Smt P. Sai Sudha

C.C.No.997/2023 - 1 - J.F.C.M COURT, MTM

Date: 11.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - CUM -

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

MACHILIPATNAM

Present: Smt.P.S.SUDHA,

Judicial I Class Magistrate - Cum -

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Machilipatnam.

Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.997/2023

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Machilipatnam Police Station. …Complainant.

AND

(1). Odugu Venkateswaramma, w/o Suresh, age 30 years. (2). Balagam Nagalakshmi, w/o China Narasimha Swamy, age 47 years. (3). Balagam China Narasimha Swamy, s/o Pentayya, age 51 years. (4). Balagam Hemanth, s/o China Narasimha Swamy, age 25 years. (5). Balagam Dhana Kumari, w/o Durga Rao, age 27 years. (6). Odugu Shankar Babu, s/o Jalachandrudu, age 36 years. (7). Odugu Shantha Kumar, w/o Shankar Babu, age 38 years. … A1 to A7.

This case has come up before me on 08.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri A.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Accused 1 to 7 and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

C.C.No.997/2023 - 2 - J.F.C.M COURT, MTM

Date: 11.05.2026

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Machilipatnam Police Station filed charge sheet against A1 to A7 for the offence U/s.323, 324, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C in

Cr.No.34/2023 of Machilipatnam Police Station.

2. The case of the Prosecution in brief is that:

(i).thatP.W.1/Kokkiligadda Bhavani is the resident of Gilakaladindi,

Machilipatnam and she is married women and her husband is eking livelihood by doing fish hunting. On 24-03-2023 night at 10.00 p.m., while

PW1 is going into her house from bathroom after getting bath, then A1 to A7 were attacked on her by suspecting that she have illegal affair with Odugu

Suresh who is husband of A1 and all the accused beat her with hands and kicked with legs and hurled stones on her house. Then, A1 beat her with brick stone on her left shoulder and A2 to A7 are caught hold her hair, pulled her to nearby electric pole and beat her and also threatened her that to kill her, if she is having intimacy with Odugu Suresh. At that time, on the intervention of the neighbors and others, the accused left the place. Then,

PW1 shifted to GGH, Bandar for treatement.

(ii).L.W.12/Head Constable recorded the statement of P.W.1 at

GGH, Bandar and PW10/SI of Police registered the same as F.I.R., in

Cr.No.34/2023 for the offence u/secs. 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C., of

Machilipatnam Police Station on 25.03.2023 at 02-00 p.m., and investigated this case. During the course of investigation, PW10 secured as many as ten witnesses, examined and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene. He served notice to all the accused U/s.41(a) Cr.P.C and obtained wound certificate of P.W.1.

P.W.9/Medical Officer, who treated the injured/P.W.1, issued opinion that the

C.C.No.997/2023 - 3 - J.F.C.M COURT, MTM

Date: 11.05.2026

injuries taken by P.W.1 are in simple in nature. L.W.14/S.I of Police verified the investigation so far made by P.W.10/S.I, found it was on correct lines and filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Upon perusal of the material on records, cognizance for the offence

U/secs.323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C., against A1 to A7. On appearance of

A1 to A7, copies of all documents as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C, were furnished to them.

4.Upon considering the facts of this case, this Court framed the Charges for the offence U/s. 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C against A1 to A7 and they were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and as such they were explained and read over the particulars of the alleged offence in Telugu, for which A1 to A7 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then the prosecution was directed by the Court to lead their evidence in the case.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.10 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 on its behalf. Ex.P1 is the

Statement of P.W.1 in the hospital. Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of

P.W.3. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4. Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5. Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.6. Ex.P6 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.7. Ex.P7 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.8.

Ex.P8 is the wound certificate. Ex.P9 is the F.I.R., Ex.P10 is the Rough

Sketch of the scene of offence. The evidence of L.W.3/ Lakanam

Anjaneyulu, LW.4/Lakanam Gopala Krishna, LW.12/P.Ramesh Babu,

LW.14/V.Venkateswara Rao is given up by the Lr.APP.

C.C.No.997/2023 - 4 - J.F.C.M COURT, MTM

Date: 11.05.2026

6.After completion of Prosecution evidence, A1 to A7 were examined

U/s.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and reported that they have no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments of both Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the

Learned counsel for the accused 1 to 7.

8. Now the Point for determination is:

1). Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A7 for the offence U/s.324 IPC for causing simple injuries to Pw.1, beyond all reasonable doubt?

2).Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A7 for the offence punishable U/s.323 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?

3).Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A7 for the offence punishable U/s.506 of I.P.C for threatening to kill PW1 beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. P OINTS 1 to 3 :-

To avoid repetition of discussion, these three points are clubbed

and answered together.

In order to bring home the guilt of A1 to A7 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that on 24.03.2023 at about 10.00 p.m., all the accused in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to PW1, that

A1 caused injuries with brick stone and that all the accused criminally intimidated PW1 with threats to kill her.

C.C.No.997/2023 - 5 - J.F.C.M COURT, MTM

Date: 11.05.2026

10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. PW1 is the injured and de-facto complainant. PW2 is the mother of PW1. PWs.3 to 8 are cited as eye witnesses to the incident. PW9 is the doctor who examined PW1 and issued wound certificate. PW10 is the Investigation Officer.

11.The evidence of PW1 would disclose that all the accused beat her with hands and legs suspecting her alleged intimacy with the husband of A1 and that A1 beat her with brick stone on her left shoulder. She further deposed that the accused dragged her by holding her hair and tied her to an electric pole near Anjaneyaswamy temple. According to her, on cries being raised, neighbours came and rescued her. Though PW1 supported the prosecution case in material particulars, during cross-examination she admitted that she did not hand over the alleged brick stone to police. She also admitted that several houses are situated nearby and that the alleged scene of offence is a busy road leading to Gilakaladindi village.

12. PW2, the mother of PW1, deposed that on receiving information from neighbours, she went to the scene and found the accused beating PW1 after tying her to an electric pole. However, during cross-examination, PW2 admitted that she did not state before police that PW1 was tied to electric pole with chunni. Thus, there is material omission in her evidence touching the core aspect of the prosecution case.

13.It is pertinent to note that all the independent witnesses namely PWs.3 to 8, who were allegedly present at the time of incident and who according to

PW1 rescued her from the accused, did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. Nothing useful was elicited

C.C.No.997/2023 - 6 - J.F.C.M COURT, MTM

Date: 11.05.2026

in their cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor except marking of their previous statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which cannot be treated as substantive evidence.

14.The prosecution therefore mainly rests upon the testimony of PW1 coupled with the medical evidence of PW9. The evidence of injured witness ordinarily carries great evidentiary value. However, the same has to inspire confidence and must be corroborated by surrounding circumstances when serious improvements and omissions are noticed.

15. PW9, the doctor, deposed that she examined PW1 on 24.03.2023 at about 11.45 p.m. and issued Ex.P8 wound certificate opining that the injuries are simple in nature. However, the prosecution did not elicit clearly from

PW9 about the nature, dimensions and age of injuries corresponding to assault by brick stone. Further, the wound certificate does not disclose any grievous or bleeding injury. During cross-examination, PW9 admitted that general body pains may occur due to seasonal changes.

16.The evidence of PW10, the Investigation Officer, assumes great significance. PW10 categorically admitted during cross-examination that

PW1 did not state before him that the accused tied her to electric pole and beat her. This omission goes to the root of the matter because tying a woman to electric pole in a public place is not a minor omission but a material improvement made during trial. Further, PW10 admitted that he did not seize any material object from the scene of offence. Though PW1 alleged that A1 beat her with brick stone and that stones were hurled, admittedly no brick stone, blood stained earth, blood stained clothes or any incriminating material was seized by the Investigating Officer. Such omission

C.C.No.997/2023 - 7 - J.F.C.M COURT, MTM

Date: 11.05.2026

creates serious doubt regarding the manner of occurrence alleged by the prosecution.

17. In addition to that, though the prosecution alleged that the incident occurred in a busy locality and several persons gathered at the spot, none of the independent witnesses supported the prosecution case. No convincing explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution regarding such non-support.

It is also relevant to note that the defence suggestion to PW1 was that A1 had earlier lodged complaint against PW1 suspecting illegal intimacy with her husband and that the present case was filed as counter blast. Though the said suggestion was denied, the possibility of previous disputes between the parties cannot be completely ruled out.

18.The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused has to be adopted. In the present case, material omissions, non-supporting independent witnesses, absence of seizure of weapon or material objects and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version.

19.Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that A1 to A7 voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 with dangerous weapon or otherwise and criminally intimidated her. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

C.C.No.997/2023 - 8 - J.F.C.M COURT, MTM

Date: 11.05.2026

20. In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty of the offence U/s.323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C., Accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248(1) of

Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stands cancelled after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this 11th day of May, 2026.

sd/- P.S.Sudha

Judicial I Class Magistrate - Cum -

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

P.W.1 :Kokkiligadda Bhavani

P.W.2 :Lakanam Naga Lakshmi

P.W.3 :Tirumalasetti Sarojini

P.W.4 :Boddu Nagamani

P.W.5 :Moka Venkateswaramma

P.W.6 :Tirumalasetty Durga

P.W.7 :Tirumalasetty Nagur

P.W.8 :Tirumalasetty Bhaskara Rao

P.W.9 :Dr.Boppana Sravya

P.W.10 :Y.V.V.Satyanarayana, S.I., of Police.

FOR DEFENCE:- - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1 :Statement of P.W.1 in the hospital.

C.C.No.997/2023 - 9 - J.F.C.M COURT, MTM

Date: 11.05.2026

Ex.P2 :Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P3 :Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P4 :Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P5 :Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.6.

Ex.P6 :Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.7.

Ex.P7 :Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.8.

Ex.P8 :Wound certificate.

Ex.P9 :F.I.R.,

Ex.P10 :Rough Sketch of the scene of offence.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

- Nil -

sd/- P.S.S

J.F.C.M – CUM – P.C.J(J.D)

MTM

//True copy//

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR TRYING PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM.

Present : Smt.P.Sai Sudha,

Judl.First Class Magistrate, Machiliapatnam, FAC: Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, for trying P & E offences, Machilipatnam.

Tuesday, this the 15 th day of July, 2025

Calender Case No. 362/2024

Between: The State- Rep., by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila Police Station in Cr.No. 09/2022. …Complainant.

A N D

A1 – Valluri Vaddikasulu, s/o Venkateswara Rao, age 47 years, r/o D.No.B-7/1, Sowbhagya Nagar, Vuyyuru Town, Krishna District.

A2 – Valluri Veeraraghavamma, w/o Venkateswara Rao, age 65 years, r/o D.No.B-7/1, Sowbhagya Nagar, Vuyyuru Town, Krishna District.

A3 – Valluri Venkateswara Rao, s/o Venkataratnam, age 68 years, r/o D.No.B-7/1, Sowbhagya Nagar, Vuyyuru Town, Krishna District.

A4 – Munipalli Sri Bhagyalakshmi, w/o Sri Ramakrishna, age 48 years, r/o H.No.3-9-4, Rajaka peta, Tenali, Guntur District.

A5 – Valluri Sivaraghunadh, s/o Venkataratnam, age 43 years, r/o D.No.B-7/1, Sowbhagya Nagar, Vuyyuru Town, Krishna District.

A6 – Munipalli Sri Ramakrishna, s/o Subba Rao, age 50 years, r/o H.No.3-9-4, Rajaka peta, Tenali, Guntur District.

A7 – Valluri Dhanalaxmi, w/o Vaddikasu, age 49 years, r/o D.No.81-6-632, 5th line, Nallacheruvu, Guntur . … Accused.

2

This case is coming on 14.07.2025 for final hearing before me, in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri Sakshi Sasi Sree, Ld.Counsel for accused; upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S filed charge sheet against the A1 to A7 in Cr.No. 9/2022 for the offence punishable under

Sections 498-A, 494 of IPC and Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act .

02. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The Defacto complainant P.W.1 – Nadikota Rama marriage was performed with A1 on 14-08-2009. At the time of marriage, on the demand of Accused, her elder sister LW2- Kolluri Prabhavathi gave an amount of Rs.10 lakhs towards dowry. In the year 2015, A1 shifted their family to Sowbagyanagar, Vuyyuru Town, but A1 stayed at

Hyderabad on account of his job and he used to viist Vuyyuru three days in a week. During the absence of A1, her in-laws A2 to A6 harassed her both physically and mentally by demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. When, PW1 informed the same to her husband A1, he also supported their acts.

3

(b)Later PW1 joined as a private teacher at Vuyyuru town, sincethen, A1 to A6 used to took her monthly salary and did not provide food and beat her. She further alleged that, in the year 2019, A1 dropped PW1 at her parent’s house by stating that unless bring addinal dowry amount, he did not allow her to lead conjugal life. When, PW1 came to her matrimonial house, and that, all the accused got angry about her arrival, beat her, abused her for not bringing additional dowry and demanded her to agree to get perform another marriage to A1, and that, they did not provide food and finally necked her out from their house.

Later, PW1 came to know that, A1 got married A7 and put their family at

Guntur, and that, she lodged complaint against accused.

03. Basing on the report, LW.9/R.Rambabu, Sub-Inspector of

Mahila P.S., registered a case in Cr.No. 09/2022 u/sec.498-A, 494 of IPC and Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and examined the prosecution witness and served notice to the accused u/s.41-A Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, LW10- N.Subba Rao,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S laid charge sheet against A1 to A7, for the offence, indicated above.

4

04.On receipt of the charge sheet, this Court took cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act against the Accused Nos.1 to 6 and u/sec.494 IPC against A1 and A7 and issued summons.

05.On appearance of A1 to A7, copies of case documents are furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

06. A1 to A7 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation leveled against them and charges for the offence under section 498-A, 494 of IPC , have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07. During trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined

LW.1/ Nadikota Rama as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 on behalf of the prosecution. As P.W.1 did not support the case of prosecution, during her evidence, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses including the investigating officer i.e., L.W2/ Kolluri Prabavathi, L.W3/Nadikota Mamatha,

L.W.4/Dovari Sushan, LW5- Tummalacherla Syamala, LW6- Jeebula 5

Padmavathi, LW7- Kakarla Akhil, LW8- S.Srikanth Kedharnadh, LW9-

R.Rambabu, ASI, LW10 – N.Subba Rao, the then Sub-Inspector of

Mahila P.S., Machilipatnam who were cited in the charge sheet.

08.Since there is no incriminating material appeared from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of A1 to A7 under

Section 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

09. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Ld.counsel for accused.

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that there is no incriminating material to fix liability against any of the Accused.

The Ld.Counsel for accused submitted that the defacto complainant did not attribute any overt acts against the accused and there is no worthwhile material to fasten liability against Accused and therefore, the accused Nos. 1 to 7 are entitled for acquittal.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act against A1 to A6 and sec.494 of IPC

against A1 and A7, beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

6

P O I N T ::

12. The sum and substance of the contents of report given by defacto complainant / Nadikota Rama to police, is that after her marriage with A1, A2 to A6 started harassment towards her both physically and mentally with a demand of additional dowry and A1 married A7 without consent of PW1.

13. Thus, the entire prosecution case rests upon the testimony of defacto complainant/PW.1- Nadikota Rama. In the said complaint, the victim/complainant has narrated as to how the accused had harassed her, however, in her evidence on oath before the court, she took contrary version and denied the prosecution version. What she testified before the court that as follows : her marriage with A1 was solemnized on 14.08.2009; No dowry was given at the time of marriage or after marriage by her parents. After marriage, she joined with A1 at Hyderabad to lead conjugal life and they lived happily for about five years, later, they shifted to Vuyyuru. During their wedlock, they had no issues. Later, some trivial disputes were arose between herself and A1, as such, she left the society of A1 and went to her parents house, then, her parents placed the matter before elders.

7

14. Thus, the version given in the report by the complainant is not supported by her own deposition on oath before the court. During her evidence no specific overt acts are attributed to the accused and no incriminating material has been adduced against Accused within the parameters of Sections 498-A, 494 of IPC. All the more, the PW.1 voluntarily says that, at the time of mediation, one of the elders obtained her signature on a written paper, but she did not go through the contents therein.

15. Further, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was permitted to put questions to her in the form of cross-examination, as per the provision under Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The PW.1 denied to have made statement U/sec.161 Cr.P.C vide Ex.P2 before the police during the course of investigation. Further, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses including the evidence of investigating officer cited in the charge sheet as no purpose would be served in examining them as they were merely associated during the course of investigation. Apparently, nothing could come out on the record to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence

U/Secs.498-A of IPC alleged against A1 to A6 and further sec.494 of

IPC against A1 and A7.

8

16. All the more, the evidence of PW.1 made clear that, during mediations, the issues were resolved between them, and that, PW1 and

A1 are decided to obtain mutual divorce in the Court of law. As per the terms of compromise, A1 paid Rs.9,50,000/- to her towards permanent alimony. Perhaps, with that reason of settlement arrived in between them, PW1 might have turned down to the case of prosecution. PW.1 further conceded that, she wish to put the end to the litigation in order to maintain harmony in their families.

17. In this regard, I am fortified to refer the judgment of a Division

Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind

& Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi ) reported in 104(2003)

DLT 510 while dealing with matter U/Secs. 498A/406 IPC, wherein it was held that "….. In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. ..........." 9

18. As said, there is no any incriminating material elicited against

Accused in the evidence of PW.1 to show or prove that there was any sort of cruelty or harassment directly or indirectly from the side of accused. Herein the case at hand, the witness disowned her earlier version given to the police and nothing incriminating material could be elicited from her evidence before the court. For the lack of incriminating evidence, this Court holds that prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of

Accused for the offence under Section 498-A, 494 of IPC , beyond reasonable doubt.

19. In the result, Accused A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.498-A of IPC. Further, A1 and A7 are found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.494 of IPC, therefore, the accused A1 to A7 are acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A7 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. Since no property produced, no order passed in that regard.

Typed to my dictation directly by Stenographer Grade III on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15 th day of July, 2025.

Sd/- P.S.Sudha

JFCM, Machiliapatnam, FAC: Spl.J.M.F.C. For Trying P & E Offences, Machilipatnam.

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE: PW1: Nadikota Rama - None–

EXHBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on the report. --NIL-- Ex.P.2:.161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW.1. MOS marked: --NIL --

sd/- P.S.Sudha

JFCM, Machiliapatnam,

FAC: Spl.J.M.F.C. For Trying P & E Offences, Machilipatnam.

//True copy//

1 II ACJ(JD), MTM Dt.13.08.2025

In the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Machilipatnam

Present: P.S.SUDHA

Principal Civil Judge(Jr.Division),

FAC: IIAddl.Civil Judge(Jr.Division), Machilipatnam

Wednesday, this the 13th day of August, 2025

OS No.393/2023

Between: M/s.Abhaya mutually aided multipurpose co-operative society represented by its Chief executive officer/Mamidi Venkateswara Rao, R/o.Khojjillipeta, Machilipatnam, Krishna District

….. Plaintiff

And

1. Naragam Durga Bhavani, D/o.Naragam Amaleswara Rao, aged about 26 years, MBA student, Properties, R/o.D.No.3-73, Rayavaram, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District

2. Naragam Srinivas Prabhu @ Naragam Srinivas Prabhu Goud, S/o.Naragam Amaleswara Rao, aged about 29 years, B.Tech student, Properties, R/o.D.No.3- 73, Rayavaram, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District

3. Naragam Bhagyalakshmi, W/o.Naragam Amaleswara Rao, aged about 46 years, housewife, Properties, R/o.D.No.3-73, Rayavaram, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District

….. Defendants

This suit has come up before me for final hearing in the presence of Mr.V.Y.B.Subrahmanyeswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Mr.M.S.Venkata Rao, Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following

J U D G E M E N T:-

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants to grant preliminary decree for the suit amount of Rs.11,06,961/- with interest as per society rules and to redeem the mortgage property within the time stipulated by the court, if fails, grant final decree in favour of the plaintiff society with interest by sale of 2 II ACJ(JD), MTM Dt.13.08.2025 mortgaged properties, if it’s not sufficient to meet decretal amount, grant liberty to proceed against the estate of the deceased/Amaleswara Rao which is in the hands of defendants and alternatively a personal decree in favour of the plaintiff society against the defendants and for costs.

2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:-

That the plaintiff is a society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Mutually

Aided Co-operative Society Act, 1995 vide Registration No.AMC/KNA/DCO/ 2019/16, the main object of the society is to develop its members by doing business, advancing loans and collecting deposits. In due regular course of business, defendants approached the plaintiff society for sanction of loan to defendants 1 and 2 under a registered mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- for the purpose of family expenses and for business.

Defendants 1 and 2 are children of one Naragam Amaleswara Rao and 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant and her husband/Naragam Amaleswara Rao stood as co-obligants to the said loan. The plaintiff society sanctioned the said amount on 20.02.2020 to defendants 1 and 2. All defendants including Amaleswara Rao have agreed to repay the loan amount within 60 monthly installments at

Rs.28,600/- per month commencing from March 2020 with interest at 15% per month per annum with monthly rests. All defendants and jointly executed all necessary documents i.e., promissory note, composite loan agreement and other necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff society for the future liability of defendants 1 and 2. As such, all defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the debt to the plaintiff society.

ii). It is further submitted that defendants 1 and 2 have deposited their title deeds regarding the schedule property bearing registered gift deed dt.05.08.2017 in RS No.258/2 in panchayati area extent of 200 and link documents vatala jabitha and approved plan the said document stood in the 3 II ACJ(JD), MTM Dt.13.08.2025 name of 2nd defendant and 1st defendant deposited the registered gift deed dt.20.02.2018 in RS No.193 in Panchayati Ward No.3 and link document unregistered will dt.20.03.2007 and possession certificate issued by VRO.,

Akulamannadu and Rayavaram Villages, Guduru Mandal situated in

Rayavaram Villageand Grama panchayath, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District and accordingly, created registered mortgage by depositing of title deeds against their properties in favour of the plaintiff society for Rs.12,00,000/- on 18.02.2020 vide Document No.1072/2020, SRO., Bandar. It is further submitted that defendants 1 and 2 maintained Account No.15. Thereafter, on 06.03.2023, the said Amaleswara Rao died intestate by leaving defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs. Subsequently, defendants 1 and 2 failed to repay the loan installments regularly and committed default. Thereupon, the plaintiff society approached the 3rd defendant and the deceased Amaleswara Rao for repayment of loan amount as they are co-obligants for the said loan transaction but, they did not discharge the debt. Hence, the suit.

3.On receipt of summons from this court, the 2nd defendant filed written statement and defendants 1 and 3 filed adoption memo to adopt the written statement of 2nd defendant. They denied the contents of the plaint as not true, however, they admitted about availing of loan from the plaintiff society by mortgaging their title deeds with the society. They further contended that the loan interest is highly excessive and it is not permitted to Co-operative society

Act and Rules. They paid monthly installments regularly but, the same was not shown in account copy. They further submitted that due to ill-health of 1st defendant, for heroperation, they spent huge amount and therefore, 1st defendant did not pay monthly installments and now he is ready to pay the suit amount with installments. They further contended that they have no properties except the mortgaged property. The suit filed by the plaintiff is premature suit and the cause of action in the plaint is not correct. The 1st defendant paid 4 II ACJ(JD), MTM Dt.13.08.2025 monthly installments but the same was not shown in the accounts copy and thus, account copy is not genuine. Hence prays to dismiss this suit.

4. Basing on the pleadings, the predecessor of this court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for the suit amount of Rs.11,06,961/- fixing time for mortgage debt as prayed for?

2. Whether the account copy filed by the plaintiff-society is valid and binding on the defendants as contended by the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, CEO., of the plaintiff-society examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A14 documents were marked on behalf of plaintiff. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defendants.

6. Heard. Perused the record.

Issues 1, 2 and 3:

7. To avoid the repetition of facts and evidence, the above three issues are clubbed and answered together.

8.In order to establish its case, the CEO of plaintiff society is examined as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. Ex.A1 is original application form dt.20.02.2020, Ex.A2 is original agreement executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff society dt.20.02.2020, Ex.A3 is original demand promissory note executed by defendants in favour of the plaintiff society dt.20.02.2020, Ex.A4 is original registered gift deed in favour of 1st defendant under doc.no.5307/2017 dt.05.08.2017, Ex.A5 is original registered gift deed in favour of 2nd defendant 5 II ACJ(JD), MTM Dt.13.08.2025 under doc.no.1170/2018 dt.20.02.2018, Ex.A6 is notarized copy of vatala jabitha dt.10.02.1990, Ex.A7 is notarized copy of unregistered will executed by

Chamundeswara Rao dt.20.03.2007, Ex.A8 is original possession certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, Grama panchayat, Rayavaram dt.04.02.2020,

Ex.A9 is original house tax receipt issued by Panchayat Secretary, Rayavaram,

Guduru Mandal, Ex.A10 is original deposit of title deeds executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff society under doc.no.1072/2020 dt.18.02.2020,

Ex.A11 is original acknowledgment of debt executed by defendants dt.28.10.2022, Ex.A12 is photostat copy (certified by society) of certificate of registration of society dt.25.02.2019, Ex.A13 is copy (certified by society) of statement of the account pertaining to term loan account no.15 of the defendants 1 and 2 dt.23.05.2023 and Ex.A14 is true copy of (certified by society) authorization of resolution passed by the Board of Directors in favour of Chief executive officer-M.Venkateswara Rao.

9.The evidence of PW.1 in chief is nothing but reiteration of plaint pleadings.

During the cross examination of PW.1, nothing was elicited from the PW.1 to substantiate the case of defendants as contended in their written statement that they paid some installments and calculated high rate of interest by the plaintiff.

The documents filed under Exs.A1 to A14 are supporting the contention of the plaintiff society. As per the terms of agreement under Ex.A2, the plaintiff calculated the interest @ 15%. Admittedly, there is no denial from defendants about availing of loan and committed default in payment of installments as agreed by them. Thus, there is no contra evidence adduced by defendants to disbelieve the version of PW.1. Surprisingly, during cross examination of PW.1, they suggested PW.1 that they have no objection to sell away the mortgaged property and to receive balance amount if any after adjusting loan account from the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property. Therefore this amount of suggestion coupled with admission of availing of loan itself to say that defendants 1 and 2 and 3rd defendant who is the co-obligant jointly and 6 II ACJ(JD), MTM Dt.13.08.2025 severally are liable to pay the suit amount as per statement of account filed by the plaintiff society in accordance with the terms of loan agreement under Ex.A2.

10.Therefore this court has no hesitation to arrive conclusion that the plaintiff could establish its case that defendants are liable to pay the suit amount. Further in view of the circumstances of the case and in view of the financial crises of defendants that they incurred huge amount for medication of the 1st defendant and her father, this court inclined to decree the suit with simple interest at 6% only per annum without awarding any costs of the suit. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of plaintiff.

Issue No.4:

11. In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed against defendants 1 to 3 for a sum of Rs.11,06,961/- with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization on the principal amount Rs.12,00,000/-. In view of the circumstances of this case, no costs are awarded. The redemption period is two months.

Typed to my dictation to stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this 13th day of August, 2025.

Sd/- P.S.SUDHA

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division),

FAC:II Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Oral Evidence

For plaintiff: For defendants:-None- PW.1 : M.Venkateswara Rao 7 II ACJ(JD), MTM Dt.13.08.2025

Documentary Evidence

For plaintiff: For defendants:-Nil- Ex.A1: Original application form dt.20.02.2020 Ex.A2: Original agreement executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff society dt.20.02.2020 Ex.A3: Original demand promissory note executed by defendants in favour of the plaintiff society dt.20.02.2020 Ex.A4: Original registered gift deed in favour of 1st defendant under doc.no.5307/2017 dt.05.08.2017 Ex.A5: Original registered gift deed in favour of 2nd defendant under doc.no.1170/2018 dt.20.02.2018 Ex.A6: Notarized copy of vatala jabitha dt.10.02.1990 Ex.A7: Notarized copy of unregistered will executed by Chamundeswara Rao dt.20.03.2007 Ex.A8: Original possession certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, Grama panchayat, Rayavaram dt.04.02.2020 Ex.A9: Original house tax receipt issued by Panchayat Secretary, Rayavaram, Guduru Mandal Ex.A10: Original deposit of title deeds executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff society under doc.no.1072/2020 dt.18.02.2020 Ex.A11: Original acknowledgment of debt executed by defendants dt.28.10.2022 Ex.A12: Photostat copy (certified by society) of certificate of registration of society dt.25.02.2019 Ex.A13: Copy (certified by society) of statement of the account pertaining to term loan account no.15 of the defendants 1 and 2 dt.23.05.2023 Ex.A14: True copy of (certified by society) authorization of resolution passed by the Board of Directors in favour of Chief executive officer-M.Venkateswara Rao.

Sd/- P.S.SUDHA

PCJ(JD), MTM,

FAC: II ACJ(JD), MTM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR TRYING PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM.

Present : Smt.P.Sai Sudha,

Judl.First Class Magistrate, Machiliapatnam, FAC: Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, for trying P & E offences, Machilipatnam.

Friday, this the 18 th day of July, 2025

Calender Case No. 598/2025

Between: The State- Rep., by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila Police Station in Cr.No. 44/2023. …Complainant.

A N D

Chandaka China Babu, s/o Satyanarayana (late), age 36 years, D.No.77-36-11, Near Madhava Kottu, Santhi Nagar, Payakapuram, Vijayawada, Now at, D.No.18-14, Opp.Padmavathi Hospital, Sai Nagar colony, Challapalli village. … Accused.

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me, in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri M.Suresh Babu, Ld.Counsel for accused; upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No. 44/2023 for the offence punishable under

Sections 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act .

2

02. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The Defacto complainant P.W.1 – Bandaru @

Chandaka Anusha marriage was performed with Accused on 03-08-2016.

At the time of marriage, her mother gave cash of Rs.9,00,000/- and gold ornaments towards dowry. During their wed-lock , they were blessed with one female child.

(b) In the year 2017, accused was posted as Sub-

Inspector of Police at Krishnalanka P.S., Vijayawada, sincethen, accused started harassment towards PW1 both physically and mentally by demanding her additional dowry. After one year of their marriage, accused used to harassed PW1 for not conceiving children, on that, PW1 made attempt to commit suicide due to mental agony, but on the request of accused, she did not report the matter to police.

(c) On 20-06-2018, accused picked up quarrel with Pw1 and necked out her from the house by alleging that she is not looking after the welfare of his mother. In the month of October, 2019, A1 assured that he will not suffer in any more and look-after PW1 properly and that, took her to his house, later, he got tranfered to Jaggaiahpet and he informed her that, he got extra marital affair with one Ramya and she is 3 pregnant, and that, he is ready to take divorce from PW1, due to these disturbances her father died with mental agony. During her pregnancy period, accused did not provide any treatment to PW1. Later, accused transferred to Challapalli police station and shifted their family, where he continued his harassment towards PW.1 with a demand to bring money for purchasing a house to her brother-in-law, on that, on the date of her daughter’s birth day function, accused picked up quarrel with her and pushed her out and beat her mother with slippers, and that, she lodged complaint against accused.

03. Basing on the report, LW.10/ R.J.Ravi Kumar, Inspector of

Police, Mahila P.S., registered a case in Cr.No. 44/2023 u/sec.498-A of

IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and examined the prosecution witness and served notice to the accused u/s.41-A Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against Accused, for the offence, indicated above.

04.On receipt of the charge sheet, this Court took cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act against the Accused and issued summons.

4

05.On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

06. Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation leveled against him and charges for the offence under sections 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act, have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07. During trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined

LW.1/ Bandaru @ Chandaka Anusha as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 on behalf of the prosecution. As P.W.1 did not support the case of prosecution, during her evidence, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses including the investigating officer i.e., L.W2/ Bandaru @ Chandaka Anusha,

L.W3/Degala Vasantha, L.W.4/Nalluri Rama Rao, LW5- Nallauri Siva

Kumari, LW6- Parise Venkata Sivamma, LW7- Peruri Ramesh, LW8-

Adapa Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, LW9- Bondalapati Veera

Chandrasekhara Rao, LW10- R.J.Ravi Kumar, the then Inspector of

Police, Mahila P.S., Machilipatnam who were cited in the charge sheet.

5

08.Since there is no incriminating material appeared from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of Accused under

Section 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

09. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Ld.counsel for accused.

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that there is no incriminating material to fix liability against the Accused. The

Ld.Counsel for accused submitted that the defacto complainant did not attribute any overt acts against the accused and there is no worthwhile material to fasten liability against Accused and therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Secs.498-A of IPC and sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act against Accused, beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

P O I N T ::

12. The sum and substance of the contents of report given by defacto complainant / Bandaru @ Chandaka Anusha to police, is that 6 after her marriage with accused, he harassed her both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry and also developed extra marital relationship with one Ramya and neglected the welfare of the family .

13. Thus, the entire prosecution case rests upon the testimony of defacto complainant/PW.1- Bandaru @ Chandaka Anusha. In the said complaint, the victim/complainant has narrated as to how the accused had harassed her, but, in her evidence on oath before the court, that, her marriage with Accused was solemnized on 03-08-2016, no dowry was given to the accused at the time of marriage, during their wed-lock, they were blessed with one female child. Later, some trivial disputes arose between herself and Accused, then she placed the matter before elders, wherein the elders advised to give report to the police and obtained her signature on some written papers, but she does not knew the contents of the said papers.

14. Thus, the version given in the report by the complainant is not supported by her own deposition on oath before the court. During her evidence no specific overt acts are attributed to the accused and no incriminating material has been adduced against Accused within the parameters of Section 498-A of IPC and secs. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act . All 7 the more, the PW.1 voluntarily says that, at the time of mediation, one of the elders obtained her signature on a written paper, but she did not go through the contents therein.

15. Further, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was permitted to put questions to PW1 in the form of cross-examination, as per the provision under Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The

PW.1 denied to have made statement U/sec.161 Cr.P.C vide Ex.P2

before the police during the course of investigation. Further, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses including the evidence of investigating officer cited in the charge sheet as no purpose would be served in examining them as they were merely associated during the course of investigation. Apparently, nothing could come out on the record to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence

U/Sec.498-A of IPC and secs. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act alleged against

Accused.

16. All the more, the evidence of PW.1 made clear that, during mediations, the issues were resolved between them, and that, PW1 and

Accused are decided to live separately eachother and a memorandum of understanding is executed to that effect, and that, PW1 had obtained an exparte decree of divorce in the Court of law. Perhaps, with that reason 8 of settlement arrived in between them, PW1 might have turned down to the case of prosecution. PW.1 further conceded that, she wish to put the end to the litigation in order to maintain harmony in their families.

17. In this regard, I am fortified to refer the judgment of a Division

Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind

& Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi ) reported in 104(2003)

DLT 510 while dealing with matter U/Secs. 498A/406 IPC, wherein it was held that "….. In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. ..........."

18. As said, there is no any incriminating material elicited against

Accused in the evidence of PW.1 to show or prove that there was any sort of cruelty or harassment directly or indirectly from the side of accused, demanding the amount from her mother as stated in the complaint. Herein the case at hand, the witness disowned her earlier 9 version given to the police and nothing incriminating material could be elicited from her evidence before the court. For the lack of incriminating evidence, this Court holds that prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of

Accused for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC and secs. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act , beyond reasonable doubt.

19. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the charges

U/Secs.498-A of IPC and secs. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the above said charges, under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. Since no property produced, no order passed in that regard.

Typed to my dictation directly by Stenographer Grade III on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 18 th day of July, 2025.

sd/- smt P.S.Sudha

JFCM, Machiliapatnam, FAC: Spl.J.M.F.C. For Trying P & E Offences, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE: PW1: Bandaru @ Chandaka Anusha - None– 10

EXHBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on the report. --NIL-- Ex.P.2:.161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW.1. MOS marked: --NIL --

sd/- smt P.S.Sudha

J.F.C.M , MTM,

FAC: Spl.J.M.F.C., MTM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR TRYING PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM.

Present : Smt P.S.Sudha,

Judl.First Class Magistrate, Machiliapatnam, FAC: Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, for trying P & E offences, Machilipatnam.

Thurs day, this the 04 th day of September, 2025

CALENDER CASE NO. 809 OF 20 24

Between: State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila Police station, (Cr.No.64/2024 ) …Complainant.

A N D

A1- Peddiboina Siva Naga Phani Kumar, s/o Udaya Bhaskara Rao, age 38 years.

A2 – Peddiboina Vijaya Lakshmi, w/o Udaya Bhaskara Rao, age 60 years.

A3 – Peddiboina Udaya Bhaskara rao, s/o Lakshmipathi,

age 65 years. .... Accused

( All are the residents of D.No.15/456, Plot No.238, Bypass road, Drivers colony, Machiliapatnam ).

This case is coming before me on 03-09-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and

Sri Ch.Gopi Krishna, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

This case arises out of crime No. 64/2024, for the offence under

Section 85 of BNS and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered by SHO., Mahila Police Station .

02. Case of the prosecution in brief is that :

(a)The Defacto complainant P.W.1 – Peddiboina Naga

Deepika marriage was performed with Accused No.1 on 31-05-2013. At the time of marriage, her parents gave cash of Rs.2,00,000/- towards

Shrinidhi besides giving 100 yards house site, one gold ring to A1, apartfrom giving Rs.20,000/- as Aadapaduchu lanchanam. During their wed-lock, they are blessed with twins, one male and one female child.

(b) Later, A1 started harassement towards PW1 both physically and mentally subjecting her to cruelty by demanding her

additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs, when PW1 informed the same to her in-

laws, instead of admonishing A1, they supported the acts of A1. A1 sold away the 100 yards house site which was given by the parents of PW1 and spent that amount lavishly for his vices, and that, PW1 informed the same to her parents, they held mediations through elders, but there is no change in their attitude. Finally, A1 used to beat PW1 and necked her out 3 from the house with a demand of additional dowry, as there is no other go she reached her parents house, as such, she approached the police.

03. On the strength of the report given by PW1, LW.8-

K.Hymavathi, SI, Mahila P.S, registered a case in crime No.64/2024

U/sec.85 of BNS and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act, took up investigation, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared rough sketch of the scene and on 25-08-2024, served notices to the accused u/sec.35(3) BNSS. Later, on completion of investigation , she laid charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3, for the offences, indicated above.

04. The Court took cognizance of the offence under Sections 85 of

BNS and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

05. On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 3 before the Court, copies of all documents as contemplated under section 230 BNS., are furnished to them.

06. A1 to A3 were examined under section 262 BNS with regard to offence alleged against them, and charges, under Section 85 of BNS and sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act, have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4

07. During trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined

LW.1/ Peddiboina Naga Deepika as PW.1 and Exs.P1 and P2 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. As P.W.1 did not support the case of prosecution, during her evidence, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses LW.2/Katta

SanthaKumari, LW.3/KattaSrinivasa Rao, LW.4/Boddu

Dheekshanandudu, LW.5/Manne Jyothi, LW.6/Katta Yesu Babu,

LW.7/Katta Aruna, LW.8/ K.Hymavathi, Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila

P.S, Machilipatnam, who were cited in the charge sheet.

08.Since there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the Ld.APP has given up the evidence of other prosecution witnesses i.e., Lws. 2 to 8, hence, the examination of Accused under Section 351 BNS., is dispensed with.

09. During hearing, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that there is no incriminating material to fix liability against the accused 1 to 3.

10.On the other hand, the LD. counsel for accused contended that the main and material witness/PW1 did not state 5 anything against the accused and there is no worthwhile material to fasten liability against any of the accused. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

12.Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

the accused for the offence U/Sec. 85 of BNS and Sec.3

and 4 of D.P Act against A1 to A3, beyond all

reasonable doubt” ?

P O I N T:

13. The sum and substance of accusation made against the accused that, A1 had subjected PW1 to physical and mental harassment by demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs from her parents with the instigation of A2 and A3 , on the ground that, she failed to meet his demand of additional dowry, which made her to approach the police with a report and on investigation, LW.8- K.Hymavathi, Sub-

Inspector of police, Mahila P.S, laid final report against them. The case of

Accused is of total denial.

14. In order to bring home the guilt of accused 1 to 3 and substantiating the allegations made against them, the prosecution has 6 examined only the Defacto complainant as PW1, though they cited six other witnesses including investigation officer, as Lws. 2 to 8.

15. PW1 testified in her chief examination that, on 31-05-2013, her marriage with Accused No.1 was solemnized at Vaddulumeraka village, situated at Gudivada before the elders and relatives, as per Hindu rites and customs, later, herself and A1 lead their conjugal life happily for a considerable period at Hyderabad and they were blessed with twins, one male and one female child during their wedlock. She would deposed that, no dowry was given by her parents at the time of her marriage. Later, some trival disputes arose between herself and A1, as such, she informed the same to her parents, on that, they placed the matter before the elders. However, she categorically conceded that, on the advise of elders, she gave complaint before the police. When the report was confronted by Ld.APP, she admitted the signature on report is that of herself. Hence, her signature marked as Ex.P1. But PW1 denied the contents of the report stating that she does not know its contents.

Moreover, P.W.1 denied to have stated to the police as in Ex.P2 –

Sec.180 Cr.P.C statement . Thus, PW1 disowned her earlier version given to the police in the course of investigation. She further conceded that, the matter was compromised between her and accused, and that, 7 she does not want to proceed further prosecution against the Accused, in order to preserve harmony in their respective families. On careful reading of evidence of PW1, this Court do not find any incriminating evidence against Accused .

16. Thus, the version given in the complaint by the PW1/ Defacto complainant is not supported by her own deposition on oath before the court. Furthermore, no incriminating material has been attributed against any of the Accused. PW.1 denied to have made respective statement to police u/sec. 181 BNSS which was marked as Ex.P2. Since P.W.1 did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor was permitted to put questions to her in the form of cross- examination, as per the provision under Section 157 of BSA. Nothing could come out on the record to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence U/Secs.85 of BNS and sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act alleged against

Accused Nos. 1 to 3. Since the material witness PW.1 has not supported the prosecution story on any material point, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses including the evidence of investigating officer as no purpose would be served in examining them as they merely associated during the course of investigation.

8

17. Be that as it may, PW1 turned down to the case of prosecution. For the lack of incriminating evidence, this Court holds that prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 85 of BNS and sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

18. In the result, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charge under Sections 85 of BNS, 2023 and sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 271 (1) of BNSS, 2023.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per the provisions of Section 481 BNSS.

No case property is produced in this case, as such no order is passed in this regard.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 04 th day of September, 2025.

sd/-

JFCM, Machiliapatnam, FAC: Spl.J.M.F.C. For Trying P & E Offences, Machilipatnam.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1 : Peddiboina Naga Deepika -None-

EXHBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on report. Ex.P.2: 181 of BNSS statement of PW.1

FOR DEFENCE: None

MOS marked: --NIL--

sd/-

JFCM, Machiliapatnam, FAC: Spl.J.M.F.C. For Trying P & E Offences, Machilipatnam.

//True copy//