Sri. Prateek Sihag

1 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT VEMULAWADA

Present:Sri. PRATEEK SIHAG, Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

V E M U L A W A D A.

MONDAY, THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2023

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE No.15 of 2021

Between:

1.Chekkapelly Kalyani, W/o.Chekkapelly Anjaneyulu @ Anji Reddy, Age:28 yeas, Occ;Housewife, R/o.Narsimhulapalli V/o.Thangallapelli mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

2.Chekkapelly Sanvika, D/o.Chekkapelly Anjaneyulu @ Anji Reddy, Age;8 years, Minor U/G ship of her natural mother petitioner No.1 R/o.Narsimhulapalli V/o.Thangallapelli mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

Petitioners A N D

1.Chekkapelly Anjaneyulu @ Anji Reddy, S/o.Narsaiah, Age;33 years, Occ;Agriculture, R/o.Narsimhulapalli V/o.Thangallapalle mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

2.Chekkapelly Balaxmi, W/o.Narsaiah, Age;55 years, Occ;Agriculture, R/o.Narsimhulapalli V/o.Thangallapalle mandal of Rajanna Sircilla district.

3.Chekkapelly Narsaiah, S/o.Lingaiah, Age;60 years, Occ;Agriculture, R/o.Narsimhulapalli V/o.Thangallapalle mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

… Respondents

Petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic

Violence Act, 2005

This case is coming before me on 15.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K.Purushotham, Advocate for Petitioner and Respondents No.1 to 3 remained ex-parte and having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

: O R D E R :

1. This is a petition filed U/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence.

2.The brief facts of the petitioner case are that:

In this petition, the petitioner is seeking various reliefs under the provisions of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of respondent No.1.

The respondents No.2 and 3 are parents of respondent No.1. According to petitioner, she is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1. The marriage of petitioner with the said Respondent No.1 was performed on 13.02.2012 at her parents house at Chekkapalli village of Vemulawada rural Mandal. At the time of her marriage, her parents presented Rs.5,50,000/- cash, 8 tulas of gold, household articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent No.1 and one motor cycle value of Rs.80,000/-. After marriage, petitioner lived in the house of respondent No.1 by leading their marital life happily for a period of two years.

Out of their wedlock she blessed with petitioner No.2. But the respondent No.1 did not satisfy with the dowry amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and 8 tulas of gold. After the birth of petitioner No.2, respondent No.1 with the instigation of respondent no.2 and 3 started harassing her demanding to bring additional dowry of 3 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents. The petitioner expressed her inability to bring the addition amount as her parents already given sufficient dowry. The respondent No.1 addicted to drink alcohol every day and every day used abusing the petitioner in filthy language to threaten the petitioner No.1 that he would marry another lady, if the said dowry amount is not paid to him, not allow her to join his society. The respondent dislike the petitioner No.1 and also threatened her that he would kill by saying so he may marry another lady for additional dowry and also beat her. But the petitioner No.1 bear all the tortures and harassment of the respondent No.1 with a hope that he may change his attitude one or other day. The petitioner informed to her parents that the illegal demand of the respondent No.1 to 3, on which the matter was reported to the elders, who advised the respondent No.1 to look after the petitioner with love and affection and not to harass her for additional dowry but the respondent No.1 bluntly refused to do so. Since then petitioner No.1 is staying at her parent’s house with petitioner No.2. On 12.07.2021 the respondent No.1 with the instigation of respondent No.2 and 3 necked out the petitioner No.1 and 2 from his house and refused to maintain the petitioner No.1 and 2 and threatened to marry another woman of his choice..

Further that the petitioner No.1 is household lady, unable to maintain petitioner No.2 and also herself. Petitioner No.1 staying at her parent’s house, 4 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair) who are poor as such have no sufficient means to maintain themselves. Thus petitioner No.1 is in need of Rs.5000/- per month and petitioners No.2 is in need of Rs.5000/- each per month total Rs.10,000/- as maintenance.

The respondent No.1 is doing agriculture and having Ac.5-00 gts agricultural land and one house and he earns Rs.30,000/- per month. As such pray this Court to pass orders for the following:

a)The petitioner sought direction to direct the respondents not to commit any act of Domestic Violence on petitioners as per U/Sec.18 of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

b)The petitioner also sought direction to direct the respondent No.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- to petitioners towards monthly maintenance.

c)The petitioner sought direction to direct the respondents to pay

Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony as per Section 22(a) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

d)The petitioner sought direction to direct the respondent No.1 to provide residential house to petitioner as per Section 19 of Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act.

e)Directing the respondent no.1 to return the dowry amount of

Rs.5,50,000/- net cash, 8 Tulas Gold and household articles worth of 5 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner no.1 which was given by parents of petitioner no.1 at time of her marriage as per Section 19(8) of the Act.

f)Any other relief petitioner found entitled to.

3(a). After registering the DVC notices were served on respondent No.1 to 3 and they engaged counsel but did not file any counter despite giving several opportunities and as such, they were set ex-parte on 30.01.2023.

4.The petitioner No.1 got herself examined as PW1. No exhibits are marked on her behalf.

5.After conclusion of inquiry the counsel for petitioner submitted arguments and requested the court to allow the DVC and grant all the reliefs that are sought in the DVC.

6.Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek aforementioned reliefs as prayed for?

POINT :- 6 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

7.Petitioner no.1 as PW1 in her evidence reiterated the contents of the DVC.

The contention of the Petitioner that she is the legally married wife of respondent No.1 remains unchallenged as the Respondents were set ex parte.

Thus, it has to be held that the Petitioner no.1 is legally wedded wife of

Respondent no.1.

8.What constitute domestic violence is defined under Section 3 of The

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and further Section 3(b) states that “any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security”. In the petition, the petitioner no.1 has stated that the

Respondents used to harass the petitioner no.1 with demand of additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, it is held that domestic violence was committed against the Petitioner no.1 and the Petitioner is entitled to seek relief under the Act.

9.The Petitioner seeks a protection order in her favour. As held above, the

Petitioner was a victim of Domestic Violence and hence, entitled to seek protection order. Protection order is passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents no.1 to 3 and they are hereby prohibited from committing any 7 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair) act of domestic violence or any act aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence. Breach of Protection order by any of the Respondents no.1 to 3 shall be punishable as per Section 31 of the Act.

10. Next the Petitioner seeks an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards her and petitioner No.2 for their maintenance. It is stated by the Petitioner no.1 in her petition that the respondent No.1 is doing agriculture and having Ac.5-00 gts agricultural land and one house and he earns Rs.30,000/- per month. To grant this relief, the petitioner had to adduce some material showing the income of the

Respondent no.1 but no such material is placed before this Court. Nevertheless, a

Husband is liable to maintain his wife and children and hence, for the purpose of maintenance, the salary of Respondent no.1 is assessed at Rs. 25,000/- per month and accordingly monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- for Petitioner no.1 and

Petitioner no.2 is ordered to be paid from the date of filing of this petition. The

Respondent no.1 shall pay this monthly maintenance by the 10th of every month.

11.Further, the Petitioner seeks Rs.5 lakh towards compensation for mental agony as per Section 22 of the Act. On this account, no evidence is available stating the instances for which such expenses are being claimed. Except vaguely stating that the petitioner seeks compensation, the petitioner did not choose to specifically narrate the circumstances for which they are being claimed.

8 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the compensation as sought for by the petitioner.

12.The Petitioner no.1 is seeking right of residence from Respondent no.1. It is not specifically mentioned by petitioner as to where she lived with Respondent no.1 after the marriage and in which house she is seeking right of residence.

Nevertheless, taking note of the fact that Section 19 of the Act provides for right to the Petitioner to seek an alternate accommodation, Respondent no.1 is hereby directed to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the Petitioners as enjoyed by her earlier or to pay rent for the accommodation where she decides to live provided that such rent is not more than Rs.2,500/-(Rs. Two thousand five hundred).

13.Next, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent no.1 to return the dowry amount of Rs.5,50,000/- net cash, 8 Tulas Gold and household articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner no.1 which was given by parents of petitioner no.1 at time of her marriage as per Section 19(8) of the Act. Again, no proof is filed before the Court to show that the said amount and articles were given at the time of marriage and hence, I am not inclined to grant the said relief as well.

14. In the result, this petition is allowed in part by granting the said reliefs:.

9 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

A. The Respondents no.1 to 3 are prohibited from committing any act of Domestic Violence against the petitioner, as provided under Section 18 of the Act.

B. Respondent no.1 is further directed to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- per month (Rs.3,000 each) to the petitioners no.1 and petitioner no.2 from the date of filing of this petition.

C. The Respondent no.1 is hereby directed to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the Petitioner as enjoyed by her earlier or to pay rent for the accommodation where she decides to live provided that such rent is not more than Rs.2,500/-(Rs.

Two thousand five hundred).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4 thday of April, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONER(S): FOR THE RESPONDENT(S):

P.W.1 – Ch.Kalyani- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

- Nil - 10 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

1 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT VEMULAWADA

Present:Sri. PRATEEK SIHAG, Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

V E M U L A W A D A.

MONDAY, THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2023

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE No.15 of 2021

Between:

1.Chekkapelly Kalyani, W/o.Chekkapelly Anjaneyulu @ Anji Reddy, Age:28 yeas, Occ;Housewife, R/o.Narsimhulapalli V/o.Thangallapelli mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

2.Chekkapelly Sanvika, D/o.Chekkapelly Anjaneyulu @ Anji Reddy, Age;8 years, Minor U/G ship of her natural mother petitioner No.1 R/o.Narsimhulapalli V/o.Thangallapelli mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

Petitioners A N D

1.Chekkapelly Anjaneyulu @ Anji Reddy, S/o.Narsaiah, Age;33 years, Occ;Agriculture, R/o.Narsimhulapalli V/o.Thangallapalle mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

2.Chekkapelly Balaxmi, W/o.Narsaiah, Age;55 years, Occ;Agriculture, R/o.Narsimhulapalli V/o.Thangallapalle mandal of Rajanna Sircilla district.

3.Chekkapelly Narsaiah, S/o.Lingaiah, Age;60 years, Occ;Agriculture, R/o.Narsimhulapalli V/o.Thangallapalle mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

… Respondents

Petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic

Violence Act, 2005

This case is coming before me on 15.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K.Purushotham, Advocate for Petitioner and Respondents No.1 to 3 remained ex-parte and having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

: O R D E R :

1. This is a petition filed U/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence.

2.The brief facts of the petitioner case are that:

In this petition, the petitioner is seeking various reliefs under the provisions of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of respondent No.1.

The respondents No.2 and 3 are parents of respondent No.1. According to petitioner, she is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1. The marriage of petitioner with the said Respondent No.1 was performed on 13.02.2012 at her parents house at Chekkapalli village of Vemulawada rural Mandal. At the time of her marriage, her parents presented Rs.5,50,000/- cash, 8 tulas of gold, household articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent No.1 and one motor cycle value of Rs.80,000/-. After marriage, petitioner lived in the house of respondent No.1 by leading their marital life happily for a period of two years.

Out of their wedlock she blessed with petitioner No.2. But the respondent No.1 did not satisfy with the dowry amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and 8 tulas of gold. After the birth of petitioner No.2, respondent No.1 with the instigation of respondent no.2 and 3 started harassing her demanding to bring additional dowry of 3 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents. The petitioner expressed her inability to bring the addition amount as her parents already given sufficient dowry. The respondent No.1 addicted to drink alcohol every day and every day used abusing the petitioner in filthy language to threaten the petitioner No.1 that he would marry another lady, if the said dowry amount is not paid to him, not allow her to join his society. The respondent dislike the petitioner No.1 and also threatened her that he would kill by saying so he may marry another lady for additional dowry and also beat her. But the petitioner No.1 bear all the tortures and harassment of the respondent No.1 with a hope that he may change his attitude one or other day. The petitioner informed to her parents that the illegal demand of the respondent No.1 to 3, on which the matter was reported to the elders, who advised the respondent No.1 to look after the petitioner with love and affection and not to harass her for additional dowry but the respondent No.1 bluntly refused to do so. Since then petitioner No.1 is staying at her parent’s house with petitioner No.2. On 12.07.2021 the respondent No.1 with the instigation of respondent No.2 and 3 necked out the petitioner No.1 and 2 from his house and refused to maintain the petitioner No.1 and 2 and threatened to marry another woman of his choice..

Further that the petitioner No.1 is household lady, unable to maintain petitioner No.2 and also herself. Petitioner No.1 staying at her parent’s house, 4 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair) who are poor as such have no sufficient means to maintain themselves. Thus petitioner No.1 is in need of Rs.5000/- per month and petitioners No.2 is in need of Rs.5000/- each per month total Rs.10,000/- as maintenance.

The respondent No.1 is doing agriculture and having Ac.5-00 gts agricultural land and one house and he earns Rs.30,000/- per month. As such pray this Court to pass orders for the following:

a)The petitioner sought direction to direct the respondents not to commit any act of Domestic Violence on petitioners as per U/Sec.18 of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

b)The petitioner also sought direction to direct the respondent No.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- to petitioners towards monthly maintenance.

c)The petitioner sought direction to direct the respondents to pay

Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony as per Section 22(a) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

d)The petitioner sought direction to direct the respondent No.1 to provide residential house to petitioner as per Section 19 of Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act.

e)Directing the respondent no.1 to return the dowry amount of

Rs.5,50,000/- net cash, 8 Tulas Gold and household articles worth of 5 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner no.1 which was given by parents of petitioner no.1 at time of her marriage as per Section 19(8) of the Act.

f)Any other relief petitioner found entitled to.

3(a). After registering the DVC notices were served on respondent No.1 to 3 and they engaged counsel but did not file any counter despite giving several opportunities and as such, they were set ex-parte on 30.01.2023.

4.The petitioner No.1 got herself examined as PW1. No exhibits are marked on her behalf.

5.After conclusion of inquiry the counsel for petitioner submitted arguments and requested the court to allow the DVC and grant all the reliefs that are sought in the DVC.

6.Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek aforementioned reliefs as prayed for?

POINT :- 6 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

7.Petitioner no.1 as PW1 in her evidence reiterated the contents of the DVC.

The contention of the Petitioner that she is the legally married wife of respondent No.1 remains unchallenged as the Respondents were set ex parte.

Thus, it has to be held that the Petitioner no.1 is legally wedded wife of

Respondent no.1.

8.What constitute domestic violence is defined under Section 3 of The

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and further Section 3(b) states that “any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security”. In the petition, the petitioner no.1 has stated that the

Respondents used to harass the petitioner no.1 with demand of additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, it is held that domestic violence was committed against the Petitioner no.1 and the Petitioner is entitled to seek relief under the Act.

9.The Petitioner seeks a protection order in her favour. As held above, the

Petitioner was a victim of Domestic Violence and hence, entitled to seek protection order. Protection order is passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents no.1 to 3 and they are hereby prohibited from committing any 7 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair) act of domestic violence or any act aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence. Breach of Protection order by any of the Respondents no.1 to 3 shall be punishable as per Section 31 of the Act.

10. Next the Petitioner seeks an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards her and petitioner No.2 for their maintenance. It is stated by the Petitioner no.1 in her petition that the respondent No.1 is doing agriculture and having Ac.5-00 gts agricultural land and one house and he earns Rs.30,000/- per month. To grant this relief, the petitioner had to adduce some material showing the income of the

Respondent no.1 but no such material is placed before this Court. Nevertheless, a

Husband is liable to maintain his wife and children and hence, for the purpose of maintenance, the salary of Respondent no.1 is assessed at Rs. 25,000/- per month and accordingly monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- for Petitioner no.1 and

Petitioner no.2 is ordered to be paid from the date of filing of this petition. The

Respondent no.1 shall pay this monthly maintenance by the 10th of every month.

11.Further, the Petitioner seeks Rs.5 lakh towards compensation for mental agony as per Section 22 of the Act. On this account, no evidence is available stating the instances for which such expenses are being claimed. Except vaguely stating that the petitioner seeks compensation, the petitioner did not choose to specifically narrate the circumstances for which they are being claimed.

8 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the compensation as sought for by the petitioner.

12.The Petitioner no.1 is seeking right of residence from Respondent no.1. It is not specifically mentioned by petitioner as to where she lived with Respondent no.1 after the marriage and in which house she is seeking right of residence.

Nevertheless, taking note of the fact that Section 19 of the Act provides for right to the Petitioner to seek an alternate accommodation, Respondent no.1 is hereby directed to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the Petitioners as enjoyed by her earlier or to pay rent for the accommodation where she decides to live provided that such rent is not more than Rs.2,500/-(Rs. Two thousand five hundred).

13.Next, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent no.1 to return the dowry amount of Rs.5,50,000/- net cash, 8 Tulas Gold and household articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner no.1 which was given by parents of petitioner no.1 at time of her marriage as per Section 19(8) of the Act. Again, no proof is filed before the Court to show that the said amount and articles were given at the time of marriage and hence, I am not inclined to grant the said relief as well.

14. In the result, this petition is allowed in part by granting the said reliefs:.

9 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

A. The Respondents no.1 to 3 are prohibited from committing any act of Domestic Violence against the petitioner, as provided under Section 18 of the Act.

B. Respondent no.1 is further directed to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- per month (Rs.3,000 each) to the petitioners no.1 and petitioner no.2 from the date of filing of this petition.

C. The Respondent no.1 is hereby directed to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the Petitioner as enjoyed by her earlier or to pay rent for the accommodation where she decides to live provided that such rent is not more than Rs.2,500/-(Rs.

Two thousand five hundred).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4 thday of April, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONER(S): FOR THE RESPONDENT(S):

P.W.1 – Ch.Kalyani- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

- Nil - 10 of 10 JCJ – cum – JMFC, Vemulawada DVC No.15/2021 (Fair)

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

1 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT VEMULAWADA

Present:Sri. PRATEEK SIHAG, Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

V E M U L A W A D A.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.166 of 2018

Between:

The State, through The Sub Inspector of Police, Vemulawada Town PS (Cr. No.37 of 2018) … Complainant A N D

Saini Venkatramulu, S/o.Siddaiah, Age;48 years, R/o.Konaipalli village.

… Accused

This case is coming before me on 23.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. N.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Accused having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Vemulawada town filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.37 of 2018 of Vemulawada town Police

Station for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code (For short “IPC”).

2 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

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

(a) On 01.02.2018 at 17.45 hours the defacto-complainant Saini Uma, W/o.

Venkatramulu came to police station and lodged complaint stating that, about 30 years back, her marriage was performed with accused. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.2 lakhs given to her husband towards dowry. After marriage, she led happy marital life with her husband, but there was no children issue to them. Thereafter, her husband used to torture her mentally and physically for money and directed her to bring the amounts from her parents. Due to fear of her husband she was stayed with her parents for some time. By taking advantage of this, her husband developed extra marital relationship with one Nirmala since last 3 years and neglected her by harassing her mentally and physically for money and leading conjugal life with another woman. When she questioned the behaviour of her husband but he threatened her with dire consequences to kill.

Hence she requested to take necessary action against the accused. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against accused for offence under

Section 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

3.This Court took cognizance of offence under Section 498-A and 506 of

Indian Penal Code against accused.

3 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

4.On appearance of accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both sides, charges were framed against the Accused for the offence under offence under Section 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and

Ex.P1 to P3 is marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to him incriminating material appearing against him in prosecution evidence, he denied it totally and reported no defense evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence

punishable under offence under Section 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code

beyond all reasonable doubt?

4 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

10.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused harassed PW1 physically and mentally by torturing her and maintaining extra marital relationship with woman when she questioned about the same, accused threatened her to kill.

Thus, accused has committed offence under Section 498-A and 506 of Indian

Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

11.Saini Uma/PW1 deposed that, her marriage was performed around 20 years back with the accused. At the time of marriage her paretns gave Rs.2 lakhs as dowry. After marriage there were not children to them. Thereafter accused harassed her mentally and physically for additional dowry. The accused also developed illegal relationshp with one Nirmala and neglected her. The accused used to beat her for additional dowry and lived with Nirmala. When she questioned teh accused, he threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter she lodged Ex.P1 report to police.

12.PW2, who is cited as tenant to the shutter of PW.1 and accused, did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Nothing favourable to the prosecution was elicited in his cross-examination by the Ld.APPO. The evidence of LW2 was closed as he died before his evidence could be recorded in the Court.

5 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

13.Md.Arifuddin/PW3 deposed that, he received Ex.P.1 on 01.02.2018 at 17.45 hours, and he registered a case in Cr.No.37/2018 for the offence

U/sec.498-A and 506 of IPC against the accused and issued FIR. On the same day, he examined PW.1. Then he recorded the statement of PW.2. Then he issued notice U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C to accused and filed Charge Sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.498-A and 506 of IPC.

Point

14.Out of 4 witnesses cited, the prosecution examined only 3 witnesses and out of the three witnesses, PW2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW3 is the investigating officer. Thus, the prosecution relies upon the sole testimony of PW1 to prove the case against the Accused.

15.The Accused herein is charged for offences under Section 498A IPC. The

Section 498A IPC is as under:

498-A. 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. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means-

(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 6 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman: or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a 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 failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

16.Thus, for Section 498A IPC, it is essential that the husband or relative of husband must have committed cruelty against the woman. The explanation provides as to what is meant by the term ‘Cruelty’. In the explanation (a) above, the conduct of the Accused persons should be as such to make a woman commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of woman. Explanation (b) of Section 498-A of IPC provides for ‘cruelty’ explanation and states that cruelty means harassment of woman and such harassment is with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demands.

17.In the present case, the evidence of PW1 is very vague and omnibus allegations are made against the Accused. PW1 stated that her marriage was performed 20 years back and thereafter, the Accused harassed her mentally and physically for additional dowry. The said allegation is very vague as no time, date or even year as to when this happened is not stated by her. The PW1 did not even 7 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

state in what manner the harassment took place. Thereafter, PW1 alleges that

Accused developed relationship with one Nirmala and neglected her but PW1 again did not mention as to when the said relationship was developed by the

Accused and in what manner she was effected by the same. Similarly, for offence under Section 506, vague and general allegations are made that Accused threatened to kill her.

18.The evidence of PW1 does not inspire the confidence of the Court as her credibility is very much doubted after perusing the cross-examination. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, she stated that she does not know exact contents of Ex.P1 as it was scribed by her father as she is an illiterate. Suggestion was put to PW1 that property to an extent of 307.5 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.134 in

Konaypalli was registered by accused in her name which she denied and stated that her father registered it. Thus, PW1 admits that the said property was registered in her name and thereafter, PW1 states that ‘No documents are there to show my father registered the land’. Further, PW1 accepted that in 2007, house was constructed by Accused in her name and his name and again stated that her father gave money but there is no proof. All the voluntary answers by PW1 makes her version doubtful as there are no proofs regarding the same despite all being property transactions. Further, PW1 denied suggestion that she sold registered plot in favour of her father without knowledge of Accused in the year 8 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

2016 for an amount of Rs.11,10,000/- and PW1 further stated that ‘same belongs to my father only’. Thus, it can be inferred from this that PW1 did register the plot. It is also pertinent to note that PW1 and Accused were married from last 20 years and no complaint was ever filed by PW1 against Accused and thereafter, in the year 2018 i.e. just after all the said transactions, complaint is filed against the

Accused. The investigating officer i.e. PW3 also did not put any efforts to conduct investigation and the same is ascertainable from his cross-examination.

Be that as it may, the sole testimony of PW1 do not inspire the confidence of the

Court and as per the discussion above, it is not safe to rely upon her sole testimony and benefit of doubt has to be given to the Accused.

19.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

Accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer (Gr.III), corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of March, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

9 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1:Saini Uma- None -

P.W.2: E.Anjaiah

P.W.3: Md.Arifuddin

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report

Ex.P2:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P3:First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

1 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT VEMULAWADA

Present:Sri. PRATEEK SIHAG, Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

V E M U L A W A D A.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.166 of 2018

Between:

The State, through The Sub Inspector of Police, Vemulawada Town PS (Cr. No.37 of 2018) … Complainant A N D

Saini Venkatramulu, S/o.Siddaiah, Age;48 years, R/o.Konaipalli village.

… Accused

This case is coming before me on 23.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. N.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Accused having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Vemulawada town filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.37 of 2018 of Vemulawada town Police

Station for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code (For short “IPC”).

2 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

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

(a) On 01.02.2018 at 17.45 hours the defacto-complainant Saini Uma, W/o.

Venkatramulu came to police station and lodged complaint stating that, about 30 years back, her marriage was performed with accused. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.2 lakhs given to her husband towards dowry. After marriage, she led happy marital life with her husband, but there was no children issue to them. Thereafter, her husband used to torture her mentally and physically for money and directed her to bring the amounts from her parents. Due to fear of her husband she was stayed with her parents for some time. By taking advantage of this, her husband developed extra marital relationship with one Nirmala since last 3 years and neglected her by harassing her mentally and physically for money and leading conjugal life with another woman. When she questioned the behaviour of her husband but he threatened her with dire consequences to kill.

Hence she requested to take necessary action against the accused. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against accused for offence under

Section 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

3.This Court took cognizance of offence under Section 498-A and 506 of

Indian Penal Code against accused.

3 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

4.On appearance of accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both sides, charges were framed against the Accused for the offence under offence under Section 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and

Ex.P1 to P3 is marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to him incriminating material appearing against him in prosecution evidence, he denied it totally and reported no defense evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence

punishable under offence under Section 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code

beyond all reasonable doubt?

4 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

10.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused harassed PW1 physically and mentally by torturing her and maintaining extra marital relationship with woman when she questioned about the same, accused threatened her to kill.

Thus, accused has committed offence under Section 498-A and 506 of Indian

Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

11.Saini Uma/PW1 deposed that, her marriage was performed around 20 years back with the accused. At the time of marriage her paretns gave Rs.2 lakhs as dowry. After marriage there were not children to them. Thereafter accused harassed her mentally and physically for additional dowry. The accused also developed illegal relationshp with one Nirmala and neglected her. The accused used to beat her for additional dowry and lived with Nirmala. When she questioned teh accused, he threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter she lodged Ex.P1 report to police.

12.PW2, who is cited as tenant to the shutter of PW.1 and accused, did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Nothing favourable to the prosecution was elicited in his cross-examination by the Ld.APPO. The evidence of LW2 was closed as he died before his evidence could be recorded in the Court.

5 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

13.Md.Arifuddin/PW3 deposed that, he received Ex.P.1 on 01.02.2018 at 17.45 hours, and he registered a case in Cr.No.37/2018 for the offence

U/sec.498-A and 506 of IPC against the accused and issued FIR. On the same day, he examined PW.1. Then he recorded the statement of PW.2. Then he issued notice U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C to accused and filed Charge Sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.498-A and 506 of IPC.

Point

14.Out of 4 witnesses cited, the prosecution examined only 3 witnesses and out of the three witnesses, PW2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW3 is the investigating officer. Thus, the prosecution relies upon the sole testimony of PW1 to prove the case against the Accused.

15.The Accused herein is charged for offences under Section 498A IPC. The

Section 498A IPC is as under:

498-A. 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. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means-

(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 6 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman: or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a 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 failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

16.Thus, for Section 498A IPC, it is essential that the husband or relative of husband must have committed cruelty against the woman. The explanation provides as to what is meant by the term ‘Cruelty’. In the explanation (a) above, the conduct of the Accused persons should be as such to make a woman commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of woman. Explanation (b) of Section 498-A of IPC provides for ‘cruelty’ explanation and states that cruelty means harassment of woman and such harassment is with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demands.

17.In the present case, the evidence of PW1 is very vague and omnibus allegations are made against the Accused. PW1 stated that her marriage was performed 20 years back and thereafter, the Accused harassed her mentally and physically for additional dowry. The said allegation is very vague as no time, date or even year as to when this happened is not stated by her. The PW1 did not even 7 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

state in what manner the harassment took place. Thereafter, PW1 alleges that

Accused developed relationship with one Nirmala and neglected her but PW1 again did not mention as to when the said relationship was developed by the

Accused and in what manner she was effected by the same. Similarly, for offence under Section 506, vague and general allegations are made that Accused threatened to kill her.

18.The evidence of PW1 does not inspire the confidence of the Court as her credibility is very much doubted after perusing the cross-examination. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, she stated that she does not know exact contents of Ex.P1 as it was scribed by her father as she is an illiterate. Suggestion was put to PW1 that property to an extent of 307.5 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.134 in

Konaypalli was registered by accused in her name which she denied and stated that her father registered it. Thus, PW1 admits that the said property was registered in her name and thereafter, PW1 states that ‘No documents are there to show my father registered the land’. Further, PW1 accepted that in 2007, house was constructed by Accused in her name and his name and again stated that her father gave money but there is no proof. All the voluntary answers by PW1 makes her version doubtful as there are no proofs regarding the same despite all being property transactions. Further, PW1 denied suggestion that she sold registered plot in favour of her father without knowledge of Accused in the year 8 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

2016 for an amount of Rs.11,10,000/- and PW1 further stated that ‘same belongs to my father only’. Thus, it can be inferred from this that PW1 did register the plot. It is also pertinent to note that PW1 and Accused were married from last 20 years and no complaint was ever filed by PW1 against Accused and thereafter, in the year 2018 i.e. just after all the said transactions, complaint is filed against the

Accused. The investigating officer i.e. PW3 also did not put any efforts to conduct investigation and the same is ascertainable from his cross-examination.

Be that as it may, the sole testimony of PW1 do not inspire the confidence of the

Court and as per the discussion above, it is not safe to rely upon her sole testimony and benefit of doubt has to be given to the Accused.

19.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

Accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer (Gr.III), corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of March, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

9 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.166/2018 (fair)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1:Saini Uma- None -

P.W.2: E.Anjaiah

P.W.3: Md.Arifuddin

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report

Ex.P2:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P3:First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

1 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.302/2017 (fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT VEMULAWADA

Present:Sri. PRATEEK SIHAG, Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

V E M U L A W A D A.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.302 of 2017

Between: The State, through The Inspector of Police, Vemulawada town (Cr. No.125 of 2017) … Complainant A N D Maraveni Komuraiah, S/o.Narsaiah, Age;31 years, Caste:Yadava, R/o.H.No.3-39, R/o.Sankepally village of Vemulawada mandal. … Accused

OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 325 AND 504 OF THE INDIAN

PENAL CODE

This case is coming before me on 25.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. K.Purushotham,, Advocate for Accused having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Inspector of Police, Police Station, Vemulawada town filed charge sheet against accused in Cr. No.125 of 2017 of Vemulawada town 2 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.302/2017 (fair)

Police Station for offences under Sections 325 and 506 of Indian Penal

Code (For short “IPC”).

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

(a). On 30.03.2017 at 18.30 hours the defacto-complainant/Maraveni

Kalavva/PW1 came to Police Station and lodged complaint stating that about 3 years back she purchased land in Sy.No.149 and 150 to an extent of

Ac.0-15 gts, since onwards they are cultivating the same. By the side of their land one Maraveni Komuraiah/accused land is there and since six months he used to raise petty quarrels with them on that they approached the village elders and the elders called him in their presence on 04.03.2017 he executed agreement in her favour. Again on 30.03.2017 at 12.00 hours while her husband Parsharamulu attending work in the field, accused went to him and abused her husband and pushed him in the field and kicked with legs and later pushed him on the stones and kicked with legs and later threatened him to kill on that her husband raised hues and cries on that he ran away. After some time her husband got up and went and slept under tree in the meantime her brother in law Maraveni Rajaiah/LW.3 went to him and enquired what had happened on that her husband informed the 3 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.302/2017 (fair)

incident to him then he brought him to house and later took him to Private hospital, Vemulawada for treatment. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against the accused. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, place of incident was observed and crime detail form prepared. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against accused for offences under Sections 325 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

3.This Court took cognizance of offences under Sections 325 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against accused.

4.On appearance of accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to her as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both sides, charge was framed against the Accused for the offences under Sections 325 and 506 of Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.302/2017 (fair)

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to her incriminating material appearing against him in prosecution evidence. He denied it totally and reported no defense evidence.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the

offences punishable under sections 325 and 506 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

Point:

9.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused attacked PW.2 and pushed him in field and on stones and kicked him with legs and caused him grievous injury, due to land disputes. Thus, the accused said to have committed the offences under Sections 325 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

10.M.Kalavva/P.W.1 deposed that, around 6 years ago, when LW.2 went to agricultural field, accused came to her land and beat her husband due to which her husband sustained injuries on left ribs and tooth. LW.3 took

LW.2/her husband in auto to Chanakya hospital, Vemulawada. Then she 5 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.302/2017 (fair)

also went to hospital. Thereafter, she went to police station and gave Ex.P1 report.

11.M.Parsharamulu/P.W.2 deposed that, on 31.03.2017, around 12.00 hours, accused came to his agricultural field and beat him with hands. Then he fell unconscious. LW.3 took him to Chanakya hospital. He sustained injuries on his left ribs, left tooth also broke and on waist.

12.PW.3 who is cited as circumstantial witness and PW.4 who is cited as panch witness for crime details for turned hostile and in their cross- examination, nothing favourable to the case of prosecution was elicited.

13.Dr.R. Mahesh Rao/PW.5 deposed that, on 06.04.2017, he received requisition from SHO Vemulawada town to examine injured person by name M.Parsharam/PW.2 and examined him as inpatient and admitted on 30.03.2017 and discharged on 06.04.2017. As per his examination, he noticed 1. Contusion on abdomen which was simple in nature caused by blunt object. 2. Contusion on lumbar area which was simple in nature caused by blunt object. 3. Contusion on chest with fracture of 11th and 12th 6 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.302/2017 (fair)

ribs which was grievous in nature caused by blunt object. All the injuries were caused approximately one hour before his examination. Accordingly, he issued Ex.P4 which is MC of PW.2.

14.A.Srinivas/PW.6 deposed that, he received Ex.P1 on 30.03.2017 at 6.30 PM, and he registered a case in Cr.No. 125/2017 for the offence U/sec.

324 and 506 of IPC against accused and issued FIR. On the same day, he examined Pws.1 to 3 and LWs. 3 and 5 and referred PW.2 to Hospital for treatment. On the next day, he visited scene of offence and prepared CDF in the presence of PW.4 and LW.7. Thereafter he issued notice U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C to accused. He collected M.C of Pw.2 which mentioned injury as grievous in nature. After completion of investigation he filed Charge Sheet against accused for the offence U/sec.325 and 506 of IPC.

Point

15.To prove its case, the prosecution cited 9 witnesses however prosecution examined only 6 witnesses. The LW3 and LW5 died before their evidence could be recorded and evidence of LW7 was given up by the

Ld.APP. Out the witnesses examined, PW3 and PW4 turned hostile. PW1 is 7 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.302/2017 (fair)

the defacto-complainant, PW2 is the injured, PW5 is the doctor who treated

PW1 and PW6 is the investigating officer in the present case.

16.PW1 is the defacto-complainant and wife of PW2 and she deposed as above but in her cross-examination, PW1 stated that she did not witness the incident. Hence, her evidence is only hear say in nature and not much reliable.

17.Thus, the case of the prosecution rests mainly upon the testimony of

PW2 who is also an injured witness in the present case. PW2 deposed vaguely regarding the incident without mentioning any specific instances as to how the Accused beat him. PW2 simply deposed that Accused beat him with hands and he suffered injuries. Further, PW2 mentions that he suffered injuries on left ribs, left tooth also broke and on waist. But in Ex.P4, which is medical certificate of PW2, there is no mention about any broken tooth but instead, the injury mentioned is fracture on 11th and 12th Ribs, contusion on lumbar area and abdomen area. Thus, there is material difference between the injuries alleged to have been suffered by PW2 and the injuries mentioned in Medical certificate. Further, it is apposite to state here that as per the evidence of PW2, he felt unconscious after the incident and LW3 8 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.302/2017 (fair)

took him to the hospital. But PW5, i.e. the Doctor who treated PW2, stated that PW2 only came to the hospital. Further, as per Ex.P4, PW2 was admitted in the hospital on 30.03.2017 and discharged on 06.04.2017.

Thus, he was in hospital for a long time but no such fact is deposed by

PW2. The testimony of PW2 is not reliable as the same lacks corroboration with other material on record. There are no other evidences against the

Accused and as such, the prosecution has failed to prove their case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt.

18.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 506 of IPC and he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437A of CrPC.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer (Gr.III), corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Vemulawada.

9 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada

CC No.302/2017 (fair)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1:M.KalavvaNone

P.W.2: M.Parsharamulu

P.W.3: N.Parsharamulu

P.W.4:S.Gantaiah

P.W.5: Dr. R.Mahesh Rao

P.W.6:A. Srinivas

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report

Ex.P2:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

Ex.P3:Signature of P.W.4 on Crime Detail Form

Ex.P4:Medical certificate of PW.2

Ex.P5:First Information Report

Ex.P6:Crime details form

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Vemulawada.