused harrassed the PW1 that his act fall under sec 498A IPC?

2) Did PW1 give dowry and the same is taken by the accused such that he committed the ofence U/s 3 of DP Act?

3

3) And Did the accused demand dowry from PW1 or his family and committed the ofence u/s 4 of DP Act?

4) Did all the accused threatened the PW1 and thereby committed the ofence U/s 506 IPC?

DISCUSSION, REASONS AND DECISION THEREON:

8. Point No 1:

Pw1 stated reiterated the case facts as stated in Ex P1 except that she stated that she got to know that the women with whom her husband has illicit relations was aborted 3 times. And she came to know the name of that women as sandhya. She also came to know through emails of her husband that he still continued the relation with said sandhya. And when A5 came to their house she stated this issue with her and they threatened not to reveal this to any body. When they talked with A8 they came to know that they have concealed this for the sake of money.

And A1 executed a document to give Rs 17,50,000/-. and in the cross she admitted that no documentary evidence have been fled by her in the court for the dowry given and also receipts for the gold. And it was also elicited that she stayed with A1 only for 4 months and when she came to know about the illicit relation she returned to parents house. And also she did not submit any proof for the illicit relation of A1. And when she informed her inlaws they have stated to adjust and except this they did not state anything. The MC and DVC case was dismissed. She admitted that divorce petition was fled by A1 and the same was granted. She admitted that when the amount as agreed by A1 was not paid she fled this present case. And she admitted that she did not mention about the demand of additional dowry in Ex P1. She stated that she does not know which medicine was consumed by her on compulsion of her husband and in laws for 3 months. And she took treatment from Dr. Ramana for 10 to 15 days. And she admitted that she sent email demanding 50 lakhs otherwise she will send all the proofs to all his relatives Ex P2 is the email copy. She also never mentioned in Ex

P1 that her husband and parents compelled to do job. She could not say about the fnancial capacity of her father.

4

PW2 also corroborated with the evidence of PW1 and he stated that A1 to A3 did not want children due to which they gave some medications and P.W.1’s health was impacted. And he went to matrimonial home and brought PW1 back to their house. And in the cross it was elicited that he earns Rs 10,000/- pm and he did not fle documentary proof for dowry given and also no receipts for the gold. In whose presence dowry was given is not stated to police. And he admitted that

PW1 lodged the report only on the ground that A1 is having illicit contacts with one sandhya. He admitted that family of A1 is well settled family. And he came to know about the contents of Ex P1 and illegal contact of A1 through PW1. PW1 married ramesh after the divorce was granted in yr 2018. He denied to the suggestion that he not stated to the police that sandhya belongs to diferent caste as such A1 did not marry her.

PW3 stated that when PW2 called him for the panchayat he went to the house of

PW2. And in the panchayat PW1 stated that A1 had love afair with another lady and used to chat over the lapto with that lady and that lady had 3 abortions. And accused admitted orally before the elders and stated that he will look after her well but PW1 refused to live with him. And one more panchayat was held in which

PW1 demanded 30 lakhs and divorce from A1. A1 did not pay the amount hence

PW1 lodged a report. In the cross he admitted whatever he stated in the chief is stated by PW1 and PW2 and he has no personal knowledge about the issues between PW1 and A1.

Pw4 stated that at the time of marriage 5 lakhs cash was given to A3 and Rs 1 1/2 lakh for the marriage expenses. After 1 1/2 year PW2 told about the illegal relationship of A1 prior to his marriage.

In the cross he stated he never stated in 161 statement about giving of 5 lacks dowry and the marriage expenses to A3. He stated he does not knwo how long

PW1 and A1 resided together.

PW5 is the IO who stated that PW1 to PW3 never stated in whose presence they gave dowry , and PW1 never produced the 2 diaries and suitcase belonging to A1.

And PW1 also never stated that she was harrased by A1 for want of additional 5 dowry.she also did not state about the treatment that she took from Dr. Ramana.

PW1 and PW2 never stated about the panchayat. PW1 also never gave the document dated 6.1.2014 she only mentioned in Ex P1. PW1 and PW2 never gave any evidence to show the illicit relations of A1.

Pw6 in the cross stated that there is no mention about the demand of additional dowry and also their statements does not disclose that dowry was given on demand. PW1 did not provide any documentary evidence about the dowry and also about the illicit relations of A1., They have never visited mamillagudem or hyderabad relating to this case.

From the evidence of PW1 and PW2, PW1 did not mentioned how she was harrassed by A1 and in laws who are in Mamillagudem and morever she has stated that she lodged this report only on the ground that A1 is having illcit relations and they did not pay money which they demanded. And PW3 and PW4 names were not mentioned by PW1 in Ex P1 that they conducted panchayat. And morever PW3 stated that he deposed in the chief only based on the information given by PW1 and PW2 hence court opines that they never conducted any panchayat. Pw4 version is not trustworthy as he could not say how much dowry was given he gave totally diferent fgure. No supporting documents for the dowry nor with regard to illcit relation of A1 with another lady.

Hence court opines that PW1 was never harrassed and she never wanted to sort out things and she bluntly refused to live with A1. And she wanted divorce and she got the same. There are material omissions and improvements and contradictions in the depositions of PW1 to PW4

Hence the Point No1 is answered in negative.

9) Point NO 2 and 3 are discussed together

PW1 , partially reiterated the dowry but to whom she gave is not specifed. Pw2 corroborated with the evidence of PW1 and then PW4 have given difernet fgure and contradicted to what PW1 and PW2 stated. PW1 and PW2 have admitted that they have not given any documentary evidence for the proof of dowry and PW2 earns only 10,000/- hence his fnancial capacity to give 10 lakhs of dowry is also 6 on a doubful version. Hence in view of this court opines that prosecution could not prove the sec 3 and 4 of DP Act.

Hence the Point No 2 and 3 are answered in negative.

10) Point No 4:-

Pw1 in Ex P1 stated that all accused have threatened to kill her by demanding

additional dowry. Where as PW1 and PW2 stated nothing about the threatening

given by A1 to A5 and A8 when they deposed their evidence in the court. Hence

Sec 506 IPC remains unproved. And Point No 4 is also answered in negative.

11. Hence from the above discussion, the court holds that P.W.1 has fled this case falsely with an ulterior motive and the prosecution was not able to prove the case against A.1, A.3 and A4. Hence the point is answered accordingly.

12. IN THE RESULT, the accused A.1 to A.5 and A8 are found not guilty for the ofence U/sec. 498-A, 506 IPC and sec 3 and 4 of DP Act, accordingly for the same they are acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed by my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25th day of October 2019.

Judl. Magistrate Of I Class, Special Mobile Court Khammam

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For Prosecution: For Defence-None-

P.W.1: S.Veda Sri P.W.2: Y.Vinay Kumar P.W.3: K.Nageswara Chary P.W.4: Konni Venkanna P.W.5: N.Prathap P.W.6: N.Anjali Documents marked: For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report Ex.P.2: E-mail copy Ex.P.3: First Information Report For Defence: - Nil Material objects marked: - For Prosecution –NIL- Material objects marked: - For defence -NIL-

Judl. Magistrate Of I Class, Special Mobile Court Khammam

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS 

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT) AT KHAMMAM.

Dated this the 10th day of August, 2018

Present: Smt M.Ushashree,  Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court,Khammam.

C.C. No:587/2015

(Cr. No.04/2015 of P.S.Thirumalayapalem) Between:

The State, through S.I of Police, 

Police Station Thirumalayapalem

................Complainant

And

Islavath Bheema, S/o.Nama, 45 years, Lambada, Cooie, R/o.Islavaththanda village of Thirumalayapalem Mandal.

............Accused 

This case came before me on 08.08.2018 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P, for the State, and Sri. A.S.Babu Learned counsel for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

The accused charged for the offence U/s. 294(b), 324 IPC. The SI of police

Thirumalayapalem, Khammam District, filed final report against the accused

U/s. 294(b), 324 IPC, in Cr.No.04/2015 With the following allegations in brief as follows. The complainant lodged a report stating that on 06.01.2015 afternoon at about 12,.00 hrs her husband abused her in filthy language and beat her with stick on her and caused bleeding injury. Wife and husband are living separately from last 3 years and today the complainant was chatting with her co daughter­in­law and observing the same the accused abused her in filthy language and beat her indiscriminately and damaged house walls on that she escaped from his clutches.

2. The case was taken on file for the offence U/s.294(b), 324 IPC against the accused basing on the charge sheet.

3. On appearance of accused, copies are furnished to him as required

U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused is examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C. accusation for the offence U/s. 294(b), 324 IPC, charges framed, explained to him in telugu for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

4. In trial, prosecution has examined Pw1 and Pw2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 and P2. In view of the testimony of Pw1 and Pw2 the learned APP has given up the remaining witnesses. As there is no incriminating material evidence available on record, the examination of accused under Sec.

313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

5. Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record a conviction

against accused for the offences punishable  U/s. 294(b), 324 IPC  ?

6. In order to bring home the guilty of the accused, prosecution examined (2) witnesses as Pw1 and Pw2. Since, the Pw1 and Pw2 have not supported the case of the prosecution, entire statements u/sec.161 Cr.P.C is marked as

Ex.P.1 and P2.

7. POINT:

In order to make out the case against the accused, prosecution has examined as stated supra. The Pw.1 i.e., who is the complainant, Pw2 is eye witness.

But, they have not supported the prosecution case as such the entire statements u/sec.161 Cr.P.C is marked as Ex.P.1 and P2 respectively. 

8. As there is no incriminating evidence brought on record against this accused through the testimony of Pw1 and Pw2, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to bring home guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

IN THE RESULT: The accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 294(b), 324 IPC, as such, he is acquitted of the same U/sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property vide CPR.No.154/15 shall be destroyed after appeal time. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Dictated to Gr.III Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, on this 10th day of August, 2018. 

Judl. Magistrate Of I Class, Special Mobile Court Khammam.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined: For prosecution: For Defence:­None­

PW1: Islavath Rajili– Complainant and injured

PW2: Islavath Ravi – eye witness

Exhibits marked:

For prosecution: For Defence: ­ NIL­

Ex.P1: Entire statement U/sec.161 of Cr.P.C of Pw1

Ex.P2: Entire statement U/sec.161 of Cr.P.C of Pw2

Material objects marked: ­ Nil –

Judl. Magistrate Of I Class, Special Mobile Court Khammam.

TSKH040005562021

Presented on : 16-04-2021 Registered on : 16-04-2021 Decided on : 29-09-2021 Duration : 0 years, 5 months, 13 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam

AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by Smt. Bakkera Naga Lakshmi)

MC/8/2021

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Gopu Shailaja Through Police Station Officer , H.No.3-25/1, Nayakan Gudem Village, Kusumanchi Mandal

KHAMMAM URBAN KHAMMAM

2: Gopu Neyash Age: 1 Occupation : H.No.3-25/1 Nayakan Gudem Village Kusumanchi Manda

Gopu Shailaja VERSUS : Gopu Srinivas Age: 32 Occupation : H.No.11-18-132, Kasibugga Society Colony, Warangal ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: VENKATESWARLU SALEM,

Advocate for appearing for Gopu Srinivas Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 125 of HINDU ADOPTIONS AND

MAINTENANCE ACT,

of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 29-09-2021)

ORDER

ORDER PRONOUNCED (VSO)- IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed directing the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) Each per month to the Petitioner No 1 and 2 from the date of this order. The respondent is directed to pay the regular maintenance to petitioner on or before 10th of every succeeding month. Accordingly, the petition is partially allowed, without costs.

Date : 29-09-2021 (Smt. Bakkera Naga Lakshmi)

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil

Judge, KhammamKHAMMAM

URBAN KHAMMAM

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Smt. Bakkera Naga Lakshmi)Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act -cum- IV

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN

KHAMMAM

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSKH030037922018

Presented on : 27-09-2018 Registered on : 27-09-2018 Decided on : 02-01-2019 Duration : 0 years, 3 months, 5 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court), Khammam

AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by Smt. Rajani Bekkam)

PRC/200009/2018

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): S.H.O II Town Khammam Through Police Station Officer Khammam II town 224, S.H.O II Town Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN KHAMMAM

S.H.O II Town Khammam VERSUS : Challa Swathi @ Triveni Age: 20 Occupation : Occ. Coolie, R/o.Jeellacheruvu, Kusumanchi, Khammam.

2:Vallapu Sujatha Age: 40 Occupation : Occ. Housewife R/o.Jeelacheruvu Kusumanchi Khammam.

3:VallaGopaiah Age: 0 Occupation : Occ. Coolie R/o. Jeellacheruvu Kusumanchi Khammam ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: app, Advocate for appearing for Challa Swathi @ Triveni Advocate , appearing for , , 2, 3 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 306,r/w 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 02-01-2019)

ORDER

All accused are called present. Committal bonds are filed. Hence this case is committed to Honble Prl. District and Sessions Court, Khammam.

Date : 02-01-2019 (Smt. Rajani Bekkam)

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court), Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN KHAMMAM

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Smt. Rajani Bekkam) I Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum- Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court), Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN

KHAMMAM

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSKH040006242016

Presented on : 26-12-2016 Registered on : 27-12-2016 Decided on : 30-10-2019 Duration : 2 years, 10 months, 4 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam

AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM

Presided Over by Smt. Bakkera Naga Lakshmi

OS/682/2016

Exhibit No.:

: Veggalam Padmaiah Age: 70 Occupation : Address: H.No.10-4-18, Mamillagudem, Khammam

VERSUS : Thalluri Babu Age: 0 Occupation : Address: H.no.10-8-195/B, Lenin Nagar, Khammam Town ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Advocate for : appearing for Thalluri Babu: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 30-10-2019 )

ORDER PRONOUNCED (VSO)- IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs. 1,65,966/- (Rs. One lakh Sixty five thousand nine hundred sixty six only ) with interest @ 12 percentage per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6 percentage per annum till the date of realization.

ORDER

Date : 30-10-2019 (Smt. Bakkera Naga Lakshmi)

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam

KHAMMAM

URBAN ,KHAMMAM

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Smt. Bakkera Naga Lakshmi) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

KHAMMAM

URBAN ,KHAMMAM

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS