Palamanglam Vinod

CC No. 201/2018 1

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR MOBILE, NELLORE.

Present: Palamangalam Vinodh,

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore. (FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile, Nellore.

Friday, this the Sixth ( 06 th ) day of June, 2025.

Calendar Case. No. 201/2018

Between:-

State Sub Inspector of Police,

Women Police Station, Nellore. .... Complainant

And

1. Tummuru Salmon Raj Kumar, S/o. George Genjimen Aged 36 Years, Beripeta, Naidupeta Town, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Tummuru Eligibeth Rani, W/o. George Genjimen Aged 65 Years, Beripeta, Naidupeta Town, SPSR Nellore District.

3. Santhi Swaroopa, W/o. Vara Kumar, Aged 38 Years, Ummareddygunta Nellore City. …. Accused No. 1 to 3.

This case is coming on 16.05.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri. V. Upendra Rao, Advocate for accused No. 1 to 3 and upon hearing both sides, and on

CC No. 201/2018 2

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Nellore filed charge sheet against accused No. 1 to 3 in Cr. No. 34/2018, for the offence punishable Under Sections 498-A of IPC, Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act.

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

a) On 07.09.2013 the marriage of LW-1/Thummuru @ Mambakam

Lavanya was performed with A-1/Thummuru Salmon Raj Kumar who is a son of

George Benjmen and Eligibeth Rani(A-2) of Beripeta, Naidupet Town, under

Christian rites and customs. As per the desires of A1 and A2 and George

Benjmen A-3 at the time of marriage LWs-2 and 3 and dowry at a cost of Rs.10

Lakhs, Gold weighing about 40 sovereigns, and also paid for household articles at a cost of Rs. 1 lakh. After the marriage LW1 was step into in-laws house at

Naidupet, with a short period LW1 lead marital fold happily. LW-1 observed that A1 always round and round in a house not attend to the Job. A-2 and George Benjmen and A-3 misrepresented to the LWs-2 and 3 that the A1 is a Software Engineer at

Hyderabad and received by mischief huge amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Due to confirmation of doubt LW-1 questioned about job, A1 became angry and beat in an

Indiscriminately and abused by using of filthy language and warned. A-1 revealed the matter before A - 2 and A - 3 then all were started the tortures against LW-1 by physically and mentally. LW-1 informed the same to LWs-2 and 3, they came and discussed with accused A-1 to A - 3 and asked them about the software job of A1 they are failed to gave proper answer, with false information and using of their deceitful words married LW-1. In the discussion A - 1 to A-3 are send out LW-1 from the house, when she was pregnancy, there is no changes in their activities. Even though A-1 to A-3 are demanded additional amount of Rs. 10 lakhs for starting business, LW-2 and 3 are not able to pay such huge amount, in which A-1 to A-3

CC No. 201/2018 3

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

are tortured her physically and mentally. The above tortures of the complainant are directly witnessed by the LWs-4 and 5, frequently A-3 came and sings a carouse of

A-1 and A-2 and shared the activities of them. At the time of 9th month carrying LW- 1 went to the house of PWs-2 and 3. On 12.06.2014 LW-1 gave a birth to one baby.

LW-1 intimated the same to A1 to A3, but they deaf ear, still today they are not attend to baby. LW-1 vex over the acts of A-1 to A-3 and down there is no other way, finally reported the matter in women . Such are produced both parties before

DLSA. The D.L.S.A authorities runs counselling, but A-1 to A-3 are defeat of their words. LW1 prays for enquiry and take necessary action on A1 to A-3 who are demanding additional dowry and tortured Physically and mentally.

b) On the report of LW-1 as a case in Cr. No. 34/2018, U/Sec: 498(A) IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 of Women P. S. on 08.02.18 at 16.30 hours has been registered and investigation done by LW-7. LW-4 and 5 are unanimously verdict as they are witnessed the harassment's of the accused A-1 tortured to LW-1 by physically and mentally with the instigation of A-2 and A-3, and also they are seen the cruel activities of A-1 to A-3 against the LW-1. Themselves are gave confirmation as A-2 and George Benjmen and A-3 misrepresented to the LW’s 2 and 3 that the A-1 is a Software Engineer at Hyderabad and received by mischief huge amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 27.02.2018 all accused A-1 to A-3 are came and surrendered before police and admitted their guilty of offence. LW-6/TB Suseela

Kumari, SI of Police, Women Police Station, Nellore served notices to the accused

A-1 to A-4 U/Set: 41(A) r/w 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C, and Instructed them to attend before the Hon'ble Court on receipt of summons. LW-6 prepared charge sheet Under the above section of law against the accused A-1 to A-3 and filed before the Hon'ble court. Thus the accused A-1 to A-3 are liable for punishment under the above section of law. Hence the charge sheet.

CC No. 201/2018 4

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

3. After careful perusal of material on record, the cognizance of the offence was taken for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC, Sec. 3 and 4 of DP

Act against accused No. 1 to 3.

4.On appearance of accused No. 1 to 3 are relevant copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused No. 1 to 3 was examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C charges are framed under Sections 498-A of IPC, Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act. They are read over and explained to accused No. 1 to 3 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got exhibited Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW1, LW3 and LW5.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and incriminating material against them, is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the entire material on record.

9.Now the points for determination as :

1. Whether this Court have jurisdiction to try this case?

2. Whether there is unexplained extra-ordinary delay in

giving report to police and if so, whether it rises doubt over

case of prosecution?

3. Whether the report/Ex.P3 of deceased victim/LW.1 have any evidentary value?

4. Whether prosecution proved the guilt of Accused No’s 1 to

3 beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under 3

CC No. 201/2018 5

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

& 4 of DP Act?

5. Whether prosecution proved the guilt of Accused No’s 1

to 3 beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable

under 498-A of IPC?

10. Evidence of Prosecution

(a) In the order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked EX. P-1 and Ex.P-2.

b) PW1 deposed that in her evidence that on 7.9.2013 LW.1 got married to A1 in

Gudur Town hall as per Christian Traditions. At the time of marriage they gave

Rs.10 lakhs cash and 40 sovereigns of gold to A1 towards dowry and Rs.1 lakh for house hold articles. PW.1 joined A1 for conjugal life in Naidupeta. PW.1 and A1 lived happily for 1 month. Prior to marriage A1 told them that he was a Software

Engineer. But A1 never used to go to office. When LW.1 questioned Al as to way,he was not going to office, A1 started harassing LW.1 physically and mentally. They came to know that A1 is unemployed. LW.1 informed A2 and A3 regarding harassment by A1. A1 to A3 demanded Rs.10 lakhs to do business by A1.

Meanwhile LW.1 became a pregnant. She and her husband went to Al's house. A1 to A3 abused them and they came back to their house as LW.1 was pregnant. LW.1 informed them that A1 to A3 were harassing her for additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs for A1's business. LW.1 informed A1 to A3 that her parents don't have the financial.

capacity to give Rs.10 lakhs as additional dowry. On June 12th 2014, LW.1 gave birth to her daughter but A1 to A3 did't come to visit LW.1 and her daughter. She along with LW.1 and LW.3 went to Ps and gave complaint was examined by police.

A1 to A3 did'nt even attend counseling.

c) PW2 deposed that in his evidence that he attended the marriage of A1 and

LW.1: A1 was married to LW.1 in 2013 in Gudur. LW.1 used to come to church along with her husband in Beripet. He also used to go to that Church every Sunday along

CC No. 201/2018 6

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

with his family. LW.1 told him that A1 never used to go to office. A1 always used to stay at home. When LW.1 questioned A1 as to way he was not going to office. A1 started harassing LW.1 physically and mentally. Prior to marriage to A1 told that he was a Software Engineer. But after marriage they came to know that A1 is unemployed. LW.1 informed A2 and A3 regarding harassment by A1. A2 and A3 also started harassing LW.1. LW.1 informed her parents regarding the harassment by A1 to A3. When LW.1's parents questioned A1 to A3 regarding harassment. A1 to

A3 abused LW.2 and LW.3. At that time LW.1 was pregnant. In the 9th month of pregnancy LW.1's parents took her to their home. LW.1 gave birth to a girl child. A1 to A3 did not come to visit LW.1 and her daughter. When LW-1's parents (LW.2 and

LW.3) questioned A1 to A3, A1 to A3 demanded Rs.10 lakhs additional dowry to do business. Since then LW.1 lived with her parents until her by A1 to A3.

d) PW3 deposed that SI of Police, Women PS deposed in her evidence that on 8.2.2018 at 4.30 pm while she was present in Women PS complainant LW.1 to

LW.3 came to PS and lodged a written report and she registered the same as a case in Crime No.34/2018 Under Section 498-A IPC & Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act and investigated into. She examined LW.1 to LW.3 in the police station itself and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements. On 9.2.2018 she proceeded to scene of offence in Beripeta, Naidupet and examined LW.4 and LW.5 near the scene of offence and recorded their statements. She prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 27.2.2018 A1 to A3 surrendered in PS and she served 41-A Cr.P.c.

notices to them. After completion of investigation she filed charge sheet.

11. ARGUMENTS:-

a) Learned APP submits that evidence of PW’s 1 to 3 establishes that A1 to A3 harassed LW.1 for the additional dowry. She further submits that unfortunately victim of this case LW.1 died and as such her report/Ex.P3 can be reliedupon to corrobarate the evidence of PW’s 1 to 3 to establish the charges against accused.

CC No. 201/2018 7

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

She prays to convict the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of DP Act.

b) Learned Counsel for Accused submits:-

i) that this Hon’ble Court have no territorial jurisdiction to try this case as the alleged offence took place in Naidupeta.

ii) that there is extrodinary delay in reporting the offence.

iii) that PW’s 1 and 2 evidence is hearsay and as such cannot be reliedupon for determining charges against accused.

iv) that there is contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

v) that report/Ex.P3 of LW.1 cannot be reliedupon since it doesnot comes under purview of evidence or under section 32 of indian evidence Act.

13. Point No.1 : Whether this Court have jurisdiction to try this case?

a) As per the version of PW.1, on 07.09.2013 LW1 marriage was performed with

A1 in Gudur , dowry in the form of cash and gold are presented to A1, LW.1 joined A1 for conjugal life in Naidupeta, A1 started harassing LW.1, when she questioned A1 as to why he was not going to officeas he said her that he was a software engineer, later A1 to A3 demanded ten lakhs additional dowry for A1’s business and on 12.06.2014 LW.1 gave birth to her daughter but A1 to A3 did not came to visit her and thereafter LW.1 gave report. Evidence of PW.2 is same that of

PW.1.

b) PW.1 and PW.2 did not deposed about place of each incident. But perusal of their entire evidence shows that LW.1 resided in A1’s house, Naidupeta where

LW.1 was subjected to alleged harassments by A1 to A3. PW.3 deposed that on 09.02.2018 she proceeded to the scene of offence in Beripet, in Naidupeta. It shows that scene of offence is Naidupeta. As such the alleged offence was committed in Naidupeta.

CC No. 201/2018 8

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

c) In this context, it is necessary to go through Chapter XIII of Criminal Procedure code, which deals that Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts in Enquiries and Trials. In said chapter, Section 177 says that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Further

Section 178 of CR.P.C. says that incase of uncertainity as to in which of several areas offence is committed, or offence is partly committed in one area and remaining in other areas, or offence is continuing offence and committed in several areas, or offence consists of several acts and each part committed in different areas, then offence can be tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

d) as per section 177 of Cr.P.C offence shall be tried where it was committed. In this case offence is committed in Naidupeta. Naidupeta doesnot comes under the jurisdiction of this Court. Section 178 of Cr.P.C says that if offence is a continuing one and committed in different areas, then offence can be tried by the any of the court within whose jurisdiction offence was committed. Now the question for consideration is whether accused harassed LW.1 in PW.1’s house also?

e) PW’s 1 and 2 did not depose that A1 to A3 harassed LW.1 in the house of PW.1 or in anyother place including Nellore. As such there is no offence committed in place of PW.1 i.e., Gudur.

f) In this contexdt, it is necessary to refer Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384, wherein it was held as follows:- “Whether in a case where cruelty had been committed in a matrimonial home by the husband or the relatives of the husband and the wife leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter in the parental home located at a different place, would the courts situated at the place of the parental home of the wife have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 498A, in a situation

CC No. 201/2018 9

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

where no overt act of cruelty or harassment is alleged to have been committed by the husband at the parental home where the wife had taken shelter.” “Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not occur at the parental home, there can be no doubt that the mental trauma and the psychological distress cause by the acts of the husband including verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents would continue to persist at the parental home. Mental cruelty borne out of physical cruelty or abusive and humiliating verbal exchanges would continue in the parental home even though there may not be any overt act of physical cruelty at such place.”

f) In view of the dictum laid down by Hon’ble Supreme court of India, the Court within whose jurisdiction, victim takes shelter after leaving her matrimonial home, have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 498A of IPC. As per the evidence of PW’s 1 and 2, in 9th month of LW.1’s pregnency, she left her matrimonial home and stayed in her parents house. PW.1, who is the mother of

LW.1. In cross examination of PW.1, she admitted that they stays within limits of

Gudur II town police Station.

g) The above discussions shows that alleged offences took place in Gudur and

Naidupeta of SPSR Nellore District. Except the place of stay of A3, there is no evidence to show that single incident took place in Nellore.

h) Learned APP submits that Government of Andhra Pradesh established Women

Police station, Nellore and conferred territorial jurisdiction over the entire SPSR

Nellore District vide GO Ms. No. 412 dated 25.09.2009 and as such this court have territorial jurisdiction.

i) The GO Ms. No. 412 dated 25.09.2009 is extracted below for reference.

CC No. 201/2018 10

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

CC No. 201/2018 11

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

j) The Annexure to the above referred GO clearly says that the Women Police

Station, Nellore have territorial jurisdiction over the entire SPSR Nellore District

CC No. 201/2018 12

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

which includes Naidupeta and Gudur and this Court have jurisdiction over the

Women Police Station, Nellore. Hence this Court have jurisdiction to trial this case.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2 : Whether there is unexplained extraordinary delay in giving

report to police and if so, whether it rises doubt over case of prosecution?

a) Evidence of PW.1 is that A1 and LW.1 marriage is performed in the year 2013,

A1 to A3 harassed LW.1 for additional dowry, LW.1 gave birth to a baby in the year 2014 and A1 to A3 did not came to visit. In cross examination PW.1 stated that she brought LW.1 to her house in the 9th month pregnancy of LW.1. PW.2 evidence is also same that of PW.1. As such version of PW’s 1 and 2 is that A1 to A3 harassed

PW.1 in the house of Accused and A1 to A3 never visited LW.1 after birth of LW.1’s daughter. There is nothing in the evidence of prosecution which shows that any of the accused contacted LW.1 atleast in phone call after the birth of LW.1’s daughter.

It shows that accused allegedly harassed LW.1 for additional dowry only till the birth of daughter of LW.1 i.e., on 12.06.2014.

b) PW.3 stated that LW’s 1 to 3 came to PS and gave report on 08.02.2018. it shows that there is a delay of morethan 3 years 7 months delay in reporting the offence. It can be said without any doubt that said delay is extra-ordinary. Now the question that arises is, whether any of the prosecution witnesses offered any satisfactory explanation for such extra-ordinary delay in reporting the offence.

c) No prosecution witness offered any explanation for extra-ordinary delay in reporting the offence. Column No. 8 of Ex.P1/FIR deals with reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant. Said column was answered as follows ‘After taking all steps to discuss with the accused, but no useful progress, DLSA, Nellore also recommended to register the complaint given by complaint’. It shows that explanation for delay is that they took steps to discuss with accused but same was not deposed by prosecution witnesses. Even then 3 years 7 months time is not

CC No. 201/2018 13

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

necessary for discussing the matter with accused. Further explanations is recommendation of DLSA to register FIR. Said recommendation of DLSA, Nellore is not marked on behalf of prosecution. Even if it is taken into consideration, it shows that, Hon’ble DLSA, Nellore suggested for registration of FIR on 27.01.2018. even then the satisfactory explanation rendered is only for one month. As such there is a unexplained extraordinary delay of 3 years and 6 months in repoting the offence to police.

d) In Satpal Singh Vs State of Haryana reported in (2010) 8 SCC 714 the

Supreme Court has observed:

“15. This Court has consistently highlighted the reasons, objects and means of prompt lodging of FIR. Delay in lodging FIR more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultation, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Thus, FIR is to be filed more promptly and if there is any delay, the prosecution must furnish a satisfactory explanation for the same of the reason that in case the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant/informant is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety”

e) The above judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India categoricaaly holds that unexplained delay in reporting offence casts serious doubt over case of prosecution. In this case there is a extraordinary unpexplained delay of morethan 3 years 6 months. It raised serious doubt over the case of prosecution and gave benefit of doubt in favour of prosecution. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3 : Whether the report/Ex.P3 of deceased victim/LW.1 have any evidentary value?

a) Learned APP contends that Ex.P3 report shall be treated as evidence for determing charges against accused since LW.1 died unfortunately without giving her evidence in this Court. Learned Counsel for Accused submits that FIR and

CC No. 201/2018 14

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

report have no evidentary value and as such they cannot be reliedupon for determining the charges against accused.

b) In this context, it is necessary to refer judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in Sheikh Hasib Alias Tabarak vs The State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1972

SC 283, where it was held as follows:

“The legal position as to the object, value and use of first information report is well settled. The principal object of the first information report from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party. The first information report, we may point out, does not constitute substantive evidence though its importance as conveying the earliest information regarding the occurrence cannot be doubted It can, however, only be used as a previous statement for the purpose of either corroborating its maker Under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act or for contradicting him Under Section 145 of that Act. It cannot be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting other witnesses.”

c) The above dictum laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India makes it clar that

FIR or report of LW.1/Ex.P3 is not a substantive piece of evidence and it is a mere previous statement which can be used to contradicting its maker. In this case, the maker of Ex.P3 report is no more. As such Ex.P3/report is having no evidentary value.

d) The contention of Learned APP is that Ex. P3 report is to be treated as evidence since LW.1 died. Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act deals with the statements of persons who died. It reads as follows:

32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. –– Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases: –– (1) When it relates to cause of death.––When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction

CC No. 201/2018 15

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.

c) reading of above section makes it clear that, when the question is about cause of a person’s death, then the statement of a died person becomes relavent if said statement shows the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death.

d) In this case the question is not about death of LW.1. the question is about cruelty of A1 to A3 against LW.1 and dowry given to A1 to A3. Further Ex.P3 does not reveal cause of her death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. Ex. P3 only reveals about the alleged cruelty and dowry. As such Ex.P3 have no evidentary value in the eyes of Section 32 of Indian

Evidence Act also.

e) above discussions shows that Ex.P1 have no evidentary value although LW.1 died unfortunately. Question no.3 is answered accordingly.

16. Point No.4 : Whether prosecution proved the guilt of Accused No’s 1 to

3 beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under 3 & 4 of DP

Act?

a) PW.1 is the mother of LW.1. she deposed that at the time of marriage they gave

Rs. 10 lakhs cash and 40 sovereigns of gold to A1 as dowry and Rs. 1 lakh for household articles. In cross examination PW.1 deposed that she do not remember the exact date on which she gave dowry to accused prior to marriage. In her cross examination PW.1 further deposed that she gave dowry to accused in the presence of PW.2 and LW.5. it is pertainent to note that PW.2 deposed nothing about PW.1 giving dowry to A1 in his presence.

CC No. 201/2018 16

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

b) perusal of evidence of PW.1 shows that PW.1 evidence is silent about where and when she gave dowry to accused. Her evidence is also silent about discriptive particulars of gold presented to A1 as dowry. Further PW.2 deposed nothing about

PW.1 giving dowry to A1, as PW.1 deposed that in his presence she gave dowry to

A1. In these circustances this Court is of the view that evidence of PW.1 is not cogent. Except evidence of PW.1, there is no other evidence to show that PW.1 presented dowry to A1. Hence evidence of prosecution failed to prove that PW.1 gave dowry to A1. With regard to A2 and A3, even PW.1 did not depose that she gave dowry to them. Hence there is no iota of evidence to say that PW.1 gave dowry to A2 and A3.

c) with regard to the allegation of accused demanding LW.1 for additional dowry,

PW.1 deposed that LW.1 informed her that A1 to A3 harassing her for additional dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs for A1’s business. It shows that evidence of PW.1 is hearsay which is not admissable. PW.2 did not depose that A1 to A3 demanded LW.1 for

additional dowry. The victim LW.1 who is the eye witness could not be examined as

she died.

d) The above discussion shows that there is no admissable evidence to establish that A1 to A3 demanded LW.1 additional dowry.

e) in addition to that this Court have already hold that there was extraordinary delay in reporting the offence, which gave benefit of doubt in favour of accused.

f) In view of the above said discussions, this Court came to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove that parents of LW.1 gave dowry to A1 to A3 and A1 to

A3 demanded LW.1 for additional dowry. Hence prosecution failed to prove the charges under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A1 to A3.

17. Point No.5 : Whether prosecution proved the guilt of Accused No’s 1 to

3 beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under 498A of IPC?

CC No. 201/2018 17

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

a) The charge under section 498A of IPC is framed against A1 to A3 on the allegation that A1 to A3 harassed LW.1 for additional dowry.

b) PW.1 deposed that A1 harassed LW.1 physically and mentally when LW.1 questioned A1 about his job and further deposed that LW.1 informed her that A1 to

A3 are harassing her for additional dowry. In the cross examination, PW.1 deposed that she came to know the harassments to LW.1 by A1 to A3 through LW.1. further

PW.1 in her cross examination deposed that she have seen injuries on the body of

LW.1 which were inflicted by A1 to A3 and A1 hit her when LW.1 questioned him regarding his job and also saw injuries on LW.1’s body after 2 months of her marriage. Evidence of PW.1 is not clear as to whether she witnessed A1 to A3 causing injuries to LW.1, or LW.1 informed PW.1 about incident when PW.1 noticed injuries. It is pertainent to note that PW.1 did not deposed said facts in her chief examination. Further PW.1 did not depose as to whether A1 to A3 caused injuries to

LW.1 in the house of accused or house or PW.1 or some where else. PW.1 also did not depose about whether she tried to rescue LW.1 if A1 to A3 caused injuries to

LW.1 in the presence of PW.1. consideration of all these facts particularly the admission of PW.1 in her cross examination that she came to know about the harassments of A1 to A3 through LW.1, this court came to the conclusion that PW.1 is not eye witness and she came to know about the alleged harassments through

LW.1. as such PW.1 is hearsay witness.

c) PW.2 also deposed in the same lines of PW.1 with regard to the harassments by

A1 to A3 and also admitted in cross examination that LW.1 informed him about the harassments by A1 to A3 after 6 months of her marriage. It shows that PW.2 is also a hearsay witness. PW.3 is investigation officer and she do not have any personal knowledge regarding the alleged harrasments by accused.

d) above discussion shows that there is no eye witness for the alleged harassments by accused. Unfortunately the victim of this case died without giving her evidence.

CC No. 201/2018 18

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

e) Already this Court have come to the conclusion that Ex. P3 have no evidentary value and further it was presented to police with unexplained extraordinary delay and same gave benefit of doubt in favour of accused. In addition to that there is no eye witness for the alleged harassments by A1 to A3. Hence Prosecution failed to prove that A1 to A3 harassed LW.1 for additional dowry and accordingly failed to prove charge against accused for the offence punishable under section 498-A of

IPC.

18. In the result this Court found the accused No. 1 and 3 are not fund guilty for the offences punishable U.sec. 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of A1 and A3 if any on record shall remain in force for a period of six months as per sec. 437-A of

Cr.P.C. In this case no property was produced. Hence no property order passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant (Contract basis) corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 06 th day of June, 2025.

Sd/-Palamangalam Vinodh,

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore. (FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile, Nellore.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1: Mambakam Venkatamma -None-

P.W.2: Vegadula Vijaya Kumar

P.W.3: T.B. Suseela Kumari

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P-1: First Information Report

Ex.P-2: Rough sketch

Ex.P-3: Complainant given by LW1 in PS

CC No. 201/2018 19

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

Defence: -Nil-

Material Objects marked for

- NIL -

Sd/-Palamangalam Vinodh,

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways,

Nellore.

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile, Nellore.

// True Copy //

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore. (FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile, Nellore.

CC No. 211/2016 1

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR MOBILE, NELLORE.

Present: Palamangalam Vinodh,

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore. (FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile, Nellore.

Friday, this the Sixth ( 06 th ) day of June, 2025.

Calendar Case. No. 211/2016

Between:-

State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police,

III Town Police Station, Nellore City. .... Complainant

And

1. Raja Venkata Avinash, S/o. Venkata Ramanaiah, Aged 27 Years, Thukumanumitta, Santhapeta, Nellore City.

2. Menta Venkata Siva Narayana, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 42 Years, Pappula House, Stonehousepeta, Nellore City.

3. Raja Venkata Hari Kishore Kumar @ Hari, S/o. Venkata Ramanaiah, Aged 29 Years, Thukumanumitta, Santhapeta, Nellore City.

4. Gundlapalli Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged 44 Years, Usmansahebpeta, Stonehousepeta,

CC No. 211/2016 2

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

Nellore City.

5. Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Dasaradha Ramaiah, Aged 51 Years, Beside lalitha model school, Santhapeta, Nellore City.

6. Tulasi Venkata Nagesh Kumar @ Nagesh, S/o. Sathyanarayana Aged 29 Years, Thukumanumitta, Santhapeta, Nellore City.

7. Mallapuram Ramakrishna, S/o. Lakshmaiah, Aged 43 Years, Santhinagar, Dargamitta, Nellore City.

8. Munagala Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o. Late Thirupathi Reddy, Aged 43 Years, Sathyanarayanapuram, Nellore City.

9. Aluru Purushotham, S/o. Chinna Masthanaiah, Aged 39 Years, Kovuru Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore Districtl.

10. Menta Hari Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Late Pandurangaiah, Aged 51 Years, Srinagarajapuram, Stonehousepeta, Nellore City.

11. Menta Venkata Niranjan, S/o. Late Pandurangaiah, Aged 46 Years,

CC No. 211/2016 3

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

Srinagarajapuram, Stonehousepeta, Nellore City.

12. Pabbisetty Siva Prasad, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged 50 Years, Trunk Road, Kavali Town and Mandal, Nellore City.

13. Koppavarapu Sathish, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 43 Years, Prakash Nagar, Stonehousepeta, Nellore City. …. Accused No. 1 to 13.

This case is coming on 16.05.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of - Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. Ch. Sirdhar Rao, Advocate for accused No. 1 to 9 and Sri. P. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for accused No. 10 to 13 and upon hearing both sides, and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State Sub Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Nellore City filed charge sheet against accused No. 1 to 13 in Cr. No. 49/2016, for the offence punishable Under Sections 447, 341, 352 r/w 34 of IPC.

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

a) LW-1/Peteti Subba Rao is the complainant and resident of D.No:12/1159,

Korada Street, Chinna Bazaar, Nellore city. LWs 2 to 5 are the witnesses. LWs 6 and 7 are the scene observation mediators. LW-8 is the Investigating Officer. The accurate scene of offence was took place in the P.V Complex situated at Chinna

Bazaar, Nellore city is situated at a distance of 2 Kms south-west with in the limits of No: 3 Town PS, Nellore city. LW-1 who is the owner of the P.V complex sold away

CC No. 211/2016 4

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

13 shops since 2001 to 2010 to the different owners at present A-1 to A-13 are the owners of the shops. The accused A-1 20 A-13 having common intention voluntarily closed the combined pathway by installing the shutter violating the terms and conditions of the registered documents and also locked the shutters and not allowing LW-1 to walk in the combined pathway while trespassing the in the site of

LW-1 and when questioned the accused A-1 to A-13 having common intention used criminal force against LW-1 and voluntarily causing inconvenience to LW-1 while occupying the combined pathway for their safety and voluntarily causing inconvenience to LW-1 and not allowing LW-1 to pass through the way. On 27-03- 2016 at 14-00 hours LW-1 came to Nellore 3 Town PS and presented a report.

LW-8 got registered the same as a case in Crime No:49/2016 u/s 352, 447, 468, 489, 341, 120 (B) IPC of No: 3 Town PS, Nellore city and submitted original FIR to this Hon'ble court and copies of the FIR submitted to all the concerned officers and investigated in to.

b) During the course of investigation LW-8/P. Rama Krishna, SI of Police, III

Town PS secured as many as 5 witnesses examined them and recorded their detailed statements, observed the scene of offence in the presence of LWs 6 and 7 duly attested by LWs 6 and 7 and also prepared rough sketch to that effect there itself. Basing on the evidence of the independent witnesses after observing the scene of offence in the presence of LWs 6 and 7 the sections 452, 447, 341 r/w 34

IPC was attracted against the accused A-1 to A-13 respectively. The sections 468, 489, 120 (B) IPC which were figured in the FIR on the merits of the contents are not attracted and deleted. Accordingly a memo filed in the Hon'ble court for deletion of the sections 468, 489 and 120 (8) IPC for kind consideration. On 06-04-2016 at 12- 30 hours the accused A-1 to A-11 and A-13 were surrendered efore LW-8 in the police station and admitted the guilty of the offence. Then LW-8 served notice u/s 41 (a) Cr.P.C to the accused A-1 to A-11 and A-13. LW-8 directed the accused A- 1 to A-11 and A-13 when the court is required their presence. On 07-04-2016 at 18- 00 hours the accused A-12 surrendered before LW-8 in the police station and

CC No. 211/2016 5

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

admitted the guilty of the offence. Then LW-8 served notice u/s 41 (a) Cr.P.C to the accused A-12. LW-8 directed the accused A-12 when the court is required his presence. After completion of investigation LW-8 filed charge sheet. Thus the accused A-1 to A-13 had committed an offence and liable for punishment under the above provisions of law. Hence the Charge sheet.

3. After careful perusal of material on record, the cognizance of the offence was taken for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 341, 352 r/w 34 of IPC.

against accused No. 1 to 13.

4.On appearance of accused No. 1 to 13 are relevant copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused No. 1 to 13 was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C charges are framed under Sections 447, 341, 352 r/w 34 of IPC. They are read over and explained to accused No. 1 to 13 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got exhibited Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW2, LW4 and LW6.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused Nos. 1 to 13 were examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and incriminating material against them, is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the entire material on record.

9.Now the points for determination as :

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of Accused No’s 1 to 13

CC No. 211/2016 6

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under

sections 447, 341, 352 r/w 34 of IPC.

10. Evidence of Prosecution

(a) In the order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked EX. P-1 to Ex.P-15.

b) PW1 deposed that on 27-8-2001, he sold 3 shops to V. Bhavani. The said bhavani sold those 3 shops to one menta siva narayana, menta kalapana and Raja dhanalakshmi. On 1-4-2002 he sold one shop to kishore. The said kishore sold away the said shop to swaranalatha. On 27-5-2002 he sold away one shop to P.

Sivaprasad. Even today the said shop is with P. Sivaprasad. On 21-2-2005 he sold away one shop to N.Praveen kumar. The said praveen kumar sold away the said shop to K.Sathish. On the same day he sold another shop to D.V.Ramanaiah, The said D.V.Ramanaiah sold away the said shop to A.Purshotham. On 25.5-2005 he sold away another shop to I.Sekhar. The said sekhar sold away the said shop to

J.Srinivasa rao. On 5-10-2009 he sold one shop to T Nagesh. Even today the said shop is with T.Nagesh. On 8-10-2009 he sad one shop to mental menta anitha.

Menta kalpana soldaway her share in the said menta anitha. Hence the said shor belongs to menta anitha. On 14 2009 he sold one shop to M.prathina.Even today the said shop belongs to M.Prathima. On 26-11-2009 he sold one shop to

G.Chandrasekhar and even today the said shop is with chandrasekhar. On 25-1- 2010 he sold one shop to G.Chinnamasthanaial. The said shop was sold away to

M.Thanuja alias raja thanuja. Thesaid thanuja who is the wife of Al bought the said shop on 26-8-2015. The said chinnamasthanaiah transferred all the rights to thanuja which were not transferred by me to chinnamasthanaiah. There is common passage from chinnabazar to complex. He transferred only 10 feet out of the passage to chinnamasthanaiah but chinnamasthanaiah transferred 30 feets of the passage to thanuja. There is a common wall within the passage which belongs to him and his brother(Lw2) The said common passage is used to enter his vacant site

CC No. 211/2016 7

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

which is within the complex. There is also a room in his site. Till 2016 1 used the said room as a shop.A1 to A13 colluded and blocked the common passage by fixing shutter and by locking it. On 27-3-2016, When he and Lw2 questioned A1 to

A13, as to why they blocked the common passage, Al to A13 threatened him and

Lw2 that they will file SCST cases against me. Immediately he went to iii town PS and filed the present case. In February-March 2016 A1 to A11 and A13 fixed power meters to the common wall which belongs to me and my brother(Lw2). A1 to A13 colluded to cheat him. A1 to A13 conspired against him. He never transferred rights over the common passage to anyone. There was also a condition in the documents that the said passage should not be blocked by making any constructions. When he questioned A1 to A11 and A13 regarding the power meters, they threatened him that they will file criminal cases against me. on 27-3-2016 he filed case against A1 to A13.

c) PW2 deposed that he know A1 to A13. He know PW1, LW2, LW4 and LW5. He do not know LW6 and LW7. He do not now anything about the facts of the present case. He was never examined by the police.

d) PW3 deposed that he know PW1, LW2, PW2 & LW4. He know all the Accused.

He own Venkata Madhava Silver Palace shop in Chinna Bazaar. PV Complex is opposite to our shop. The said complex belongs to PW1 and LW2. The said complex was partitioned between PW1 and LW2. PW1 got 13 shops. There is also open place inside the complex. PW1 sold those 13 shops. The 13 shop people obstructed PW1 from entering the complex by constructing a shutter. Those 13 people installed meters in joint wall. He tried to pacify the issue along with PW2 and

LW4. Later PW1 filed the present case. He was examined by the Police.

e) PW4 deposed that on 27-03-2016 at 3 PM III Town Police called me to Chinna

Bazaar and told to him act as mediator in the present case. Police took to P.V.

Complex and observed shops in P.V. Complex in his presence. There were 13

CC No. 211/2016 8

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

shops in the Southern side and 6 shops in the Eastern side. PW1 gave complaint that some persons constructed shed obstructing him. Police called him to remove the said shutter in his presence. Police prepared some observation report in his presence and obtained his signature in the said report.

f) PW5 deposed that he has been working as SI of police in Santhapeta PS from 05-12-2015 to 05-12-2016. On 27-03-2016 at about 02.00 PM PW1 Came to PS and lodged a written report and he registered the same as a case in Cr.no.49/2016 u.sec.352, 447, 468, 489, 341, 120(b) of IPC and investigated into. He examined

PW1 in the police station itself and recorded his 161 crpc statements. Immediately he proceeded to scene of offence in P.V. Complex, Nellore and examined PW2,

PW3, LW2 and LW4 near the scene of offence and recorded their statements. He prepared rough Sketch of the scene of Offence. Immediately he prepared scene observation report in the presence of PW4 and LW6. On 06-04-2016 he served 41-A Crpc notices to A1 to A11 and A13. On 07-04-2016 he served 41-A Crpc notices to A12. He deleted Sections, 468, 489 and 120(b). After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

11. ARGUMENTS:-

a) Learned APP submits that PWs. 1, 3 to 5 supported the case of prosecution and thereby established that A1 to A13 colluded and blocked the common passage of the scene of offense by fixing shutter, locking it and thereby restraining the P.W.1 from entering into the scene of offense shopping complex although P.W.1 have right to proceed over the same. She further submits that although defence cross examined all the prosecution witnesses, but they failed to elicite nothing in their favour. She further submits that although PW.2 turned hostile it effects the case of the prosecution in no way. She prays to convict the A1 to A13 for the offences punishable u/s 447,352,468,489,341 and 120- B of IPC. Learned

APP filed written arguments in addition to her oral arguments.

CC No. 211/2016 9

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

b) Learned counsel for A1 to A9 submits that prosecution witnesses failed to state the date on which alleged shutters are fixed in the scene of offence complex. He further submits that PW.1 deposed that accused threatened him that they will file SC, ST attrocity case against him and in the cross examination PW.1 admitted that A1 to A13 does not belongs to SC, ST caste and it shows that PW.1 is deposing false. He further submits that PW.1 deposed that A1 to A13 fixed power meters to the common wall and in cross examination he admitted that he transferred all the power meters in the 13 shops at the time of sale which shows that power meters were already there and as such there is no question of A1 to A13 fixing power meters subsequently. He further submits that it also evident to show that P.W.1 is deposing false. He further submits that PW.4 is a stock witness as

Pw.4 admitted that he gave evidence in 20 to 30 cases pertaining to III town P.S.

He further submits that prosecution failed to prove its case and prays to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt. Learned counsel for A1 to A9 filed written arguments.

c) Learned counsel for A10 to A13 submits that alleged shutter was fixed by the PW.1 himself and not by the accused. He further submits that Pw.1 filed false case against accused due to civil disputes. Learned counsel for A10 to A13 also filed written arguments in addition to his oral arguments.

12. POINT:-

a) Section 352 of IPC provides punishment for assault or criminal force.

The version of the PW.1 is that A1 to A13 threatened them that they will file criminal cases and SC,ST attrocity case against him. Mere threatening does not amounts to causing assault or using criminal force. PW.2 turned hostile. Pw.3 deposed that 13 shop people obstructed Pw.1 from entering the complex by constructing the shutter.

Obstructing Pw.1 by constructing shutter does not amounts to assault or using criminal force. Pw.4 and Pw.5 are not eye witnesses. It shows that no prosecution

CC No. 211/2016 10

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

witnesses deposed that accused assaulted them or used criminal force against them. As such there is no iota of evidence against accused to say that A1 to A13 used criminal force or caused assault against P.W.1.

b) Section 447 of IPC provides punishment for criminal tresspass. PW.1 admitted that he sold away all the 13 shops to various persons including accused and they are the owners of said shops on the date of offence. Since the accused are in lawful possession of the scene of offense and accused are having the right to procedure over the common passage for gaining entry to their shops, the question of A1 to A13 tresspassed into the scene of offense which is the common passage of

P.V. complex does not arise.

c) Section 468 of IPC provides punishment for forgery for the purpose of cheating. Perusal of entire depositions of prosecution witnesses shows that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed that any of the accused forged any of the document for the purpose of cheating. PW.1 deposed that he transferred only 10 feet out of passage to Chinna Mastanaiah, but Chinna Mastanaiah transferred 30 feet of the passage to Tanuja. Perusal of record shows that neither Chinna

Mastanaiah nor Tanuja are added as accused. There is no allegation of forgery or cheating against A1 to A13. As such there is no iota of evidence against A1 to A13 to say that A1 to A13 forged documents and committed cheating.

d) Section 489 of IPC provides punishment for tampering property mark with intent to cause injury to any person. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that any of the accused tampered any of the property mark with intent to cause injury to any person. As such there is no iota of evidence against A1 to A13 to say that A1 to A13 tamped property mark with intent to cause injury to any person.

CC No. 211/2016 11

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

e) The another charge levied against Accused is u/s 341 of IPC. Section 341 of IPC provides punishment for wrongful restrain. P.W.1 deposed that A1 to A13 colluded and blocked the common passage by fixing shutter and by locking it. PW.2 turned hostile. PW.3 deposed that 13 shop people obstructed PW.1 from entering the complex by constructing its shutter and those 13 people installed meters in the joint wall. PW.3 deposed that 13 shop people obstructed PW1 but he did not deposed about the names said 13 people. PW4 and 5 are not eye witnesses. As such the evidence of Pw.1 is the sole evidence to prove the case of prosecution against A1 to A13.

f) PW.1 did not deposed the date on which A1 to A13 fixed shutter and locked it and thereby restrained him. In cross examination PW.1 admitted that even in his report/Ex.P.1 he did not mentioned the date on which accused fixed shutter and blocked his way. To determine the charges against accused it is necessary to say when accused committed offense. Pw.1 failed to state the date or time period upon which accused fixed shutters. Further PW1 deposed that he along with his brother questioned A1 to A13 on 27.03.2016 about blocking the common passage for which a1 to A13 threatened him and Lw.2 that they will file SC,ST case against him. In cross examination PW.1 admitted that A1 to A13 does not belongs to SC,

ST community. When A1 to A13 does not belongs to SC, ST community, a doubt arises as to how far A1 to A13 threatens PW.1 and LW.2 to file case under SC, ST

Act. It is not the case of PW.1 that accused threatened him by saying that by using some other persons, they will file case against Pw.1. Further Pw.1 stated about the date on which Accused persons threatened him, but failed to state the date on which accused persons fixed shutters and restrained him.

g) PW.1 simply deposed that A1 to A13 blocked the common passage by fixing shutters. He did not stated about the date on which accused persons fixed shutters and how accused persons fixed shutters and what PW.1 did while accused

CC No. 211/2016 12

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

persons are fixing shutters. Fixing shutters is not a easy task. It requires lot of men power and assistance of skilled persons for doing the same. But PW.1 did not deposed as to how the accused persons fixed shutters. Further PW.1 did not depose the act of each accused in fixing the shutter and obstructing him. As such this Court is of the view that evidence of PW1 is vague and not cogent.

h) The further allegation of PW.1 is that he questioned A1 to A11 and A13 regarding the power meters but they threatened him that they will file criminal cases against him. In Cross examination Pw.1 admitted that since the beginning all the shops had power meters. When all the shops have power meters, the question of subsequently arranging power meters does not arise. It created doubt over the version of PW1.

i) In view of the above said discussions this court is of the view that evidence of PW.1 is not cogent. As such this Court is of the view that it is unsafe to rely in the evidence of PW1. There is no other evidence in support of prosecution evidence. Hence this Court came to conclusion that prosecution failed to prove its against accused for the charge under section 341 of IPC.

j) The final charge against accused is under section 120 B of IPC. Section 120 B provides punishment for criminal conspiracy to commit an offense. The above discussion shows that prosecution failed to prove that accused committed any offense. Prosecution witnesses also failed to depose as to when, where and how accused persons conspired together to commit offense. PW.1 only deposed that A1 to A13 colluded together and fixed shutters. Said single line of evidence is not sufficient to prove that accused conspired together to commit offense where the other witnesses evidences are silent on said aspect. In view of the above said

CC No. 211/2016 13

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

discussions this court came to a conclusion that prosecution failed to prove its case against accused for the offense punishable u/s 120 B of IPC.

13. In the result, accused No. 1 to 13 are not found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 341, 352 r/w 34 of IPC. and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled after a period of expiry of appeal period. No order as to property as required under rule 227 of Crl.RP is passed as no property was seized and produced by the complaint before the court.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant (Contract basis) corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 06 th day of June, 2025.

Sd/-Palamangalam Vinodh

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore. (FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile, Nellore.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1: P. Subba Rao -None-

P.W.2: Vemuru Gopi

P.W.3: Nerella Venkata Madhava Rao

P.W.4: Parasa Siva Kumar

P.W.5: P. Rama Krishna

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:

Ex. P1: Complaint given by PW1 to Police.

CC No. 211/2016 14

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

Ex. P2: Certified copy of the registered partition deed No.832/2001 dated 30-10- 2001 stands in the name of 1" defendant and his brother by name peteti Raghava

Rao

Ex P3: Certified copy of the sale deed No.6312/2001 dated 27-8-2001 executed by the 1 defendant, Peteti lakshmi kanthamma alias Masthanamma and peteti raghava ram in favour of the voor Bhavani.

EX. P4: Certified copy of sale deed No.7967/2015 dated dated 7-11-2015 executed by voora Bhavani in favour of the Raja Venkata Dhanalakshmi.

Ex. P5: Certified copy of the sale deed No.7968/2015 dated 7-11-2015 executed by voora Bhavani in favour of menta Kalpana.

Ex P6: Certified copy of the sale deed No.7957/2015 dated 7-11-2015 executed by voora bhavani in favour of Menta venkata Sivanarayana.

Ex. P7: Certified copy of the sale Deed No.702/2010 dated 25-1-2010 executed by 1st defendant in favour of Gundlapalli chinnamasthanaiah.

Ex.P8: Certified copy of the sale deed No.6095/2015 dated 26-11-2015 executed by gundlapalli chinna masthanaiah infavour of the muppalasetty tanuja alias raja tanuja.

Ex. P9: Certified copy of the sale deed No.7315/2005 dated 25-05-2005 executed by 1st defendant in favour of Ayitha Sekhar.

Ex. P10: Certified copy of the sale Deed No.5970/2011 dated 5-5-2011 executed by

Ayitha sekhar in favour of Jonnalagadda srinivasa rao.

Ex.P11: Judgment copy in OS No.434/2016 of III additional junior civil judge court,

Nellore.

Ex.P12: Scene observation report

Ex.P13: Address particulars

Ex.P14: First Information report

Ex.P15: Rough Sketch

CC No. 211/2016 15

Date: 06.06.2025. (Fair)

Defence: -Nil-

Material Objects marked for

- NIL -

Sd/-Palamangalam Vinodh

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways,

Nellore.

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile, Nellore.

// True Copy //

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore. (FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile, Nellore.