1
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),
GUNTUR.
PRESENT:: KUM. PONNURU BUJJI,
V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.
Monday, the 22nd day of April, 2024
Calendar Case No.1232/2020
Between:
State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Women P.S., Guntur Urban District. …Complainant
And
1.Thadigiri Koteswara Rao, son of Balaiah, 33 years, R/o Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi road, Guntur.
2. Thadigiri Balaiah, son of Kotaiah (late), 52 years, R/o Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi road, Guntur.
3. Thadigiri Rani, wife of Balaiah, aged 45 years, R/o Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi road, Guntur. (Case against A3 is abated as he died on 13.11.2023)
4. Thadigiri Syamala, wife of Prakash Rao, 40 years, R/o Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi road, Guntur.
5. Panthagani Ramesh, son of Rosaiah, 32 years, R/o Ravipativari palem village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur.
6. Panthagani Sunitha, wife of Ramesh, 28 years, R/o Ravipativari palem village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur.
7. Thadigiri Giri, son of Narendra Rao, 45 years, R/o Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi road, Guntur.
8. Thadigiri Raju, son of Sarweshwara Rao (late) 41 years, R/o Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi road, Guntur.
9. Thadigiri Pedda Koteswara Rao @ Rajasekhar son of Rajendra Prasad, 35 years, R/o Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi road, Guntur.
10. Sathuluri Suneel, son of Matthaiah, 47 years, R/o Kobaldpet, 3rd lane, Guntur.
11. Thadigiri Haritha @ Shaik Shahid wife of Arif, 31 years, R/o Repalle village, Guntur.
12. Sathuluri Kavitha, wife of Samson, 30 years,
r/o Gurajala Village, Guntur. .. Accused
This case coming on 01.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri Arani
Srinivasa Rao, Ch. Venkateswara Rao and S. Srinivasa Rao, learned
Advocates for accused nos.1 to 3, 5 to 9, 11 and 12 and Sri B. Samuel
Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the accused Nos.4 and 10, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. NATURE OF OFFENCE:- Accused have been arraigned before this 2
Court for the offence U/Sec.498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act under the warrant Procedure prescribed under
Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C) basing on the charge sheet filed by S.H.O of Women P.S.
2. THE BRIEF AVERMENTS OF THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IN BRIEF AS FOLLOWS:
a) It is pleaded by prosecution that basing on the written report given by P.W.1, a case was registered against accused in Cr.No.128/2019 u/sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act by P.W.7 and investigated the same.
b) It is pleaded in the report of P.W.1 that her marriage with A1 was performed on 10.10.2012 in the presence of both families according to
Christian rites and customs at the house of A1. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of A1 to A3, her parents gave Rs.5 lakhs and 10 sovereigns of dowry. Immediately, Pw1 joined A1 to lead marital life. After marriage, A1 addicted to vices and used to harass PW1 for want of
additional dowry and all the accused subjected her to cruelty both mentally
and physically and used to abuse her in sarcastic language. The accused were all beat Pw1. A1 has to stability in his job and used to change from one to another. Accordingly they shifted to Vizag despite nothing change found in A1 and he used to come home in drunken state and squabbles for no reason and used to make her unslept. When she informed the same to her parents, her parents persuaded him in spite of it, the accused did not change his attitude. In the year 2016, A1 abstained from job and harassed her to bring additional dowry from her parental home and used to visit her working place in drunken state and created havoc. On 27.05.2018 A1 locked PW1 inside the house while they were residing in Vizag by taking away her mobile phone and cash at the instigation of other accused but with the help of neighbours she informed the same to her parents. When the elders and her father questioned A1 about his behavior, all the accused stated unless Pw1 brought dowry, they would not allow her and they will perform 2nd marriage to A1. As such PW1 presented report before PW7 and he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.128/2019 for the offences punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and took up investigation.
c) During the course of investigation, P.W.7 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements u/sec.161 Cr.P.C., visited the 3 scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene, on 20.05.2019 he served notices to A1 to A3, A5 to A11 u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C. and as A4 and
A12 were absconding he could not serve notice u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.
Hence the charge.
3. COGNIZANCE :- My learned predecessor took cognizance for the offence u/sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act against accused and issued summons to them by assigning in CC.No.1232/2020.
4. COMPLIANCE OF PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS :-
a) Accused when appeared before the court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
b) When accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., charges for the offence punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.
were framed against the accused, the same are read over and explained to accused in Telugu. They abjured guilt and claims to be tried. Hence, accused were put on trial.
5. Trail:- To substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution agency has examined P.W.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 viz., Ex.P1- report, Ex.P.2- FIR, Ex.P.3 rough sketch of the scene.
On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the accused.
6. Sec.313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C examination :- Upon closing of the evidence the accused were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. calling upon them, to explain for the incriminating evidence leveled against them from the evidence and the same were read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
7.Heard on both sides. The learned counsel for accused filed written arguments in support his case. Perused the material on record.
8. Arguments submitted by the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor:
The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor had argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses very clearly establishes that the accused used to harass PW1 both mentally and physically demanding her to bring
additional dowry and used to abuse her in filthy language without any
reason. On 25.07.2018 A2 to A12 made a phone call to A1 by stating that
A1 left PW1 if she would not arrange amount then A1 beat PW1 4 indiscriminately and left from the house by locking the door. With the help of neighbours, PW1 made a phone call to her parents and informed the same to them. Then her parents brought her to their house and they went
Guntur A1 quarreled with them by demanding Rs.5 lakhs if PW1 brought dowry then only they would allow her in the house. The evidence of Pws.3 and 4 independent witnesses consistent with the evidence of Pws.1, 2, 5 and 6 therefore, Pws.1 to 6 are all corroborated with each other. Further argued that PW7 who is investigating officer also corroborated with the evidence of PWs1 to 6, as such the prosecution established the case beyond all reasonable doubt by establishing all the essential ingredients of the offence u/sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act,hence, prayed the court to convict the accused.
9. Arguments filed by the learned counsel for the accused:
On the other hand, the learned defence counsel had argued that, there is delay of one year from the alleged date of offence to the presentation of report by PW1. Further argued that the marriage of A1 and
PW1 was took place at the house of the A1 and A1 family only bear the marriage expenses and Moreover, neither PW1, Pws.2 and 6 did not file any document with regard to the alleged dowry and other items were given to A1 at the time of marriage. He further argued that PW1 worked as a nurse due to her job purpose, Pw1 and A1 used to go to Vizag and
Hyderabad and they only lived at that places. Further argued that A1 did not lock PW1 at the house of Visakakhapatam. He neither demanded
additional dowry nor beat her. If really A1 harassed PW1, she would give a
report before the police in Visakhapatnam or Hyderabad, but she did not do so. In fact, the father of PW1 is one of the accused in Sec.498-A case which was filed by the relative of the accused due to which, at the influence of father of PW1, she filed present case against the accused to harass the accused. Further argued that the parents of the accused are residing in
Guntur and the remaining all accused are residing in different places and they did not commit any offence but PW1 falsely implicated remaining accused in this case. Further the investigating officer did not conduct investigation on proper lines and he neither visit Hyderabad nor
Visakhapatnam where the alleged offence was took place and he did not examine any neighbouring person from Visakhapatnam where the accused alleged to have been locked PW1 in their house and he did not examine the persons whose names were mentioned in rough sketch of the scene, 5 so also he did not mention about the delay at column NO.8 in FIR.
Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the accused subjected
PW1 to cruelty with a demand to bring additional dowry from her parents the charge u/sec.498-A of IPC and Sec 3 and 4 DP Act . Hence, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt, hence prayed the court to extend benefit of doubt and acquit the accused.
10. NOW, THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS:
Whether the prosecution agency proved guilt of the accused
for the offences U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act beyond
all reasonable doubt subject to the satisfaction of the court by
establishing the essential ingredients there under:
11. To bring home of the guilt of the accused u/sec.498-A IPC, the prosecution should establish :-
That A1 being husband of P.W.1 and A2 to A12 being family members of PW1 subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally?
12. To bring home of the guilt of the accused Sec.3 of DP Act, the prosecution should establish :-
That at the time of marriage of PW1 with A1, you the accused demanded and received Rs.5 lakhs cash and 10 sovereigns of gold towards dowry?
13. To bring home of the guilt of the accused Sec.4 of DP Act, the prosecution should establish :-
After commencement of DP Act, the accused harassed P.W.1 both physically and mentally for want of additional dowry?
At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the evidence of the prosecution.
14. The evidence adduced by the prosecution:
To fasten the guilt on the accused, the prosecution got examined
P.Ws.1 to 7. P.W.1 is examined by the prosecution to speak about the occurrence of facts, harassment at the hands of the accused and presentation of report before police. P.Ws.2 to 6 are examined by the prosecution to speak about knowing about occurrence of the incident.
P.W.7 is examined by the prosecution to speak about registration of FIR, preparation of rough sketch of scene of offence, issuance of notice to accused u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C., and investigation done by him.
Now it is apt of to appreciate the prosecution evidence.
6
15. Evidence of P.W.1:
i) To bring home of the guilt on the accused u/sec.498-A IPC and
Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 7. P.W.1 is victim, P.W.2 is brother of victim, P.Ws.3 to 5 independent witnesses. PW6 is mother of the victim. PW7 is investigating officer.
ii) It is the evidence of P.W.1 that A1 is her husband. A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. A4 is sister of A3. A5 is husband of A6. A6 is sister in law. A7 to A9 are brothers of A1. A10 is brother of A2. A11 is another sister in law. A12 is wife of A3 brother. On 10.10.2012 her marriage was performed with A1 as per Christian customs at house of accused situated at Velangani Nagar, Amaravathi Road, Guntur. At the time of her marriage her parents have presented cash of Rs.5 lakhs towards dowry, 10 sovereigns gold ornaments were given to the accused. Immediately after her marriage she joined conjugal life with A1 at her in laws house. When she went to her in laws house she was doing private job and A1 was doing private job. After her marriage she came to know that the accused used to take alcohol and he used to abused her in filthy language and beat her in a drunken stage. A1 used to demand her for additional dowry from her parents. A2 and A3 used to scold her and stated that they have no interest got married by A1. At the instigation of A2 and A3 A1 used to harass her and demanded additional dowry from her. A4 to A12 are used to abuse her in filthy language without any reason and also they demanded additional dowry from her. A5 and A6 are residing with them at her in laws house.
They are used to harass her and demanded additional dowry and A3, A4 and A7 to A12 were residing near her in laws house. They used to come to her in laws house frequently. A2, A3, A5 and A6 used to quarreled and stated that she did not bless children. Due to harassment made by the accused she would commit a suicide. One day she kept her gold ornaments black beads chain, ear studs kept with her bag A12 took away her gold ornaments at the instructions of her husband/A1 when she asked him why the said Kavitha took her gold ornaments then all the accused quarreled with me and beat me indiscriminately. A1 was doing private job but he did not do properly, he used to shift various places like wise
Hyderabad from Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam and we stayed at Gajuwaka for a period of four years but he did not change his attitude and he used to consumed alcohol and came to late night besides he abused her in filthy language and beat her. Then she informed the same to her parents 7 thereafter her parents and her village elders by name Mallabathuni
Chennaiah, Bondanapati Rajasekhar and Zelaga Galaiah came to her house at Gajuwaka and admonished A1 but he did not change his behaviour. In the year 2016 he resigned from his job. A1 used to harass her and demanded an amount of Rs.5 lakhs for the purpose of running business. When she was doing job as a staff nurse A1 used to come to the hospital and sold her. On 27.5.2018 A2 to A12 made a phone call to A1 and stating that he left her if she would not arrange amount then A1 beat her indiscriminately and left from house by locking the house. At the help of her neighbors she made a phone call to her parents and inform the same and her parents came to Visakhapatnam and brought her to her house.
Thereafter they brought the elders to her in laws house in Guntur there A1 to A12 quarreled with them and demanded Rs.5 lakhs from them if she would not give dowry amount of Rs.5 lakhs they would not allow her.
Thereafter she waited some period as A1 came to her house but he did not come and there is no response as such she lodged a report before the police. Ex.P1 is her report and she was examined by the police.
iii) During course of cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 she deposed that she is the scribe of
Ex.P1 and after one year of her arrival from Visakhapatnam she lodged report against A1 to A12. She has not mentioned any reason in Ex.P1 as to why she lodged report after one year of arriving from Visakhapatnam so also not stated the same before the police in her 161 statement. She has not stated before the police on which date they went to the house of the accused in Guntur and she has not gave police complaint against the accused when the accused had quarreled with them. A1 to A12 are her relatives and she has no document as well as have not filed any documentary proof to show her parents had presented an amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards to A1 at the time of her marriage. She has not gave report against A12 when she taken away her gold ornaments as alleged by her.
She has not handed over any receipt with regard to the 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments which was given to the accused at the time of her marriage. She has completed staff nurse course and after her marriage she did job in various hospitals i.e Mallareddy Hospital in Hyderabad for a period of one year, at Sai Bhaskar Hospital, in Arundelpet, Guntur,
Mamatha Hospital, Children hospital and Hinduja Power Plant in
Visakhapatnam she had been working in Visakhapatnam for period of four 8 or five years. Herself and A1 only lived in Hyderabad at the time of she worked in Hyderabad. She has not mentioned in report as well as her 161 statement that when herself and A1 had lived in Hyderabad, her in laws stayed along with them. She has not mentioned in Ex.P1 report and also she has not stated before the police how much period she stayed in
Hyderabad so also not deposing the same at the time of her chief examination. A11 is residing at Repalle village in Guntur District. She has not filed a case either Hyderabad or Visakhapatnam against A1, when he used to consume alcohol during their stay at Hyderabad and
Visakhapatnam. She does not know cases pertaining to MLC and she has not filed any case against A1 at Hyderabad on 27.05.2018 when A1 harassed and beat her indiscriminately and locked her in the house. She has not taken any treatment when A1 beat her on 27.05.2018 so also she did not admit in hospital where she worked besides she has not filed any case against A1. She has not stated before the police the names of her neighbours who were rescued her when A1 locked her in her house so also herself and her parents went to the house where she was locked by
A1 and shown to the police neighbours who were rescued her at the time of alleged incident in Visakhapatnam. She did not state the elders name in her chief examination and she stated the names of the elders which was brought by them. Her parents have four children one son and three daughters. Her brother did not get marriage but the remaining her sisters got married and there is no disputes between herself and her siblings.
Primarily she filed DVC No.12/2021 case against the respondents I.e A1,
A2, A3, A5, A6 and A11 herein on the file of A.J.C.J Court, in Mangalagiri and subsequently she filed petition to add the remaining respondents/remaining accused herein in DVC 12/2021.
iv) She denied that A5 is residing at Prathipadu Village, Guntur
District and A12 is residing at Gurazala village and himself and his parents colluded each other to harass the accused and filed false against them though they did not commit any offence even though, some of the accused were not resided in India but they falsely implicated them in this case. She denied that who were advised to her to adjust with A1 then herself and her parents with intentionally implicated them who are advised to them, even though they did not harass her she filed a false case against them. She denied that if really A1 is used to take alcohol she might have filed case against him either Hyderabad or Visakhapatnama as such she is deposing 9 false as A1 consuming alcohol. She denied that as she added some of the accused herein in DVC 12/2021 but subsequently she filed a petition to add remaining accused with intention to harass them as such it is clearly explicit that her character of her family and filing a false cases against the accused. She denied that as her sisters husband’s are government employees but her husband I.e A1 is a private employee due to inferiority complex with the influence of her parents she filed a false against the accused to harass them and deposing false.
v) The learned counsel for the accused Nos.4 and 10 had adopted the cross examination of A1 to A3, A5 to A9, A11 and A12 and he further cross examined PW1. During her cross examination she deposed that that her sisters husband’s are government employees but A1 is private employee and her paternal uncle got married the sister of A2 and A10 husband is cousin brother of A2. A4 and A3 are cousins. A10 is residing at
Kobaldpet, Guntur from his childhood and A4 and A10 are the own brother and sister. The husband of A4 is residing at Singapur, Brune.
vi) She denied that A4 is residing with her husband Singapur,
Brune on occasionally she come to India and she spend most of time at her husband and her children in Singapur but she intentionally filed false case against A4 and she is deposing false. She denied that A4 and A10 neither harassed her nor lived at any point of time and deposing false. She denied that A1 is doing private job, as her sister’s husbands are government employees as such she filed false case against A1 by implicated other accused in this case though they did not harassed her.
She denied that one of her family member are working in police department as DGP cadre at the influence of police they filed false case against the accused. She denied that A4 and A10 used to advise her with adjust A1 but they falsely implicated them for wrongful gain. She denied that A4 is no way related with the present offence as she residing with her respective family in Singapur. She denied that to harass the A4 and A10 she filed the false case against them and deposing false.
16. Evidence of PW2:
i) PW2 who is brother of PW1 in his evidence deposed that PW1 is his younger sister. On 10.10.2012 they performed the marriage of PW1 with A1 as per Christian marriage at Velagini Nagar, Guntur at the house of
A1. At the time of marriage, they have presented cash of Rs.5 lakhs towards dowry and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the parents of A1 at 10 his house. Immediately after marriage PW1 joined with A1 to lead conjugal life at her in laws house. PW1 and A1 lived happily for a period of two months. Thereafter PW1 made a phone call and informed to them that A1 and his parents along with the relatives i.e., A2 to A12 used to harass PW1 to bring additional dowry from them. Then they informed to PW1 to adjust with the accused. Thereafter they brought the elders to the house of accused and she requested the accused and expressed our inability to provide additional dowry to them but they did not heed their words.
Thereafter PW1 and A1 went to Vizag for the purpose of job. Thereafter A1 resigned his job and one day he locked PW1 in the house he came to
Guntur at his house. Then the neighbours made a phone call to them then herself and elders by name Chennaiah, Raja Sekhar and Galaiah were went to the Vizag and they brought PW1 to the house of A1. Again they requested the accused but they did not heed their words and demanded
additional dowry from them.
ii) During the course of cross examination he deposed that he is the second child of his parents and his sister's husband is a government employee and his third sister husband is also a government employee. At the time of marriage A1 is private employee there is no documentary proof that they have presented Rs.5 lakhs dowry and 10 sovereigns of gold to the accused. Either himself, PW1 and his parents have not submitted any receipt to the police pertaining to the gold ornaments to the accused and the marriage of Pw1 and A1 held by his parents at the house of A1 and the arranged by the parents of A1 only. A5 is brother in law of A1. After marriage of PW1 she had been residing along with A1 for one year and within one year of period of staying of PW1 along with her in laws she did not file any case against them about the harassment. PW1 and A1 went to
Hyderabad for the purpose of job they put up separate family and PW1 did not file any criminal complaint against A1 at Hyderabad. PW1 and A1 lived at Vizag there PW1 did job. When they went to Vizag, either himself and
PW1 gave report before the local P.S. of Vizag. She has not stated before the police that whose phone number the neighbours made a phone call to her and informed her that A1 locked PW1 in the house at Vizag and either
PW1, herself, her parents and the elders brought the local P.S. of Guntur to the Vizag where the harassment made by A1 and not shown the area and her the neighbours who are informed her about the locking of PW1 at
Vizag. She has not stated before the police that when they went to Vizag 11 and brought PW1 directly to her house. She has not stated before the police after brought PW1 from Vizag on which date they went to house of
A1. She does not remember on which date they gave criminal complaint against the accused about the altercation in between their elders and elders of accused with regard to the mediation in between PW1 and A1. He stated before the police that in the year 2014 they went to Vizag to request the accused. In May, 2019 PW1 gave report against the accused before
Women PS, Guntur. The marriage of PW1 with A1 is an arranged marriage arranged by elders and all the accused and witnesses are relatives of them.
iii) During the course of cross examination he deposed that A5 and A6 are residing at Ravalpativaripalem, Prathipadu mandal, Guntur and deposing false and A11 is residing at Repalle and A12 is residing at
Gurazala village and she has not stated before the police on which date, year himself and village elders were went to Vizag to request the accused.
He denied that he has not stated before the police in whom house and in which area PW1 and A1 residing and where the harassment made by A1 against PW1. He denied that he has not stated before the police on which date they brought PW1 from Vizag and the marriage of PW1 and A1 is love cum arranged marriage as such himself and his parents dislike their marriage. He denied that his sister's husbands are doing government job as A1 is private employee, as such himself and PW1 and their family members used to harass A1 about the job and provocated PW1 against
A1. He denied that due to family disputes they falsely implicated A4 to A12 and they are no way concerned with the offence and also they are residing in different places.
iv) The learned counsel for the accused Nos.4 and 10 had adopted the cross examination of A1 to A3, A5 to A9, A11 and A12 and he further cross examined PW2. During his cross examination he deposed that he is unmarried. At the time of marriage of PW1 the husband of A4 was residing at Guntur. A10 is residing at Kobaldpet, Guntur. At the time of mediation in between PW1 and A1 by their elders and elders of A1, his brother in laws were present at his house. He is a painter and residing at his house and at present his father is unable to walk properly and his mother is suffering from paralysis.
v) He denied that A4 and her husband has been living in Dubai 12 and his sister's husbands never interfere in this case and deposing false.
He denied that as PW1 is nurse to serve his parents she has been residing along with his parents.
17. Evidence of Pw.3:
i) Pw.3 who is an independent witnesses to the case on hand in his evidence deposed that he is resident of Tadepalli, and doing maistry in warehouse godown. On 10-10-2012 the marriage of PW.1 was performed with A1 at Velangani church, as per the Christian customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of Pw.1 gave an amount of Rs.5 lakhs, 10 sovereigns gold ornaments towards dowry to the parents of A1, as per their demand. Immediately, after marriage, PW.1 went to conjugal life at the house of A1, there A1 and his parents were lived together in one roof. Two or three months PW.1 and A1 lived happy marital life, thereafter, the disputes arose in between them, and A1 used to consume liquor and came to the house late night and beat PW.1 without any reason. When she informed about the harassment of the accused, when himself, Lw.6 and 7, one Kalaiah and the parents of PW.1 went to the house of A1 at Vizag, and they requested them to adjust each other, but they refused. Thereafter, on one day, A1 and the parents of A1, sisters of A1 locked PW.1 in the house.
The neighbours informed the same to the parents of Pw.1. Then, herself, the parents of PW.1, Lws.6 and 7 and Kalaiah went to the house of accused in the Vizag, and they brought the Pw.1 to her parents house.
ii) During the course of cross examination he deposed that he and the father of P.w.1 are residing same village since his childhood and they are friends. He did not state before the police in his presence the parents of P.w.1 gave an amount of Rs.5 lakhs, 10 sovereigns gold ornaments towards dowry to the parents of A1. He came to know through father of P.w.1 that they gave a dowry, gold ornaments and other items to
A1 at the time of marriage and either P.w.1 or her father did not show any document or receipt with regard to the dowry as well as gold items. He came to know through P.w.1 that all the accused harassed P.w.1 and P.w.1 is working as Staff Nurse. After marriage of P.w.1 she has been doing a job at Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam, by that time P.w.1 and A1 lived at their place only. The parents of A1 and other all accused are belongs to Guntur
District in a different places and he has stated before the police that how many months are staying of P.w.1 and A1 at Hyderabad and
Visakhapatnam. He does not know on which area they went to the 13
Visakhapatnam to pacify the matter in between P.w.1 and A1. On 27.05.
2018 they went to the Visakhapatnam when A1 locked P.w.1 at his house.
When A1 locked P.w.1 but they did not lodge any report against him at
Visakhapatnam and they did not take P.w.1 to hospital. After 3 or 4 days came to P.W.1, they went to the parents’ house of A1 in Guntur about the dispute. Immediately they went to the parents of A1 P.w.1 lodge a report against the accused. Previously adjournments himself and P.w.1 together came to the court and P.w.2 stand outside of the court today. The police did not take back him to Visakhapatnam they did not enquire on which house
A1 locked P.w.1 and he does not know whether police take back other witnesses to the Visakhapatnam for enquiring purpose.
iii) He denied for the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused that after one year of separation of P.W.1 and A1, she gave report against the accused and deposing false. He denied that today also himself and P.w.2 came to the court and the house of P.w.1 is his nearby house and the father of P.w.1 is his friend as such he is deposing false. He denied that they did not went to the Visakhapatnam if really they went to the Visakhapatnam they might have gave a report against A1 at
Visakhapatnam and A4, A11, A12 are residing in different places with their respective families.
18. Evidence of Pw.4:
i) Pw.4 who is an independent witnesses to the case on hand in his evidence deposed that on 10.10.2012 the marriage of P.w.1 was performed with A1 as per Christianity at Mery Matha Nagar, Amaravathi
Road, Guntur. At the time of marriage the parents of P.w.1 have presented an amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards dowry and 10 sovereigns gold ornaments to the accused. Immediately after marriage P.W.1 joined conjugal life with
A1 at Hyderabad. Thereafter they shifted to Visakhapatnam from
Hyderabad. P.w.1 and A1 lived happily for a period of 6 or 7 years, thereafter dispute arose between them. When the accused harassed
P.w.1, she informed the same to her father then her father informed him.
One day P.w.1 made a phone call to her father i.e L.w.2 by stating that A1 locked P.w.1 in the house. Immediately L.W.2, himself and L.w.7, P.W.3 went to the Visakhapatnam and they brought the P.w.1 from Hyderabad.
Thereafter P.W.1 stated to him that accused used to harass for additional dowry. Then they went to the Guntur at the house of accused there the dispute arose between them. Later P.w.1 lodge a report before the police 14 against the accused and he was examined by the police.
ii) During course of cross examination he deposed that he is a
Mason Mastry. He studied up to 5th class. The brother of P.w.1 brought him
before this court today and he has no documentary proof to show that the
parents of P.w.1 have presented an amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards dowry and 10 sovereigns gold ornaments to the accused at the time of marriage.
The marriage of P.w.1 and A1 was took place in Guntur and P.w.1 is belongs to Prakash Nagar, Tadepalli village, Guntur District. The marriage of P.W.1 and A1 took place at the house of A1 and all arrangements are made by A1 and his family. After one year of their marriage P.w.1 and A1 shifted to Hyderabad and he has stated in his chief examination that immediately the marriage of P.W.1 and A1 shifted to Hyderabad. He has stated in his chief examination that 6 or 7 years P.w.1 and A1 lived happily.
During that 6 or 7 years P.W.1 was doing Nurse at hospital due to which they shifted from Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam. P.w.1 is having one brother and three sisters and the sisters husband of P.w.1 all are government employees but P.w.1 husband is private employee. He has not witnessed the disputes in between P.w.1 and A1 personally but through the father of P.w.1 only he came to know the said disputes between them.
He has not known whether the father of P.w.1 is one of the accused in 498-
A case. On which date the father of P.W.1 got received phone call from
P.w.1. He has no idea on which address and on which house they went to the Visakhapatnam where the P.w.1 was locked by A1. Either him, P.w.1 and her father did not give report in local police in Visakhapatnam and he has no idea on which date and time they went to the Guntur after brought
P.w.1 from Visakhapatnam. He did not state before this court in his chief examination that they brought P,.W.1 from Hyderabad and neither him nor
P.w.1 give report in local police in Guntur at the time of dispute arose between them. After one year of P.w.1 came to her parents’ house and lodge a report against the accused and he has no idea against whom P.w.1 gave a report and he has no idea about the said persons. He does not know who stands that the (three persons) at the accused dock in the court hall. The brother of P.w.1 is working painter and he was not examined by the police.
iii) He denied that he does not know anything about the case facts and deposing false as he belongs to same village of P.w.1. He denied that the parents of P.w.1 did not give dowry as well as gold ornaments to 15 the accused at the time of marriage. He denied that P.w.1 herself only left the house of A1 as her sisters husband all are government employees but
A1 is private employee as such she has no interest towards A1 and deposing false.
iv) The cross examination done by the accused counsel A1 to A3,
A5 to A9 and A11, A12 was adopted by the learned counsel for the accused Nos.4 and 12.
19. Evidence of Pw.5:
i) Pw.5 who is an independent witnesses to the case on hand in his evidence deposed that on 10.10.2012 the marriage of P.w.1 was performed with A1 as per Christianity at Mery Matha Nagar, Amaravathi
Road, Guntur. At the time of marriage the parents of P.w.1 have presented an amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards dowry and 10 sovereigns gold ornaments to the accused. Immediately after marriage P.W.1 joined conjugal life with
A1 at his house in Amaravathi Road, Guntur. Thereafter they shifted to
Hyderabad for the purpose of job of A1. Later they shifted to
Visakhapatnam from Hyderabad. P.w.1 and A1 lived happily for a period of one year. Thereafter dispute arose between them that A1 used to consume alcohol and harassed to P.w.1 for bringing additional dowry. When the accused harassed P.w.1, and she informed the same to her father then her father informed him. One day P.w.1 made a phone call to her father i.e
L.w.2 by station that A1 locked P.w.1 in the house. Immediately L.W.2, himself, P.w.3 and P.W.4 went to the Visakhapatnam and opened the lock of house of A1 and they brought the P.w.1 from Hyderabad. Thereafter
P.W.1 stated to him that accused used to harass her for additional dowry.
Then they went to the Guntur at the house of accused there the dispute arose between them and the accused abused in filthy language to them.
ii) During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel
for the accused he deposed that, Since 20 years he knows P.w.1 and her
family. He was examined by one constable and he drafted statement with his own writing. He has no documentary proof to show that the parents of
P.w.1 have presented an amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards dowry and 10 sovereigns gold ornaments to the accused at the time of marriage. The marriage of P.w.1 and A1 was took place in Guntur at the house of A1 and
P.w.1 is belongs to Prakash Nagar, Tadepalli village, Guntur District. The marriage of P.W.1 and A1 took place at the house of A1 and all arrangements are made by A1 and his family and he does not know 16 against how many members the P.W.1 lodge report in this case and he does not know the said persons but he saw them at the time of marriage only. For the job purpose P.w.1 and A1 used to shift from Hyderabad to
Visakhapatnam and P.w.1 and A1 put up a separate family at Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam. He does not know P.w.1 gave a report before the local police in Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam. In the year 2016 they went to the
Visakhapatnam but he cannot say exact date. P.w.1 did not give report
before the local police in Visakhapatnam. The police did not take him and
the remaining witnesses where P.w.1 and A1 was residing at
Visakhapatnam. He do not know on which date they went to the Guntur but after P.w.1 brought from Visakhapatnam, they went to the Guntur at the house of A1. P.w.1 did not give any report in local police where the dispute arose in Guntur when they went to the house of A1. After 2016 P.w.1 did not went to her matrimonial house to lead conjugal life with A1. P.w.1 is having one brother and three sisters and the sisters husband of P.w.1 all are government employees but the husband of P.w.1 I.e A1 is private employee. After three years P.w.1 lodge present report against the accused according to him.
iii) He denied that he does not know anything about the case facts and deposing false as he is residing same village of P.w.1 and at the request of father of P.w.1 he gave false evidence against the accused and deposing false.
iv) The cross examination done by the accused counsel A1 to A3,
A5 to A9 and A11 , A12 was adopted by A4 and A10.
20. Evidence of Pw.6:
i) Pw.6 who is father of the victim in his evidence deposed that,
On 10.10.2012 they performed marriage of P.W.1 with A1 at
Velangininagar, Amaravathi Road, in Guntur as per their Christin customs.
At the time of marriage they presented cash of Rs.5 lakhs towards dowry and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to A2. Immediately after marriage
P.W.1 joined conjugal life with A1 at his house in Velangini Nagar, in
Guntur. By that time P.w.1 was working as a private Nurse and A1 working in Pharma company as a private employee. Thereafter P.w.1 and A1 went to Hyderabad. P.w.1 and A1 lived happily for a period of six months.
Thereafter P.w.1 informed him that A1 used to come to house at late night by drunken stage and beat P.W.1 indiscriminately and also A1 used to demand P.w.1 to bringing additional dowry. Then they stated to P.w.1 to 17 adjust with A1. After lost job of A1 they came to Guntur at his house there
A3, A6 and A10, A7, A2, A9, A4 are used to harass the P.W.1 to bringing
additional dowry and further stated that P.w.1 is black colour and she is not
suitable for A1 and they used to harass the P.w.1 both physically and mentally and the same was informed by P.W.1 to him. Then he took M.
Chennaiah/P.W.3, P.W.4/ Rajasekhar and Peda Galaiah I.e P.W.5 and they all together went to the house of A1 then accused stated that they have no necessity of P.w.1 and A1 would not lead marital with P.w.1. Thereafter A1 took the P.W.1 to the Visakhapatnam for the purpose of job, P.W.1 also joined in hospital as a Private Nurse. A1 again harass the P.W.1 by drunken state and come to house at late night. On 27.2.2018 A1 locked
P.w.1 and left from the house, then the neighbours house people knocked the door thereafter the owner of the said house was came and open the lock and the neighbours made a telephoned him and informed the same.
Then himself, M. Chennaiah/P.W.3, P.W.4/ Rajasekhar and Peda Galaiah
I.e P.W.5 went to Visakhapatnam and brought the P.W.1. Later he send the elders to the house of accused No.1 in Guntur then they stated that they have no interest to take back the P.W.1 to their house.
ii) During the course of cross examination he deposed that , he is one of the accused I.e A4 in 498-A case which was filed by the daughter in law of his brother at Mangalagiri Court. A1 is his close relative. A4 is not his relative. The marriage of P.w.1 and A1 was performed at the house of
A1 and A1 and his family total arrangements made by them at the time of marriage of P.w.1 and A1 at their house. He has no documentary proof to show that they presented cash of Rs.5 lakhs towards dowry and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to A1 at the time of marriage and in the presence of his elders and the elders of A1, he gave Rs. 5 lakhs and gold ornaments to the Accused at the time of marriage. He has not stated
before the police that in the presence of his elders and the elders of
accused he presented above said dowry and gold ornaments. He has three daughters and one son. P.w.1 is her 2nd daughter and his first daughter and 3rd daughter husbands are government employees. A1 is private employee and P.w.1 is Nurse and she studied ANM (staff nurse course). After marriage P.w.1 lead marital life with A1 for a period of six months thereafter A1 took the P.w.1 to Hyderabad. There A1 used to harass P.w.1 and came to house by drunken state and also he used to go to hospital where P.w.1 is working there also A1 harassed her. Thereafter 18
P.w.1 and A1 came from Hyderabad to Guntur at the house of A1 there
P.w.1 was working in Sai Bhaskar Hospital for a period of one year. They did not lodge a report before Hyderabad Police when A1 harassed P.w.1 and he has not stated before the police that P.W.1 and A1 came from
Hyderabad to Guntur there P.w.1 worked in Sai Bhaskar Hospital for a period of one year. He came to know through P.w1 and neighbours that A1 made a harassment against P.w.1. A1 to A12 are residing side by side houses and they used harassed P.w.1 and tortured by stating that they would marry another lady with A1 and that lady would brought more money. A4 is residing Guntur. A10 is residing at Kobaldpet, Guntur and
A11 is residing at Repalle village. He does not know A.12 and they did not lodge a report before the Visakhapatnam local police when they went to the house of A1, he locked P.w.1 at his house on 27.2.2018. Police did not took her to Visakhapatnama there the police did not enquiry house owner of A1 at Visakhapatnam. They did not lodge a report in Guntur local police when they went to the house of A1 as they quarreled with them as alleged by them and L.ws 5 and 6 are her village elders. After one year of return from Visakhapatnam, P.w.1 lodge a report before the police and he has not stated before the police reason for delay of lodging report by P.w.1 and they waited for some times the accused may be take back P.W.1 but they did not take back. They did not hand over any medical bills to the police when A1 beat P.W.1. They have no interest send the P.w.1 along with A1 as he harassed P.w.1.
iii) He denied that A4 is residing in Singapore and A5 and A6 are not residing at Prathipadu Village and A1 has no bad vises and he did not harass the P.w.1 both physically and mentally but they harassed A1 as he is a private employee and his remaining daughters husbands are government employees. He denied that he has harassment mentality as such he showed as A4 in another 498-A case at Mangalagiri Court. He denied that because of him and P.w.2 only the main dispute arose between
P.w.1 and A1 even though P.w.1 is ready and willing to go back along with
A1 but they did not send her and he is deposing false.
iv) The cross examination of A1 to 3, A5 to A9, A11 and A12 was adopted by learned counsel for the accused Nos.4 and 10.
21. Evidence of PW7 / investigating officer:
i) PW7 who is investigating officer in his evidence deposed that registration of case, examination of witnesses, recording their statements 19 u/sec.161 Cr.P.C., preparation of rough sketch of the scene, service of notice to accused u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C., and filing of charge sheet.
ii) During course of cross examination he deposed that P.W.1 mentioned in Ex.P1 that on 27.05.2018 her parents brought their house and P.w.1 gave a report before him on 14.5.2019. P.w.1 did not state about the delay of lodging report by her from 27.05.2018 to 14.5.2019 so also he has not mentioned at column No.8 in Ex.P2 about the delay of lodging report by P.w.1. Neither P.w.1 and her family did not hand over any receipts about the presentation of dowry and gold ornaments to A1 nor he did not secure any documents in this regard. P.w.1 and other witnesses did not state before him A1 and his family arranged all the marriage expenses at the time of marriage of P.w.1 and A1 and he did not made any enquiry who bear the marriage expenses at the time of marriage of P.W.1 and A1. A1,
A2 and A3 are all together residing one roof and other remaining accused are residing in different places and he does not know A4 is residing at
Brune along with her husband. P.w.1 is working as Nurse and P.W.1 and
A1 lived some period at Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam for their job purpose. He did not examine neighbours of Hyderabad and
Visakhapatnam where P.w.1 and A1 lived some period. P.w.1 and A1 only resided at Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam and the parents of A1 are residing in Guntur. The marriage of P.w.1 and A1 was performed in Guntur, but P.w.1 and A1 resided in Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam. P.w.1 and A1 did not residing at the house of parents of P.w.1 and nothing was happened at the parents house of P.w.1. He has not shown the persons as witnesses which were mentioned their names in Ex.P3 rough sketch and he does not know whether P.w.1 gave a report before the police in Visakhapatnam
Dist., when the dispute arose between P.w.1 and A1. All list of witnesses are belongs to nearest locality of P.w.1 at Prakash Nagar, Thadepalli village. All the accused and all list of witnesses may be relatives with each other and he does not know A9 has been suffering with eye site. He did not see properly. P.w.1 did not state before him on which date they went to the
Guntur i.e house of A1 at the time of alleged incident and P.w.1 did not lodge any report before the police in Women PS and he has not made enquiry the neighbours house of A1 to come to know that whether the alleged incident is happened or not.
iii) He denied that accused neither harassed nor demanded any
additional dowry from P.w.1 but at the influence of P.w.1 he filed false
20 charge sheet against the accused. He denied Ex.P3 is no way related to the present case facts as nothing was happened at that place and at the instigation of P.w.1 he falsely implicated A4 to A12 in this case.
iv) The cross examination done by A1 to A3, A11, and A12 was adopted by the accused counsel A4 to A10.
It is the case of the prosecution that A1 being husband of PW1 and
A2 to A12 being the family members of A1 subjected her to cruelty both mentally and physically for want of additional dowry and used to beat her and abuse her in drunken state and the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 clearly establishes that the accused harassed PW1 and the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused u/sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 ad 4 of DP Act.
Hence, they are liable to be convicted for the offences punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 ad 4 of DP Act.
In order to disprove the case of the prosecution the learned counsel
for the accused has taken the following defences hereunder;
i) The learned counsel for the accused has been taken defence that
PW1 did not mention in ExP1 on which date they went to the house of accused in Guntur and on which date she gave report before the police same was admitted by her. PW7 who is investigation officer also admitted the same during cross examination. As such the accused did not quarrel with them and no incident was happened at the house of A1 in Guntur.
ii) At this juncture, as could be seen from the evidence of PW1, admittedly she has not mentioned in ExP1 report on which date she gave report before the police so also admitted that she did not stated when they went to the house of the A1 in Guntur. However here, PW1 specifically testified that A1 used to harass her and beat indiscriminately while so, on 25.07.2018 A2 to A12 made a phone call to A1 by stating that A1 left PW1 if she would not arrange amount then A1 beat PW1 indiscriminately and left from the house by locking the door. With the help of neighbours, PW1 made a phone call to her parents and informed the same then her parents brought her to their house and went to the house of A1 in Guntur there A1 and A12 quarreled with them by demanding Rs.5 lakhs from them.
However, mere PW1 not mentioned date and time only on the ground it cannot be discarded the total report of ExP1 when the remaining averments of ExP1 is reliable. As such the contention of the accused is unsustainable.
iii) The learned counsel for the accused argued that after one 21 year arrival from Vizag, Pw1 lodged report against accused and she has not mentioned any reason in ExP1 report and not stated in her report about the reasons for said delay hence, prayed the court to acquit the accused.
iv) On the other hand the learned APP had argued that though there is delay in presenting report by Pw1, it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
v) As seen from the evidence of PW1 the alleged incident was took place on 25.07.2018 but PW1 lodged report and registered FIR on 14.05.2019. However, the father of PW1 stated that they waited for some period, the accused No.1 may be take back P.W.1 but he did not take back and same was also stated by PW1. Even though PW1 did not mention the same in her report and not stated in her 161 CrPC statement but the evidence of PW1 shows that the family of PW1 and accused are relatives.
PW1 being wife of A1 she might have given ample opportunity to A1 in the interest of their marital life.
Further, in the judgment of Rupali Devi vs., State of UP reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384 wherein his lordships held that “the offence of cruelty
punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was a
continuing offence and a continuous offence is one which repeats
and the right to take legal action in such cases begins every time
such offence is repeated.” vi) Non-reporting to police immediately after such incident is not a ground to discard the case of the prosecution. Having considering above said reason for delay for lodging report by PW1 is appears to be believable as such mere days delay would not affect the entire case of the prosecution. Hence the above judgments are applicable to the case on hand.
vii) The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW1 has been filed several cases against the accused that primarily she filed DVC against respondents i.e., A1 to A3, A5, A6 and A11 herein on the file of
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri subsequently, she filed a petition
to add the remaining respondents in DVC NO.12/2021 with an intention to harass them she filed false case against the accused. Therefore, it reveals that the conduct of PW1 and her parents for harassing A1 she filed several cases against him.
viii) A perusal of the evidence of PW1, she admitted that she filed above cases against the accused. More so, PWs.1 to 6 stated that 22 accused have been harassing PW1 as such she filed above cases against them. Moreover, there is no procedure when Pw1 filed present case, she should not file DVC against the accused. However, those cases are different from the present case. Hence this court need not discuss the said cases as such the contention of the learned counsel for the accused has found no merits.
ix) The evidence of Pws.2 and 6 evidence is cannot be believable as they are brother and father of PW1 and they do not have any personal knowledge about the dispute between Pw1 and A1. As such their evidence cannot be taken into consideration as they are family members of PW1.
As could be seen from the evidence of PW2 who is brother and PW6 who is father of Pw1, they categorically stated and same is reproduced hereunder for better appreciation.
“After marriage of Pw1 she lived with A1 for a period of one
year but within one year period she did not file any case against the
accused. It is true PW1 and A1 went to Hyderabad for the purpose of
job and they put up separate family. It is true PW1 and A1 lived at
Vizag there PW1 did not job. When A1 locked PW1 and left from the
house, then PW1 made a phone call to him then PW2 and his father
along with elders went to Visakhapatnam and brought PW1 into their
house.”
Evidence of PW6 :
“After marriage PW1 lead marital life with A1 only for a period of
6 months thereafter A1 took PW1 to Hyderabad there A1 used to
harass Pw1 and come to house in drunken state and also he used to
go hospital where Pw1 is working and harassed her.”
Therefore, the evidence of Pws.2 and 6 clearly evident that about the harassment made by A1 against PW1.
At this juncture this court relied on the judgment of Bur Singh and others vs., State of Punjab reported in 2009 (1) ALD CRL 45 SC wherein his lord ship held that “merely because eye witness were family members of victim
their evidence cannot be discarded. It is the duty of the defence to
establish the allegation of false implication in the case and to discard
the evidence of family members”.
x) Since the matter of cruelty under IPC section.498-A are related to matrimonial home most of the witnesses are related to each other by birth 23 or marriage. However, as per the aforesaid judgment, merely on the ground that the witnesses are family members of the complainant, their evidence cannot be discarded in toto. The evidence of Pws.2 and 6 is corroborate with the evidence of PW1, as such this court cannot disbelieve their evidence. Thus, the above ratio of judgment is aptly applicable to the present case on hand, as such the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is not plausible.
xi) Further the learned counsel for the accused argued that Pws.3 to 5 evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution as they have no knowledge about disputes between accused and Pw1 as such their evidence cannot be taken into consideration.
xii) On that, the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor would argue that
Pws.3 to 5 are mediators and their evidence is crucial to prove the case of the prosecution moreover, they clearly corroborated with the evidence of
Pw.1 as such the evidence of Pws.3 to 5 can be taken into consideration.
xiii) At this juncture, as seen from the evidence of Pws.3 to 5 they categorically stated that they have no personal knowledge about the dispute of PW1 and accused but they came to know through PW1 and her father that A1 used to harass Pw1 and A2 to A12 also demanded her to bring additional dowry. Further admitted that they have no personal knowledge and witnessed the incident which was happened in
Visakhapatnam where PW1 and A1 are residing and they came to know through Pw1 and her neighbour then only they went Visakhapatnam and brought her into her parents’ house.
xiv) Moreover, they categorically stated that on 27.05.2018 they went to Visakhapatnam when A1 locked PW1 at his house and brought
PW1 into their parents house.
On said context this court relied upon the judgment between D.Sailu vs., State of AP reported in 2008 CrlA.686 SC wherein his lordships held that “interested witnesses testimony of reliability relationship is any
factor affect the credibility of witness which may found then in that
relationship would not concealed actually culprit and making
allegation against innocent person”.
xv) Therefore, though Pws.3 to 5 are not a direct witness but as per their evidence it reveals that A1 made harassment against Pw1 by locking house at Visakhapatnam. Therefore, the evidence of Pws.3 to 5 is reliable 24 and it can be taken into consideration. As such the contention of the accused is untenable.
xvi) Further the learned counsel for the defence argued that though
Pw1 alleged that A1 used to harass and beat indiscriminately PW1 at
Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam but she did not file a report either in
Hyderabad or in Visakhapatnam. So many severe allegations made leveled against A1 at Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam where the matrimonial house situated, PW1 never tried to present a complaint at police station at the near police station at Hyderabad or Visakhapatnam at any point of time. Therefore, the non filing of the report by Pw1 in
Hyderabad or Visakhapatnam is major lacuna to the case of the prosecution.
xvii) Even though PW1 lived with A1 in Hyderabad and
Visakhapatnam but some relevant period of time she stayed at her in laws house in Guntur. On 25.07.2018 A2 to A12 made a phone call to A1 by stating that A1 left PW1 if she would not arrange amount then A1 beat PW1 indiscriminately and left from the house by locking. With the help of neighbours, PW1 made a phone call to her parents and informed the same to them. Then her parents brought her to their house and went to Guntur there A1 and A2 quarreled with them by demanding Rs.5 lakhs from them.
Even PW1 placed the matter before the elders, but the A1 did not take back her. As such she might have given report before the police in Guntur.
As already stated above cruelty is a continuing offence, merely PW1 did not lodge report in Hyderabad and Vizag it does not affect the entire case of the prosecution.
xviii) It is also the contented of the learned counsel for the accused that PW1’s sister’s husband are government employees but her husband i.e., A1 is private employee due to inferiority complex and at the influence of her father, PW1 filed false case against the accused with an intention to harass A1.
xix) But the said contention of the accused counsel cannot acceptable because, the evidence PW1 shows that, PW1’s family and accused are relatives and after due enquiry they both are got married, if really PW1 has no interest and have inferiority complex definitely she would not have married A1 and further, shows that prior to marriage also she knows A1 is doing private job. In general, no prudent married
woman would spoil her marital life only because of her husband is
25 doing a private job. Therefore, the contention of the accused is unbelievable.
xx) The accused counsel had argued that the investigating officer/PW7 did not conduct investigation on proper lines and he did not mention about the delay in FIR. Moreover, he clearly admitted that he neither went to Hyderabad nor Visakapatnam, there he did not examine neighbouring witnesses in the house of the accused in Hyderabad,
Visakhapatnam or Guntur. As such the prosecution failed to examine any independent neighbouring witness in Guntur, Visakhapatnam and
Hyderabad where the accused No.1 and PW1 lived. PW-7 who is investigation officer admitted that Pw1 and A1 only lived at Hyderabad and
Visakhapatnam and the parents of A1 are residing in Guntur. On this ground also the accused entitled for clean acquittal.
xxi) On the other hand, the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor had argued that the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 is suffice and the party may not lose justice on the ground of non-examination of independent witnesses and irregularities committed by the investigating officer.
xxii) On perusal of the evidence of investigating officer/PW7 he clearly admitted that PW1 did not state on which date the accused demanded additional dowry so also she did not mention date on ExP1 report when she gave report before the police. Further he did not examine the neighbors of accused where PW1 and A1 lived in Hyderabad and
Visakhapatnam. Merely on the ground of defective investigation does not affect the prosecution case. However, it is needless to say that the irregularities committed by the Investigating Officer shall not come in the way of rendering the injustice to the party. It is not proper on the part of the
Court to discard their entire evidence in toto.
In regard this court relied upon the judgment of Jammala Nagaraju vs.,State of AP reported in 2009 (1) ALD CRL P.No.663 (AP)wherein his lordship held that “defective investigation would not affect the prosecution case if it is otherwise credible and convincing”.
The above judgment is very much suitable to the present case and hand as facts are appropriate to the case on hand.
xxiii) The learned counsel for the accused has took specific defence that the accused never demanded PW1 for want of additional dowry and
PW1 did not mention in Ex.P1 report and not stated when they went to 26
Guntur. As such the accused did not harassed PW1 both physically and mentally therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of Sec.498-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.
To bring the accused u/sec.498-A of IPC the prosecution has to establish two limbs as required u/sec.498-A of IPC.
Sec.498-A of IPC: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman: or
b) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure
by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
xxlv) A bare reading of the above provision of law and explanation of under 498-A(b) of IPC it is explicit that harassment is with view to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; it comes under the purview of the offence u/sec.498-A of IPC.
xxv) On coming to the evidence, the defacto complainant who is P.W.1 herein deposed as to harassment in the hands of accused. According to
P.W.1, she stated that after marriage she joined her in law house and she come to know that A1 addicted to vices and used to harass PW1 for want of
additional dowry and all the accused subjected her to cruelty both mentally
and physically and used to abuse her in sarcastic language. All the accused were all beat Pw1. When she informed the same to her parents, her parents persuaded him in spite of it, the accused No.1 did not change his attitude.
Her evidence It further shows that A1 take back her to Hyderabad and
Visakhapatnam there also A1 used to harass PW1 for bringing additional dowry and he used to abuse her in filthy language and beat her in drunken 27 state. On 25.07.2018 A2 to A12 made a phone call to A1 by stating that A1 left PW1 if she would not arrange amount then A1 beat PW1 indiscriminately and left from the house by locking the door. With the help of neighbours,
PW1 made a phone call to her parents and informed the same to them. Then herself and her parents brought the PW1 and they went along with elders to the house of A1 in Guntur there all the accused quarreled with them by demanding Rs.5 lakhs and all the accused stated unless Pw1 brought dowry, they would not allow her. Further Pws.2 to 6 also corroborated with the evidence of PW1.
xxvi) On perusal of the evidence of Pws.1 to 6, the prosecution has clearly established that P.W.1 was subjected to harassment at the hands of
A1 and accused NO.1 being the husband of PW1 had subjected PW1 to cruelty both mentally and physically by taking alcohol and used to demand
PW1 for additional dowry. Even the learned counsel for the accused contended the thePW7 did not examined any neighbour from the visakahapatam where the A1and PW1 lived at the time of alleged incident.
However, only on the ground the entire case of prosecution can not thrown away bush side. Generally the tendency of the common man will be different and some may come forward and some may not willing to support the victim. As such I have not found any reason to disbelieve the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 that accused NO1 subjected PW1 to cruelty both mentally and physically as she did not meet the demand of the accused NO1. The evidence of Pws.1 and 6 are clearly revealing about the offence committed by the accused NO.1 u/sec.498-A of IPC. Therefore, Sec.498-A of IPC attracts against the accused No.1 as the prosecution clearly established the ingredients of Sec.498-A of IPC against A1.
xxvii) Further the learned counsel for the accused argued that the parents of A1 i.e., A2 and A3 are residing in Guntur and they never reside along with PW1 and A1 and they did not harass PW1. Hence, the question of A2 and A3 harassing PW1 does not arise. Therefore they are entitled for benefit of doubt.
xxviii) Here in this case, as seen from the evidence of Pw1, admittedly she neither mentioned in her report nor in her statement before the police that how many days she has been residing in her in laws house. Further she admitted that herself and A1 lived at Visakhapatnam and Hyderabad for their job purpose but A2 and A3 used to come to their house but same was not 28 mentioned by her in her report. Even the PW1 stated that A2and A3 used to scold her and they have no interest A1 got married her. but as seen from the evidence of Pws.2 and 6 they did not state the same, except stating that A2 and A3 harassed PW1 and there is no specific allegation against A2 and A3.
At this juncture this court relied upon the judgment of Abhishek
versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 Livelaw(SC)731
where in it is held that “The allegation levelled by Bhawna against her
mother-in-law, Kusum Lata, with regard to how she taunted her when
she wore a maxi is wholly insufficient to constitute cruelty in terms of
Section 498A IPC.
Held wherein that Bhawna herself claimed that Nimish came to
her brother’s wedding in 2012, but she has no details to offer with
regard to any harassment for dowry being meted out to her by her
mother-in-law and her brothers-in-law after 2009. As noted earlier,
even for that period also, her allegations are mostly general and
omnibus in nature, without any specific details as to how and when
her brothers-in-law and mother-in-law, who lived in different cities
altogether, subjected her to harassment for dowry. Most damaging to Bhawna’s case is the fact that she did
nothing whatsoever after leaving her matrimonial home in February,
2009, and filed a complaint in the year 2013 alleging dowry
harassment, just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings.
Given the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that Bhawna’s allegations against the appellants,
such as they are, are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make
out a case against them. Further, they are so farfetched and
improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there are
sufficient grounds to proceed against them. In effect, the case on
hand falls squarely in categories (1) and (5) set out in Bhajan Lal
(supra). Permitting the criminal process to go on against the
appellants in such a situation would, therefore, result in clear and
patent injustice. This was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the
consequential proceedings.” xxix) As per the above ratio of judgment the lordships held that the allegation of marital cruelty against in laws so far fetched and improbable and prima facie, do not make out a case against them. Further, they are so far fetched and improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them.
xxx) Here, there is no evidence that A2 and A3 are residing along with
PW1 and A1 to commit such offence as alleged by the prosecution. There is no specific allegation made against A2 and A3 with regard to mode of instigation committed by A2 and A3. As such the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 is not suffice to bring the accused Nos.2 and 3 under the charge leveled 29 against them that they subjected PW1 to cruelty for want of additional dowry and she meted out harassment at the hands of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused nos.2 and 3.
Therefore, Sec.498-A of IPC does not attracts to A2 and A3 as such they are entitled for benefit of doubt.
xxxi) In so far as A4 to A12 concerned the prosecution allegation against A4 to A12, they are residing in nearby house of A1 and they used to abuse PW1 in filthy language without any reason and they used to demand to bring additional dowry. Due to harassment made by the accused, she would commit a suicide. One day PW1 kept her gold ornaments i.e., black beads chain, ear studs in her bag, then A12 took away her gold ornaments at the instructions of A1 when she asked him as to why A2 took her gold ornaments then all the accused quarreled with her and beat her indiscriminately and used to harassed Pw1 both physically and mentally.
xxxii) On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that A4 to A12 are residing in different places and A12 did not take away the gold ornaments of PW1. Moreover PW1 also clearly admitted that she did not give any report against A12. In fact the father of PW1 is one of the accused in Sec.498-A case which was filed by the relative of the accused against him due to which, at the influence of father of PW1 she filed present case against the accused to harass him. As such they did not harass PW1 both mentally and physically. Hence the offence u/sec.498-A of IPC would not attracted against A4 to A12 therefore prayed the Hon’ble court to acquit the accused NO.4 to 12.
xxxiii) As could be seen from the evidence of PW1, it is noticed that she did not give police complaint against the accused in Guntur when all the accused had quarreled with them. Further she stated that A11 is residing at
Repalle and A10 is residing at Kobaltpeta, Guntur from her childhood and the husband of A4 is residing at Singapore. Further the evidence of PW1 shows that PW1 did a job in various hospital in Visakhapatnam, Hyderabad.
By that A1 and PW1 only lived. PW2 also stated that for the purpose of job
PW1 and A1 lived Hyderabad they put up a separate family. According to
PW5 also stated the same that PW1 and A1 put up a separate family. It is not the case of the prosecution that A4 to A12 came to Hyderabad and
Visakhapatnam there they used to harass Pw1. Though PW1 stated that due to said harassment, she intended to commit suicide but except her evidence none of the prosecution witnesses stated the same. Except her bare 30 statement there is no probable evidence that A4 to A12 instigated A1 to bring
additional dowry. A perusal of the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 there is no iota of
evidence to believe the due to harassment PW1 with intent to commit suicide and there is no whisper in their evidence that A4 to A12 used to harass PW1 by demanding additional dowry from her parents.
xxxiv) Moreover, merely harassment does not amounts to cruelty on observing the judgment of State of AP vs., M.Madhusudhana Rao reported in 2008 15 SCC 582 wherein it is held that “every harassment does not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Sec.498-A. For the purpose of Sec.498-A harassment simplicitor is not cruelty and it is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc., that amount to cruelty punishable u/sec.498-A of
IPC.” xxxv) The above ratio of judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand as PW1 simply stated that A4 to A12 harassed her both physically and mentally along with A1 demanding additional dowry. Further except making omnibus allegations against A4 to A12, she did not state any specific overtacts of them over her. Thus, there is no clear evidence against other accused A4 to A12 specifically. as there is no sufficient evidence to attract the charge leveled against A4 to A12 and the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt against A2 to A12.
Hence Point NO.1 is answered in favour of accused Nos.2 to 12
and partly to the prosecution and against the accused No.1.
22. Point NO.3 and 4:
As per concerned of Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act it is just and necessary to note the provision hereunder.
Sec. 3 of DP Act: Penalty for giving or taking dowry.—5[(1)] If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable 6[with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7[five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more; Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 8[five years].] 9[(2) Nothing in sub- section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,—
(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;
(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that 31 behalf):Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.
Sec.4 of DP Act: Penalty for demanding dowry.—If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
i) Here it is the case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage of P.W.1 with A1 the parents of P.W1 provided an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/-, 10 sovereigns of gold towards dowry to the accused, as such the accused received dowry and gold from the parents of PW1. Later all the accused used to harass Pw1 for want of additional dowry.
ii) On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused at the time of marriage, the parents of PW1 did not present any amount towards dowry to the accused and PW1’s family and accused family are relatives due to which the accused NO.1 never received any dowry and other lanchanams from the parents of PW1. Furthermore, except the evidence of
Pws.1 to 6 there is no oral or documentary proof place before this court to show that the accused had demanded and received the dowry as such the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 cannot be believable.
iii) As per the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act is concerned, according to P.Ws.1, her parents presented Rs.5,00,000/-, 10 sovereigns of gold of dowry to accused. In criminal cases, the burden of proof always rests upon the prosecution to establish guilt of the accused and therefore it is for the prosecution to establish said allegation of dowry against the accused.
iv) A perusal of the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW6, they admitted that except her oral evidence there is no document proof to show that they gave the dowry for an amount of RS.5,00,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to A1 and did not file any documentary proof with regard to the presentation of dowry by them to the accused. Further, the prosecution examined mediators I.e, Pws.3 to 5 but PW3 clearly stated that he came to know that the father of PW1 had gave dowry to the parents 32 of A1 and he came to know that they gave gold ornaments to A1 at the time of marriage but the father of PW1 did not show any document. As seen from the evidence of PW4 has stated that he has not witnessed the dispute in between PW1 and A1 personally but through the father of PW1 only he came to know the said disputes between them. PW5 also categorically stated that he has no documentary proof that the parents of
PW1 had presented an amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards dowry and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the accused at the time of marriage.
v) A perusal of the above evidence of PWs.3 to 5 they are not direct witnesses to the alleged presentation of dowry and they have not seen any documentary proof about the presentation of dowry to the accused at the time of marriage of PW1 and A1. When the prosecution witnesses PWs.3 to 5 were not stated about the alleged presentation of dowry to the accused, the burden is on the prosecution witnesses to prove the fact of presentation of dowry to the accused. In the absence of any oral or documentary proof, the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 6 cannot be believable.
vi) Here, the Investigating Officer has not secured documents from the PW1 and her family with regarding the payment of dowry of
Rs.5,00,000/-, 10 sovereigns of gold which was alleged to have been presented by the parents of PW.1 to the accused at the time of the marriage. Had the prosecution discharged its initial burden, then the
accused concerned can be insisted to rebut the said presumption
under Section 8A of the Act. But here, the prosecution had not done with. Nothing is placed before the court to establish the fact of dowry as alleged by the prosecution and when the accused completely denied the same, it is for the prosecution to establish the same. Under these circumstances, without any proof of presenting dowry, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the necessary ingredients of the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
Accordingly point No.3 and 4 are answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.
vii) In this light of aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the
Prosecution proved all necessary ingredients for the offence U/Sec.498-A of IPC against the accused NO.1 and has successfully established the guilt of the accused NO.1, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused
NO.1 is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable Under 33
U/Sec.498-A of IPC.
viii) Further the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 12 u/sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.
Hence the accused Nos.2, 4 to 12 are entitled for benefit of doubt for the same. Since A3 died on 13.11.2023, hence the case against A3 is abated.
Accordingly, all points are answered.
22. Result: In the result the accused NO.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC and he is convicted for the same u/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. but the accused NO.1 is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and he is acquitted for the same u/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. Further the accused Nos.2, 4 to 12 are not found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and they are acquitted for the same u/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. Since
A3 died on 13.11.2023, hence the case against A3 is abated.
Directly typed to my dictation by my personal assistant, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, on this the 22 nd day of April, 2024.
Sd/-Ponnuru Bujji
V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.
23. The Convict/Accused NO.1 questioned about quantum of sentence for the offences punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC for which
24. Accused NO.1 pleaded as follows
His mother is no more and his father is handicapped. His father is depending upon him, if he sent to jail, his family would suffer. Hence, prayed to show mercy upon him.
25. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it is not a fit case to invoke provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360
Cr.P.C.
26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the accused NO.1 and also the offence committed by the accused NO.1, I am not inclined to take any lenient view. But this court feels that following sentence would meet the ends of justice as imposing fine is not sufficient.
27. In the result accused NO.1 is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of THREE MONTHS and ordered to pay fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offences 34 punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC. In default payment of fine amount the accused NO.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ONE
MONTH.
28. The entire fine amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall go to state.
29. A perusal of the record, there is no remand period of the accused hence, Section 428 Cr.P.C. does not arise. Copy of the judgment has been supplied to the accused No.1 u/sec.363(6) of Cr.P.C. at free of cost.
30. Appraisal of right to prefer appeal: Convict/ accused NO.1 is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment of this court.
When questioned with regard to means to engage the counsel at appellate stage, he submitted he has means.
Pronounced in open court on this the 22nd day of April, 2024.
Sd/-Ponnuru Bujji
V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITENSSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: P.W.1:T. Sujatha P.W.2: D. Rambabu P.W.3: Y. Chennaiah P.W.4: B. Rajasekhar PW5: J. Peda Galaiah PW6: D. Venkatarathnam PW.7: Sk. Khaji Babu For Defence: -Nil- Documents Marked.
For Prosecution: Ex.P1-report Ex.P.2- FIR Ex.P.3-rough sketch of the scene For Defence: -Nil- M.Os. Marked --None--
Sd/-Ponnuru Bujji
V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.
//True Copy//
V Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur
35
Copy//CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),
GUNTUR.
C.C. No.1232/2020
Date of offence:Prior to 14.05.2019
Date of filing: 03.01.2020
Date of apprehension of accused:16.04.2020
Date of release on bail:- -
Date of commencement of trial:21.09.2023
Date of close of trial:19.02.2024
Date of sentence or order:22.04.2024
Explanation of delay:In serving summons to accused and for examination of prosecution witnesses by prosecution agency delay was happened.
Between:
State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Women P.S., Guntur Urban District. …Complainant
And
1.Thadigiri Koteswara Rao, son of Balaiah, 33 years, R/o Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi road, Guntur.
2. Thadigiri Balaiah, son of Kotaiah (late), 52 years, R/o Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi road, Guntur.
3. Thadigiri Rani, wife of Balaiah, aged 45 years, R/o Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi road, Guntur. (Case against A3 is abated as he died on 13.11.2023)
4. Thadigiri Syamala, wife of Prakash Rao, 40 years, R/o Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi road, Guntur.
5. Panthagani Ramesh, son of Rosaiah, 32 years, R/o Ravipativari palem village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur.
6. Panthagani Sunitha, wife of Ramesh, 28 years, R/o Ravipativari palem village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur.
7. Thadigiri Giri, son of Narendra Rao, 45 years, R/o Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi road, Guntur.
8. Thadigiri Raju, son of Sarweshwara Rao (late) 41 years, R/o Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi road, Guntur.
9. Thadigiri Pedda Koteswara Rao @ Rajasekhar son of Rajendra Prasad, 35 years, R/o Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi road, Guntur.
10. Sathuluri Suneel, son of Matthaiah, 47 years, R/o Kobaldpet, 3rd lane, Guntur.
11. Thadigiri Haritha @ Shaik Shahid wife of Arif, 31 years, R/o Repalle village, Guntur.
12. Sathuluri Kavitha, wife of Samson, 30 years,
r/o Gurajala Village, Guntur. .. Accused
36
Offence : U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Finding : A1 is found guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC but not found guilty for Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and A2, A4 to 12 are not found guilty for the offences U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. Sentence or Order:
In the result the accused NO.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable
U/Sec.498-A of IPC and he is convicted for the same u/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. but the accused NO.1 is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.3 and 4 of DP
Act and he is acquitted for the same u/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. Further the accused
Nos.2, 4 to 12 are not found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and they are acquitted for the same u/sec.248(1)
Cr.P.C. Since A3 died on 13.11.2023, hence the case against A3 is abated.
The Convict/Accused NO.1 questioned about quantum of sentence for the offences punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC for which
Accused NO.1 pleaded as follows
His mother is no more and his father is handicapped. His father is depending upon him, if he sent to jail, his family would suffer. Hence, prayed to show mercy upon him.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it is not a fit case to invoke provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the accused NO.1 and also the offence committed by the accused NO.1, I am not inclined to take any lenient view. But this court feels that following sentence would meet the ends of justice as imposing fine is not sufficient.
In the result accused NO.1 is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of THREE MONTHS and ordered to pay fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offences punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC. In default payment of fine amount the accused NO.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH.
The entire fine amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall go to state.
A perusal of the record, there is no remand period of the accused hence,
Section 428 Cr.P.C. does not arise. Copy of the judgment has been supplied to the accused No.1 u/sec.363(6) of Cr.P.C. at free of cost.
37
Appraisal of right to prefer appeal: Convict/ accused NO.1 is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment of this court. When questioned with regard to means to engage the counsel at appellate stage, he submitted he has means.
Sd/-Ponnuru Bujji
V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.
Note: The accused had paid the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- vide
Crl.MP.No.398/2024 dt.22.04.2024 and the suspension of sentence is extended
till 21.05.2024.
Copy submitted to :
The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. //True Copy//
V Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur