Pooja Kandukuri

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT: POOJA KANDUKURI

Additional JCJ Cum JFCM,

Siddipet.

Thursday, the 25 th day of April, 2019

C C No. 675 of 2013

Between::

The State of Telangana, Through P.S. Rajgopalpet

......Complainant

And

Inreddy Kiran Kumar Reddy, S/o Laxmareddy, Aged: 27 years, R/o Jyothi Nagar, Karimnagar Town and District.

......Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 25-04-2019 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri N.Srinivas Reddy learned counsel

for the accused. Having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court made

the following

J U D G M E N T

1.Complainant Basavarajula Ramulu lodged a complaint with PS Rajgopalpet on 01-12-2013 as under. That himself, Asarla Yadaiah, Bandi Yadaiah, Varadolu Anjaiah, and Myadaraboina yadaiah all of them are residents of Palamakula village. All of them decided to go to Gulf country for eking livelihood and through Myadaraboina Yadaiah all of them meet an agent

I.Kiran Kumar Reddy (Accused). Accused promised to send all of them to Gulf country and took and advance of Rs. 1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Thousand) from the complainant

Basavarajula Ramulu (PW-2), Rs. 1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Thousand) from Asarla Yadaiah (PW-3), Rs. 60,000/- (Sixty Thousand) from Bandi Yadaiah (PW-1), Rs. 78,000/- (Seventy

Eight Thousand) from Myadaraboina Rajaiah (Pw-5) and Rs. 40,000/- (Forty Thousand) from

Vardolu Anjaiah (PW-4) i.e., a total of Rs. 4,78,000/-. (Four Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand) He promised to send them to Gulf country soon but failed to do so. Hence requested to take action against the accused.

Addl.JFMC

2.This court took cognizance against accused under section 420 of IPC. On appearance, copies of the case documents were furnished to the accused and he was examined under section 239

Cr.P.C. Charge under section 420 IPC was framed and read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined witnesses Pw-1 to Pw-7 and got marked

Exhibits P1 to P5. After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining to him all the incriminating substance appearing against him.

He denied the entire evidence but did not give any explanation. No evidence was adduced by the accused.

3.Heard both sides.

4.Now the point to determined is Whether prosecution proved guilt of accused under section 420 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

5.PW-1 to PW5 are the victims. The complainant Basavaraju Ramulu was examined as PW.2.

Bandi Yellaiah was examined as PW.1. A. Yadaiah was examined as PW.3, Vardolu Anjaiah as

PW.4, M. Rajaiah as PW.5. All of them in their chief examination unanimously deposed that they have acquaintance with one and other.

6.PW-1 Bandi Yadaiah stated in his chief examination that about six years prior to the date of his evidence, at Karimnagar the accused promised to send all of them to Gulf country and also to find a job for them. He stated that accused and PW-5 were friends and all of them approached the accused through PW-5. That he gave Rs. 60,000/- (Sixty Thousand) PW-2 gave

Rs.1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Thousand) PW-3 gave 1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Thousand) and PW-4 gave Rs. 40,000/- (Forty Thousand) That after giving the money accused promised to send them to gulf within three months and they wanted for six months but in vain. That later with they contacted him over the phone, he asked them to come to Chennai for medical examination. That all of them went to Chennai and the medical examination was conducted after which accused promised to get them a visa to go to Singapore within 15 days. That as such they went back to their houses and waited. Even after expiry of one month they were not informed about any visa. That he made phone call to accused to ask about the same but his phone was off. That as Pw-5 was a friend to accused he questioned Pw-5 and subsequently they

Addl.JFMC approached the Sub-Inspector of Police Rajgopalpet. That the Sub-Inspector deputed two

Police constables along with them in civil dress and all of them went to Hyderabad to the house of accused and on confrontation accused confessed to have cheated them. That he also failed to return the money which he took from them. That as such they lodged the present complaint.

7.In Cross examination the witness stated that he gave Rs. 60,000/- (Sixty Thousand) to accused at

Karimnagar in a hotel and by way of cash and further that PW-1, Pw-2, Pw-3 and Pw-4 also gave the money at the hotel but accused did not execute any receipt for same. He stated that the money was given six months before lodging the present complaint and he admitted to have stated in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that he gave the money in November 2013. He stated that all of them attended the medical examination and that before going for medical examination to

Chennai he went to the main consultancy office i.e., World Wide Global consultancy service.

He was asked to tell the name of the manager of the consultancy service and he could not. He stated that none of them were sent abroad by the accused and later admitted that Pw-2 and Pw- 3 went to Bangkok through the consultancy prior to the date of this complaint. He was given suggestion that accused is no way concerned with the alleged the offence on hand and that the witness directly approached the above consultancy to go to Gulf. Further that he lodged the present complaint against accused with false allegations. All the suggestions was denied.

8.PW-2 is B. Ramulu. In chief examination he stated that he intended to go abroad to eke out his livelihood and as PW-5 had acquaintance with accused he introduced him to the accused and the accused disclosed that he was an agent and promised to send him to a gulf country for which he asked the witness to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Thousand). That he paid Rs.

25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) into the bank account of accused through SBI Cherial branch and Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) through HDFC Bank Siddipet. That on two other occasions accused came to his village and took Rs. 80,000/- (Eighty Thousand) in total. He deposed that after receiving the money accused did not sent him to gulf country and used to postpone the issue and later switched off his phone. That he went to PW-5 with this situation and later the present complaint was lodged.

9.In cross examination it was elicited that the witness studied upto 10th class and that one Varadolu

Rajaiah scribed the complaint. He stated that accused did not give any receipt for the money

Addl.JFMC which he took. He admitted going for medical examination and stated that he went to Chennai for the same and further that before medical examination he went the main office at Ernakulam.

He could not tell the name of manager of the office. He admitted going to Bangkok after the medical examination. In Re-examination witness stated that he went Bangkok on tour Visa only for 6 to 8 days and not on work visa.

10. PW-3 Aasarla Yadaiah and PW-4 B. Anjaiah also deposed in chief examination similarly to that of PW-1 and PW-2. There are no material contradictions between their chief examinations.

PW-3 further deposed that when he questioned accused with regard to the visa, accused stated that he did not receive the same and gave cheques to himself and PW-1 and 2. That later he called them to Chennai and by stating that he obtained a work visa at Bangkok he sent him and

PW-2 to Bangkok but that the visa was only a tour visa and they came back within one week.

11. In cross examination Pw-3 deposed that the complaint was lodged one month after returning from Bangkok, that he went to Kerala for medical examination and that before medical examination he went to the main officer at Kerala. He was given suggestion that he stole blank cheque of accused from the main office and filed the present complaint with false allegations.

The suggestion was denied. In cross examination of Pw-4 it was elicited that Pw-2 and Pw-3 went abroad after medical examination. He could not tell name of country to which they went.

The witness was given suggestion that he approached Global World Wide services for his Visa and that accused is no way concern with the transaction. The suggestion was denied.

12. Pw-5, M. Rajaiah deposed in chief examination about his acquaintance with accused. He deposed that he met accused for the first time at Delhi through his friend namely Raju. He deposed that he paid Rs.20,000/- ( Twenty Thousand) to accused for Afghanistan Visa but he was unable to get the visa. That after he came back to his village he got Pw-1 to Pw-4 introduced to accused. He deposed that accused promised to send all of them abroad and they also gave money to him but accused failed to keep his end of the promise. That as such the present complaint was lodged. In cross examination he deposed about Pw-2 and Pw-3 going to

Bangkok through the accused. He was given suggestion that he cheated Pw-1 to Pw-4 and falsely implicated the accused to escape liability. The suggestion was denied.

13. Pw-6 is K. Madhava Reddy. He deposed in chief examination that accused took money from

Pw-1 to Pw-5 but did not send them to Gulf country. He deposed that first installment was

Addl.JFMC given at Palamakula Village and the remaining money was paid through bank. That on repeated requests, accused agreed to give back the money and gave them cheques but the same were returned unpaid by the bank. In cross examination he stated that money was given in

Palamakula Village on the side of the road between Bank and stage and the same was counted by Pw-1 to Pw-5 before giving.

14. Pw-7, K. Satyanaraya, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Rajgopalpet is the investigating officer in this case. His chief evidence is only formal in nature whereby he deposed about receipt of complaint and other steps which his took during the investigation. In cross examination, learned counsel for accused got elicited omissions made by the witnesses in their 161 Cr.P.C statements.

15. Learned counsel for accused has firstly argued that this court does not have jurisdiction to try the present case. That the offence took place at Karimnagar where the victims approached the accused and allegedly gave him the money. That no offence took place at Palamakula Village or in any other place within the limits of this court. Hence, the police, Rajgopalpet ought not to have registered a case. The offence is one under section 420 IPC. It is a continuing offence.

Victims are residents of Palamakula Village which is situated within the jurisdiction of this court. They approached accused for the first time at Karimanagar and gave the first installment.

Pw-2, as part of the same transaction deposited money in the bank account of accused through

HDFC, Siddipet Branch. He also deposed that accused came to Palamakula Village twice and took cash from him. Several times victims contacted accused through phone from their village.

When the offence is a continuing one as in the present case, the complaint can be lodged at any one of the places where a part of the transaction took place. As part of the transaction between accused and the victims took place at Palamakula Village, this court has got jurisdiction to try this case and Police, Rajgopalpet rightly registered FIR on their file.

16. Now coming to the allegations herein. First contention of the prosecution is that accused is an acquaintance of Pw-5, M. Rajaiah. That as all the victims reside in the same village they know each other and decided to go abroad for ekeing livelihood. That through Pw-5 they met accused. Witnesses Pw-1 to Pw-5 are the victims. All of them unanimously deposed that they approached accused through Pw-5. This fact remains undisputed. Pw-5 in detail explained in

Addl.JFMC his chief examination how he got acquainted with accused. The same remains unhook by the test of cross examination. Even though accused gave suggestion to Pw-5 that they never had acquaintance with each other, nothing could be elicited in the cross examination to raise a doubt with regard to Pw-5 having acquaintance with accused. Hence acquaintance of Pw-5 with accused is established and it is also established that the witnesses Pw-1 to Pw-4 met accused through Pw-5.

17. Further contention of prosecution is that when the victims approached the accused with their thoughts, he promised to send all of them to gulf country and took money from them but did not send them and cheated them. That later, upon confrontation accused also admitted to have cheated them. Argument of the learned counsel for accused is that accused did not take any money from the victims as alleged. That the victims approached Worldwide global company to go abroad for job and that they did not approach accused. Further that there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the victims gave money to accused. On the other hand learned

Public prosecutor argued that evidence of all the prosecution witnesses is in complete corroboration with each other and the same proves offence alleged against accused beyond reasonable doubt. That contents of Ex.P3 clearly show that Pw-3 gave Rs.50,000/- (Fifty

Thousand) to accused in December 2012 by way of transfer. That the complainant does not have any motive to file a false case against accused and that accused failed to give any explanation for the evidence in his 313 Cr.P.C examination. That accused after admitting to have cheated the complainant also gave two cheques to them for return of the money. Hence, he is guilty of cheating the victims Pw-1 to Pw-5

18. It is not in dispute that all the victims Pw-1 to Pw-5 are residents of the same village i.e.,

Palamakula Village and they knew each other. All the victims Pw-1 to Pw-5 deposed their chief examination on similar lines. According to them accused declared himself as an agent and promised to send all of them to gulf. They deposed that Pw-1 gave Rs. 60,000/- (Sixty

Thousand) Pw-2 and Pw-3 gave Rs. 1,50,000/- (One lakh Fifty thousand) each, Pw-4 gave Rs.

40,000/- (Forty Thousand) and Pw-5 gave 78,000/- (Seventy eight Thousand) to accused.

There is no contradiction in the evidence of witnesses in this regard and the same is even in corroboration with the complaint. Pw-3 deposed that on 12-12-2012 he paid Rs.10,000/-, (Ten

Thousand) on 27-12-2012 he paid Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) through account transfer from

Addl.JFMC

Syndicate Banks, Palamakula and in 2013 he gave Rs.40,000/- (Forty thousand) and

Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) to accused on two different occasions. Pw-3 got marked Ex. P3 which is his bank statement pertaining to Syndicate Bank A/c bearing no. 34042200016696. A perusal of Ex.P3 shows a transaction dated:- 28-12-2012 through which Rs.50,000/- (Fifty

Thousand) were transferred to Kiran Kumar Reddy (accused) from bank account of Pw-3.

This clearly proves that money was in fact given to accused and contention of accused that he did not take any money from either of the victims is rejected.

19. Further case of the prosecution is that accused took the money by promising to send the victims to Gulf country. The victims deposed that accused kept dragging the matter on one pretext or the other. That they contacted him several times and one day when they again contacted him he asked them to come for medical examination. Learned counsel for accused argued that there is a contradiction in the evidence of victims regarding the place of examination. While few of them deposed it to be Kerala the others stated that they went to Chennai for medical examination. Witnesses Pw-1 to Pw-3 deposed that their medical examination was done in

Chennai and Pw-4 and Pw-5 state that they were called to Kerala for Medical Examination. All the witnesses in cross examination were asked whether they visited the main office in

Ernakulam, Kerala before the medical examination. All of them admitted to have visited the same. None of the witnesses Pw-1 to Pw-3 was given suggestion denying the place of medical examination. Further, it is contention of accused that when the victims went to Ernakulam office, they stole blank cheques of accused from the office. Hence, visiting the Ernakulam office is not in dispute. And just before the medical examination they went to Ernakulam office. Hence, there is no doubt that victims were in fact called for Medical examination. The contradiction with regard to place of medical examination is not a material contradiction.

20. It is the case of accused that Pw-2 and Pw-3 were sent to Bangkok before lodging this complaint. This suggestion was put to Pw-1 in his cross examination and he admitted it. The same suggestion was put to Pw-2 in cross examination and it was accepted. However, he clarified the same by way of re-examination and stated that it was only a tourist visa and not work visa. Pw-3 deposed that after medical examination accused sent him and Pw-2 to

Bangkok on the pretext that he obtained a work visa for them. But however it turned out to be only a tour visa and they came back within a week. Accused nowhere in the cross examination

Addl.JFMC denied that Pw-2 and Pw-3 were sent to Bangkok on tour visa and not work visa. This is a clear case of cheating by deception.

21. Further, learned counsel for accused argued that evidence of witness Pw-6 is only hearsay evidence and as such, his evidence cannot be relied upon. Further that there are many contradictions and omissions in the 161 Cr.P.C statements of the victims and that the omissions were proved through the Investigating officer. That accused is innocent and it was Pw-5 who in fact cheated the others and only to save his skin he falsely blamed the accused.

22. Firstly coming to the omissions allegedly made by witnesses in their 161 Cr.P.C statements.

According to the evidence of Investigating officer, the omissions elicited were regarding occupation of father of accused, place of head office of accused, mode of giving money to accused, etc. The same are not very substantive omissions so as to presume them to be subsequent developments made at a later stage. Now coming to the alleged contradictions.

Nowhere at the time of trial the learned counsel for accused pointed out the alleged contradictions and got them marked in the 161 Cr.P.C statements. 161 Cr.P.C statement recorded by police is not a substantial piece of evidence and it can be relied upon only for the purpose of contradiction that too only as regards the part of it which was marked at the time of trial. No part of 161 Cr.P.C statement of either of the witnesses was marked at the time of trial.

Hence, the same cannot be looked into for consideration.

23. Lastly, with regard to allegation against Pw-5. Nowhere in the depositions of the witnesses it was stated that they gave any money to accused through Pw-5. The prosecution case is very clear on the ground that entire money was given by all the witnesses Pw-1 to Pw-5 individually and directly to the accused. It is not their case that one of them collected the entire money and then handed it over to accused. Such is not the defense of the accused either. None of Pw-1 to

Pw-4 gave any money to Pw-5 in this transaction. Moreover, Ex.P3 clearly proves that money was in fact given to accused. Further, prosecution got marked Ex.P2 and P4 cheques which were issued by accused. The cheques are not denied by accused. His signature is not denied. If accused never took money from the victims why would he issue the said cheques to them. His defense is that the cheques were stolen from Ernakulam office. For the sake of argument, considering the same to be true. It was argued by the learned APP that no steps were taken by accused against any of the witnesses alleging theft of his cheques. If in fact the argument of

Addl.JFMC accused is accepted, he ought to have initiated criminal proceedings for theft of his cheques.

But no such steps were taken by accused. Moreover, he also did not explain as to how and why his signed blank cheques are available with the Ernakulam office. The defense of the accused is also not satisfactory to raise any kind of doubt on the case of prosecution. Hence it can safely be concluded that accused voluntarily gave the cheques under Ex. P2 and P4 to the victims.

24. From the above evidence it is proved that accused induced the victims to give him money and only as a result of the said inducement they handed over the money to them. It is established that the money was given to accused for the purpose of sending the victims abroad to eke out their livelihood but they were not sent abroad. Now what has to be been is whether accused in fact had the intention to cheat the victims.

25. When the victims approached accused, in the first meeting itself accused promised to send them to gulf country some or the other way. It does not take an expert to know that in order to go to a foreign country for the purpose of work, there is a procedure and one has to fulfill the necessary pre requisites to be qualified for the visa. The duty of an agent is to explain the entire procedure to the client before hand so as to enable him to make a decision whether to continue with the procedure and take the risk of failure. It is not the case of accused that he informed the victims before hand about the procedure or about the risk involved in the transaction. Further, accused kept dragging the matter on one pretext or the other. The evidence on hand also establishes that he called victims for medical examination only when they pressurized him. At every stage it was the victims who contacted him and asked about the progress of the transaction. Nowhere it was elicited that accused on his own accord contacted the victims about the transaction. Further, under extreme pressure he sent Pw-2 and Pw-3 to Bangkok under the guise that they were going on a work visa but only after they went there they realized it was only a tour visa. The victims are all agriculturists and not well qualified to have thorough knowledge about the visa status etc. All the above material clearly show that accused had the intention of cheating the victims since the very beginning and only with this intention he deceived them and induced them to give him money and later cheated them. Prosecution has succeeded in proving guilt of the accused for the offence under section 420 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and accused is entitled to be convicted.

Addl.JFMC

26. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under section 420 IPC and he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. Accused is heard on quantum of sentence. He submitted he has an infant of 6 months age to look after and that he is the only bread winner of the family. Taking into consideration of the nature of offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to apply the provisions of P.O. Act. Accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. (Ten thousand) In default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo S.I. for one month.

Dictated to the Stenographer Transcribed and typed by him. Corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this Thursday, the 25th day of April, 2019.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Siddipet

Addl.JFMC

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined on Behalf of )

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: Bandi Yadaiah Nil-

PW2: Baswaraju Ramulu

PW3:Asarla Yadaiah

PW4:Varadolu Anjaiah

PW5: Myadaraboina Rajaiah

PW6:Kasuvagula Madhava Reddy

PW7: K.Sathyanarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of )

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Complaint

Ex.P2:Cheque bearing no. 691452 of HDFC Bank issued to PW-3 by accused

Ex.P3:Account statement of PW-3 of Syndicate Bank. A/c No. 34042200016696

Ex.P4:Cheque bearing no. 691451

Ex.P5:First Information Report

DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

(On behalf of )

PROSECUTION:

Nil

DEFENCE:

Nil

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Siddipet.

Addl.JFMC Addl.JFMC

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-

CUM-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT : SMT. POOJA KANDUKURI

Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Siddipet

Firday, the 10 th day of January, 2020

DVC No. 9 of 2016

Between:

1. Sileveru Sowbhagyavathi, W/o Ravi, Age 40 years, Occupation:- House Wife, R/o H.No.3-16-296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P.Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District, Now R/o H.No.12- 5-183, Sai Vidyanagar, Siddipet Town and Mandal, Medak District.

2. Silveru Smruthi Krishna, D/o Ravi, Age 5 1/2 years, Occupation:- Student, Represented by her Natural Mother and Guardian (Petitioner No.1), R/o H.No.3-16-296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P.Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District, Now R/o H.No.12-5-183, Sai Vidyanagar, Siddipet Town and Mandal, Medak District.

..... Petitioners

AND

1. Silveru Ravi, S/o Ratnam, Age 44 Years, Occupation:- Business, C/o Silveru Anasurya, H.No.3-16- 296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P. Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

2. Silveru Rathnam, S/o Pochaiah, Age 68 years, Occupation:- Retired Employee, C/o Silveru Anasurya, H.No.3-16-296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P. Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

3. Anasurya W/o Rathnam, Age 60 years, Occupation:- House Wife, C/o Silveru Anasurya, H.No.3-16- 296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P. Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

4. K.Kalpana, W/o K.Sunil, Age 38 years, Occupation:- Government Employee, C/o Silveru Anasurya, H.No.3-16-296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P. Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

5. Prabhavathi @ Veena, W/o Pavan, Age 40 years, Occupation:- House Wife, C/o Silveru Anasurya, H.No.3-16-296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P. Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

6. Silveru Annapurna, W/o Jai Raj, Age 47 years, Occupation:- House Hold, C/o Silveru Anasurya, H.No.3-16-296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P. Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

7. J.Aruna, W/o Prasad, Age 42 years, Occupation:- Agriculture, C/o Silveru Anasurya, H.No.3-16- 296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P. Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

..... Respondents

This petition is coming before me on this 10 th day of January, 2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Laxminarayana, Advocate, Sri.S.Athma Ramulu, Advocate, Sri.Kyathma Venkatesh

Advocate counsels for Petitioners and Sri.Y.Rajeshwar Reddy, Advocate, Sri D.Ravinder Advocate, counsels for the Respodnets. The matter being stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

ORDER

The petitioners herein are Silveru Sowbhagyavathi (petitioner no.1) and Silveru Smruthi Krishna (petitioner no. 2). The present petition is filed for the following reliefs.

1. Protection order to restrain the respondents no. 1 to 7 from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner no. 1.

2. Return of Gold ornaments gifted to petitioner no. 1 in her marriage by her elder sister.

3. Residence order

4. Monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each to the petitioners no. 1 and 2

5. Compensation amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs)

Contention of Petitioners :

1.Petitioner no. 2 is the daughter of petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 is husband, respondent no. 2 is father-in-law, respondent no. 3 is mother-in-law and respondent no. 4 to 7 are sister-in-laws of the petitioner no. 1.

2.Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 1 got married on 08-12-2008 at Siddipet Town and Mandal.

At the time of marriage, dowry of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) was given to the respondent no. 1. Along with it, one Gold Ring Wg. 1/2 Tula, Clothes worth Rs. 25,000/-, Utensils worth Rs. 15,000/- and Furniture worth Rs. 20,000/- were presented to him. Also, an expenditure of Rs.

2,00,000/- was incurred by parents of petitioner no. 1 for the marriage. Subsequently, petitioner no. 1 gave birth to petitioner no. 2.

3.After marriage, petitioner no. 1 stayed happily with respondent no. 1 only for 5 months.

Respondent no. 1 to 7 used to harass her physically and mentally for additional dowry. That as a result of their harassment, parents of petitioner no. 1 gave lot of additional dowry to the respondents. They gave Rs. 25,000/- on 16-11-2009 and 28-01-2010, Rs. 10,000/- on 26-02-2010 and Rs. 20,000/- on 16- 03-2010. (Total of Rs.55,000/-). Respondent no. 3 also forcibly took away the Gold necklace of petitioner no. 1and mortgaged it with Mr. Ramaiah Kirana Shop. When asked about the mortgage, respondent no. 1 abused her and necked her away from the house due to which she went to her parents’ house. Respondent no. 4 to 7 used to visit their house regularly and harass her.

4.Subsequently, she came to know that she was pregnant and was advised by the doctors to take bed rest for 3 months. Meanwhile, respodent no. 1 to 3 came to petitioner no.1’s parents’ house and asked her to come back to their house. But as she was advised rest by the doctor, she refused to go with them. However, they refused to co-operate and threatened that if she does not come back to their house within 2 days, she may permanently stay at her parents house and she will not be allowed to come back later. Due to such a threat, petitioner no. 1 had to go back to the house of respondents no. 1 to 3.

5.Respondents still continued their harassment. During “Sreemantham” Function of petitioner no.

1, her parents noticed that she did not wear her necklace and when they questioned the respondents about it, they abused them and necked them out of the house. At the time of delivery also, respondent no. 1 came in intoxicated condition to the hospital where petitioner no. 1 was admitted and created nuisance at the hospital. The respondents also did not attend the cradle ceremony of petitioner no. 2.

6.Later, on the advise of elders, petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 1 set up a separate household.

But, one day, respondent no. 1 left the house without intimation and petitioner no. 1 was forced to come back to her parents house. Respondent no. 1 used to come to her parents house once a month along with his henchmen and create nuisance. He is a habituated drinker and regulary used to harass petitioner no. 1. Further, on 10-03-2015, respondent no. 2 (father-in-law) came to petitioner no.1’s parents house with a bag and petitioner no. 1 noticed a knife in the bag and when asked why he brought a knife, he did not have any explanation.

7.It is contended that respondent no. 1 is a lecturer in Kakathiya University and is earning sufficient income. Respondent no. 2 is a retired employee and getting pension of Rs. 40,000/- per month. Respondents also have an Own house worth Rs. 1 Crore and one portion of the house is let out for a rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month. That petitioners are intentionally being neglected by the respondents and petitioners do not have any source of income and they are suffering from hand to mouth for basic necessities.

8.Hence, it is prayed by them that the petition be allowed.

9.Respondent no. 1 to 3 are the only contesting respondents in this case. Other respondents no. 4 to 7 were set ex-parte.

Contentions of respondent no. 1 to 3 :

10.They deny causing any kind of harassment to petitioner no. 1 at any point of time. They deny dowry being given at the time to the marriage and also deny presentation of one Gold Ring Wg. 1/2

Tula, Clothes worth Rs. 25,000/-, Utensils worth Rs. 15,000/- and Furniture worth Rs. 20,000/- and incurring of an expenditure of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the parents of petitioner no.1 for the marriage. They specifically deny all the allegations of harassment levelled against them by the petitioner no. 1.

11.It is their contention that petitioner no. 1 has an obstinate and uncompromising attitude which is the cause for all the problems between them. She developed dislike towards respondent no.1 and she used to insult him and quarrel with him for no reason. She never showed any affection towards the respondent no. 2 and 3 (her-in-laws). Upon her request, respondent no.1 also left his parents and moved to Siddipet along with her. But later, Petitioner no. 1 on her own volition left the company of respondents and started living with her parents. She foisted a number of false cases against the respondents including the present petition.

12.Hence, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

13.On behalf of the petitioners, petitioner no. 1 alone was examined as Pw-1. On behalf of the respondents, respondent no. 1 alone was examined as Rw-1. No documents were marked on either side.

14.Now the point that arises for consideration is as under.

15. Whether the petitioner no. 1 and 2 are entitled for the reliefs of protection order restraining the respondents no. 1 to 7 from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner no. 1, return of Gold ornaments gifted to petitioner no. 1 in her marriage by her elder sister, residence order, monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each to the petitioners no. 1 and 2 and compensation amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs) ?

16.Firstly, this petition was filed by two petitioners. Petitioner no. 2 is the daughter of petitioner no.1. However, there are absolutely no allegations of harassment by the respondents against the petitioner no. 2. One of the pre requisites to be entitled for any relief under this act is that the petitioner shall have been subjected to domestic violence in the hands of the respondents. No where in the petition are there any allegations of harassment against petitioner no. 2 and the petition solely concerns the petitioner no. 1. When petitioner no. 2 has not been subjected to any domestic violence by the respondents, there is no question of her getting any relief under this act. Hence, so far as the petition concerns petitioner no.2, it is liable to be dismissed and petitioner no. 2 is not entitled to any reliefs prayed for.

17.Now coming to the case of petitioner no. 1. Inorder to be entitled for any of the reliefs claimed for, firstly, petitioner no. 1 shall show that she is or was at any particular point of time living in a domestic relationship with the respondent no. 1 to 7 and shall further show that the respondent no. 1 to 7 have committed any act of domestic violence against her.

18.Petitioner no. 1 shall prove that she has lived with respondents no. 1 to 7 under the same roof as a result of relationship of her marriage. Respondent no. 1 is husband of petitioner no. 1. Respondent no.

2 is her father-in-law and respondent no.3 is her mother-in-law. Respondents no. 4 to 7 are her sisters- in-law. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that respondents no. 4 to 7 are married long prior to filing of this petition. Infact, marriage of respondents no. 5 to 7 took place prior to that of petitioner no.1 and that of respondent no. 4 was performed soon after. Hence, respondent no. 4 to 7 were never in domestic relationship with the petitioner no. 1 and therefore, this petition as against them is not maintainable.

19.Petitioner no.1 in her cross examination categorically admitted that marriages of respondent no.

5 to 7 were performed prior to her marriage with respondent no. 1 and they are residing at their respective houses. With regard to respondent no. 4, it is stated that her marriage was performed after that of petitioner no. 1. Hence, when respondent no. 5 to 7 were married prior to that of petitioner no. 1 and are living at their respective homes, there does not arise a question of them sharing domestic relationship with petitioner no. 1. When there is no domestic relationship, any act of harassment even if caused by them against petitioner no. 1 does not amount to domestic violence. Hence, this petition against respondent no. 5 to 7 is not maintainable. As Respondent no.4 was unmarried at the time of marriage of Petitioner no.1 and Respondnet no.1 and lived with them till her marriage, she was in a domestic relationship with Petitoner no.1 before her marriage.

20.Now what is to be considered is whether respondents no. 1 to 4 caused domestic violence against petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 1, in her evidence clearly listed all the instances of harassment meted out by her in the hands of respondents. She stated specific acts done by the respondents to harass her. She stated that while she was pregnant and was advised bed rest by the doctors and wanted to stay at her parents’ house, respondents compeled her to come with them and threatened her with dire consequences if she failed to. That her father-in-law (respondent no. 2) brought a knife along with him when he came to her parents’ house and failed to explain why he did so. That the respondents abused her and necked her out of the house on one instance when she questioned them about mortgaging her

Gold Ornament. Further that even during her delivery, respondent no. 1 created nuisance in the hospital. None of this evidence was rebutted by the respondents.

21.All of the above acts are such that no documentary evidence can be insisted for their proof and only oral evidence may be available. And these are the instances which take place within the four walls of the house and most of the times the only evidence available will be that of the victim. Moreover, none of these allegations were denied by the respondents. No suggestions were put to petitioner no. 1 denying the allegations specifically nor did respondent no. 2 produce any evidence to rebut the above evidence.

22.The petitioner no. 1 also deposed that as a result of harassment by the respondents, her father had given a total of Rs. 55,000/- to the respondents and also, at the time of marriage, dowry amount and other articles were given to them. But petitioner no.1 has not filed any document to show any of the above transactions. She ought to have atleast got her father examined before this court to prove giving of additional dowry to the respondents. It is further deposed that respondent no. 2 mortaged her

Gold necklace at Mr. Ramaiah Kirana Store but again, it is not sufficiently proved. Hence, these alleagations cannot be accepted by this court to be true.

23.Further, it is the case of the respondents that petitioner no. 1 left the house on her own volition as she developed dislike towards respondent no.1 and later filed a series of false cases against him and his family members. But the respondents did not show any compelling reason to believe their version.

Except a bald allegation that petitioner no. 1 had an uncompromising attitude and never cooperated with them, there is no substantive material against petitioner no. 1 in the case of respondents.

24.Hence, i am satisfied with the evidence given by the petitioner no. 1. However, petitioner no. 1 has given specific evidence against respondents no. 1 to 3 but she has not specifically stated about any overt act done by respondent no.4. Moreover, respondent no. 4 is married long before this case was filed and she is living with her husband in a separate house. Hence, i am not inclined to pass any order against her. Therefore, i hold that respondents no. 1 to 3 have committed domestic violence against petitioner no. 1.

25.Now coming to the reliefs which petitioner no. 1 is entitled to.

26.Protection Order: As held above, petitioner no. 1 has succeded in proving domestic violence committed against her by respondent no. 1 to 3. Hence, a protection order against them is a need.

Respondents no. 1 to 3 are hereby indefinitely restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner no. 1.

27.Monthly Maintenance and Residence Order: It is the case of petitioner no. 1 that respondent no. 1 is a lecturer at Kakathiya University and he is earning sufficient income and Respondent no. 2 is a retired employee and getting pension of Rs. 40,000/- per month. It is further the contention of petitioner no. 1 that respondents own a house worth Rs. 1 crore and they get a rental income of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Respondents deny these contentions and contend that respondent no. 1 is unemployed and none of the respondents have enough source of income. Eventhough, Petitioner no.1 has pleaded in her petition that respondent no.1 is a lecturer at Kakatiya university, in her cross examination upon question posed by the learned counsel for respondent, she accepted that respondent no. 1 is unemployed and he has no source of income. She has also not filed any document to show the income of respondent no.2, that the respondents own a house or that they get a rental income. Hence, the income of respondents as contended by petitioner no. 1 is not proved.

28.However, petitioner no. 1 is also unemployed and she has no source of income. She has never had a job either before or after marriage. As a husband, it is the duty of respondent no. 1 to provide for his wife. Even though it is his contention that he is unemployed, according to his cross examiantion, at the time of mariage, he was into the business of selling dogs. He is expected to provide for his family by some or the other means. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of this case, i feel it appropriate to grant Rs. 2,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance and Rs. 2,000/- towards house rent and residence expenses to the petitioner no. 1. The monthly maintenance and residence expenses are to be paid by the respondent no. 1 from the date of this order.

29.Other Reliefs: The petitioner no. 1 has further prayed for grant of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty

Lakhs) as compensation and return of her Gold Necklace gifted to her in her marriage by her sister. No evidence of gifting of any such necklace to her was filed before the court. The same is also not admitted by the respondents. Hence, no order can be passed in this regard. Even the dowry amount and other gifts alleged to be given to respondents at the time of marriage and also after is not proved.

Petitioner no. 1 has not satisfied this court with regard to the basis for claiming the compensation amount also. Hence, i am not inclined to grant the compensation amount as prayed for.

30.IN THE RESULT, this petition is partly allowed as under.

Respondents no. 1 to 3 are hereby indefinitely restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner no. 1.

31.Respondent no. 1 shall, from the date of this order, pay to the petitioner no. 1, Rs. 2,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance and Rs. 2,000/- per month towards house rent and residence expenses. It shall either be paid to petitioner no. 1 directly under due receipt or shall be deposited in her bank account by 10th of every subsequent month.

Typed by me in my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 10 th day of January, 2020.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For PetitionerFor Respondent

PW-1 : S.SowbhagyavathiRW.1 Silveru Ravi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner:-For Respondent

-Nil- -Nil-

Material Objects marked

- Nil -

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-

CUM-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT : SMT. POOJA KANDUKURI

Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Siddipet

Firday, the 10 th day of January, 2020

DVC No. 9 of 2016

Between:

1. Sileveru Sowbhagyavathi, W/o Ravi, Age 40 years, Occupation:- House Wife, R/o H.No.3-16-296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P.Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District, Now R/o H.No.12- 5-183, Sai Vidyanagar, Siddipet Town and Mandal, Medak District.

2. Silveru Smruthi Krishna, D/o Ravi, Age 5 1/2 years, Occupation:- Student, Represented by her Natural Mother and Guardian (Petitioner No.1), R/o H.No.3-16-296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P.Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District, Now R/o H.No.12-5-183, Sai Vidyanagar, Siddipet Town and Mandal, Medak District.

..... Petitioners

AND

1. Silveru Ravi, S/o Ratnam, Age 44 Years, Occupation:- Business, C/o Silveru Anasurya, H.No.3-16- 296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P. Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

2. Silveru Rathnam, S/o Pochaiah, Age 68 years, Occupation:- Retired Employee, C/o Silveru Anasurya, H.No.3-16-296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P. Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

3. Anasurya W/o Rathnam, Age 60 years, Occupation:- House Wife, C/o Silveru Anasurya, H.No.3-16- 296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P. Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

4. K.Kalpana, W/o K.Sunil, Age 38 years, Occupation:- Government Employee, C/o Silveru Anasurya, H.No.3-16-296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P. Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

5. Prabhavathi @ Veena, W/o Pavan, Age 40 years, Occupation:- House Wife, C/o Silveru Anasurya, H.No.3-16-296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P. Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

6. Silveru Annapurna, W/o Jai Raj, Age 47 years, Occupation:- House Hold, C/o Silveru Anasurya, H.No.3-16-296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P. Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

7. J.Aruna, W/o Prasad, Age 42 years, Occupation:- Agriculture, C/o Silveru Anasurya, H.No.3-16- 296 and 297, Mulugu Road, Opp:- A.P. Transport, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

..... Respondents

This petition is coming before me on this 10 th day of January, 2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Laxminarayana, Advocate, Sri.S.Athma Ramulu, Advocate, Sri.Kyathma Venkatesh

Advocate counsels for Petitioners and Sri.Y.Rajeshwar Reddy, Advocate, Sri D.Ravinder Advocate, counsels for the Respodnets. The matter being stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

ORDER

The petitioners herein are Silveru Sowbhagyavathi (petitioner no.1) and Silveru Smruthi Krishna (petitioner no. 2). The present petition is filed for the following reliefs.

1. Protection order to restrain the respondents no. 1 to 7 from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner no. 1.

2. Return of Gold ornaments gifted to petitioner no. 1 in her marriage by her elder sister.

3. Residence order

4. Monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each to the petitioners no. 1 and 2

5. Compensation amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs)

Contention of Petitioners :

1.Petitioner no. 2 is the daughter of petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 is husband, respondent no. 2 is father-in-law, respondent no. 3 is mother-in-law and respondent no. 4 to 7 are sister-in-laws of the petitioner no. 1.

2.Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 1 got married on 08-12-2008 at Siddipet Town and Mandal.

At the time of marriage, dowry of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) was given to the respondent no. 1. Along with it, one Gold Ring Wg. 1/2 Tula, Clothes worth Rs. 25,000/-, Utensils worth Rs. 15,000/- and Furniture worth Rs. 20,000/- were presented to him. Also, an expenditure of Rs.

2,00,000/- was incurred by parents of petitioner no. 1 for the marriage. Subsequently, petitioner no. 1 gave birth to petitioner no. 2.

3.After marriage, petitioner no. 1 stayed happily with respondent no. 1 only for 5 months.

Respondent no. 1 to 7 used to harass her physically and mentally for additional dowry. That as a result of their harassment, parents of petitioner no. 1 gave lot of additional dowry to the respondents. They gave Rs. 25,000/- on 16-11-2009 and 28-01-2010, Rs. 10,000/- on 26-02-2010 and Rs. 20,000/- on 16- 03-2010. (Total of Rs.55,000/-). Respondent no. 3 also forcibly took away the Gold necklace of petitioner no. 1and mortgaged it with Mr. Ramaiah Kirana Shop. When asked about the mortgage, respondent no. 1 abused her and necked her away from the house due to which she went to her parents’ house. Respondent no. 4 to 7 used to visit their house regularly and harass her.

4.Subsequently, she came to know that she was pregnant and was advised by the doctors to take bed rest for 3 months. Meanwhile, respodent no. 1 to 3 came to petitioner no.1’s parents’ house and asked her to come back to their house. But as she was advised rest by the doctor, she refused to go with them. However, they refused to co-operate and threatened that if she does not come back to their house within 2 days, she may permanently stay at her parents house and she will not be allowed to come back later. Due to such a threat, petitioner no. 1 had to go back to the house of respondents no. 1 to 3.

5.Respondents still continued their harassment. During “Sreemantham” Function of petitioner no.

1, her parents noticed that she did not wear her necklace and when they questioned the respondents about it, they abused them and necked them out of the house. At the time of delivery also, respondent no. 1 came in intoxicated condition to the hospital where petitioner no. 1 was admitted and created nuisance at the hospital. The respondents also did not attend the cradle ceremony of petitioner no. 2.

6.Later, on the advise of elders, petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 1 set up a separate household.

But, one day, respondent no. 1 left the house without intimation and petitioner no. 1 was forced to come back to her parents house. Respondent no. 1 used to come to her parents house once a month along with his henchmen and create nuisance. He is a habituated drinker and regulary used to harass petitioner no. 1. Further, on 10-03-2015, respondent no. 2 (father-in-law) came to petitioner no.1’s parents house with a bag and petitioner no. 1 noticed a knife in the bag and when asked why he brought a knife, he did not have any explanation.

7.It is contended that respondent no. 1 is a lecturer in Kakathiya University and is earning sufficient income. Respondent no. 2 is a retired employee and getting pension of Rs. 40,000/- per month. Respondents also have an Own house worth Rs. 1 Crore and one portion of the house is let out for a rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month. That petitioners are intentionally being neglected by the respondents and petitioners do not have any source of income and they are suffering from hand to mouth for basic necessities.

8.Hence, it is prayed by them that the petition be allowed.

9.Respondent no. 1 to 3 are the only contesting respondents in this case. Other respondents no. 4 to 7 were set ex-parte.

Contentions of respondent no. 1 to 3 :

10.They deny causing any kind of harassment to petitioner no. 1 at any point of time. They deny dowry being given at the time to the marriage and also deny presentation of one Gold Ring Wg. 1/2

Tula, Clothes worth Rs. 25,000/-, Utensils worth Rs. 15,000/- and Furniture worth Rs. 20,000/- and incurring of an expenditure of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the parents of petitioner no.1 for the marriage. They specifically deny all the allegations of harassment levelled against them by the petitioner no. 1.

11.It is their contention that petitioner no. 1 has an obstinate and uncompromising attitude which is the cause for all the problems between them. She developed dislike towards respondent no.1 and she used to insult him and quarrel with him for no reason. She never showed any affection towards the respondent no. 2 and 3 (her-in-laws). Upon her request, respondent no.1 also left his parents and moved to Siddipet along with her. But later, Petitioner no. 1 on her own volition left the company of respondents and started living with her parents. She foisted a number of false cases against the respondents including the present petition.

12.Hence, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

13.On behalf of the petitioners, petitioner no. 1 alone was examined as Pw-1. On behalf of the respondents, respondent no. 1 alone was examined as Rw-1. No documents were marked on either side.

14.Now the point that arises for consideration is as under.

15. Whether the petitioner no. 1 and 2 are entitled for the reliefs of protection order restraining the respondents no. 1 to 7 from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner no. 1, return of Gold ornaments gifted to petitioner no. 1 in her marriage by her elder sister, residence order, monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each to the petitioners no. 1 and 2 and compensation amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs) ?

16.Firstly, this petition was filed by two petitioners. Petitioner no. 2 is the daughter of petitioner no.1. However, there are absolutely no allegations of harassment by the respondents against the petitioner no. 2. One of the pre requisites to be entitled for any relief under this act is that the petitioner shall have been subjected to domestic violence in the hands of the respondents. No where in the petition are there any allegations of harassment against petitioner no. 2 and the petition solely concerns the petitioner no. 1. When petitioner no. 2 has not been subjected to any domestic violence by the respondents, there is no question of her getting any relief under this act. Hence, so far as the petition concerns petitioner no.2, it is liable to be dismissed and petitioner no. 2 is not entitled to any reliefs prayed for.

17.Now coming to the case of petitioner no. 1. Inorder to be entitled for any of the reliefs claimed for, firstly, petitioner no. 1 shall show that she is or was at any particular point of time living in a domestic relationship with the respondent no. 1 to 7 and shall further show that the respondent no. 1 to 7 have committed any act of domestic violence against her.

18.Petitioner no. 1 shall prove that she has lived with respondents no. 1 to 7 under the same roof as a result of relationship of her marriage. Respondent no. 1 is husband of petitioner no. 1. Respondent no.

2 is her father-in-law and respondent no.3 is her mother-in-law. Respondents no. 4 to 7 are her sisters- in-law. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that respondents no. 4 to 7 are married long prior to filing of this petition. Infact, marriage of respondents no. 5 to 7 took place prior to that of petitioner no.1 and that of respondent no. 4 was performed soon after. Hence, respondent no. 4 to 7 were never in domestic relationship with the petitioner no. 1 and therefore, this petition as against them is not maintainable.

19.Petitioner no.1 in her cross examination categorically admitted that marriages of respondent no.

5 to 7 were performed prior to her marriage with respondent no. 1 and they are residing at their respective houses. With regard to respondent no. 4, it is stated that her marriage was performed after that of petitioner no. 1. Hence, when respondent no. 5 to 7 were married prior to that of petitioner no. 1 and are living at their respective homes, there does not arise a question of them sharing domestic relationship with petitioner no. 1. When there is no domestic relationship, any act of harassment even if caused by them against petitioner no. 1 does not amount to domestic violence. Hence, this petition against respondent no. 5 to 7 is not maintainable. As Respondent no.4 was unmarried at the time of marriage of Petitioner no.1 and Respondnet no.1 and lived with them till her marriage, she was in a domestic relationship with Petitoner no.1 before her marriage.

20.Now what is to be considered is whether respondents no. 1 to 4 caused domestic violence against petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 1, in her evidence clearly listed all the instances of harassment meted out by her in the hands of respondents. She stated specific acts done by the respondents to harass her. She stated that while she was pregnant and was advised bed rest by the doctors and wanted to stay at her parents’ house, respondents compeled her to come with them and threatened her with dire consequences if she failed to. That her father-in-law (respondent no. 2) brought a knife along with him when he came to her parents’ house and failed to explain why he did so. That the respondents abused her and necked her out of the house on one instance when she questioned them about mortgaging her

Gold Ornament. Further that even during her delivery, respondent no. 1 created nuisance in the hospital. None of this evidence was rebutted by the respondents.

21.All of the above acts are such that no documentary evidence can be insisted for their proof and only oral evidence may be available. And these are the instances which take place within the four walls of the house and most of the times the only evidence available will be that of the victim. Moreover, none of these allegations were denied by the respondents. No suggestions were put to petitioner no. 1 denying the allegations specifically nor did respondent no. 2 produce any evidence to rebut the above evidence.

22.The petitioner no. 1 also deposed that as a result of harassment by the respondents, her father had given a total of Rs. 55,000/- to the respondents and also, at the time of marriage, dowry amount and other articles were given to them. But petitioner no.1 has not filed any document to show any of the above transactions. She ought to have atleast got her father examined before this court to prove giving of additional dowry to the respondents. It is further deposed that respondent no. 2 mortaged her

Gold necklace at Mr. Ramaiah Kirana Store but again, it is not sufficiently proved. Hence, these alleagations cannot be accepted by this court to be true.

23.Further, it is the case of the respondents that petitioner no. 1 left the house on her own volition as she developed dislike towards respondent no.1 and later filed a series of false cases against him and his family members. But the respondents did not show any compelling reason to believe their version.

Except a bald allegation that petitioner no. 1 had an uncompromising attitude and never cooperated with them, there is no substantive material against petitioner no. 1 in the case of respondents.

24.Hence, i am satisfied with the evidence given by the petitioner no. 1. However, petitioner no. 1 has given specific evidence against respondents no. 1 to 3 but she has not specifically stated about any overt act done by respondent no.4. Moreover, respondent no. 4 is married long before this case was filed and she is living with her husband in a separate house. Hence, i am not inclined to pass any order against her. Therefore, i hold that respondents no. 1 to 3 have committed domestic violence against petitioner no. 1.

25.Now coming to the reliefs which petitioner no. 1 is entitled to.

26.Protection Order: As held above, petitioner no. 1 has succeded in proving domestic violence committed against her by respondent no. 1 to 3. Hence, a protection order against them is a need.

Respondents no. 1 to 3 are hereby indefinitely restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner no. 1.

27.Monthly Maintenance and Residence Order: It is the case of petitioner no. 1 that respondent no. 1 is a lecturer at Kakathiya University and he is earning sufficient income and Respondent no. 2 is a retired employee and getting pension of Rs. 40,000/- per month. It is further the contention of petitioner no. 1 that respondents own a house worth Rs. 1 crore and they get a rental income of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Respondents deny these contentions and contend that respondent no. 1 is unemployed and none of the respondents have enough source of income. Eventhough, Petitioner no.1 has pleaded in her petition that respondent no.1 is a lecturer at Kakatiya university, in her cross examination upon question posed by the learned counsel for respondent, she accepted that respondent no. 1 is unemployed and he has no source of income. She has also not filed any document to show the income of respondent no.2, that the respondents own a house or that they get a rental income. Hence, the income of respondents as contended by petitioner no. 1 is not proved.

28.However, petitioner no. 1 is also unemployed and she has no source of income. She has never had a job either before or after marriage. As a husband, it is the duty of respondent no. 1 to provide for his wife. Even though it is his contention that he is unemployed, according to his cross examiantion, at the time of mariage, he was into the business of selling dogs. He is expected to provide for his family by some or the other means. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of this case, i feel it appropriate to grant Rs. 2,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance and Rs. 2,000/- towards house rent and residence expenses to the petitioner no. 1. The monthly maintenance and residence expenses are to be paid by the respondent no. 1 from the date of this order.

29.Other Reliefs: The petitioner no. 1 has further prayed for grant of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty

Lakhs) as compensation and return of her Gold Necklace gifted to her in her marriage by her sister. No evidence of gifting of any such necklace to her was filed before the court. The same is also not admitted by the respondents. Hence, no order can be passed in this regard. Even the dowry amount and other gifts alleged to be given to respondents at the time of marriage and also after is not proved.

Petitioner no. 1 has not satisfied this court with regard to the basis for claiming the compensation amount also. Hence, i am not inclined to grant the compensation amount as prayed for.

30.IN THE RESULT, this petition is partly allowed as under.

Respondents no. 1 to 3 are hereby indefinitely restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner no. 1.

31.Respondent no. 1 shall, from the date of this order, pay to the petitioner no. 1, Rs. 2,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance and Rs. 2,000/- per month towards house rent and residence expenses. It shall either be paid to petitioner no. 1 directly under due receipt or shall be deposited in her bank account by 10th of every subsequent month.

Typed by me in my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 10 th day of January, 2020.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For PetitionerFor Respondent

PW-1 : S.SowbhagyavathiRW.1 Silveru Ravi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner:-For Respondent

-Nil- -Nil-

Material Objects marked

- Nil -

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT: POOJA KANDUKURI

Additional JCJ Cum JFCM,

Siddipet.

Thursday, the 16 th day of May, 2019

C C No. 177 of 2013

Between::

The State of Telangana, Through P.S. Siddipet II Town

......Complainant

And

A1: Hurmath Begum, W/o Salaam Saab, Aged: 46 years, Occupation: Beedi worker, R/o H.No. 2-3-41/B/5, Sajidpura, Siddipet.

A2: Salaam Saab, S/o Abdul Gani, Aged: 55 years Occupation: Auto Driver, R/o H.No. 2-3- 41/B/5, Sajidpura, Siddipet.

......Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 16-05-2019 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B. Ravinder Reddy learned counsel

for the accused. Having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court made

the following

J U D G M E N T

1. The Present complaint is lodged by Ameena Bee against Hurmath Begum (Accused no.1) and Salam Saab ( Accused no.2). Allegations levelled against the accused are that complainant i.e., Ameena Bee is absolute owner of H.No. 2­3­41/B/5 situated at

Sajidpura, Siddipet town. It is alleged that her husband’s brother’s wife constructed the house and later the house was mutated in the name of complainant as per

Municipal records. That husband of complainant died five years prior to lodging the complaint. That by taking advantage of her husband’s death accused no.1 and 2 trespassed into her house and forcibly necked the complainant out of the house and through her house hold articles outside the house and illegally occupied the house.

That when the complainant questioned them they showed her forged documents and set up claimed over the house and also abused her and threatened to see her end if

Addl.JMFC she tries to get back the house from them. Hence she prayed to take action against them.

2. Basing on this complainant an FIR was registered in Cr. No. 28 of 2013 and the matter was investigated into. Upon filing charge sheet this court took cognizance against accused no. 1 and 2 under section 420 and 323 IPC. On appearance of accused they were given copies of the case documents and they were examined under section 239

Cr.P.C. Charges for offences U/s 420 and 323 IPC were framed against both of them, read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

On behalf of prosecution witnesses PW­1 to PW­7 were examined and exhibits P1 to

P4 were marked. Thereafter accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining to them all the incriminating material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They stated that they purchased the house from PW­1 and denied cheating her. As no defence evidence was reported it was closed.

3. Heard both sides. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued on behalf of the complainant that accused no.1 and 2 with an ill intention and to grab the property of

PW­1 are claiming title over it wrongfully. That complainant never sold the house to them and that she only gave it to them for rent as she went along with her husband to

Hyderabad for couple of years. That the evidence of witnesses examined proves it case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed the convict the accused. On the other hand learned counsel for accused argued that complainant is not owner of the said house.

That infact the house belonged to wife of PW­2 i.e., co­sister of complainant and she sold it to Accused no. 1 in the year 2001 vide simple sale deed and that PW­2 was one of the witness to the said document. That both PW­1 and PW­2 admitted the house to be in the name of wife of PW­2. Even though on the date of lodging complaint wife of

PW­2 was alive she was not examined as a witness. If in fact she was examined as a witness the true facts of the case would have been revealed. Further that the other witnesses PW­3 to Pw­5 did not depose about any cheating by accused and their evidence does not prove anything. Further that investigating officer only recorded the statements of witnesses whose names were mentioned in the complaint and thus did

Addl.JMFC not conducted proper investigation. Also that nowhere in the evidence there is any allegations levelled against accused no.1 or 2 under section 323 IPC. That the facts and circumstances in this case are in favour of accused and that prosecution failed to prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt. Hence prayed to acquit the accused. 

4. Now the point to be determined is Whether prosecution succeeded in proving guilt

of accused no. 1 and 2 for the offences under section 420, 323 IPC beyond

reasonable doubt?

5. Complainant is examined as PW­1. In chief examination she deposed that she was owner of half of H.No. 2­3­51/B/5, Sajidpura, Siddipet town and that PW­2 was owner of the other half. That four years prior to date of the complaint her husband got affected with cancer and as such they gave their house to accused no.1 and 2 on rent @ Rs. 1100/­ per month and went to Hyderabad for treatment. That they stayed there for three years and after death of her husband returned to Siddipet. That when she asked accused to evict the house, they refused and as such present complaint was lodged. In cross examination it was elicited that accused no.1 and 2 were residing in the said house since 2001 and that prior to possession by accused the house was in the name of Nafeez Sulthana (wife of PW­2). She stated that she filed the present complaint after 3 to 4 years of returning to Siddipet. She further stated that the house was transferred in her name 20 (Twenty) years ago. The witness was given suggestion that she does not have any right in the house and that Nafeez Sulthana sold her share in the house to accused no.1 and 2 through simple sale deed dated 24­11­2001 for Rs.

95000/­. The suggestion was denied by her.

6. PW­2 is Mohammed Saleem. He is brother­in­law of PW­1 and brother of PW­1’s late husband. He deposed in chief examination that in the year 1994 himself and his brother together purchased 100 Sq.Yards of land in Sajidpura, Siddipet town and they each constructed a house in 50 Sq. Yards. That in the year 2003 as his brother fell sick, his brother along with his wife i.e., PW­1 let out their house for rent to Accused no.1

Addl.JMFC and went to Hyderabad for treatment. That when PW­1 came back to Siddipet after death of her husband and requested to evict the house she refused. That as such the present complaint was lodged. In cross examination it was elicited that originally the entire house which is under dispute in this case was purchased by his wife Nafeez

Sulthana through registered sale deed in the year 1994 and that the entire house was registered in her name. He stated that he transferred the house in the name of PW­1 20 years ago orally and that no document was executed for the transfer. Witness was confronted with simple sale deed document dated 24­11­2001 through which his wife i.e., Naffez Sulthana is said to have sold part of the house to the accused. He was asked whether signature of witness no.1 belonged to him and he admitted it. The witness was re­examined by the prosecution in which it was elicited that name of PW­ 1 was appearing in the Municipal Records Prior to the year 2000.

7. PW­3 is one Smt. Bibi. She pleaded ignorance about the dispute in this case and she was not cross examined by the accused. PW­4 is one Zubeda. She is Neighbour of PW­

1. In chief examination she deposed that accused no.1 took house of PW­1 for rent 10 years ago and that the rent was Rs. 500/­. That thereafter PW­1 went to Hyderabad and after death of her husband she came back to Siddipet after which their arose a dispute between PW­1 and accused no.1 and that PW­1 requested accused no.1 to give her back the house. She stated that herself, PW­3 and PW­5 present at the scene of offence. In cross examination the witness admitted that PW­1 sold away her house to the accused before going to Hyderabad. This witness was re examined by the prosecution in which she was put a question whether she went through any document regarding the house or whether she was present at the time of registration. She replied in the negative .

8. PW­5 is D. Balraj. He is also a neighbour to PW­1. He deposed in chief examination that as husband of PW­1 was suffering with ill health she gave her house for rent to accused no.1 and went to Hyderabad for treatment and that after death of her husband she came back to Siddipet. He stated that a dispute arose between PW­1 and

Addl.JMFC accused no.1 and that accused no.1 showed him a 20/­ bond paper and claimed to have purchased the house from PW­1 but that PW­1 denied selling the house. In cross examination the witness stated that PW­1 never sold her house to accused and that she went for her husband treatment only for one year.

9. PW­6 P.Shiva Kailasam is one of the mediator for scene of offence panchanama. In chief examination he deposed that about 6 years year prior to the date of his evidence there was a dispute between PW­1 and some other person and that police asked him whether there was dispute between the two and he informed them that there was infact a dispute between them. He further deposed that at 5:00 PM a panchanama was conducted in his presence and after going through its contents he signed on it. His signature was marked as Ex. P2. No material evidence was elicited in his cross examination.

10. PW­7 J. Anjaneyulu is the investigating officer. In chief examination he deposed about the steps taken by him during the course of investigation. He stated that on 22­02­ 2013 he addressed a letter to Municipal commissioner, Siddipet to furnish ownership particulars of the disputed house and that on 25­03­2013 he received a reply. In cross examination he admitted that the FIR was registered basing on a private complaint which was forwarded to him by the court and that he examined only the witness who were mentioned as list of witnesses in the private complaint. He further admitted not recording statement of Municipal Commissioner who issue the owner ship particulars of the house.

11. Firstly, accused are charged for the offence of cheating. Allegation against them as per the complaint is that while the complainant was residing in her house bearing no. 2­3­ 41/B/5 accused no. 1 and 2 illegally took possession of the house after forcefully sending her out of the house and throwing all her articles out of the house. It is alleged that complainant is not even aware of the motive of accused behind the act.

While in the evidence, it is deposed that complainant had infact given her house bearing no. 2­3­41/B/5 to accused for rent. That after letting out her house to accused

Addl.JMFC she went to Hyderabad along with her husband for her husband’s treatment and later her husband died and she returned to Siddipet. That when she requested accused to vacate the house they refused and claimed to have purchased it by basing their claim on a forged document. 

12. There is a complete change in the version of complainant from that of complaint to the evidence deposed by her. Firstly, according to complaint, the complainant, Ameena

Bee was in possession of the house at the time of incident. Secondly, accused are alleged to have trespassed into the house of complaint and to have forcefully sent her out of the house while she was in possession of the same and when questioned about it, they are alleged to have showed a forged document and set up their claim over the house. Whereas according to the evidence complainant was not in possession of the house at the time of incident. She deposes that she herself rented it out to accused and later when they were asked to evict the house, they falsely claimed title based on forged document and cheated her. 

13.In order to prove its case, the prosecution evidence shall be in support of the allegation levelled against the complaint. Prosecution cannot bring out an entirely new story in the evidence and expect accused to be punished based only upon the evidence. Nowhere in the complaint there is a mention about renting out the house to accused. It appears that the story deposed in the evidence is only a development made by the witnesses to suit the case and nothing else. And the evidence is not at all in support of the complaint allegations. 

14. For the sake of argument, let us ignore the above contradiction between complaint and evidence and take only the evidence into consideration. According to the evidence, the dispute seems to be with regard to right of accused over the house of complaint. The question that arises is Whether accused were given the house on rent or they purchased it? Claim of complainant is that her husband and husband’s brother (Pw­2) purchased 100 Sq. Yds of land together and built houses in 50 Sq Yds each and that after her husband’s death title vested in her. She contends that their

Addl.JMFC shares are registered in municipal records. The entire property of 100 Sq. Yds was infact purchased by One Nafeez Sultana i.e., wife of Pw­2. Pw­1 in cross examination admitted the fact that before accused took possession of the house it was standing in the name of Nafeez Sultana. Pw­2 i.e., husband of the said Nafeez Sultana also stated in evidence that originally his wife purchased the entire house through registered sale deed in the year 1994. Complainant contends that her house was transferred in her name 20 years ago. Pw­2 also stated that the house was transferred in the name of

Pw­1 20 years ago. But Pw­1 did not state who transferred the house in her name.

According to Pw­2 it was him who transferred the house in the name of Pw­1 and that too orally. When the property was purchased by Pw­2’s wife, Pw­2 does not have any right to transfer the same in the name of Pw­1. Moreover, witness Pw­4 admitted in cross examination that Pw­1 sold her house to accused no. 1. 

15. Further, the learned counsel for accused confronted witness Pw­2 with a simple sale deed document dated:­ 24­11­2001 through which his wife sold part of her house to accused no. 1 and he admitted to have been a witness to the document. This proves that there was infact a transaction between accused and the original owner of the house. There is a possibility that accused might have purchased the house. Admittedly,

Pw­2 was alive at the time of lodging this complaint. She is the owner of the house.

But she was neither cited as a witness in the complaint nor examined by the police. All these circumstances also are against the complainant and in favour of the accused.

When complainant failed to prove that she only let out her house for rent and did not sell it, no offence is made out against the accused under section 420 IPC. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for accused, there is absolutely no evidence against accused under section 323 IPC. Hence the said offence is also not made out.

Hence both accused are entitled to be acquitted. 

16.IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 420, 323

IPC and consequently he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds are can­

Addl.JMFC celled and accused is set at liberty. Sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal pe­ riod. No property is seized in this case. 

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade­III) Transcribed and typed by him. Corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this Thursday, the 16th day of May, 2019. 

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Siddipet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined on Behalf of )

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: Ameena Bhi Nil-

PW2: Mohammed Saleem

PW3:Bibi

PW4:Jubeda

PW5: Balraj

PW6:P.Shiva Kailasam

PW7:Anjaneyulu

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of )

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Complaint

Ex.P2:Signature of PW-6 on Scene of offence Panchanama

Ex.P3:First Information Report

Ex.P4:Scene of offence Panchanama

DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

(On behalf of )

Nil

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Siddipet.

Addl.JMFC Addl.JMFC

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-

CUM-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT : SMT. POOJA KANDUKURI

Addl. Jr. Civil Judge cum JFCM, Siddipet

Friday, the 24 st day of January, 2020

C.C No. 386 of 2014

(Crime No. 57 of 2014, P.S Siddipet – II Town)

Between:

The State of Telangana, through P.S Siddipet – II Town

..... Complainant

AND

1. Thallapally Prabhakar, S/o Bhumaiah, Age 28 years, Occupation:- Auto Driver, R/o Ankireddipally Village of Kondapaka Mandal, Siddipet District.

2. Basa Anil, S/o Balaiah, Age 23 years, Occupation:- Auto Driver, R/o Vemulaghat Village of Thoguta Mandal now at Near Nehru Park, Siddipet.

..... Accused

This case is coming before me on this 24th day of January, 2020 for final hearing in the presence of the learned APPO and Sri Devunoori Ravinder Advocate, Counsel for the accused no.1 and 2. The matter being stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T

Brief Facts of the Case:

1. This is a case filed under section 341 and 332 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that on 23-03- 2014, the complainant, Md. Ghouse was the driver and Lw-2/ Bachu Kumara Swamy was the conductor of RTC bus bearing no. AP 15 Z 0174. It is further alleged that the bus belongs to

Manthani Depot and on that day, the bus travelled from Manthani to Hyderabad in the morning and was returning to Manthani from Hyderabad in the afternoon hours. At 4:00 Pm, when the bus was at Maithrivanam which is situated in the outskirts of Siddipet Town, accused no. 1, i.e.,

Thallapally Prabhakar being the driver of a mini goods auto bearing no. AP 15 C 0710 overtook the RTC bus and stopped his auto in front of the bus by obstructing the movement of the bus.

He quarrelled with Md. Ghouse saying why he was not given side inspite of blowing horn. On interference of the passengers, he left. Again, at about 5:00 Pm, Thallapally Prabhakar along with accused no. 2/ Basa Anil stopped the bus at Narsapur X Road, came inside and beat Md.

Ghouse. Hence, the present complaint.

2. Upon lodging a report with police, an FIR was registered against Thallapally Prabhakar and

Basa Anil and investigation was conducted. Charge sheet was filed under section 341 and 332 of Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance, this court framed charges against accused no. 1 and 2 under section 341 and 332 of Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution, witnesses Pw-1 to Pw-5 were examined and Ex. P1 to P8 were marked. Pw-1 is the complainant and driver of the bus. Pw-2 is the conductor. Pw-3 and

Pw-4 are witnesses for scene of offence panchanama who truned entirely hostile and Pw-5 is the Investigating Officer. No evidence was produced by the accused.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Now the Point to be determined is whether prosecution proved guilt of accused no. 1 and 2 for the offences under section 341 and 332 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

5. In order to determine the above point, the following questions need to be answered.

i.Whether allegation against accused under section 341 of Indian Penal Codeis proved?

ii. Whether allegation against accused under sections 332 of Indian Penal Code is proved?

6. Point no. 1:

Section 341 is the punishment prescribed for wrongful confinement.

Section 340: Wrongful Confinement: Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limit is said to wrongfully confine that person.

7. Inorder to prove the offence of wrongful confinement, it shall be established that accused no. 1 and 2 obstructed the RTC bus bearing no. AP 15 Z 0174 with their mini auto trolley bearing no.

AP 15 C 0710 so as prevent it from moving further. Pw-1 is the driver/victim and Pw-2 is the conductor. Allegation as per complaint is that at 4:00 Pm, at Maithrivanam, Siddipet, the accused no. 1 caused obstuction to the bus and later again, at Narsapur X Road, both accused again caused obstruction. The evidence of Pw-1 and Pw-2 also discloses the same and is in corroboration. However, they are the driver and conductor of the bus and both of them are interested witnesses. Except these two witnesss, no other witness was produced by the prosecution to depose about the offence. Admittedly, the entire bus was filled with passengers at the time of commission of the offence. When such is the case, why was no other witness apart from the driver and conducted was examined. This raises a doubt in my mind with regard to commission of the offence. As such, i am unable to believe the evidence of Pw-1 and Pw-2 beyong reasonable doubt. Hence, the offence under section 341 of Indian Penal Code is not proved.

8. Point No. 2:

Section 332: Vountarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty: whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant shall be punished.

9. In order to prove this offence, a number of factors need to be established by the prosecution.

Firstly, that the victim was a public servant. Secondly, that he was, at the time of commission of the offence in the lawful discharge of his duty. Thirdly, that with an intention to deter the victim or any other public servant from discharging their duties, accused volutarily caused hurt to such public servant.

10. Again, to prove this offence, Pw-1 and Pw-2 are the only witnesses examined. I express the same doubt that when the bus was filled with passengers, why a single passenger also was not examined. Further, prosecution did not file the ID card of Pw-1 to prove that he is a public servant. No document is filed to establish that at the time of commission of the offence, Pw-1 was acting in the lawful discharge of his duty.

11. Moreover, there a quite a few contradictions and omissions in the prosecution case. In his evidence, Pw-1 stated that accused was in an intoxicated condition at the time of offence. This was omitted by him in the complaint. He also deposed that the second time when his bus was obstructed, 10 people came to beat him. In the complaint, he ommited to tell the exact number of people and wrote that few people along with the accused no. 1 came. Further, in his chief examination, Pw-1 told that when accused no. 1 came into the bus at 4:00 Pm, he held his collar and on interference of passengers, he was saved. About the same incident, Pw-2 told that accused dragged Pw-1 onto the road and the staff members of Siddipet Depot came and pacified the situation. Again, none of the staff was examined.

12. On considering all these facts and circumstances of this case, i am unable to believe the prosecution evidence beyond doubt. Hence, i hold that even the offence against accused no. 1 and 2 under section 332 of Indian Penal Code is not proved.

13. IN THE RESULT, accused no. 1 and 2 are held not guilty for the offences under section 341, 332 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure

Code. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. Accused are set at liberty.

Typed by me in my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 24 th day of January, 2020.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor Defence

PW-1 : Md.Ghouse PW-2 :Bachu Kumara Swamy- None - PW-3 :Suram Bhupal Reddy PW-4 : Kanakaiah PW-5 : M.Varaprasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1 : is the Complaint. Ex.P2 : is Signature of PW.3 in Scene of offence Panchanama and rough Sketch. Ex.P3 : is Signature of PW.3 in Scene of offence Panchanama and rough Sketch. Ex.P4 : is Signature of PW.4 in Scene of offence Panchanama and rough Sketch. Ex.P5 : is Signature of PW.4 in Scene of offence Panchanama and rough Sketch. Ex.P6 : is the FIR. Ex.P7 : is Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P8 : is rough sketch map.

For Defence:

- Nil-

Material Objects marked

- Nil -

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet