1 C.C.No.601/2023
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
RAYACHOTY
Present: Kum N. Tejaswini
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty.
Friday, this the 1st day of August, 2025.
C.C.No.601/2023
Between
State represented by the SubInspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G Police Station.
….. Complainant
And
1) Chamarthi Suresh Raju, S/o Late Venkata Raju, age 35 years, Occupation IT Manager, Resident of Rayudu Colony, Rayachoty Town, Annamayya District. Now residing at A 004/Shyam Upavan CHS Limited, Ground Floor, Mahajanwadi, MICL road, Mira road, Thane, Maharashtra State
2) Chamarthi Achamma, W/o Late Venkata Raju, age 53 years, Resident of Rayudu Colony, Rayachoty Town, Annamayya District
….. A1 and A2
This case is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in the presence of
Learned APP and of Sri N. Prabhakar Reddy and Sri P. Reddy Basha, Learned Counsels for
A1, A2 and after having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
01. The State represented by SubInspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G P.S filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.333/2023 against A1, A2 for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as D.P.Act). The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1. The encapsulated version of the facts of the prosecution is that
L.W.1/Addepalli Sujatha is resident of Church Street, S.N.Colony, Rayachoty
Town. That L.W.3/Addepalli Narayanamma is the mother of L.W.1. That L.Ws.2, 4/Chemarthi Shankaramma, Konduru Lalithamma are the sisters of L.W.1. That on 21.12.2018, L.Ws.2 to 5 performed the marriage of L.W.1 with A1 in presence of elders of both sides as per Hindu rites and customs by presenting cash of Rs.1,80,000/ and 15 2 C.C.No.601/2023 tulas of gold towards dowry. That after marriage, A1 along with L.W.1 led happy marital life for some period at Mumbai and that they are blessed with one daughter out of their wedlock. That later, A1 with the instigation of A2 started harassing and abusing L.W.1 to bring additional dowry from her parents house. That L.W.1 tried to adjust herself in her marital life and thus tried to console herself but as there is no change in the attitude of accused and that as she was unable to bear his harassment, L.W.1 informed about the acts of A1 and A2 to L.Ws.2 to 5. That at about four months prior to this offence, upon the request of L.Ws.2 to 5, the L.Ws.6, 7/Pappireddi Raghava Reddy, Busiraju
Nagabhushanam Raju held panchayathi, but in vain. That while the situation stood thus, at about three months prior to this offence, A1 and A2 picked up an altercation with
L.W.1 for not bringing additional dowry from her parents house and also threatened her if she/L.W.1 fails to bring additional dowry, they will perform 2nd marriage to A1 with another woman. So, L.Ws.1 , 2 came to Rayachoty U/G P.S and that L.W.1 gave report against A1 and A2.
2.2. Basing on the report of L.W.1, L.W.9/J. Narasimha Reddy, SubInspector of Police,
Rayachoty U/G P.S registered a case in Cr.No.333/2023 under Section 498A r/w 34 of
IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act investigated into the matter. During the course of investigation, L.W.9 examined witnesses/L.Ws.1 to 8 and recorded their statements under
Section 161 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
Cr.P.C). That on 30.07.2023, L.W.9 served notice to A1 and A2 under Section 41A of
Cr.P.C. That later, after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 and A2.
03. Basing on the charge sheet contents and upon perusal of material available on record, this Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against A1, A2.
04. On appearance of A1, A2, copies of documents was furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
3 C.C.No.601/2023
05. That, upon examination of A1 and A2 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, they denied the substance of accusation leveled against him and after perusing the material available on record, charge under Sections 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
06. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1, 2 and Signature of P.W.1 on report, dt. 17.07.2023 is marked as Ex.P.1. 161 (3) of Cr.P.C statement of
P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P.2. 161 (3) of Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 is marked as Ex.P.3.
The evidence of L.W.2/Chemarthi Shankaramma, L.W.3/Addepalli Narayanamma,
L.W.4/Konduru Lalithamma, L.W.6/Pappireddi Raghava Reddy, L.W.7/Busiraju
Nagabhushanam Raju, L.W.8/Sigi Lakshmi Devi and L.W.9/J. Narasimha Reddy, Sub
Inspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G P.S is given up by Learned APP and reported no further evidence by prosecution. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.
07. After closure of prosecution side evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence against A1 and A2, the examination of A1, A2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with.
08. Heard arguments of Learned A.P.P and learned defence Counsel.
09. The point for determination is "Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1, A2 for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt?"
10. In order to bring home guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined
P.W.1/Addepalli Sujatha and P.W.2/Addepalli Chandra Sekhar Raju in their chief examination, P.Ws.1, 2 deposed in similar lines by saying that they do not know any facts of this case. P.W.1 who is the victim herself deposed that she went to her parents house because of minor disputes and that she do not know the contents of her report/Ex.P.1.
After obtaining permission of this Court, learned APP cross examined P.Ws.1, 2 but 4 C.C.No.601/2023 nothing important is elicited and further, P.Ws.1, 2 admitted that they got compromised with accused out of Court.
11. For attracting the offence under Section 498A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P
Act, proving the key ingredients, below mentioned, are mandatory:
The married woman should be subjected to cruelty
Such cruelty should be inflicted on that married woman, either by her husband or by any relative of her husband
There must be giving or taking or abetting of giving or taking of dowry
Demanding dowry directly/indirectly from the bride or from her parents or from anyone who has interest in the bride
12. As the key ingredients of the offence are not proved by the prosecution as the material witnesses including DefactoComplainant did not support the case of prosecution and P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted that they got compromised with accused out of Court. As the material witnesses including defactocomplainant did not support the case of prosecution, the learned APP closed the evidence of prosecution by giving up on the remaining witnesses. The learned APP has rightly given up the evidence of L.Ws.2 to 4, L.Ws.6 to 9 as it is not possible to establish the case of prosecution for the reason being the material witnesses themselves did not support the case of prosecution. In these circumstances, even if L.Ws.2 to 4, L.Ws.6 to 9 are examined, it will not establish the case of prosecution.
13. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is to prove the guilt of A1 and A2 beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A1 and A2beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of A1 and A2.
14. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the prosecution has failed to establish that A1 and A2 had committed the offence punishable under section 498 A 5 C.C.No.601/2023 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. A1 and A2 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498 A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
15. In the result, A1 and A2found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498 A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and accordingly A1 and A2 are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2shall remain in force until expiry of appeal time from the date of judgment as per under Section 437 A of
Cr.P.C.
No property is produced before this Court, hence no property orders are passed.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 1st day of August, 2025.
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rayachoty.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution
P.W.1 : Addepalli Sujatha
P.W.2 : Addepalli Chandra Sekhar Raju
For Accused: None
No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of :
Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 on report, dt. 17.07.2023
Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1
Ex.P.3 : 161 of Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2
Accused: NIL
No. of Material Objects Marked
NIL
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rayachoty.
6 C.C.No.601/2023
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
Calendar cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rayachoty.
Date of Offence: Prior to 17.07.2023
Date of report or complaint: : 17.07.2023
Date of apprehension of accused: 30.07.2023
Date release on bail, if any: 30.07.2023
Date of commencement of trial : 30.06.2025
Close of trial: 29.07.2025
Date of sentence or other order : 01.08.2025
Explanation of delay and remarks: No delay ____________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.601/2023 on the file of the Court of Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty.
Complainant : State represented by the SubInspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G P.S ____________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused/A1, A2 Age Father’s name
1) Chamarthi Suresh Raju, S/o Late Venkata Raju, age 35 years, Occupation IT Manager, Resident of Rayudu Colony, Rayachoty Town, Annamayya District. Now residing at A004/Shyam Upavan CHS Limited, Ground Floor, Mahajanwadi, MICL road, Mira road, Thane, Maharashtra State
2) Chamarthi Achamma, W/o Late Venkata Raju, age 53 years, Resident of Rayudu Colony, Rayachoty Town, Annamayya District ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== == ====
Offence:Under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act
Finding: Not guilty
Sentence: In the result, A1 and A2 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498 A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and accordingly A1 and
A2 are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall remain in force until expiry of appeal time from the date of judgment as per under
Section 437 A of Cr.P.C.
No property is produced before this Court, hence no property orders are passed.
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rayachoty.