Sri.P.Bharadwaja

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

THE FIRST CLASS, KAKINADA

C.C.No. 60 /2017

Date of Offence : 07-01-2015

Date of Report of Complaint: 07-01-2015

Date of commencement of trial: 27-11-2017

Date of Closure of trial: 15.11.2022

Date of Sentence of Order: 22-02-2023

Explanation of delay and remarks: --

Name of the Complainant:

Staterepresented by Sub Inspector of Police, Women PS, Kakinada. Name and address of Accused:

A1. Bayyapureddi Phanikumar, S/o.Seshagiri Rao, 40 years, Kapu, R/o.Srilatha Apartments, water tank Road, IGM Stadium, Vijayawada.

(Not established) Bayyapureddi Seshagiri Rao, S/o.Late BLVL Kantha Rao, 70 years, Kapu, R/o.Srilatha Apartments water tank road, Beside IGM Stadium, Vijayawada. (A2)

Bayyapureddi Sujatha, W/o.Seshagiri Rao, 65 years, Kapu, R/o. Srilatha Apartments water tank Road, Beside IGM stadium, Vijayawada (A3).

Offence : Under Sections 498-A IPC. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. Finding : Found not guilty.

Sentence:

In the result, the accused/A1, is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over under section 437-A Cr.PC. No property is produced before the court and hence, there is no order as to disposal of property.

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

III ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

KAKINADA.

FAC I AJFCM, Kakinada.

2

CC No.60 of 2017 dated 22.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

THE FIRST CLASS : KAKINADA

Present : P. BHARADWAJA

III Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada. FAC/ I Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Kakinada

Wednesday, the Twenty Second day of February, 2023

C. C. N o.60/2 0 1 7

(Cr.No. 2 /2 0 1 5 of Women Police Station, Kakinada)

Between:

The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Women P.S, Kakinada.

…Complainant.

And

A1. Bayyapureddi Phanikumar, S/o.Seshagiri Rao, 40 years, Kapu, R/o.Srilatha Apartments, water tank Road, IGM Stadium, Vijayawada.

(Not established)

Bayyapureddi Seshagiri Rao, S/o.Late BLVL Kantha Rao, 70 years, Kapu, R/o.Srilatha Apartments water tank road, Beside IGM Stadium, Vijayawada. (A2)

Bayyapureddi Sujatha, W/o.Seshagiri Rao, 65 years, Kapu, R/o. Srilatha Apartments water tank Road, Beside IGM stadium, Vijayawada (A3). … Accused.

This case coming on 15-02-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned APP for prosecution and Sri Y.Subrahmanyam, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the then Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Women Police Station, Kakinada filed charge-sheet against the accused/A1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian

Penal Code (in short IPC) in Crime No.2/2015 of Women Police Station,

Kakinada.

2. The brief allegations in the charge-sheet are as follows:

The Defacto Complainant- B.Vara Lakshmi (herein after referred as PW.1) is the resident of Kakinada and she is the wife of A1.

The marriage of PW.1 and A1 was performed on 19.06.2003 as per Hindu 3

CC No.60 of 2017 dated 22.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada

Rites and Customs and at the time of marriage, an amount of

Rs.2,69,000/- is given as dowry in the shape of fixed deposits and 20

Tulas of Gold and sare samans of Rs.50,000/- were also given. Since marriage, A1 kept PW.1 with his parents and used to go to various places and avoided to live together with PW.1. He did not take care of PW.1 even after the birth of a male child to them. He did not provide food and shelter to her and caused physical and mental harassment to her. He did not change his ways inspite of placing the matter before elders. Hence,

PW.1 gave complaint to the police.

Initially, a case is registered against A1 to A3 by PW.5 in

Cr.NO.2/2015 under section 498-A IPC. PW.5 examined the witnesses and recorded their section 161 Cr.PC statements. He examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and filed charge sheet after conclusion of the investigation by deleting the names of A2 and A3.

3.After perusing the entire material filed by the Station House Officer along with the charge-sheet, notice is given to PW.1 about deletion of A2 and A3. As she failed to file any objection regarding deletion of A2 and

A3. They filed report as far as A2 and A3 is accepted and cognizance is taken against the accused for the offence punishable under section 498-A

IPC. After appearance of accused the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution are supplied to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused/A1 is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and the accusation for the offence under section 498-A IPC is read over and explained to him. He denied the accusation as false and pleaded not guilty for the charges framed against him and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to

PW.5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 documents. The evidence of LW.4

Bayyapureddy Medhovarsh, LW.7 Mandava Lakshmi Prasad is given up by the learned APP.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence against him is read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused/A1 denied the incriminating material as false and did not choose to file any written statement as 4

CC No.60 of 2017 dated 22.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada contemplated under section 313(5)Cr.P.C. He also did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel

for the accused Perused the record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused/A1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

8. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 harassed PW.1 and subjected her to mental cruelty. In this regard, PW.1 who is the defacto complainant deposed that her marriage with A1 was performed on 19.06.2003 at Kakinada. She further deposed that her parents gave dowry of Rs.2,69,000/- by making a fixed deposit in Karnataka Bank

Limited, Kakinada in her name and that they placed A1 as her nominee.

She further deposed that she joined A1 at Vijayawada and that he looked after her properly for two months. She further deposed that A1 and his father obtained her signatures and transferred the FDR to Vijayawada.

She further deposed that she returned to Kakinada after she became pregnant and that she gave birth to a male child on 23.06.2004. She further deposed that she was taken to her in-laws house at Hyderabad and that she lived there and that A1 used to live at Vijayawada for his work. She further deposed that her father in law obtained her signature on a blank paper by saying that it is necessary for bank purpose and that she stayed her in laws house even when A1 went to Tanjania for his work and that A1 did not take them to the place of his work. She further deposed that her parents and relatives questioned A1 and his parents about the FDR and that they promised that they will use the money for her future. She further deposed that A1 used to neglect her by going to camps. She further deposed that later they shifted family to Vijayawada and that A1 continued to neglect her and her son and that he prevented her from talking with her parents. She further deposed that A1 used to take their son to the house of his relatives and slowly started to reduce the visits of the son to their house and that he made her to live alone at

Vijayawada and took her son to somewhere and did not give the address 5

CC No.60 of 2017 dated 22.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada of her son. She further deposed that A1 necked her out of his house when she questioned him about her son and that she returned back to the house of her parents as she could not find the address of the accused and that she gave Ex.P1 complaint after waiting for about 1 ½ year.

9.During her cross examination, she admitted that no cash was given at the time of marriage. She further admitted that her son is living with A1 by the date of giving of evidence. She further admitted that she is living separately from A1 since 2013 and that she did not filed any guardian OP seeking custody of her son. She further admitted that the accused file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights after issuing notice to her. She further admitted that the petition is allowed and that she preferred an appeal against the order. She further admitted that she filed a maintenance case, a DVC and the present case after filing of the petition for conjugal rights by A1. She further admitted that the DVC filed by her is dismissed and that A1 is paying maintenance amount to her regularly as per the orders in the maintenance case filed by her. She also admitted that A1 is looking after the educational expenses of her son and that A1 is having more love and affection towards his parents. She also admitted that her son is with A1 since the time of his birth.

10.PW.2 is the elder brother of PW.1 and he deposed that they gave amount of Rs.69,000/- towards dowry and also presented gold and house hold articles to A1 at the time of marriage. He further deposed that PW.1 joined with A1 after marriage at Vijayawada and lived happily till the birth of the male child. He further deposed that A1 shifted his family to

Hyderabad and lived there till 2007. He further deposed that he came to know that A1 used to visit Hyderabad once in 15 days by living at

Vijayawada and that A1 abused him and beat PW.1 when he advised him to shift family to Vijayawada. He further deposed that A1 neglected his son and confined him to the Apartment and used to beat PW.1 by coming to the house in drunken state after the family is shifted to Vijayawada in the month of May, 2017. He further deposed that A1 necked out PW.1 from his house in the year 2013 and that A1 did not heed their words for settlement. He admitted during his cross examination that no cash was given at the time of marriage and that the son of PW.1 is with A1 and that

PW.1 is residing separately from A1 since 2013. He also admitted that 6

CC No.60 of 2017 dated 22.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada

PW.1 did not file any petition for restitution of conjugal rights and petition for the custody of the child till the date of giving of evidence.

11.PW.3 deposed that his house is situated opposite to the house of

PW.2 and that he went to the house of A1 at Vijayawada on one occasion along with PW.2 and that the mother of A1 did not talk with them and did not allow them to see the son of PW.1 and that they returned to Kakinada and that PW.1 gave complaint to the police later. He categorically admitted during his cross examination that he does not know about the incidents occurred prior to 2013 between PW.1 and A1.

12. PW.4 is the relative of PW.1 and he deposed that dowry is given at the time of marriage and that he came to know that A1 did not look after

PW.1 properly and that the child of PW.1 is being looked after by the father of A1. He admitted during his cross examination that he did not state before the police that he tried to pacify the matter on several occasions.

13.PW.5 is the investigation officer and he deposed about the investigation done by him and Ex.P3 FIR, Ex.P4 rough sketch were marked through the witness. He admitted during his cross examination that he did not examine the father of PW.1 during investigation and that he does not know whether PW.1 gave the present report after filing of the

HMOP by A1. He further admitted that he did not investigate about the fixed deposit stated by PW.1 in her report. He also admitted that the son of PW.1 is residing with A1 as on the date of evidence.

14. A perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution goes to show that PW.1 who is the wife of A1 deposed that A1 did not look after her properly after marriage and that he neglected her. It is clear from the evidence on record that A1 is a bank employee and he set up family at

Vijayawada after marriage with PW.1 and he shifted PW.1 to the house of his parents at Hyderabad only after the birth of male child and he used to visit Hyderabad from Vijayawada. It is also clear from the evidence of

PW.1 that A1 went to Tanjania on his work purpose and PW.1 complained that he did not take her to that country. It is also the evidence of PW.1 that A1 shifted the family to Vijayawada after a few years and it is her 7

CC No.60 of 2017 dated 22.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada evidence that A1 did not look after her properly at Vijayawada and that he used to take their son to the house of their relatives and that did not show her son to her. In the entire evidence of PW.1, there is no allegation that either A1 or his family members have harassed her for additional dowry or that they did not look after her properly at Vijayawada or at

Hyderabad. She did not state about the specific overt acts of A1 and the manner in which she was subjected to cruelty. It is appearing from the evidence of PW.1 that she is not happy about the fact that A1 kept her along with her child with her in laws and used to visit the house by working at Vijayawada and he did not take her to the place of his work later. Except the said fact, there is nothing in the evidence of PW.1 to suggest that A1 harassed her. Even though PW.2 stated in his evidence that A1 abused him and beat PW.1 when he advised A1 to shift the family to Vijayawada, the evidence is not believable as PW.1 herself did not narrate about any such incident. Moreover, it is admitted by PW.1 and

PW.2 that A1 and PW.1 are residing separately from the year 2013 and the child of A1 and PW.1 is living with A1 from that date. It is clear from the admissions of PW.1 that A1 is looking after the child properly. It is also admitted by PW.1 that A1 filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and that the petition is allowed and that she preferred an appeal against the order. It is also clear that PW.1 did not take any steps seeking custody of the child since 2013. It is also evident from record that she filed a maintenance case, a DVC and also the present case against A1 after he filed the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. All these factors clearly goes to show that PW.1 has no intention to live along with A1 and to take care of her child and that the present complaint is filed only as a counter blast to the petition filed by A1 for restitution of conjugal rights.

The aspect becomes further clear from the fact that Ex.P1 complaint is given in the year 2015 whereas A1 and PW.1 are residing separately since 2013. The evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution as they do not have personal knowledge about the marital disputes between PW.1 and A1 and the evidence of PW.2 is not believable as he exaggerated several facts which are not stated by PW.1 herself. The evidence of the witnesses about giving cash, gold and household articles is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution because as admitted by PW.1 herself, the fixed deposit is made in her name and no documentary evidence is produced to show that the 8

CC No.60 of 2017 dated 22.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada amount is later transferred to A1 or his relatives. In such circumstances, this court is of considered opinion that PW.1 filed the present complaint along with some other petitions only as a counter blast to the petition filed by A1 for restitution of conjugal rights. Even otherwise, the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses do not disclose any act which will amount to harassment or subjecting PW.1 to cruelty. Hence, this court is of considered opinion that the charge under section 498-A IPC is not proved against A1. Accordingly, he is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered in favour of A1 and against the prosecution.

15.In the result, the accused/A1, is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over under section 437-A Cr.PC. No property is produced before the court and hence, there is no order as to disposal of property.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22nd day of February, 2023.

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

I II ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

KAKINADA

FAC I AJFCM, Kakinada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED :

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

PW-1/ 27.11.2017: Bayyapureddy Varalakshmi. PW-2/ 09.01.2020: P.Veerabhadra Rao. PW-3/ 06.02.2020: Ch.Veera Venkata Satish. PW-4/ 20.05.2022: E.Nageswara Rao PW-5/ 03.11.2022: V.Vijaya Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR ACCUSED: Nil

ExP1/ 07.01.2015 : my Report. ExP2/07.01.2015 : 161 Cr.PC statement. ExP3/: FIR ExP4/: Rough sketch.

9

CC No.60 of 2017 dated 22.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada

For DEFENSE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

NIL.

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

III ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

KAKINADA.

FAC I AJFCM, Kakinada.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

THE FIRST CLASS : KAKINADA

Present : P. BHARADWAJA

III Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada. FAC/ I Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Kakinada

Wednesday, the Fifteenth day of February, 2023

C. C. N o. 5 8 5/2 0 1 7

(Cr.No. 1 /2 0 1 7 of Women Police Station, Kakinada)

Between:

The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Women P.S, Kakinada.

…Complainant.

And

1. Garaga Veerababu, S/o.Suryanarayana, 32 years, Kapu, R/o.Door No.2- 264, Ramalayam Veedhi, Gonchala Village, Samalkota Mandal.

2. Garaga Suryanarayana, S/o.Tirapatayya, 60 years, Kapu, R/o.Door No.2-264, Ramalayam Veedhi, Gonchala Village, Samalkota Mandal.

3. Garaga Bhagya Lakshmi, W/o. Suryanarayana, 60 years, Kapu, R/o.Door No.2-264, Ramalayam Veedhi, Gonchala Village, Samalkota Mandal.

4. Jiddu Paparatnam, W/o. Chakram, 26 years, Kapu, R/o.Kovvada Village, kakinada Rural Mandal.

5. Jala Kumari W/o.Naryana Rao, 35 years, Kapu, R/o.Door No.2-264, Ramalayam Veedhi, Gonchala Village, Samalkota Mandal.

6. Jiddu Vishnu Chakram @ Chakram S/o.Dharma Raju, 35 years, Kapu, Kovvada Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal. … Accused.

This case coming on 09-02-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned APP for prosecution and Sri K.V.V.S.N.Murthy Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the then Sub Inspector of Police, Women

Police Station, Kakinada filed charge-sheet against the accused/A1 to A6 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) r/w 34 IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of DP Act in Crime

No.1/2017 of Women Police Station, Kakinada.

2. The brief allegations in the charge-sheet are as follows:

2

CC No.585 of 2017 dated 15.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada

The Defacto Complainant- G.Lalitha Chakraveni is the resident of Kovvada Village of Kakinada Rural Mandal. A1 is the husband,

A2 and A3 are the in-laws of PW.1 and A4 to A6 are the near relatives of

A1. The marriage of PW.1 and A1 is performed on 15.06.2006 at Gonchala

Village as per Hindu Rites and Customs. The parents of the A1 (A2 and

A3) demanded Rs.5,00,000/- dowry and Rs.1,00,000/- towards

Adapaduchu lanchanams. The father of PW.1 gave Rs.50,000/- towards

Adapaduchu Lanchanam and promised to put his house at Kovvada in the name of PW.1 and spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, PW.1 went to the house of A1 situated at Gonchala Village and A1 to A6 started to harass PW.1 by stating that the dowry amount is not sufficient and by demanding to bring the house property promised by the father of PW.1. The father of PW.1 gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the accused. Even after PW.1 gave birth to two children, the accused/A1 to A6 continued to harass her and demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- when she went for the 2nd delivery. PW.1 filed a maintenance case against

A1 and an amount of Rs.5,500/- was granted to her as monthly maintenance on 09.10.2015. However, the accused started to threaten her to withdraw the case and on 06.07.2016, A1 to A6 came to the house of parents of PW.1 and caught hold of the tuft of PW.1 and dragged her out and fisted her on her chest and also threatened to withdraw the case and to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, PW.1 gave complainant to the police.

A case is registered in Cr.No.1/2017 under sections 498-A IPC r/w 34

IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP Act by PW.5 basing on Ex.P1 complaint of

PW.1 and he examined the witnesses and recorded their section 161

Cr.P.C statements. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and served section 41-A Cr.P.C notice upon the accused. He filed charge- sheet against the accused after concluding the investigation.

3.After perusing the entire material filed by the Station House Officer along with the charge-sheet, Cognizance is taken against the accused for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC r/w 34 IPC only. The copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution are supplied to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused are examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and the particulars of the offence of which they are accused and the charges under sections 498-A IPC r/w 34 3

CC No.585 of 2017 dated 15.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada

IPC are framed, read over and explained to them. They denied the accusation as false and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to

PW.5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 documents. The evidence of LW.4

Karedla Palguna Rao, LW.5 Karedla Burayya, LW.7 Kondamuri Sathibabu,

LW.8 Saniboina Srinu are given up by the learned APP.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused/A1, A3 to A6 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence against them is read over and explained to them in Telugu. The accused/A1, A3 to A6 denied the incriminating material as false and did not choose to file any written statement as contemplated under section 313(5)Cr.P.C. They also did not adduce any evidence on their behalf. A2 and A3 died during the pendency of the proceedings and hence, the case against them is abated.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel

for the accused. Perused the record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

8. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 to A3 harassed PW.1 for

additional dowry and for house property and that they have demanded

and received dowry from the parents of PW.1 at the time of marriage. It is the further case of the prosecution that A1 to A6 beat PW.1 on 06.07.2016 by coming to the house of her parents. In this regard, PW.1 who is the defacto complainant deposed that her marriage with A1 was performed at Kovvada Village in 2006 and that her parents presented

Rs.1,50,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanams and also gave one portion house towards dowry. She further deposed that A2 to A6 used to reside in the same house along with her and A1 and that A1 started to harass her for additional dowry from about 20 days after the marriage and that he also demanded to sell the house portion given by her 4

CC No.585 of 2017 dated 15.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada parents. She further deposed that A1 to A6 harassed her and beat her and that she came to her parents house in the year 2013 and that A1 did not take her back as she gave birth to girl child and demanded her to sell her portion house and to bring the amount. She further deposed that the police conducted counseling after she gave a report and there after she lodged the case. PW.2 is the father of PW.1 and he deposed that he gave

Rs.50,000/- adapaduchu lanchanam and one portion house to the respondent and that he gave Rs.5,00,000/- to A1 to A3 for marriage expenses. He further deposed that after the birth of two children, A1 to

A6 harassed PW.1 for property and that PW.1 was sent to the house of A1 after placing the matter before elders. He further deposed that disputes again took place between them and that A1 beat and necked out PW.1 from his house after she was sent to his house after the birth of male child. PW.3 is the mother of PW.1 and she also deposed on the same lines as that of PW.2 about giving amounts at the time of marriage and about the harassment of PW.1. She however stated that A1 did not take back

PW.1 after the birth of the male child and that she did not change inspite of placing the matter before elders. PW.4 who is examined as a cousin of

PW.1 stated that he does not know anything about the facts of the case and the prosecution got marked his section 161 Cr.PC statement during his cross examination by the learned APP as Ex.P2. PW.5 is the investigation officer and he deposed about the investigation done by him.

Ex.P3 FIR and Ex.P4 rough sketch were marked through him.

9.A perusal of Ex.P1 complaint given by PW.1 goes to show that she deposed in her evidence that A1 to A6 harassed her for additional dowry and for the property promised by her father from the beginning of her marital life and that A1 did not allow her into his house after her second delivery wherein she gave birth to a male child. She further stated in her complaint that monthly maintenance of Rs.5,500/- is granted to her in MC

No.6/2015 on the file of V AJCJ Court, Kakinada on 09.10.2015 and that A1 to A6 came to her house and beat her indiscriminately on 06.07.2016 which prompted her to given Ex.P1 complaint. Ex.P1 was registered on 03.01.2017 after receiving the report on 07.07.2016 after holding counseling sessions. However, coming to the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, they did not depose anything about the incident alleged to have occurred at the house of PW.2 on 06.07.2016 wherein A1 to A6 are said to have beat PW.1. The omission is material because it is the admission of PW.1 that she came to the house of her parents in the year 2013 and also filed 5

CC No.585 of 2017 dated 15.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada a maintenance case in the year 2015 and it is only the incident that occurred on 06.07.2016 which prompted her to give Ex.P1 complaint. In such circumstances, the failure of PW.1 to PW.3 to state about that incident makes the entire the case of the prosecution doubtful. Moreover, the role of A4 to A6 is specifically stated only in the incident dated 06.07.2016 and in all other averments in Ex.P1, only an omnibus allegation is made that A1 to A6 harassed PW.1. Moreover, PW.1 herself admitted during her cross examination that A4 and A5 were married much prior to her marriage with A1 and she also admitted that herself and A1 shifted to Kondayyapalem 3 to 4 months after their marriage. In such circumstances, her evidence that A4 to A6 lived in the house of A2 and harassed PW.1 is not believable. PW.1 did not file any documentary evidence to show that dowry and other lanchanams were given at the time of marriage and except her parents, none were examined to support the allegation. Moreover, PW.1 to PW.3 gave contradictory statements about the quantum and the particulars of the lanchanams and the expenses and no documentary evidence is filed before the court even to show that house property is given to PW.1 at the time of marriage. Even with regard to the period of desertion, PW.1 deposed that A1 did not allow her into his house by stating that the male child is not begotten through him, but PW.2 stated that A1 necked PW.1 out of his house after she was dropped in the house of A1 along with the male child after delivery. PW.3 stated before the court that A1 did not take PW.1 after the delivery. PW.1 admitted during her cross examination that A1 used to dispute with her that the son was not born to him and that disputes took place between them on that aspect. The admission clearly goes to show that there are disputes between PW.1 and A1 regarding the paternity of the second child and they are living separately from the year 2013 due to those disputes. In such circumstances, the harassment of PW.1 by the accused after 2013 does not arise and in view of the omission to state about the incident that is alleged to have occurred on 06.07.2016 by the witnesses, this court is inclined to believe that the present complaint is filed only by creating the cause of action. In view of the specific admissions of PW.1 about residing separately with A1 even prior to Ex.P1 and in view of the non mentioning of specific overt acts of A2 to A6, this court is inclined to believe that those accused are falsely implicated in this case. Even otherwise, no documentary evidence is filed and no independent persons like family elders were examined to prove the fact. The offence under 6

CC No.585 of 2017 dated 15.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada section 498-A IPC is also not proved against A1 in view of the admission of the disputes between PW.1 and A1 from prior to 2013 and in view of the non mentioning of specific overt acts against him and in view of the abnormal delay in lodging the complaint against him. In the light of discussion made above, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against A1 to A6 and accordingly, they are entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the accused/A1, A4 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under section 498-A IPC r/w 34

IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over under section 437-A Cr.PC. No property is produced before the court and hence, there is no order as to disposal of property. (A2 and A3 died during the pendency of the proceedings and hence the case against them is abated).

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15th day of February, 2023.

Sd/- P.Bhardwaja

I II ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

KAKINADA

FAC I AJFCM, Kakinada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED :

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

PW-1/ 07.02.2020: G.Lalitha Chakraveni. PW-2/ 08.04.2022: N.Gangaraju. PW-3/ 22.04.2022: Ajjalakshmi. PW-4/ 26.08.2022: Naradasu Srinivas. PW-5/ 14.10.2022: T.Chandra Sekhar.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR ACCUSED: Nil

ExP1/ 07.07.2016 : Report.

ExP2/ 03.01.2017 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW.4

ExP3/03.01.2017 : FIR

ExP4/04.01.2017 : Rough sketch.

7

CC No.585 of 2017 dated 15.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada

For DEFENSE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

NIL.

Sd/- P.Bhardwaja

III ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

KAKINADA.

FAC I AJFCM, Kakinada.

8

CC No.585 of 2017 dated 15.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE

FIRST CLASS, KAKINADA

C.C.No. 585 /2017

Date of Offence : 03-01-2017 Date of Report of Complaint: 03-01-2017 Date of commencement of trial : 07-02-2020 Date of Closure of trial: 21.10.2022 Date of Sentence of Order: 15-02-2023 Explanation of delay and remarks: -- Name of the Complainant:

Staterepresented by Sub Inspector of Police, Women PS, Kakinada.

Name and address of Accused:

1. Garaga Veerababu, S/o.Suryanarayana, 32 years, Kapu, R/o.Door No.2-264, Ramalayam Veedhi, Gonchala Village, Samalkota Mandal.

2. Garaga Suryanarayana, S/o.Tirapatayya, 60 years, Kapu, R/o.Door No.2-264, Ramalayam Veedhi, Gonchala Village, Samalkota Mandal.

3. Garaga Bhagya Lakshmi, W/o. Suryanarayana, 60 years, Kapu, R/o.Door No.2- 264, Ramalayam Veedhi, Gonchala Village, Samalkota Mandal.

4. Jiddu Paparatnam, W/o. Chakram, 26 years, Kapu, R/o.Kovvada Village, kakinada Rural Mandal.

5. Jala Kumari W/o.Naryana Rao, 35 years, Kapu, R/o.Door No.2-264, Ramalayam Veedhi, Gonchala Village, Samalkota Mandal.

6. Jiddu Vishnu Chakram @ Chakram S/o.Dharma Raju, 35 years, Kapu, Kovvada Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal.

Offence : Under Sections 498-A IPC r/w 34 IPC. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. Finding : Found not guilty.

Sentence:

In the result, the accused/A1, A4 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under section 498-A IPC r/w 34 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over under section 437-A Cr.PC. No property is produced before the court and hence, there is no order as to disposal of property. (A2 and A3 died during the pendency of the proceedings and hence the case against them is abated).

Sd/- P.Bhardwaja

III ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

KAKINADA.

FAC I AJFCM, Kakinada.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

THE FIRST CLASS : KAKINADA

Present : P. BHARADWAJA

III Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada. FAC/ I Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Kakinada

Thursday, the Sixteenth day of February, 2023

C. C. N o. 5 8 7/2 0 1 7

(Cr.No. 59 /2 0 1 6 of Mahila Police Station, Kakinada)

Between:

The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Women P.S, Kakinada. …Complainant.

And

1. Degala Veerababu, S/o.Satyanarayana, 38 years, Kapu, :R/o.Door No.1- 86, Y.Savaram Village, Karapa Mandal.

2. Degala Satyanarayana, S/o.Paramesu, 58 years, Kapu, R/o.Door No.1- 86, Y.Savaram Village, Karapa Mandal.

3. Degala Nagamani, W/o.Satyanarayana, 53 years, Kapu, R/o.Door No.1- 86, Y. Savaram Village, Karapa Mandal.

4. Degala Tatarao, S/o.Satyanarayana, 36 years, Kapu, Door No.1-52, Y.Savaram Village, Karapa Mandal.

5. Degala Venkata Ramana @ Venkanna, S/o.Satyanarayana, 34 years, Kapu, R/o. Door No. 1-84, Y.Savaram Village, Karapa Mandal. … Accused.

(The case against A2 is abated as per the orders of this court

dated 10.12.2020).

This case coming on 08-02-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of thelearned APP for prosecution and Sri V.Ashok Kumar, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the then Sub Inspector of Police, Women

Police Station, Kakinada filed charge-sheet against the accused/A1 to A5 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act in Crime No.59/2016 of Mahila Police Station, Kakinada.

2. The brief allegations in the charge-sheet are as follows:

The Defacto Complainant- Degala Bhulakshmi is the resident of Pedapurappadu Village of Karapa Mandal. A1 is the husband of complainant. A2 and A3 are the parents and A4 and A5 are the brothers of A1. The marriage of the complainant and A1 was performed on 2

CC No.587 of 2017 dated 16.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada 03.06.1998 at Bheemeswaraswamy Temple, Draksharama and an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is given as dowry at that time. An amount of Rs.30,000/- is given towards adapaduchulanchanams, 4 sovereigns of gold and

Rs.50,000/- sare samans were also given. The accused used to suspect the fidelity of the complainant and used to beat her. The complainant tried to commit suicide in the month of February, 2000 and was admitted at Sai Raghava Hospital, Kakinada. Later, she fell sick due to liver disease and the accused demanded additional dowry from her and harassed her and threatened to kill her and her parents. Hence, she gave complaint to the police.

A case is registered in Cr.No.59/2016 by PW.7 basing on the written complaint given by complainant and he examined the witnesses and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. He served section 41-A

Cr.PC notice upon the accused/A1 to A5 and filed charge sheet after concluding the investigation.

3.After perusing the entire material filed by the Station House Officer along with the charge-sheet, Cognizance is taken against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A IPC r/w 34 IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP Act. The copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution are supplied to them as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C. The accused/A1 to A5 are is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and the particulars of the offence of which they are accused and the charges under sections 498-A IPC r/w 34 IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP

Act are framed, read over and explained to them. They denied the accusation as false and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to

PW.5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 documents. The evidence of LW.4

Degala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana and LW.8 T.Chandra Sekhar is given up by the learned APP. The evidence of LW.1 Degala Bhulakshmi is closed on 17.06.2022 as a report is filed that she died. The case against A2 is abated on 10.12.2020.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence, A1, A3 to A5 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence against them is read over and explained to them in Telugu. The accused denied the incriminating material as false and did not choose to file any written statement as 3

CC No.587 of 2017 dated 16.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada contemplated under section 313(5)Cr.P.C. They also did not adduce any evidence on their behalf.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel

for the accused. Perused the record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused /A1, A3 to A5 for the offence punishable under Sections

498-A IPC r/w 34 IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP Act beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

8.It is the case of the prosecution that A1 to A5 harassed PW.1 for

additional dowry and A1 suspecting her fidelity and that they A1 to A5

demanded and received dowry at the time of her marriage with A1. In this regard, PW.1 who is the mother of the complainant deposed that they gave Rs.3,00,000/- dowry, Rs.50,000/- saresamans and Rs.30,000/- adapaduchulanchanam at the time of marriage of the complainant and

A1 in the year 1998 and that the complainant joined with A1 at

Y.Savaram Village. She further deposed that the complainant poured

Kerosene on herself and tried to commit suicide in the year 2000 and that she was taken to Hospital and survived. She further deposed that she went to the house of A1 after six months and that A1 to A5 harassed her for additional dowry and that she gave a complaint against them in the year 2016. PW.2 who is the brother of the complainant also deposed on the same lines as that of PW.1 about giving of dowry and other lanchanams at the time of marriage. He further deposed that additional lanchanam of Rs.50,000/- is given at the time of marriage and that PW.1 purchased buffaloes for the accused. He further deposed that complainant used to inform him that A1 used to harass her by coming to the house in drunken state. He also deposed about the attempt to commit suicide made by the complainant in the year 2000 and her subsequent harassment in the hands of A1 to A5. PW. 3 and PW.4 who were examined as independent witnesses deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and that the police did not examine them. The two witnesses were cross examined by the learned APP after obtaining the permission of the court to treat them as hostile and their section 161 Cr.PC statement were marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. PW.5 is the investigation officer and he deposed about the investigation done by him.

4

CC No.587 of 2017 dated 16.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada

The prosecution got marked Ex.P3 report given by the complainant ,

Ex.P4 FIR and Ex.P5 rough sketch through him.

9.A perusal of Ex.P3 report said to have been given by the complainant goes to show that allegations were made that A1 to A5 received dowry and other lanchanams at the time of marriage and that

A1 used to harass the complainant and that she tried to commit suicide in the year 2000 and that A1 again started to harass her after 3 years and that her brothers used to take care of her treatment and that A1 never looked after her and that A1 purchased an agricultural land in an extent of Ac.0-28 cents with the amount given by her mother at the time of marriage and that the accused are threatening to kill her and her family members.

11.In the present case, the defacto complainant is not examined as she died by the date of commencement of the trial and only the brother and mother of the complainant are examined. Admittedly, the complaint was given in the year 2016 whereas the marriage between the complainant and A1 was performed in the year 1998. It is admitted by

PW.1 and PW.2 that the complainant and A1 lived together till 2016 even though, some disputes took place between them. As far as the evidence regarding the presentation of dowry and other lanchanams is concerned,

PW.1 and PW.2 failed to depose before the court that the dowry and lanchanams were given on the demand made by A1 to A5 and they failed to produce any documents or examined any elders to prove the same.

The fact assumes importance in view of the death of the complainant and in view of the categorical admission of PW.1 that the property of A1 was transferred in the name of the wife of PW.2 forcibly when the complainant is suffering with ill-health and that A1 has filed a civil suit against PW.2 and his wife relating to that property. The admissions clearly goes to show that there are disputes between the two families relating to some properties apart from the marital disputes between the complainant and

A1 and in such circumstances, the possibility of filing of a false case and exaggerating the actual disputes cannot be ruled out. Moreover, PW.5 did not examine any elders during the investigation and PW.3 and PW.4 who were examined as independent witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. It is admitted by PW.2 that A4 and

A5 are residing separately from A1 to A3 and no specific overt acts were 5

CC No.587 of 2017 dated 16.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada attributed to A2 to A5 except making omnibus allegations that they harassed the complainant. PW.1 and PW.2 stressed on the fact that the complainant tried to commit suicide in the year 2000 unable to bear the harassment of A1. However, no complaint is given against any of the accused at that time and the witnesses stated that the complainant and

A1 lived together for a period of 16 years after that incident. Hence, that incident cannot be the basis to convict the accused under section 498-A

IPC. Except that incident, PW.1 and PW.2 did not state about any specific overt acts of A1 also and did not mention the manner in which he harassed the complainant. In such circumstances, this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against A1, A3 to A5 and hence, they are entitled for acquittal.

The point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

10.In the result, the accused/A1, A3 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short

IPC), r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under sections 498-A IPC r/w 34 IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over under section 437-A Cr.PC. No property is produced before the court in this case, and hence, there is no order as to disposal of property. (The case against A2 is abated on 10.12.2020).

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16th day of February, 2023.

Sd/- P.Bhardwaja

III ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

KAKINADA

FAC I AJFCM, Kakinada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED :

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

PW-1/ 29.07.2022: S.Ramalakshmi. PW-2/ 01.09.2022: S.Satyanarayana. PW-3/ 29.09.2022: Gollapalli Prasada Rao. PW-4/ 29.09.2022: V.Venkateswara Rao. PW-5/03.11.2022 : T.Nagapotharao.

6

CC No.587 of 2017 dated 16.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR ACCUSED: Nil

ExP1/ 28.05.2016 :161 Cr.PC statement of LW.5 ExP2/28.05.2016 : 161 Cr.PC statement of LW.6 ExP3/23.05.2016 : report. ExP4/ 23.05.2016 : FIR ExP5/23.05.2016 : Rough sketch.

For DEFENSE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

NIL.

Sd/- P.Bhardwaja

III ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

KAKINADA

FAC I AJFCM, Kakinada.

7

CC No.587 of 2017 dated 16.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

THE FIRST CLASS, KAKINADA

C.C.No. 587 /2017

Date of Offence : 23-05-2016

Date of Report of Complaint: 23-05-2016

Date of commencement of trial: 29-07-2022

Date of Closure of trial: 17.01.2023

Date of Sentence of Order: 16-02-2023

Explanation of delay and remarks: --

Name of the Complainant:

Staterepresented by Sub Inspector of Police, Women PS, Kakinada.

Name and address of Accused:

1. Degala Veerababu, S/o.Satyanarayana, 38 years, Kapu, :R/o.Door No.1- 86, Y.Savaram Village, Karapa Mandal.

2. Degala Satyanarayana, S/o.Paramesu, 58 years, Kapu, R/o.Door No.1- 86, Y.Savaram Village, Karapa Mandal.

3. Degala Nagamani, W/o.Satyanarayana, 53 years, Kapu, R/o.Door No.1- 86, Y. Savaram Village, Karapa Mandal.

4. Degala Tatarao, S/o.Satyanarayana, 36 years, Kapu, Door No.1-52, Y.Savaram Village, Karapa Mandal.

5. Degala Venkata Ramana @ Venkanna, S/o.Satyanarayana, 34 years, Kapu, R/o. Door No. 1-84, Y.Savaram Village, Karapa Mandal. (The case

against A2 is abated as per the orders of this court dated

10.12.2020). … Accused.

Offence : Under Sections 498-A IPC r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act.

Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. Finding : Found not guilty.

Sentence:

In the result, the accused/A1, A3 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC), r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under sections 498-A IPC r/w 34 IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over under section 437-A Cr.PC. No property is produced before the court in 8

CC No.587 of 2017 dated 16.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada this case, and hence, there is no order as to disposal of property. (The case against A2 is abated on 10.12.2020).

Sd/- P.Bhardwaja

III ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

KAKINADA.

FAC I AJFCM, Kakinada.

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

THE FIRST CLASS, KAKINADA

C.C.No. 312 /2017

Date of Offence : 25-03-2017

Date of Report of Complaint: 25-03-2017

Date of commencement of trial: 09-09-2022

Date of Closure of trial: 31.10.2022

Date of Sentence of Order: 15-02-2023

Explanation of delay and remarks: --

Name of the Complainant:

Staterepresented by Sub Inspector of Police, Women PS, Kakinada.

Name and address of Accused:

Gundarapu Satyanarayana, S/o.Mahalakshmi, 60 years, Senapathulu, Mason, R/o.Bhavannarayanapuram, Sarpavaram, Kakinada Rural.

Offence : Under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. Finding : Found not guilty.

Sentence:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC), and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under sections 498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over under section 437-A Cr.PC. No property produced before the court and hence there is no order as to disposal of property.

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

III ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

KAKINADA.

FAC I AJFCM, Kakinada. Copies submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

2. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada.

2

CC No.312 of 2017 dated 15.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

THE FIRST CLASS : KAKINADA

Present : P. BHARADWAJA

III Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada. FAC/ I Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Kakinada

Wednesday, the Fifteenth day of February, 2023

C. C. N o. 3 1 2/2 0 1 7

(Cr.No. 38 /2 0 1 7 of Women Police Station, Kakinada)

Between:

The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Women P.S, Kakinada.

… Complainant.

And

Gundarapu Satyanarayana, S/o.Mahalakshmi, 60 years, Senapathulu, Mason, R/o.Bhavannarayanapuram, Sarpavaram, Kakinada Rural. … Accused.

This case coming on 08-02-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned APP for prosecution and Sri P.Ramakanth, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the then Sub Inspector of Police, Women

Police Station, Kakinada filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short

IPC) and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act in Crime No.38/2017 of Women Police

Station, Kakinada.

2. The brief allegations in the charge-sheet are as follows:

The Defacto Complainant- Gundarapu Ramanamma (herein after referred as PW.1) is the resident of Gandhinagar, Kakinada. The accused is her husband. The marriage of PW.1 and the accused is performed about 35 years ago and the mother of PW.1 gave Rs.1,00,000/- on the demand made by the accused. PW.1 went to the house of the accused at Amalapuram after marriage and lived there for about 32 years and gave birth to PW.2 during the wedlock. The accused used to do mason work and he shifted to Kakinada 32 years after the marriage and 3

CC No.312 of 2017 dated 15.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada after shifting to Kakinada, he started to harass her physically and mentally in a drunken state by demanding additional dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/- from her mother and he also developed extra marital relationship with another woman. He did not heed to the words of elders and hence ,she gave complaint to the police.

A case is registered in Cr.No.38/2017 under sections 498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP Act by PW.4 basing on Ex.P1 complaint given by

PW.1 and he examined the witnesses and prepared their section 161

Cr.P.C statements. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and served section 41-A Cr.P.C notice upon the accused. He filed charge- sheet against the accused after concluding the investigation.

3.After perusing the entire material filed by the Station House Officer along with the charge-sheet, Cognizance is taken against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of

DP Act. The copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution are supplied to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and the particulars of the offence of which he is accused and the charges under sections 498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP Act is framed, read over and explained to him. He denied the accusation as false and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to

PW.4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 documents. The evidence of LW.2

Kunduru Nookaraju, LW.3 Nakka Talupulamma and LW.7 Ch.Surya

Bhaskara Rao is given up by the learned APP.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence against him is read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused denied the incriminating material as false and did not choose to file any written statement as contemplated under section 313(5)Cr.P.C. He also did not adduce any evidence on his behalf. The marked portion of Ex.P1 of PW.1 is marked as Ex.D1 during cross examination of PW.1.

4

CC No.312 of 2017 dated 15.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada

6. Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel

for the accused. Perused the record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and

section 3 and 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

8. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused harassed PW.1 for additional dowry and also by developing extra marital relationship with another woman and that he received dowry at the time of marriage with PW.1. In this regard, PW.1, who is the defacto complainant deposed that her marriage was performed with the accused about 30 years ago at

Mummidivaram and that her parents gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused towards dowry. She further deposed that she was blessed with two children during the wed lock and that the accused left her five years after the marriage and came to Kakinada by developing illegal intimacy with another woman. She further deposed that she searched for the accused and found that she is residing at Kakinada and that the accused beat her when she went to his house about 3 years prior to the date of giving of evidence. She further deposed that she took elders to the house of the accused and questioned him and that the accused stated that he has no interest to live with her and that she gave Ex.P1 complaint to the police. PW.2 is the daughter of PW.1 and she deposed that her marriage was performed about 20 years ago and that PW.1 and the accused used to live together prior to her marriage and that the accused left PW.1 one year after her marriage and settled at Kakinada and that the accused beat PW.1 when she went to his house after finding his where abouts. PW.3 deposed before the court that PW.1 herself left the accused about 3 years prior to the date of giving of evidence and that he went to the house of accused on one day along with the brothers of

PW.1 on coming to know that he is living along with a mistress and that the accused picked up quarrel with his brother in law. PW.3 is examined in cross by the learned APP as he resiled from his earlier version given

before the police and his section 161 Cr.PC statement is marked as Ex.P2.

PW.4 is the investigation officer and he deposed about the investigation done by him and Ex.P3 FIR and Ex.P4 rough sketch were marked through the witness.

5

CC No.312 of 2017 dated 15.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada

09.A perusal of Ex.P1 complaint given by PW.1 which formed the basis for the registration of the present case goes to show that PW.1 alleged in that complaint that she married the accused about 35 years ago and that the accused started to harass her for additional dowry and by developing illegal intimacy with another woman recently and that her daughter who is aged about 25 years is not yet married. However, coming to her evidence as PW.1 she deposed in her chief examination itself that the accused left her 5 years after their marriage and that she only found him

before the filing of the present complaint and that the accused beat her

when she went to his house. There is no mention about the harassment in an intoxicated state and the demand for additional dowry in the evidence of PW.1. Moreover, her evidence is contrary to her Ex.P1 complaint that she lived together with the accused for a period of more than 30 years. PW.2 who is examined as the daughter of PW.1 categorically stated that she got married about 20 years ago, a statement which is contrary to the averment in Ex.P.1 of PW.1 that her daughter is unmarried. Moreover, the evidence of PW.2 is contrary to both the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P1 averments. PW.3 did not support the case of the prosecution and did not state anything against the accused in the terms of the evidence of PW.1 and her Ex.P1 report. It is clear from the evidence that the allegations that the accused harassed PW.1 by demanding additional dowry and that he beat PW.1 while living together with her is not proved with the help of the evidence let in by the prosecution. Hence, the offence under section 498-A IPC is not proved against the accused. As none of the witnesses stated anything about the particulars of the marriage and as per the evidence of PW.1 the marriage occurred about 30 years ago and as PW.1 failed to state in her evidence that her parents gave the dowry on the demand made by the accused, this court is of considered opinion that the charges under section 3 and 4 of DP Act are also not proved against accused. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC), and

Section 3 and 4 of DP Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under sections 498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over under section 437-A Cr.PC. No 6

CC No.312 of 2017 dated 15.02.2023.

I AJFCM Court, Kakinada property produced before the court and hence there is no order as to disposal of property.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15th day of February, 2023.

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

I II ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

KAKINADA

FAC I AJFCM, Kakinada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED :

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

PW-1/ 09.09.2022: G.Ramanamma. PW-2/ 16.09.2022: Kunduru Mangadevi. PW-3/ 30.09.2022: Reddi Veerababu. PW-4/ 21.10.2022: A.Tataji.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR ACCUSED: Nil

ExP1/ 25.03.2017 : Report. ExP2/25.03.2017 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW.3 ExP3/ 25.03.2017 : FIR ExP4/-- : Rough sketch.

Ex.D1: Marked portion in Ex.P1 complaint. For DEFENSE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

NIL.

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

III ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

KAKINADA.

FAC I AJFCM, Kakinada.

O.S.408 of 2021 1 V A.J.C.J.COURT, KKD

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAKINADA

Present : P.Bharadwaja

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada

(FAC) V Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, Kakinada

Thursday, the 31 st day of March 2022

O.S.No.408/2021

Between:

State Bank of India, Public Corporation constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955 with its central office at Mumbai, local Head office at Hyderabad and carrying on banking business amongst other places in India in particular at its Vakalapudi Branch, Kakinada through its stressed Assets Resolution Centre (SARC) at Kakinada represented by its Assistant General Manager, Kakinada. …Plaintiff.

And

1. Voleti Manisha, Daughter of Devanand, aged about 23 years, employee, D.No.51-3-4, Khaderkhan street, Jagannaickpur, Kakinada Urban Mandal, KJCJ Limits.

2. Voleti Devanand, S/o.Kameswara Rao, aged 52 years, retired employee, D.No.51-3-4, Khaderknan street, Jagannaickpur, Kakinada, Kakinada Urban Mandal, KJCJ limits.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 22-03-2022 for final hearing before me in presence of Sri.K.V.S.Ramana Murty, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff bank filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,10,505/- (Rupees three lakhs ten thousand five hundred five only) jointly and severally from the defendants.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that;

The Plaintiff is a public corporation constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955 with its central office at Mumbai and local Head office at

Hyderabad and carrying on banking business amongst other places in India especially at State Bank of India, Vakalapudi Branch, Kakinada and particularly under control of its RASMEC Nookalamma Temple Street,

O.S.408 of 2021 2 V A.J.C.J.COURT, KKD

Ramaraopet, kakinada. The 1st defendant as principal borrower through her father 2nd defendant obtained a loan amount of Rs.2,31,857/- from the plaintiff bank under S.B.I Education loan scheme vide loan application dt.18.11.2014 and loan account No.34466535490. The defendants 1 and 2 have jointly executed all necessary documents under agreement of Term loan under Education Loan Scheme dt.8.12.2014. The defendants have jointly agreed to pay the loan installments with monthly rests with interest at 13.25% p.c.p.m. as stipulated in the loan arrangement letter and the loan amount would be repayable from the date of completion of course period of 24 months or from the date of student getting the job whichever is earlier.

Having availed the loan, the defendants failed to pay the installments.

Inspite of repeated reminders dt.21.5.2020 issued by the plaintiff bank, the defendants did not choose to pay the installment amounts. The plaintiff bank finally issued legal notice to the defendants on 12.06.2020 for the payment of balance of loan amount due in full. On 04-02-2021, an amount of

Rs.5,000/- was paid by the defendants by transfer. As per the statement of the account dt.05-04-2021, the account outstanding is Rs.3,07,355/- by the

date 10-03-2021. Subsequently, due to NPA guidelines, the interest is not

taken into account since it become NPA. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover the loan amount with subsequent interest from 11-03-2021 till the date of realization with subsequent interest and penal interest agreed. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of suit amount. Neither the provisions of Act 4 of 1938 nor the benefits of Act 7 of 1977 nor Act 45/1986 will apply to this transaction. After the constitution of stressed asses resolution centre, the Assistant General Manager alone is empowered to file suits of all branches and he authorized the manager, RASMEC & SARC to file the suit. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendants 1 and 2 failed to appear before the court inspite of receiving the summons. Hence, they were set ex-parte on 30-11-2021 and the case is posted for Plaintiff Evidence.

O.S.408 of 2021 3 V A.J.C.J.COURT, KKD

4.During the course of ex-parte evidence, the Manager of the plaintiff

Bank, is examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7 documents.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for determination is;

Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled for recovery of the suit

amount as prayed for?

Point :

7.On behalf of the plaintiff bank, its Manager (SARC) by name

Ch.V.S.Naga Kumar filed Chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and reiterated the contents of the plaint. He deposed that the 1st defendant through her father borrowed an amount of Rs.2,31,857 under SBI Education

Loan scheme for her B.Tech Degree in Pragathi Engineering College,

Surampalem. He further deposed that the defendants have executed all necessary documents and jointly agreed to pay all installments with monthly rests with interest @ 13.25% pcpm with monthly rests along with the accrued interest. He further deposed that the defendants also agreed to pay penal interest at 2% p.a over the stipulated interest with monthly rest in the event of irregular amount. He further deposed that the defendants agreed to start the repayment of one year from the date of completion of course or from the date of the 1st defendant getting job which ever is earlier. He got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 documents to prove the transaction. Ex.A1 is the loan application dated 18.11.2014. Ex.A2 is the agreement term loan under education loan dated 08.12.2014. Ex.A3 is the educational loan affidavit

dated 08.12.2014 and ExA4 is the agreement in Annexure-C between the

bank and the 1st defendant dated 08.12.2014.

8.PW.1 further deposed that the defendants failed to pay the installments after commencement of repayment period. He further deposed that the Plaintiff bank got issued Ex.A5 reminder dated 21.05.2020 and

Ex.A.6 legal notice dated 12.06.2020 to the defendants for the payment of balance of loan amount due in full. He further deposed that an amount of

O.S.408 of 2021 4 V A.J.C.J.COURT, KKD

Rs.5,000/- was paid by defendants on 4-02-2021 and that as per Ex.A7 statement of the account dt.05-04-2021, the account outstanding is

Rs.3,07,355/-. As per Ex.A2 document, the repayment will commence from

June, 2019 and hence, the suit is within the period of limitation. Considering the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record, it clearly goes to establish that the defendants 1 and 2 have jointly obtained loan amount of

Rs.2,31,857/- towards Education loan for the 1st defendant from the plaintiff

Bank. In the absence of any evidence showing that they discharged the said liability, they are liable to pay the amount covered under the loan amount.

This point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.3,10,505/- (Rupees three lakhs ten thousand five hundred five only) against the defendants jointly and severally with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 31 st day of March,

2022.

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) V Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW-1 :Ch.V.Siva Naga Kumar. None

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A.1/dt.18-11-2014 : Loan application of D1 and D2.

Ex.A.2/dt.08-12-2014 : Agreement term loan under Educational loan.

Ex.A.3/dt.08-12-2014 : Educational Loan affidavit.

Ex.A.4/dt.08-12-2014 : Agreement in Annexture-C between the bank and D1.

O.S.408 of 2021 5 V A.J.C.J.COURT, KKD

Ex.A.5/dt.21-05-2020 : O/C. of Notice issued by the plaintiff bank to D1.

Ex.A.6/dt.12-06-2020 : O/C. of Notice issued by the plaintiff bank to D1.

Ex.A.7/- -- : Attested copy of statement of account for the period from 1.1.2017 to 5.4.2021.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

- NIL –

III Additional Junior Civil Judge,

(FAC) V Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada