Smt. M.V.N.Padmaja

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT :Smt. M.V.N.PADMAJA

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Monday, the 29th day of July, 2024

C.C.No.564 of 2015

Between

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam . . . Complainant

And

1. Pericherla Satyanarayana Rau, S/o Simhadriraju (died)

2. Pericherla Appalakondamma W/o Late Simhadri, aged 60 years D.No.2-2 LPR Peta, Gudiwada Near S.Rayavaram, Visakhapatnam . . . Accused

This case coming before me on 19-07-2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the Prosecution, and Sri P.M.Tirupathi Rao, learned counsel for A2, and A1 died reportedly, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.11/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian

Penal Code against A1 and A2.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 02-05-1999, the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A1 in the presence of elders as per the caste customs at S.Rayavaram in the house of her in-laws.

A1 is the lorry driver. At the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 gave

Rs.52,000/- towards dowry, and also presented 2 tulas of gold and sare saman 2 to the accused on their demand, and also presented Rs.12,000/- towards

Adapaduchukatnam. After the marriage, PW.1 joined with A1 to lead marital life. A1 looked after her well for one year. Later he started harassing PW.1 both mentally and physically demanding to bring additional dowry from her parents house at the instigation of A2. After one year of the marriage, P.W.1 blessed with one female issue. Later A1 and P.W.1 resided separately. Then

P.W.1 blessed with one male issue. Later A1 shifted family to Visakhapatnam.

A2 is residing in the native place alone as her husband died. Hence, A1 shifted family to his native place and all are living together at Gudivada, S.Rayavaram

Mandal. At the instigation of A2, A1 continued harassing her without providing proper food. Having knowledge through P.W.1, her parents put the matter

before the elders, but A1 and A2 did not listen the words of the elders. Due to

the harassment of the accused, P.W.1 came along with her two children to her parents house situated at driver’s colony, old Gajuwaka and stayed there.

After 8 months A1 took her back to his house through the elders by giving assurance to her parents that he will look after her well. A1 continued harassing her without providing minimum needs. Later A1 shifted his family to

Gajuwaka and residing separately. However, A1 and A2 harassed her both mentally and physically demanding to bring additional dowry from her parents house. Therefore, she presented report to the police at Gajuwaka and on the advise of the police, she presented the report at Women Police Station on 08- 01-2015 at 05-00 p.m.

3.Based on the report of P.W.1, L.W.9-Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.11/2015 of Women Police Station, 3

Visakhapatnam for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal

Code. During the course of investigation, LW9-Asst. Sub-Inspector examined and recorded the statements of all the witnesses. He served Section 41-A of

Criminal Procedure Code to A1 and A2 on 16-03-2015. On completion of investigation, P.W.6 filed Charge Sheet in this case.

4.On perusal of the contents of the charge sheet coupled with other material documents in the record, the case is taken on file for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

5.On appearance of all the accused, case copies were furnished as contemplated in Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. Further the accused were examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code. The contents of charge sheet were read over, explained to them in Telugu for which, they denied committing of the offences. Hence, Charges under Section 498-A of

Indian Penal Code against A1 and A2 have been framed, and the contents of charges were read over, explained to them in Telugu to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6, and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

7.On completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, A2 was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of incriminating material read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which she denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record and considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 coupled with Exs.P1 and P2, and other material in the 4 record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of all the accused

for the offence punishable Under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code

beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.On perusal of the record, it is the case of the prosecution as per the contents of charge sheet that on 02-05-1999, A1 married P.W.1 by taking dowry and other launchanams, and that they lived together, and that out of wedlock; they blessed with one female and one male issue, and that the accused harassed PW.1 both mentally and physically demanding additional dowry. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant. P.W.2 is the father of

P.W.1, P.W.3 is younger brother of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the neighbour of the P.W.1, but his evidence is eschewed as he did not turn up for his cross-examination.

Subsequently also, the Prosecution did not take steps. P.W.5 is the close relative of P.W.1. P.W.6 is Investigation Officer.

11.On careful perusal of the evidence on record, the marriage between A1 and P.W.1, which was performed on 02-05-1999 and out of their wedlock they are blessed with two children are admitted facts. Admittedly A1 is no more.

In regard to the alleged demand of dowry and additional dowry, P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 categorically deposed that the parents of PW.1 gave an amount of

Rs.52,000/- towards dowry, and also presented two tulas of gold and saree saman and Rs.12,000/- towards adapaduchu katnam to the accused. P.W.1 alone deposed that her parents presented saree saman worth of Rs.2,00,000/- 5 to the accused. No witness deposed that the accused demanded dowry at the time of marriage. Moreover, P.W.1 did not mention about the alleged dowry given at the time of marriage in her Ex.P1-report. It is an improvement in the evidence of PWs1 to 3 and 5. Further as per cross-examination of P.W.3, his father himself tendered dowry amount to the accused and he had no personal knowledge in respect of the presentations given at the time of marriage personally. Further the prosecution did not place any single piece of paper showing that the accused demanded dowry or parents of P.W.1 gave dowry at the time of marriage.

12.In regard to the alleged harassment, P.W.1 deposed that after one year of the marriage, A1 and A2 started harassing her on the pretext that the amount presented at the time of marriage is not sufficient, and asked her to bring more money i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- or Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents house, and that on their demand, her father paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to A1, but they did not satisfy and continued harassment towards her.

Contradicting her evidence, P.W.2 who is the father of P.W.1 deposed that A1 and P.W.1 lived together for 5 years happily after the marriage, and subsequently disputes arose between them since A1 addicted to alcohol, and used to come to the house in drunken state, and used to beat P.W.1 frequently demanding to bring additional dowry, and that he provided cash of

Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused in the year 2014. P.W.1 did not state that A1 is addicted to alcohol and used to come to the house in drunken state. Moreover, it is the case of the defacto-complainant as per the contents of Ex.P1-report that due to disputes between PW.1 and A2, the spouse set up separate family 6 and due to grudge, A2 instigated A1 to harass her. Whereas, P.W.3 who is the younger brother of P.W.1 deposed that the spouse lived together happily for four years, and later disputes arose between them as A1 started demanding

P.W.1 to bring additional dowry and used to beat her abusing her. Further P.W.5 who is the close relative of P.W.1 deposed that spouse lived happily for 4 or 5 years from the date of marriage and then disputes arose between them as A1 neglected P.W.1 and her children, and whenever she questioned him, he used to beat her; hence, P.W.1 came to her parents house and presented report to the Police in the year 2015. On perusal of the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and 5, there is no corroboration in their evidence in respect of the reasons for the disputes between the parties.

13.In regard to the report to the police, it is further evidence of P.W.1 that they shifted to Gajuwaka and put up separate family and mediation also held between them in the presence of elders, but the accused did not hear the words of the elders, and that due to the harassment of the accused, she was effected with paralysis stroke on one occasion, and finally she presented

Ex.P1-report to the police. Contrary to her evidence, P.W.2 deposed that previously P.W.1 got filed a complaint before the police against the accused and also filed maintenance case and finally lodged the present report. Whereas,

P.W.3 deposed that the accused approached them through elders, and then

P.W.1 joined with A1 to lead marital life on the promise that A1 would not create any troubles to the P.W.1 in future, but he did not change his attitude, and that the spouse shifted to Visakhapatnam at where, A1 harassed her demanding additional dowry. Hence, PW.1 presented report at Gajuwaka police 7

Station and later at Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam. No witness deposed the alleged incident happened on 31-12-2014 at 09-00 pm., as mentioned in Ex.P1-report, as well as the date of report given at Gajuwaka

Police Station. As per Ex.P1-report, P.W.1 presented report to the police on 08- 01-2015. No delay is mentioned in Column No.8 of Ex.P2-FIR for the best reasons known to the prosecution. Further the prosecution failed to prove the delay in giving report to the police, which is fatal to the case of Prosecution.

14.Further more, as per the evidence of the P.W.2, the spouse has no disputes until the death of A1’s father and after his death only disputes started between the wife and husband. P.W.1 no where stated that the disputes arose between them after the death of her father-in-law. Moreover, as per cross- examination of PW.1, her father-in-law died in the year, 2008. There are no reasons that why P.W.1 did not choose to give report to the police since 2008, if really the accused harassed her. Even P.W.1 does not know the age of A2.

Admittedly the spouse shifted the family to Gajuwaka, near to the house of her parents, and A2 is residing in Gudivada village. In such circumstances, how A2 harassed P.W.1 should be properly explained by the prosecution, but failed to do so.

15.Further, P.Ws.1 and 3 also admitted during her cross-examination that they both resided in Gudivada village for 2 to 4 years only, after the marriage.

For that period, there is no evidence that P.W.1 complained against A1 and A2 on the ground of harassment. Though the accused has no necessity to stay in

Gajuwaka, he shifted the family to Gajuwaka that too near the place of her parents as admitted by PW.1 and her family members. It is another admitted 8 fact that no medical evidence placed before the Court that PW.1 got treated at hospital as she deposed that she effected Paralysis stroke due to beaten by A1.

Further P.W.2 even does not know whether the police recorded his statement.

Except deposing that he witnessed once while beating P.W.1 by A1, P.W.2 did not adduce any evidence showing that they complained to the police.

Admittedly P.W.1 is not staying along with A2 as per cross-examination of

P.W.2. As per cross-examination of P.W.5 the spouse shifted to Gajuwaka after one to two years of their marriage

16.On careful perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no corroboration in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5. Further they are all interested witnesses to the case of the prosecution and the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses proving the guilt of A1 and A2. Based on the evidence of P.W.6-Investigation Officer who deposed that L.W.9- Asst.

Sub-Inspector of Police held investigation in this case and on verification of his investigation, she filed Charge Sheet in this case, A.2 cannot be convicted , which may cause injustice to her. Further, admittedly, P.W.6 not perused the report given in Gajuwaka Police Station to show that P.W.1 Presented report at

Gajuwaka Police Station immediately after the alleged incident. Moreover, the

Investigation Officer not visited the place of the accused and even P.W.6 had no personal knowledge about the residence of accused.

17.For the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that the accused caused ill treatment to P.W.1 either to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb. On careful perusal of the explanation given under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code that cruelty 9 means a willful conduct of such nature, and of such a magnitude so as to drive a woman to commit suicide, or to cause grave injury, or danger to life, or limb, or health of the woman. Therefore, to attract explanation (a) of the prosecution must prove that the ill-treatment alleged to have been made against the defacto-complainant shall become within the meaning of ‘cruelty’ defined under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

18.Further, on perusal of the entire evidence on record, the evidence is silent with regard to the threat with dire consequences caused by all the accused, and that the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by the evidence of

P.Ws.2, 3 & 5, in regard to the material aspects. Therefore, on careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, there is no cogent evidence relating to demand made for dowry or additional dowry, or any other physical or mental harassment, except the interested testimony of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 & 5. Further the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 & 5 and their admissions in their cross-examination goes to show that they are not coming with true facts of the case in regard to demand made for dowry, additional dowry, or physical, mental harassment of

P.W.1, and they are suppressing the real facts for the disputes between P.W.1 and A1. Hence, on the strength of evidence available in record, it cannot be said that Explanation (a) or (b) of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code would be attracted to the facts of this case. There may be for variety of reasons, variety of quarrels may be both petty or serious took place in the family life and same might have been happened between P.W.1 and A1. On the strength of such petty or serious quarrels took place in the family life, conviction of all the accused under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, may not be just and 10 proper.Therefore, P.W.1 has to come with full details of the harassment caused to her by all the accused and such harassment has to come within the purview of the Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code to punish accordingly. But in the present case, from the evidence of P.W.1, it appears that she lived with A1 for considerable period, and she came up with the allegation of physical, mental harassment for additional dowry by all the accused without any details of such harassment. Therefore, based on the evidence P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the harassment alleged to have been made by all the accused would lead to such a situation where P.W.1 would prepare to commits suicide. Further, there are so many contradictions, improvements, and omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 in regard to the material aspects. Therefore, on perusal of the evidence on record, based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 & 6, coupled with Exs.P1 and P2, which are not sufficient to convict A2 for which offences she is prosecuted. Hence this

Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove their case against A2 beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under which A2 prosecuted, and she is entitled to acquit from this case.

In the result, A2 is found not guilty for offences punishable Under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and she is acquitted Under Section 248 (1)

Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused if any, shall be in force for a period of 6 months Under Section 437(A) of Criminal

Procedure Code. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. (case against A1 is abated as he died).

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

11 me in open court, this the 29th day of June, 2024

Sd/- M.V.N.PADMAJA

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : Pericherla Hema Satyavathi. P.W.2 : Mudunuri Appala Raju P.W.3 : Mudunuri Damodara Varma P.W.4 : Datla Venkata Ramana (eschewed) P.W.5 : Alluri Srinivasa Raju P.W.6 : G. Nagamani.

FOR ACCUSED:

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Report given by P.W.1 Ex.P2 : FIR

FOR ACCUSED:

NIL M.Os. Marked : Nil

Sd/- M.V.N.PADMAJA

I ACMM, VSP

12

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

CALENDER CASE NO.564/2014

(Cr.No.11/2015 of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City)

Date of offence08-01-2015

Date of report or complaint08-01-2015

Date of apprehension of the 41-A Cr.P.C accused Date of Release41-A Cr.P.C

Date of commencement of trial 18-07-2023

Date of close of trial08-07-2024

Date of sentence on order29-07-2024

Accused is in Jail/on Bail On Bail

Name of the ComplainantState: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam

Name of the accused1. Pericherla Satyanarayana Rau, S/o Simhadriraju (died)

2. Pericherla Appalakondamma W/o late Simhadri, aged 60 years, D.No.2-2 LPR Peta, Gudiwada Near S.Rayavaram, Visakhapatnam District Offences under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code

Finding Found Not Guilty

Sentence: In the result, A2 is found not guilty for offences punishable Under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and she is acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused if any, shall be in force for a period of 6 months Under Section 437(A) of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. (case against A1 is abated as he died).

Sd/- M.V.N.PADMAJA

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT :Smt.M.V.N.PADMAJA

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Monday, the 15th day of July, 2024

C.C.No.5608/2019

Between

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam . . . Complainant

And

1. Vankala Sai Harish, S/o Ramakrishna aged 33 years, R/o D.No.2-115/10 Shipyard layout, Bindra Nagar Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam city

2. Vankala Ramakrishna, S/o Late Darappa aged 62 years, R/o D.No.2-115/10 Shipyard layout, Bindra Nagar Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam city

3. Vankala Prasanna Kumari W/o Ramakrishna, aged 60 years R/o D.No.2-115/10, Shipyard layout Bindra Nagar, Madhurawada Visakhapatnam

4. Nodagala Tejo Madhavi, W/o Chandra Sekhara Rao, aged 38 years R/o Road No.12, Bharath Nagar Kurmanipalem, Visakhapatnam city

5. Aytha Sunitha, W/o Ashok, aged 45 years, R/o D.No.2-115/10 Shipyard layout, Bindra Nagar Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam city . . . Accused

This case came before me on 11-07-2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the Prosecution, and Sri K.Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for all the accused, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.157/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 509 of

Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition, against

A1 to A5.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 13-08-2017, the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A1 at Rajasthani

Kalyana Mandapam, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. At the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 gave Rs.8,00,000/-, ½ tula gold ring, and 1 ¼ tula gold bracelet as dowry, and also gave Rs.80,000/- towards, Adapaduchu katnam on the demand of A1 to A5. The parents of P.W.1 also presented 10 tulas of gold ornaments to her. At the time of engagement, P.W.1 agreed to resign her job, accordingly, she resigned her job in the month of July, 2017. A1 is working in

Chennai. After the marriage, they both lived up to 02-09-2017. Later A1 resigned his job, and went to Mangalore to join in his new job. On the same day, P.W.1 came to her parents house. On 04-09-2017, A2 came to the house of her parents, and took her to their house. A2 to A5 harassed P.W.1 demanding additional dowry and used to quarrel with her without any reason, and also instigated A1 to harass her. A3 used to harass her that she would like to perform her son’s marriage with another girl who brings Rs.30,00,000/- dowry. A1 to A5 harassed her with a demand to bring additional dowry of

Rs.10,00,000/-, AC, and motorcycle from her parents house.

3.On 03-09-2017, P.W.1 and A1 went to her parents house on the occasion of Dasara Festival, and returned back to her in-laws house on 04-10-2017. A1 3 to A5 quarreled with her at evening without any reason with a demand to bring

additional dowry from her parents house. P.W.1 informed her parents about the

harassment of all the accused who came and questioned A1, for which A1 promised that he will look after her well, and asked P.W.1 to stay at her parents house in his absence, and he went to Mangalore on 07-10-2017. On 08-10-2017, P.W.1 went to her parents house. A1 did not take her to

Mangalore. A1 collected her photos and messages from her cell phone, and he used to receive her information from her Whatsapp account and e-mail account. A1 called her to his house. The father of P.W.1 told that he will send her in the presence of the elders. Though the elders tried to convince him and his family members about their harassment, they did not change their attitude.

On 03-12-2017, A1 to A3 came to her parents house with some people and made quarrel with her. On 28-04-2018, A2 and A3 came to her parents house with some people and insulted her modesty in the presence of elders. Due to the harassment of the A1 to A5, she presented report to the police.

4.Based on the report of the P.W.1, L.W.9-Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.157/2018 of Women Police Station,

Visakhapatnam for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 509 of

Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

During the Course of investigation, she examined and recorded statements of all the witnesses and served Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code notices to A1 to A5. On completion of investigation, she filed Charge Sheet in this case.

5.On perusal of the contents of the charge sheet coupled with other 4 material documents in the record, the case is taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 509 of Indian Penal Code, and under

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against A1 to A5.

6.On appearance of all the accused, case copies were furnished as contemplated in Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. Further all the accused were examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code. The contents of charge sheet were read over, explained to them in Telugu for which, they denied committing of the offences. Hence, Charges under Sections 498-A and 509 of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, against all the accused have been framed, and the contents of charges were read over, explained to them in Telugu to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1, and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. After completion of prosecution side evidence, as there is no incriminating material against all the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination under Section 313 of Criminal

Procedure Code is dispensed with and proceeded further.

8. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record and considered the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P1 and P2, and other material in the record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of all the accused for offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and 509 of Indian Penal Code and under

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

5

10.On perusal of the record, it is the case of the prosecution as per the contents of the Charge Sheet that A1 married P.W.1 on 13-08-2017 by taking dowry on demand, and that after the marriage, A1 to A5 harassed P.W.1 both mentally and physically with a demand to bring additional dowry from her parents. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. P.W.1 is defacto-complainant.

11.In respect of the alleged offences, P.W.1, who is the defacto-complainant deposed that the accused never harassed her both mentally and physically, and that they never demanded dowry or additional dowry or never insulted her, and that the police did not examine her or recorded her statement. In regard to the report to the police, she further deposed that on the instigation of the elders, she signed on some written paper, she does not know the contents of the paper. On perusal of the evidence on record, P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution and she turned hostile.

12.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, she did not depose any incriminating evidence against all the accused for the offences under which the accused are prosecuted and she turned hostile. The learned APP sought permission of this court to treat the evidence of P.W.1 as hostile. Permission granted after perusal of the record and evidence of the witnesses. Further the learned A.P.P was permitted to put the questions in the nature of cross- examination to P.W.1. In such cross-examination, the learned APP failed to elicit any incriminating evidence against all the accused except giving of suggestions, and marking of the signature of P.W.1 on the report, and the statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code as 6

Exs.P1 and P2 respectively. On careful perusal of the record, P.W.1 deposed in her chief examination contradicting her statements recorded under Section 161

Criminal Procedure Code. Further in view of the above nature of evidence, the learned A.P.P given up the other witnesses on record. Therefore on perusal of the evidence on record, based on the hostile evidence of P.W.1, which are not sufficient to convict all the accused for which offences the accused are prosecuted. Hence this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove their case against all the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under which the accused are prosecuted, and they are entitled to acquit from this case.

In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for offences punishable Under

Sections 498-A and 509 of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Criminal

Procedure Code. The accused are set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds and sureties of all the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months Under

Section 437(A) of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court, this the 15th day of July, 2024

Sd/-

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 : Vankala Sirisha

FOR ACCUSED:

7

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the report Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

FOR ACCUSED:

Nil M.Os. Marked :

Nil

Sd/-

I ACMM,VSP

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

CALENDER CASE No.5608/2019

(Cr.No.157/2018 of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City)

Date of offencePrior to 04-08-2018 Date of report or complaint04-08-2018 Date of apprehension of the 41-A Cr.P.C Notice accused Date of Release 41-A Cr.P.C Notice

Date of commencement of trial 11-07-2024 Date of close of trial11-07-2024 Date of sentence on order15-07-2024 Accused is in Jail/on Bail On Bail Name of the ComplainantState: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam

Name of the accused1. Vankala Sai Harish, S/o Ramakrishna aged 33 years, R/o D.No.2-115/10 Shipyard layout, Bindra Nagar Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam city

2. Vankala Ramakrishna, late Darappa aged 62 years, R/o D.No.2-115/10 Shipyard layout, Bindra Nagar Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam city

3. Vankala Prasanna Kumari, W/o Ramakrishna 8 aged 60 years, R/o D.No.2-115/10 Shipyard layout, Bindra Nagar Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam city

4. Nodagala Tejo Madhavi, W/o Chandra Sekhara Rao aged 38 years, R/o Road No.12, Bharath Nagar Kurmanipalem, Visakhapatnam city

5. Aytha Sunitha, W/o Ashok, aged 45 years R/o D.No.2-115/10, Shipyard layout, Bindra Nagar Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam city Offencesunder Sections 498-A and of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act Finding Found Not Guilty Sentence: In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for offences punishable Under Sections 498-A and 509 of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The accused are set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds and sureties of all the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months Under Section 437(A) of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/-

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT :Smt.M.V.N.PADMAJA

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Monday, the 29th day of July, 2024

C.C.No.1002/2017

Between

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam . . . Complainant

And

1. Moyya Karthik, S/o Ramarao aged 29 years, R/o Lakshminath Apartments, Road-8 Pothinamallayyapalem Visakhapatnam

2. Moyya Ramarao, S/o Late Bangarayya aged 60 years, R/o Lakshminath Apartments, Road No.8 Pothinamallayyapalem Visakhapatnam

3. Moyya Meenakshi, W/o Ramarao (died)

4. Tirapalli Bhavya, W/o Kesavarao aged 26 years, R/o D.No.9-4/1 FCI layout, near Ganesh Temple Road No.8, Pothinamallayyapalem Visakahpatnam

5. Tirapalli Bhav Kesavarao S/o Apparao, aged 30 years R/o D.No.9-4/1, FCI Layout Near Ganesh Temple, Road No.8 Pothinamallayyapalem Visakhapatnam (Case against A3 is abated as died). . . Accused

This case coming before me on 19-07-2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the prosecution, and Sri.G.M.Reddy, learned Counsel for A1, and Smt.M.S.V.Chandravathi (Vijaya), learned counsel for A2 to A5, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.266/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian

Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition, against A1 to A5.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 07-03-2014, the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A1 in Port

Kalyanamandapam. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry, Rs.50,000/- towards adapaduchu katnam, Rs.50,000/- towards saree saman, and 3 tulas of gold to A1. After the marriage, she joined with A1 to lead marital life at his house. They both lived together for one year. A1 to A3 harassed her both mentally and physically, and used to beat her demanding to bring additional dowry from her parents. A4 and A5 whenever visited the house of A1, they used to demand more dowry from her parents. A3 used to force her to do all the household works. P.W.1 informed the same to A1, but he did not hear her words and threatened that he would give divorce to her, if she did not obey the words of his parents. When she is carrying pregnancy, A2 came to Hyderabad and forcibly made her to drink some medicine for which, she got vomiting. Doctor advised and warned that no medicine should be given to her as she was pregnant. Later she went to her parents house for delivery and blessed with a male child in the month of May, 2015. The accused did not come to see the born baby. Later A1 went to Singapore without intimation. A1 to A3 used to demand her to transfer the land in the name of A1. P.W.1 filed a petition in District Legal Cell on 10-10-2015, on which the Legal Cell

Authorities admonished A1 to A3, but they did not change their attitude.

3

3.Based on the report of the P.W.1, L.W.7-Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.266/2016 of Airport Police Station,

Visakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian

Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against A1 to

A5. During the Course of investigation, L.W.7-Sub-Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statements of all the witnesses. He served Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code notice to A1 on 01-09-2016. He served

Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code notice to A2 and A3 on 05-09-2016.

Later L.W.8-Sub-Inspector of Police took up further investigation. He served

Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code notice to A2 and A3 on 05-10-2016 and A4 to A5 on 14-10-2016. On completion of investigation, L.W.8-Sub-

Inspector of Police filed Charge Sheet in this case.

4.On perusal of the contents of the charge sheet coupled with other material documents in the record, the case is taken on file for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against A1 to A5.

5.On appearance of all the accused, case copies were furnished as contemplated in Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. Further all the accused were examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code. The contents of charge sheet were read over, explained to them in Telugu for which, they denied committing of the offences. Hence, Charges under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, against all the accused have been framed, and the contents of charges were read over, explained to them in Telugu to which, they pleaded not guilty 4 and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1, and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, as there is no incriminating material against all the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code is dispensed with and proceeded further.

8. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record and considered the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P1 and P2, and other material in the record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of all the accused for

offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.On perusal of the record, it is the case of the prosecution as per the contents of the Charge Sheet that on 07-03-2014, A1 married P.W.1 by taking dowry and later A1 to A5 harassed her both mentally and physically demanding

additional dowry. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1

and got marked Exs.P1 and Ex.P2. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant.

11.In regard to the alleged offences, the prosecution examined P.W.1 who is the defacto-complainant. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that her marriage was performed with A1 in the year 2014 in Kailasapuram Kalyanamandapam, and that after the marriage she joined with A1 to lead marital life, and that out of their wedlock, they blessed with one male issue and one female issue. It is 5 further evidence of P.W.1 that due to disputes arose between them, they both approached the elders, but the accused never harassed her or never demanded dowry or additional dowry, and that they both are residing together at present, and that the police never examined or recorded her statement. It is further evidence of P.W.1 in regard to the report to the police that on the instigation of the elders, she signed on some typed papers, but she does not know the contents of said paper. On perusal of the evidence on record, P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution, and she turned hostile.

12.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, she did not depose any incriminating evidence against all the accused for the offences under which the accused are prosecuted and she turned hostile. The learned APP sought permission of this court to treat the evidence of P.W.1 as hostile. Permission granted after perusal of the record and evidence of the witness. Further the learned A.P.P was permitted to put the questions in the nature of cross- examination to P.W.1. In such cross-examination, the learned APP failed to elicit any incriminating evidence against all the accused except giving of suggestions, and marking of the signature of P.W.1 on the report, and the statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code as

Exs.P1 and P2 respectively. On careful perusal of the record, P.W.1 deposed in their chief examination contradicting her statement recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. Further in view of the above nature of evidence, the learned A.P.P given up the other witnesses on record. Therefore, on perusal of the evidence on record, and based on the hostile evidence of P.W.1, there is no sufficient material evidence to convict all the accused for which offences the 6 accused are prosecuted. Hence this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove their case against all the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under which the accused are prosecuted, and they are entitled to acquit from this case.

In the result, A1, A2, A4 and A5 are found not guilty for offences punishable Under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1)

Criminal Procedure Code. The accused are set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds and sureties of all the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months

Under Section 437(A) of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. (Case against A3 is abated).

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court, this the 29th day of July, 2024

Sd/- M.V.N.PADMAJA

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : Moyya Anusha

FOR ACCUSED:

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the report Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

FOR ACCUSED:

Nil M.Os. Marked : Nil

Sd/- M.V.N.PADMAJA

I ACMM, VSP

7

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

CALENDER CASE No.1002/2017

(Cr.No.266/2016 of Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam City)

Date of offencePrior to 09-07-2016 Date of report or complaint 09-07-2016 Date of apprehension of the 41-A Cr.P.C Notice accused Date of Release 41-A Cr.P.C Notice Date of commencement of trial 19-07-2024 Date of close of trial19-07-2024 Date of sentence on order29-07-2024 Accused is in Jail/on Bail On Bail Name of the ComplainantState: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam

Name of the accused1. Moyya Karthik, S/o Ramarao aged 29 years, R/o Lakshminath Apartments, Road-8 Pothinamallayyapalem Visakhapatnam

2. Moyya Ramarao, S/o Late Bangarayya aged 60 years, R/o Lakshminath Apartments, Road No.8 Pothinamallayyapalem Visakhapatnam

3. Moyya Meenakshi, W/o Ramarao (died)

4. Tirapalli Bhavya, W/o Kesavarao aged 26 years, R/o D.No.9-4/1 FCI layout, near Ganesh Temple Road No.8, Pothinamallayyapalem Visakahpatnam

5. Tirapalli Bhav Kesavarao S/o Apparao, aged 30 years R/o D.No.9-4/1, FCI Layout Near Ganesh Temple, Road No.8 Pothinamallayyapalem Visakhapatnam (Case against A3 is abated as died) Offencesunder Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act Finding Found Not Guilty 8

Sentence: In the result, A1, A2, A4 and A5 are found not guilty for offences punishable Under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The accused are set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds and sureties of all the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months Under Section 437(A) of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. (Case against A3 is abated).

Sd/- M.V.N.PADMAJA

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT :Smt.M.V.N.PADMAJA

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Monday, the 15th day of July, 2024

C.C.No.5310/2022

Between

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam . . . Complainant

And

1. Dasari Hari Babu, S/o Narasayya aged 31 years, R/o D.No.28-52-1/1 Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam

2. Dasari Satyavathi, W/o Narasayya aged 51 years, R/o D.No.28-52-1/1 Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam

3. Dasari Narasayya, S/o Paradesi aged 63 years, R/o D.No.28-52-1/1 Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam

4. Palukuri Varalakshmi, S/o Apparao aged 37 years, R/o RH Colony Vadlapudi Kanithi, Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam

5. Palukuri Apparao, S/o Apparao aged 48 Years, R/o RH Colony Vadlapudi Kanithi, Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam

6. Varadi Sri Devi, W/o Raju aged 33 years, R/o RH Colony Vadlapudi Kanithi, Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam

7. Varadi Raju, S/o Ramu aged 41 years, R/o Rajeev Nagar Duvvada, Visakhapatnam . . . Accused

This case came before me on 12-07-2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the prosecution, and Sri.B.Eswar Rao, learned Counsel for all the accused, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.203/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian

Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition, against A1 to A7.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 06-10-2017, the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A1 at her parents house situated in Vadlapudi house in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.5,00,000/-, and Rs.2,00,000/- to purchase motorcycle, and also gave 6 tulas of gold to A1, and also presented 13 tulas of gold to P.W.1, and also presented saree saman worth of Rs.7,00,000/- towards dowry on the demand of A1 to A7. Her parents spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, P.W.1 and A1 lived happily for two years. Thereafter, she came to know that A1 did not do work, he used to take alcohol through out the day. A1 used to beat P.W.1 on the instigation of A2 and

A3, and looked after her as a slave. Whenever, A4 to A7 used to visit their house, they abused P.W.1 in filthy language. A1 used to suspect her fidelity and even did not take her out. A1 on the instigation of A2 to A7 harassed P.W.1 with a demand to bring additional dowry from her parents house for

Rs.10,00,000/- as otherwise, they would perform another marriage to A1. On the demand, L.W.2-Apparao, who is the father of P.W.1 gave Ac.0-50 cents of land to A1 to A3 situated in Talapalem, but they did not stop to harass P.W.1.

A1 used to move with one Sri Valli, and whenever P.W.1 asked about the same, he used to beat her. Due to unbearable harassment of A1 to A7, P.W.1 presented report to the police.

3.Based on the report of P.W.1, L.W.9-Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.203/2022 of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam on 04- 05-2022 at 2-00 p.m., for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of

Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

During the Course of investigation, she examined and recorded statements of all the witnesses and served Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code notices to all the accused on 11-05-2022. On completion of investigation, she filed

Charge Sheet in this case.

4.On perusal of the contents of the charge sheet coupled with other material documents in the record, the case is taken on file for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against A1 to A7.

5.On appearance of all the accused, case copies were furnished as contemplated in Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. Further all the accused were examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code. The contents of charge sheet were read over, explained to them in Telugu for which, they denied committing of the offences. Hence, Charges under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, against all the accused have been framed, and the contents of charges were read over, explained to them in Telugu to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1, and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. After completion of prosecution side evidence, as there is no incriminating material against all the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination under Section 313 of Criminal

Procedure Code is dispensed with and proceeded further.

7.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record and considered the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P1 and P2, and other material in the record.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of all the accused for offences

punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.On perusal of the record, it is the case of the prosecution as per the contents of the Charge Sheet that A1 married P.W.1 on 06-10-2017 by taking dowry on demand, and that A1 to A7 harassed P.W.1 both mentally and physically demanding to bring additional dowry from her parents house. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

10.In regard to the alleged offences, P.W.1 who is the defacto-complainant herein deposed that her marriage was performed with A1 in the year 2017, and that due to issues in the family, she put the matter before the elders, and that at present they both are living together, and that the accused never harassed her both mentally and physically and never demanded dowry or

additional dowry, and that the police not examined or recorded her statement.

In regard to the report to the police, she further deposed that on the instigation of the elders, she signed on the written paper, but she does not know the contents of the same. On perusal of the evidence on record, P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution and she turned hostile.

11.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, she did not depose any incriminating evidence against all the accused for the offences under which the accused are prosecuted and she turned hostile. The learned APP sought permission of this court to treat the evidence of P.W.1 as hostile. Permission granted after perusal of the record and evidence of the witnesses. Further the learned A.P.P was permitted to put the questions in the nature of cross- examination to P.W.1. In such cross-examination, the learned APP failed to elicit any incriminating evidence against all the accused except giving of suggestions, and marking of the signature of P.W.1 on the report, and the statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code as

Exs.P1 and P2 respectively. On careful perusal of the record, P.W.1 deposed in her chief examination contradicting her statements recorded under Section 161

Criminal Procedure Code. Further in view of the above nature of evidence, the learned A.P.P given up the other witnesses on record. Therefore on perusal of the evidence on record, based on the hostile evidence of P.W.1, which are not sufficient to convict all the accused for which offences the accused are prosecuted. Hence this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove their case against all the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under which the accused are prosecuted, and they are entitled to acquit from this case.

In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for offences punishable Under

Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Criminal

Procedure Code. The accused are set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds and sureties of all the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months Under

Section 437(A) of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court, this the 15th day of July, 2024

Sd/-

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 : Dasari Raju Padmini

FOR ACCUSED:

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the report Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

FOR ACCUSED:

Nil M.Os. Marked :

Nil

Sd/-

I ACMM,VSP

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

CALENDER CASE No.5310/2022

(Cr.No.203/2022 of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City)

Date of offencePrior to 04-05-2022

Date of report or complaint04-05-2022

Date of apprehension of the 41-A Cr.P.C Notice accused Date of Release 41-A Cr.P.C Notice

Date of commencement of trial 12-07-2024 Date of close of trial12-07-2024 Date of sentence on order15-07-2024 Accused is in Jail/on Bail On Bail

Name of the ComplainantState: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam

Name of the accused1. Dasari Hari Babu, S/o Narasayya aged 31 years, R/o D.No.28-52-1/1 Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam

2. Dasari Satyavathi, W/o Narasayya aged 51 years, R/o D.No.28-52-1/1 Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam

3. Dasari Narasayya, S/o Paradesi aged 63 years, R/o D.No.28-52-1/1 Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam

4. Palukuri Varalakshmi, S/o Apparao aged 37 years, R/o RH Colony Vadlapudi Kanithi, Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam

5. Palukuri Apparao, S/o Apparao aged 48 Years, R/o RH Colony Vadlapudi Kanithi, Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam

6. Varadi Sri Devi, W/o Raju aged 33 years, R/o RH Colony Vadlapudi Kanithi, Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam

7. Varadi Raju, S/o Ramu aged 41 years, R/o Rajeev Nagar Duvvada, Visakhapatnam

Offencesunder Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act Finding Found Not Guilty Sentence: In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for offences punishable Under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The accused are set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds and sureties of all the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months Under Section 437(A) of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/-

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT :Smt.M.V.N.PADMAJA

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Friday, the 19th day of July, 2024

C.C.No.2691/2023

Between

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam . . . Complainant

And

1. Tupakula Kamalakar, S/o Samuel Kannarao, aged 32 years R/o D.No.2-236/1, Near Trinity Public School, Indira Nagar, Old Dairy farm, Visakhapatnam

2. Tupakula Satyavathi, W/o Samuel Kannarao, aged 45 years R/o D.No.2-236/1, Near Trinity Public School, Indira Nagar, Old Dairy farm Visakhapatnam

3. Tupakula Samuel Kannarao aged 60 years, R/o D.No.2-236/1 Near Trinity Public School, Indira Nagar Old Dairy farm, Visakhapatnam

4. Tupakula Karunakar, S/o Samuel Kannarao, aged 31 years R/o D.No.2-236/1, Near Trinity Public School, Indira Nagar Old Dairy farm, Visakhapatnam

5. Tupakula Venkata Lakshmi W/o Karunakar, aged 29 years R/o D.No.2-236/1, Near Trinity Public School, Indira Nagar, Old Dairy farm Visakhapatnam

6. Tupakula Divakar, S/o Samuel Kannarao aged 25 years, R/o D.No.2-236/1 Near Trinity Public School, Indira Nagar Old Dairy farm, Visakhapatnam city. . . Accused

This case came before me on 18-07-2024 for final hearing in the presence of 2 learned Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the prosecution, and Sri K.Ramana, learned counsel for all the accused, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.61/2023 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal

Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition, against A1 to A6.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 09-01-2021, the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A1 in the presence of elders at Sampath Sowbhagya Kalyana Mandapam. At the time of marriage,

P.W.1 gave Rs.2,00,000/-, ½ tula gold, and Rs.10,000/- to purchase scooty as dowry to A1 to A6 on their demand. After the marriage, P.W.1 went to her in- laws house to lead marital life with A1. They both lived happily for few days.

Later A1 to A3 started harassing her demanding additional dowry of

Rs.15,00,000/-, as otherwise they would perform 2nd marriage to A1. A1 used to harass P.W.1 on the instigation of A2 to A6, and he used to beat her.

Subsequently, they both shifted family in a rented house. There is no change in the attitude of A1. Due to unbearable harassment of A1 to A6, P.W.1 presented report at Arilova Police Station, who held counseling, but A1 to A6 did not change their attitude. Finally P.W.1 presented report at Women Police Station,

Visakhapatnam.

3.Based on the report of P.W.1, L.W.7-Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.61/2023 of Women Police Station,

Visakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian

Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against A1 to

A6. During the Course of investigation, he examined and recorded the 3 statements of all the witnesses and served Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure

Code notices to A1 to A6. On completion of investigation, L.W.8-Sub-Inspector of Police filed Charge Sheet in this case.

4.On perusal of the contents of the charge sheet coupled with other material documents in the record, the case is taken on file for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against A1 to A6.

5.On appearance of all the accused, case copies were furnished as contemplated in Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. Further all the accused were examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code. The contents of charge sheet were read over, explained to them in Telugu for which, they denied committing of the offences. Hence, Charges under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, against all the accused have been framed, and the contents of charges were read over, explained to them in Telugu to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1, and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

7.On completion of prosecution side evidence, as there is no incriminating material against all the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code is dispensed with and proceeded further.

8. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record and considered the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P1 and P2, and other material in the 4 record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of all the accused for offences

punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.On perusal of the record, it is the case of the prosecution as per the contents of the Charge Sheet that A1 married P.W.1 on 09-01-2021 in the presence of elders by taking dowry, and that after the marriage, A1 to A6 harassed P.W.1 both mentally and physically demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.15,00,000/-. To substantiate the case, the Prosecution examined

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

11.In regard to the alleged offences, P.W.1 who is the defacto-complainant deposed that the accused never harassed her both mentally and physically and that never demanded dowry or additional dowry, and that due to the petty issues in the family, she signed on some written papers on the instigation of the elders, but they have no disputes. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the marriage between P.W.1 and A1 which was performed on 09-01-2021 in

Visakhapatnam is an admitted fact. On perusal of the evidence, P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution and she turned hostile.

12.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, she did not depose any incriminating evidence against all the accused for the offences under which the accused are prosecuted and turned hostile. The learned APP sought permission of this court to treat the evidence of P.W.1 as hostile. Permission granted after perusal of the record and evidence of the witnesses. Further the learned A.P.P 5 was permitted to put the questions in the nature of cross-examination to

P.W.1. In such cross-examination, the learned APP failed to elicit any incriminating evidence against all the accused except giving of suggestions, and marking of the signature of P.W.1 on the report, and the statement of

P.W.1 recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code as Exs.P1 and P2 respectively. On careful perusal of the record, P.W.1 deposed in their chief examination contradicting her statement recorded under Section 161 Criminal

Procedure Code. Further in view of the above nature of evidence, the learned

A.P.P given up the other witnesses on record. Therefore, on perusal of the evidence on record, and based on the hostile evidence of P.W.1, there is no sufficient material evidence to convict all the accused for which offences the accused are prosecuted. Hence this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove their case against all the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under which the accused are prosecuted, and they are entitled to acquit from this case.

In the result, A1 to A6 are found not guilty for offences punishable Under

Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Criminal

Procedure Code. The accused are set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds and sureties of all the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months Under

Section 437(A) of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court, this the 19th day of July, 2024

Sd/- M.V.N.PADMAJA

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

6

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 : Tupakula Latha

FOR ACCUSED:

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the report Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

FOR ACCUSED:

Nil M.Os. Marked :

Nil

Sd/- M.V.N.PADMAJA

I ACMM, VSP

7

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

CALENDER CASE No.2691/2023

(Cr.No.61/2023 of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City)

Date of offencePrior to 04-04-2023

Date of report or complaint04-04-2023

Date of apprehension of the 41-A Cr.P.C Notice accused Date of Release 41-A Cr.P.C Notice Date of commencement of trial 18-07-2024

Date of close of trial18-07-2024

Date of sentence on order19-07-2024

Accused is in Jail/on Bail On Bail

Name of the ComplainantState: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam

Name of the accused1. Tupakula Kamalakar, S/o Symuel Kannrao, age 32 years, R/o D.No.2-236/1 Near Trinity Public School, Indira nagar, Old Dairy farm, Visakhapatnam city

2. Tupakula Satyavathi, W/o Samule Kannarao, aged 45 years, R/o D.No.2-236/1 Near Trinity Public School, Indira nagar, Old Dairy farm, Visakhapatnam city

3. Tupakula Samuel Kannarao, aged 60 years, R/o D.No.2-236/1, Near Trinity Public School, Indira nagar, Old Dairy farm, Visakhapatnam city

4. Tupakula Karunakar, S/o Samuel Kannarao, aged 31 years, R/o D.No.2-236/1 Near Trinity Public School, Indira nagar, Old Dairy farm, Visakhapatnam city 8

5. Tupakula Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Karunakar, aged 29 years, R/o D.No.2-236/1, Near Trinity Public School, Indira nagar, Old Dairy farm, Visakhapatnam city

6. Tupakula Divakar, S/o Samuel Kannarao, aged 25 years, R/o D.No.2-236/1, Near Trinity Public School, Indira nagar, Old Dairy farm, Visakhapatnam city Offencesunder Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

Finding Found Not Guilty

Sentence: In the result, A1 to A6 are found not guilty for offences punishable Under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The accused are set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds and sureties of all the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months Under Section 437(A) of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- M.V.N.PADMAJA

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM