CC 141/2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
::ANAKAPALLE
PRESENT : Ms. NIRUPA BHANJ DEO XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Anakapalle. FAC/ XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Anakapalle.
Friday, this the 19 th day of March, 2021.
C.C. No.141/2017.
Old C.C. No.367/2017.
Between: State, rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Anakapalle. …Complainant A n d
1. Karri Babu Rao, S/o Sanyasi Naidu, Aged 38 years, Tallapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Karri Nagaratnam, W/o Sanyasi Naidu, Aged 55 years, Tallapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Karri Sanyasi Naidu, S/o Late Kondababu, Aged 70 years, Thallapalem Village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Karri Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o Sanyasi Naidu, Aged 45 years, Thallapalem Village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Accused 1 to 4
This case is coming on 18032021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Senior Asst. Public Prosecutor, for ComplainantState and of
Sri. A.S.V.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for accused A.1 to A.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Sub Inspector of Police, Anakapalle Women Police Station filed charge sheet against accused A.1 to A.4 in Crime No.06/2017 of
Anakapalle Women Police Station U/Sec. 498A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
02. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that the marriage of the Defacto Complainant Karri Sridevi (L.W.1) was performed with the accused Karri Baburao (A.1) in the presence of elders and blood relatives as per their caste clan and Hindu Customs on 15062003 at Thallapalem village of Kasimkota Mandal at her matrimonial home. At the time of marriage, on the demand of the accused A.1 to A.4, the parents of L.W.1/Karri Sridevi gave dowry of Rs.80,000/, 73 cents land, sarisamanulu worth Rs.1,00,000/ and four tulas of gold to the accused A.1 to A.4. After marriage, she along with her husband stayed in the joint family for three months. Later,
L.W.1/Karri Sridevi along with her husband shifted to the opposite house to her parentsinlaw’s house and that from then the accused A.1 to A.4 started harassing her physically and mentally and also demanded to bring additional dowry, but she borne the same and she went to her parents house many times. Even after birth of daughters in the year 2005 and 2010, there was no change in the attitude of the accused A.1 to A.4. Unable to bear the harassment, she went to her parents house on 23072016 along with her children and stayed at Upparapalli village which is near by Tallapalem and later, she shifted to rented house at S.Rayavaram. In the year 2016, she came to know about some land being sold by her husband and her inlaws and that when she questioned about the same, then all the accused beat her indiscriminately and necked her out from the house on 08102016.
03.Basing on the report of L.W.1 Karri Sridevi,
L.W.15 M.Devendrudu, Sub Inspector of Police, Women P.S. Anakapalle registered a case in Cr.No. 06/2017 for offences u/sec. 498A IPC and Sec.
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 22022017. He investigated the case and examined the witnesses and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and also served Sec.41A
Cr.P.C notice to accused A.1 to A.4. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused A.1 to A.4.
04.The cognizance was taken for the offence U/Sec. 498A IPC and
Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against accused A.1 to A.4 by the
Hon'ble Vth M.M., Anakapalle and the case was numbered as C.C. 367/2017.
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
05.On appearance of accused A.1 to A.4, the copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/s.207 of Cr.P.C. As per the orders of the Hon'ble District Court dated 24082017 communicated in Dis.No.7264
dated 24082017, the case was transferred to this Court and here it was
renumbered as C.C No.141/2017.
06.Accused A.1 to A.4 were examined by my learned predecessor u/s.239 of Cr.P.C. A charge for the offences under Sec. 498A IPC and Sec.
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 against accused A.1 to A.4 was framed and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
07. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P10 are marked.
08. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused A.1 to A.4 were examined by my learned predecessor U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating substance available in evidence against them, for which they denied of committing the offence and the accused A.1 to A.4 did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on their behalf.
09.Heard the learned Sr.APP for the state and the learned counsel
for the accused A.1 to A.4.
10. Now the points which stood for determination are :
1. Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of
the accused A.1 to A.4 for the offences under Sec.3 and
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt ?
2. Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of
the accused for the offence under Sec.498A IPC beyond
reasonable doubt ?
11. The case of prosecution is that the marriage of P.W.1
Karri Sridevi was performed with A.1 as per caste customs and rites and that
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
at the time of marriage, on demand of accused A.1 to A.4, the parents of
P.W.1 gave dowry to the accused and that after 3 months of marriage, P.W.1 was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the accused A.1 to A.4 for want of additional dowry and that even after birth of two daughters, as there was no change in the attitude of the accused A.1 to A.4, P.W.1 left her matrimonial home and that on 08.10.2016, when she questioned about some land being sold by the accused A.1 to A.4, then they beat her indiscriminately and necked her out from the house. Hence the complaint.
12.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P10. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 are relatives of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the neighbours, P.W.7 is the marriage elder, P.W.8 to P.W.10 are the village elders who conducted mediation, P.W.11 is the Investigating officer.
13. Point No.1: (Offence u/sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.):
With regard to the allegations made against accused A.1 to A.4 under Sec.3 and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the evidence of P.W.1
Karri Sridevi, the defacto Complainant and P.W.2 T.Nookaratnam, the mother of P.W.1 shows that the arranged marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A.1 in accordance with Hindu caste customs and that at the time of marriage they gave an amount of Rs.80,000/ (cash), 73 cents land situated at Upparapalli village, 4 tulas of gold and sarisaman worth of Rs.1,00,000/ towards dowry. P.W.1 further testified that Rs.15,000/ towards adapaduchu katnam was given. P.W.3 P.Sanyasi Rao, the relative of P.W.1, though was declared hostile by the learned Sr. A.P.P. but as the law is settled that the testimony of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent of corroboration, hence the facts testified by him to the extent of corroboration of P.W.1 and P.W.2 alone are considered. P.W.3 testified that the marriage of
P.W.1 with A.1 was performed in the presence of elders as per Hindu caste customs at Tallapallem village and that P.W.2 informed him that the agreed dowry and presents were given to the accused.
14.The learned Sr.APP argued that the oral evidence of the witnesses clearly establishes the guilt of accused A.1 to A.4 for the offence
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
u/sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and hence requested the court to punish the accused A.1 to A.4 for the said offence.
15.The learned defence counsel contended that the accused A.1 to
A.4 never demanded nor received any dowry at any point of time and that all the witnesses are deposing false with regard to giving of dowry to accused.
He submitted that though P.W.1 to P.W.3 testified that dowry was given to accused but they did not witness the same and hence their evidence cannot be considered. To prove the same he brought the attention of the court wherein it was elicited from P.W.1 that she did not witness the payment of dowry amount. It was elicited from P.W.2 and P.W.3 that they were not present when the dowry amount was handed over to the accused. The counsel submitted that P.W.1 failed to mention the description of the gold which is alleged to be given by them as dowry in Ex.P1 report. To prove the same he brought the attention of the court wherein it was elicited from P.W.1 that she did not mention in the Ex.P.1 report about the description of four tulas of gold. The counsel further submitted that no documentary evidence is filed with regard to the purchase of sarisaman and gold ornaments and hence the same cannot be believed. To prove the same, he brought the attention of the court wherein it was elicited from P.W.2 that she did not give the purchase bills of the sarisaman and gold ornaments to the police. The counsel further submitted that for the first time during deposing before this court,
P.W.1 mentioned about giving Rs.15,000/ towards adapaduchu katnam and the same is not mentioned in Ex.P1 report.
16.The learned counsel for accused A.1 to A.4 contended that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are deposing false that at the time of marriage 73 cents of land was given as dowry to accused. To prove the same he brought the attention of the court wherein it was elicited from P.W.1 that immediately after marriage, the 73 cents land was not registered in her name or in the name of
A.1 but subsequently, after the death of her father which occurred after four years of her marriage, the land was registered in her name. The counsel also brought the attention of the court wherein it was elicited from P.W.2 that the land was not registered either in the name of P.W1 or A.1 at the time of marriage or within 6 months of the marriage. The learned counsel argued
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
that in view of the above facts elicited from P.W.1 and P.W.2, their evidence cannot be believed with regard to giving of dowry.
17.It is to be appreciated here that in order to prove the guilt of the accused A.1 to A.4 for the offence under Sec.3 and Sec.4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, the prosecution must establish that the Dowry was presented on the demand of the accused, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of P.W.1, before or at the time of marriage or after marriage and the accused received the said dowry.
18.On scrutinizing the evidence of the witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2 in one voice testified that at the time of marriage, they gave an amount of
Rs.80,000/, 73 cents land situated at Upparapalli village, 4 tulas of gold and sarisaman worth of Rs.1,00,000/ towards dowry. P.W.2 further testified of giving Rs.15,000/ towards adapaduchu katnam. P.W.3 testified that P.W.2 informed him that the agreed dowry and presents were given to the accused.
But it is the contention of the accused A.1 to A.4 that they neither demanded dowry nor received the same and that P.W.1 to P.W.3 are deposing falsely.
19.It is pertinent to note that none of the witnesses whispered a word that the said cash, land, sarisaman, adapaduchu katnam and gold was demanded by the accused. Further P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not witness as to giving of the same to the accused at the time of marriage as pointed out by the counsel. Further it is pertinent to note that as per P.W.1 and P.W.2, the land of 73 cents was also given as dowry. It is to be appreciated here that if the land was given as dowry at the time of marriage then the said land must have been registered in the name of A.1 or P.W.1 either before marriage or immediately after marriage but the land was not registered until the death of father of P.W.1, which occurred after 4 years of marriage, as pointed out by the counsel for accused and the same creates doubt as to the evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.2. Hence in view of above observation, the evidence of the witnesses cannot be believed with regard to Dowry being demanded by the accused A.1 to A.4 at the time of marriage and the accused receiving the same. Moreover, no documentary evidence like photographs or videos is filed to prove that cash and gold was received as dowry by the accused. Hence the
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
prosecution failed to establish the offence against accused A.1 to A.4 for the offence u/sec.3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence point No.1 is answered in favour of accused.
20. Point No.2: (offence u/sec. 498A I.P.C.):
Proceeding further to analyze if the accused perpetrated any cruelty upon P.W.1 in order to attract the ingredients for the offence under
Sec.498A IPC. P.W.1 K.Sridevi, testified that after marriage, she went to her inlaws house at Thallapalem and that after three months of marriage,
A.1 to A.3 started torturing her for additional dowry stating that her parents have not given balance dowry of Rs. 40,000/ and that even the said amount was given but still the harassment continued by stating that she brought less dowry amount. She further testified that her husband used to beat her in drunken condition and that A.1 and A.2 also used to beat her and that due to the said harassment she used to stay ten days at inlaws house and 20 days at her parents house. She further testified that while she was pregnant for first time, then A.1 told her that if she gave birth to a male child then he would look after her well but she gave birth to a daughter and that after she gave birth to second daughter, the harassment increased and that she informed about the same to her parents. She further testified that when she used to point out about the smell of the liquor when A.1 used to come in drunken condition, then he used to beat her.
She further testified that when she placed the disputes before
P.W.10 Chinni Sanyasinaidu, P.W.9 Narayana and some other persons, then
A.1, who alone attended the panchayath assured to look after her very well and took her to the matrimonial house but the harassment continued. She further testified that A.1 used to tell her that if she brings additional dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/, then he would look after her well and that when she informed the same to her mother who stated that she already has given the dowry amounts. She further testified that her mother brought her to the parental house through elders and that she stayed there for two years. She further testified that A.1 to A.4 demolished her share of portion in the house and that she borne the harassment and finally due to the unbearable harassment, she lodged a report vide Ex.P1 at Anakapalle Women P.S.
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
21.P.W.2 T. Nookaratnam, the mother of P.W.1 testified that after marriage, P.W.1 went to her in laws house in Thallapalem and that upto three months of marriage, accused treated P.W.1 properly but later A.1 used to beat P.W.1 demanding additional dowry stating that earlier dowry amount was not sufficient and that when they questioned A.2 and A.3, then they stated that they do not have any connection to the family issues of A.1 and
P.W.1 as they discarded them. She further testified that A.1 used to confine and beat P.W.1 and that due to the said reason, P.W.1 came to their house and that when P.W.1 narrated all the incidents of harassment and demand of
additional dowry then she expressed her inability to give additional dowry.
She further testified that she send P.W.1 to her matrimonial house through the elders and that P.W.1 stayed for ten days but again A.1 continued the harassment and so P.W.1 returned to her house and later, she gave a report to the police.
22.The facts testified by P.W.3 P.Sanyasirao and P.W.6
T.V.V.Satyanarayana, the relatives of P.W.1, to the extent of corroboration is considered in view of they being declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.3 testified that A.1 got addicted to alcohol and often used to harass P.W.1 and that the elders attempted to settle the disputes. During cross examination by learned Sr. A.P.P, P.W.3 admitted that P.W.2 used to inform him that accused harassed P.W.1 and demanded additional dowry and that panchayat was held in that regard. P.W.6 testified that as A.1 used to consume liquor, some disputes arose between P.W.1 and A.1.
23.P.W.4 K. Narasinga Rao and P.W.5 K. Surya Nagamani, the neighbours of P.W.1 , P.W.7 D.Pentayya, the marriage elder, P.W.8
M.Venkata Ramana, P.W.9 Ch. Vallama Narayanarao and P.W.10 Ch. Sanyasi
Naidu, the village elders who as per prosecution conducted mediation turned hostile and did not support the version of prosecution. Nothing material could be elicited from them by learned Sr. A.P.P. during cross.
24.P.W.11 M.Devendhar, the Investigation officer testified that on 22022017 at about 3.00p.m, on the basis of written report given by P.W1, he registered a case in crime No.06/2017 u/sec.498A IPC and sec.3 and 4
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
D.P.Act vide Ex.P9 FIR and that he examined P.W1 to P.W.3 and recorded their statements. He further testified that on the next day, he visited the scene of offence which is situated at Thallapalem village and there he examined remaining witnesses and recorded their statements and that he also prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence, vide Ex.P10. He further testified that on 28.02.2017, he served 41A Cr.P.C. notices to the accused A.1 to A.4 and that after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
25.The learned Sr.APP argued that the oral evidence of the witnesses and the documentary evidence clearly establishes the guilt of accused A.1 to A.4 as to the cruelty perpetrated by accused A.1 to A.4 against
P.W.1 and harassing P.W.1 for want of additional dowry and A.1 beating
P.W.1 in drunken condition. Hence requested the court to punish the accused
A.1 to A.4 for the offence u/sec.498A IPC as the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
26.Per Contra the learned Counsel for accused A.1 to A.4 contended that the accused A.1 to A.4 never harassed P.W.1 at any point of time and never demanded any additional dowry and A.1 never beat P.W.1 in drunken condition. He contended that the witnesses are deposing false for the purpose of the case and that the prosecution failed to establish the offence u/sec. 498A IPC against accused and hence prayed the court to acquit them.
27.At this point it is apt to discuss about the first para of Sec.
498A IPC, which envisages the willful conduct on the part of the husband or his relative towards the woman, which may likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical). Now it has to be seen whether the acts of the accused A.1 to A.4 attract the first part of the Sec. 498A of I.P.C. or not.
28.On scrutinizing the evidence of the witnesses, P.W.1 testified that after birth of her second daughter, the harassment of A.1 increased as she did not give birth to a male child and that A.1 used to beat her in drunken condition and that A.2 also used to beat her. P.W.3 and P.W.6
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
corroborated the version of P.W.1 with regard to A.1 consuming liquor.
P.W.3 testified that A.1 got addicted to alcohol and often used to harass
P.W.1. P.W.2 also corroborated the version of P.W.1 with regard to A.1 beating P.W.1. She testified that A.1 used to confine P.W.1 and beat her.
29. The learned counsel for accused A.1 to A.4 contended that accused A.1 never consumed liquor as alleged by P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 and that he did not beat P.W.1 in intoxication condition at any point of time as alleged by P.W.1 and that A.1 did not harass P.W.1 for not giving birth to male child. He further contended that accused A.1 to A.4 never beat P.W.1 at any point of time and nor A.1 confined P.W.1 and beat her at any point of time and that none of the accused committed any offence against P.W.1 at any point of time.
30.It is to be appreciated here that harassing a woman for not giving birth to a male child amounts to cruelty. But it is pertinent to note that
P.W.1 did not mention in Ex.P1 report about the same, as pointed by the counsel for accused. Further it is pertinent to note that P.W.2 did not whisper a word about increase of harassment by A.1 on P.W.1 after birth of second daughter as she did not give birth to a male child and the same creates doubt as to the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the said harassment, as no mother will forget about her daughter being harassed for not giving birth to male child.
31. Further it is to be appreciated here that beating a woman in intoxication condition amounts to cruelty. Admittedly P.W.1 and P.W.3 in one voice testified that A.1 used to consume liquor and harass P.W.1 and
P.W.1 also testified that A.1 used to beat her in intoxication condition.
Further P.W.6 also corroborated the version of P.W.1 and P.W.3 that A.1 used to consume liquor. But it is pertinent to note that P.W.2, the mother of
P.W.1 did not whisper a word about A.1 consuming liquor and harassing or beating P.W.1 and the same creates doubt as to the evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.3 with regard to the said harassment, as no mother will forget about her daughter being beaten by her sonin law in intoxication condition.
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
32.It is pertinent to note that none of the witnesses nor P.W.1 herself did not whisper a word about the acts of accused driving P.W.1 to commit suicide or causing grave injury to P.W.1’s body or mind. It to be appreciated here that though the acts of accused amounts to cruelty but the said acts did not drive P.W.1 to commit suicide or caused any grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical). Hence the acts of accused do not attract the offence under part one of the Sec.498A I.P.C.
More over in view of above observations, a cloud of suspicion arises as to the version of P.W.1 with regard to the harassments perpetrated by A.1 as to not giving birth to a male child and beating P.W.1 in intoxication condition.
33.At this point it is apt to discuss about the second part of
Sec.498A I.P.C, which contemplates that the harassment of the woman, which harassment shall be with a view to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of their failure to meet such demand. The conduct on the part of the husband or relative alone is not sufficient, but it should be accompanied by the necessary intention on their part. Now it has to be seen whether the act of accused attracts the second part of Sec. 498A I.P.C. or not.
34.On scrutinizing the evidence of the witnesses, the evidence of
P.W.1 shows that after three months of marriage, A.1 to A.3 started torturing her for additional dowry stating that her parents have not given balance dowry of Rs. 40,000/ and that even though the said amount was given but still the harassment continued by stating that she brought less dowry amount.
She further testified that even though A.1 assured at the panchayath that he will look after her well but A.1 used to tell her that if she brings additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/, then he would look after her well. P.W.2 corroborated the version of P.W.1 with regard to harassment of P.W.1 for
additional dowry to some extent. She testified that after three months of
marriage, A.1 used to beat P.W.1 demanding additional dowry stating that earlier dowry amount was not sufficient. P.W.3 during cross examination by learned Sr. A.P.P. admitted that P.W.2 used to inform him that accused harassed P.W.1 and demanded additional dowry and that panchayat was held in that regard.
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
35.In view of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, it is clear that accused used to harass P.W.1 for additional dowry. But it is the contention of the learned defence counsel that the witnesses are making false allegations against the accused as to demanding additional dowry and harassing P.W.1 for the same. He submitted that it is due to the demand of P.W.1, A.1 is residing separately from his parents. To prove the same he brought the attention of the court wherein P.W.1 admitted that after one year of marriage she and A.1 set up separate residence from her inlaws. The counsel also brought the attention of the court wherein P.W.2 admitted that the inlaws of
P.W.1 put up a separate residence for P.W.1 and A.1. The counsel further brought the attention of the court wherein P.W.11 M.Devendhar, the investigating officer admitted that after 1 year of marriage P.W.1 and A.1 resided separately. The learned counsel argued that when P.W.1 and A.1 are residing separately then there is no possibility of A.2 and A.3 harassing P.W.1 for want of additional dowry.
36.The learned counsel for accused contended that as P.W.1 disliked to continue the marital relationship with A.1 as he is not educated and as A.1 refused to the proposal of P.W.1 doing job, she bore grudge and left the inlaws house and that with a view to live separately from A.1, she lodged the false report against the accused. To prove the same he brought the attention of the court wherein it was elicited from P.W.1 that she studied upto M.A. T.P.T. and that her husband studied upto 10th class and that after marriage she is residing at her parental house for considerable period. For which she stated that it was due to the harassment of the accused that she is residing there. The counsel further brought the attention of the court wherein
P.W.2 admitted that after 3 months of marriage P.W.1 used to stay at their house but occasionally she used to visit her inlaws house. The learned counsel further submitted that A.4 is living separately from his parents and from his brother A.1 and that he never interfered with the family affairs of
A.1 and that he was falsely implicated in this case. The counsel brought the attention of the court that P.W.1 did not make any allegations against A.4 with regard to harassment for additional dowry.
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
37.The defence counsel contended that this false case is filed by
P.W.1 for partition of properties of accused and to have share in the property.
To prove the same he brought the attention of the court wherein it was elicited from P.W.1 that in the last lines of Ex.P1 report she mentioned that when she came to know about her inlaws planning to sell away the joint family properties, she went there to question them. It was elicited from P.W.1 that she filed the case as accused did not look after the welfare of her and their children and that the accused are trying to alienate the properties and for dowry harassment. The counsel brought the attention of the court wherein it was elicited from P.W.2 that P.W.1 lodged report not on the sole ground of A.1 harassing P.W.1 and for partition of properties.
38.It is pertinent to note that there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to harassment of A.2 and A.3 for want of
additional dowry. P.W.1 testified that after three months of marriage,
A.1 to A.3 started harassing her for additional dowry, but it is pertinent to note that P.W.2 did not whisper a word about harassment by A.2 and A.3.
P.W.2 testified that when they questioned A.2 and A.3 with regard to harassment of P.W.1 by A.1 for additional dowry, then A.2 and A.3 stated that they do not have any connection to the family issues of A.1 and P.W.1 as they discarded them. Further it is pertinent to note that though P.W.1 testified that A.1 to A.3 started torturing her for additional dowry stating that her parents have not given balance dowry of Rs. 40,000/. But P.W.2 did not whisper a word about the same. It is to be appreciated here that if P.W.1 was actually harassed by A.2 and A.3 then P.W.2 would have definitely testified about the same but she did not utter a word against them. Hence the above observation creates cloud of suspicion as to evidence of P.W.1 with regard to harassment by A.2 and A.3 for want of additional dowry.
39.It is pertinent to note that there is delay in lodging F.I.R. P.W.1 testified that her mother brought her to parental house and that she stayed there for two years and that all the accused demolished their portion in the house and finally due to unbearable harassment, she lodged the report.
Though P.W.1 to P.W.3 in one voice testified that A.1 harassed P.W.1 for want of additional dowry but it is to be appreciated here that if P.W.1 really
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
had any grievance against the accused, she would have lodged the complaint against the accused way back when accused as per the evidence of the witnesses used to harass her and beat her for want of additional dowry and when the mediations became futile. But P.W.1 choose to lodge the case against accused after two years of her leaving her matrimonial home and when accused demolished the house and were planning to sell away the joint family properties, which raises doubt about the intentions of P.W.1. Thereby strengthening the contention of the accused that the present case is filed with false allegations for partition of property. Hence there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the same has become fatal to the case of prosecution.
40.Therefore, in view of the above observations and discussions, it is evident that P.W.1 is not inspiring enough confidence to believe her version of the incidents. When the evidence of victim P.W.1 itself is not inspiring the confidence, then the evidence of the remaining witnesses cannot be looked into and so their evidence does not attach much significance and more over there are inconsistencies in their evidence as discussed above.
Further the delay in lodging F.I.R. has become fatal to the case of prosecution. Therefore accused A.1 to A.3 are entitled for benefit of doubt.
Further it is pertinent to note that P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not make any allegations against A.4 with regard to harassment for additional dowry.
Hence no offence u/sec. 498A is made out against A.4. Hence, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused A.1 to A.4 for the offence u/sec. 498A I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. Hence point no.2 is answered in favour of the accused A.1 to A.4.
41. In the result, the accused A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498A I.P.C and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. They are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds on record shall be treated as bonds U/Sec. 437(A) Cr.P.C. and they shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of Judgment.
Partly typed to my dictation directly on my laptop to the steno and partly typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19th day of March, 2021. Sd:/ Nirupa Banj Deo, XII A.M.M. Anakapalle FAC/XIII A.M.M. Anakapalle
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED:
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
P.W.01 : K. Sridevi NIL
P.W.02 : T. Nookaratnam.
P.W.03 : P. Sanyasi Rao.
P.W.04 : K. Narasinga Rao
P.W.05 : K. Surya Nagamani
P.W.06 : T.V.V. Satyanarayana
P.W.07 : D.Pentayya
P.W.08 : M. Venkata Ramana
P.W.09 : Ch. Vallama Narayanarao
P.W.10 : Ch. Sanyasi Naidu
P.W.11 : M. Devendhar, Rtd. Sub Inspector of Police
EXHIBITS MARKED:
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Report Nil
Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4
Ex.P3 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5
Ex.P4 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6
Ex.P5 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7
Ex.P6 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8
Ex.P7 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.9
Ex.P8 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.10
Ex.P9 : Original F.I.R
Ex.P10 : Rough Sketch of the scene of offence.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:
NIL
Sd:/ Nirupa Banj Deo, XII A.M.M. Anakapalle FAC/XIII A.M.M. Anakapalle
XIII A.M.M. Ankp
CC 141/2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
::ANAKAPALLE
C.C. No.141/2017.
Old CC No.367/2017.
Date of occurrence:: Prior to 22022017
Date of complaint:: 22022017
Date of taken on file:: 27062017
Date of commencement of trial :: 07082018
Date of closure of trial:: 25022020
Date of sentence of order:: 19032021
Reason for delay:: Delay due to production of witnesses
Name of the Complainant:: The Inspector of Police, Anakapalle Women Police Station, Anakapalle.
Particulars of the accused:
1. Karri Babu Rao, S/o Sanyasi Naidu, Aged 38 years, Tallapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Karri Nagaratnam, W/o Sanyasi Naidu, Aged 55 years, Tallapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Karri Sanyasi Naidu, S/o Late Kondababu, Aged 70 years, Thallapalem Village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Karri Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o Sanyasi Naidu, Aged 45 years, Thallapalem Village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
U/Sec. 498A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Nature of offence Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Finding of the courtFound not guilty
Sentence of Order : In the result, the accused A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498A I.P.C and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
They are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds on record shall be treated as bonds U/Sec. 437(A) Cr.P.C. and they shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of Judgment. Sd:/ Nirupa Banj Deo, XII A.M.M. Anakapalle FAC/XIII A.M.M. Anakapalle
XIII A.M.M. Ankp