1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –
CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 ST CLASS, SRIKAKULAM.
Present: Smt. R. Shanthi Sree,
Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum -Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Srikakulam.
Wednesday, this the 3 rd day of June, 2020.
CALENDAR CASE No.1119/2016
Between:
The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Srikakulam.
… ..Complainant.
And:
Rokkam Sreeramamurthy S/o Late Ramadasu, 63 years, Converted Christian by caste, MIG 331, APHB Colony, Patha Srikakulam of Srikakulam Town.
.. Accused
(This case was received by transfer from I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam on 31.12.2018 as per proceedings of the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Dis. No.4677 dated 12.11.2018)
This case is coming on 03.06.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learnedAssistant Public Prosecutorfor the complainant/State and of Sri S.Vasudevarao, Advocate for accused and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following
J U D G M E N T
1. The Accused is arraigned before the Court for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 in Crime No.39/16 of Woman Police Station,
Srikakulam.
2.The brief averments of the prosecution case are that:
The accused is the husband of L.W.1/Rokkam Alivelumangamma/ de-facto complainant and about 40 years back the marriage of de-facto complainant was performed with the accused and at the time of marriage, the parents of the de-facto complainant gave 20 tulas of gold, half acre agricultural land and Rs.3,000/- cash as dowry and during their conjugal life 2 they both blessed with three sons and they are doing different jobs and also stayed separately. From the beginning the accused used to harass the de-facto complainant both physically and mentally by suspecting her fidelity.
L.W.5/Rokkam Durga Prasad who is the elder son of them separated from them and living separately along with his wife. Suddenly, on 23.08.2016 at about 8.00 PM, the accused used foul and filthy language against the de-facto complainant and demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents and threatened her that if she would not bring additional dowry she will be necked out from his house. L.W.4/Darapu Sai Raju witnessed the harassment of the accused on de-facto complainant and later she filed a petition before the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I
Class, Srikakulam about the offence in turn the court has forwarded the petition to L.W.6/G.Syamalarao, Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police
Station, Srikakulam for registering the case and basing on the report of de- facto complainant, the Sub Inspector of Police, women Police Station,
Srikakulam registered the case in Cr.No.39/2016 under sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code on 22.11.2016 at about 11.00 hours on the file of
Women Police Station, Srikakualm and started investigation. During the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station,
Srikakulam examined L.W.1/Rokkam Alivelumangamma/de-facto complainant, L.W.2/Rokkam Ramadasu, L.W.3/Rokkam Umasankar,
L.W.4/Darapu Sairaju and L.W.5/Rokkam Durgaprasad and recorded their statements and the de-facto complainant stated in her section 161
Cr.P.C.statement that the accused demanded to bring additional dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/- and hence, the Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station,
Srikakualm added section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. Hence, this charge sheet.
3. This case was received by transfer from I Additional Judicial
Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam on 31.12.2018 as per proceedings of the
Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Dis. No.4677 dated
12.11.2018.
3
4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused.
5.On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 Code of Criminal
Procedure.
6.Accused was examined under Section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure, for the charged offences under section 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu and having understood the same, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried.
7.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined
P.W.1 to P.W.6. P.W.1 is Rokkam Alivelumangamma, P.W.2 is Rokkam
Ramadasu, P.W.3 is Darapu Sairaju, P.W.4 is Rokkam Durgaprasad, P.W.5 is
Rokkam Umasankar and P.W.6 is G.Syamalarao, Sub Inspector of Police,
Women Police Station, Srikakulam and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. Ex.P.1 is
Complaint given by P.W.1 to police. Ex.P.2 is Section 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of
P.W.3. Ex.P.3 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.4, Ex.P4 is original First
Information Report and Ex.P5 is Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, by explaining the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in
Telugu, having understood the same, he denied it and reported no defence evidence.
9.Heard arguments on both sides.
10.Now the points for determination are :
1) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?
4
2) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?
3) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?
11.POINT NO.1:
The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the husband of
L.W.1/Rokkam Alivelumangamma/de-facto complainant and about 40 years back the marriage of de-facto complainant was performed with the accused and at the time of marriage, the parents of the de-facto complainant gave 20 tulas of gold, half acre agricultural land and Rs.3,000/- cash as dowry and during their conjugal life they both blessed with three sons and they are doing different jobs and also stayed separately. From the beginning the accused used to harass the de-facto complainant both physically and mentally by suspecting her fidelity. L.W.5/Rokkam Durga Prasad who is the elder son of them separated from them and living separately along with his wife.
Suddenly, on 23.08.2016 at about 8.00 PM, the accused used foul and filthy language against the de-facto complainant and demanded her to bring
additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents and threatened her that if
she would not bring additional dowry she will be necked out from his house.
L.W.4/Darapu Sai Raju witnessed the harassment of the accused on de-facto complainant and later she filed a petition before the court of Additional
Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam about the offence in turn the court
has forwarded the petition to L.W.6/G.Syamalarao, Sub Inspector of Police,
Women Police Station, Srikakulam for registering the case and basing on the report of de-facto complainant, the Sub Inspector of Police, women Police
Station, Srikakulam registered the case in Cr.No.39/2016 under sections 498-
A and 506 of Indian Penal Code on 22.11.2016 at about 11.00 hours on the file of Women Police Station, Srikakualm and started investigation and during the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police
Station, Srikakulam examined L.W.1/Rokkam Alivelumangamma/de-facto complainant, L.W.2/Rokkam Ramadasu, L.W.3/Rokkam Umasankar, 5
L.W.4/Darapu Sairaju and L.W.5/Rokkam Durgaprasad and recorded their statements and the de-facto complainnt stated in her section 161
Cr.P.C.statement that the accused demanded to bring additional dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/- and hence, the Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station,
Srikakualm added section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
12.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that basing on the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution the accused is entitled for conviction.
13.The learned counsel for accused contended that the accused is falsely implicated in this case and further contended that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed the court to acquit the accused.
14.At the outset prior to discussing about the case, it is pertinent to mention regarding the ingredients under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code: 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 purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with 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.
6
15.To prove the guilt of the accused it is pertinent to prove the cruelty against the de-facto complainant contemplated under section 498-A of Indian
Penal Code. On perusal of the entire record and the evidence placed by the prosecution, the prosecution has got examined witnesses P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked Ex.s P1 to P5.
16. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 who is the de-facto complainant in this case, she stated in her evidence that the accused is her husband and he worked in police department and got retired and she got married to the accused about 40 years back as per Hindu caste custom and at the time of marriage half acre of land, Rs.3,000/-, 20 tulas of gold and sarisamans worth of Rs.2,000/- were given and she further stated that she gave birth to three male children and since the marriage the accused used to harass her by abusing her in filthy language and also suspecting her and used to beat her and she further stated that the accused harassed her for additional dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/-. She further stated that the accused used to suspect her fidelity and used to abuse her in filthy language and used to comment regarding her dressing in a vulgar language and later she has filed a private complaint against the accused in the court which was forwarded to the police station.
17.Perused the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 stated in his evidence that P.W.1 is his mother and accused is his father and 40 years back his parents got married to one and another and his father used to not looked after P.W.1 and used to harass her by suspecting her fidelity and the accused works in police department and got retired presently from his service and the accused used to harass his mother by using un-parliamentary words by saying the word such
as 294 and also used to beat his mother indiscriminately. He further stated
that himself and his younger brother used to look after his mother in such situation and he further stated that his father /accused used to insult his mother in the presence of outers who used to come to their house and if any surrounding people used to cautioned the accused he used to say that he belongs to police department and used to threatened them. He further deposed that on his questioning he used to say that he will spoil his carrier and on taking his mother to hospital he used to propaganda that his mother is 7 having diseases and in that manner the accused used to harass his mother mentally and physically by saying that P.W.1 is his own sister’s daughter he used to demand additional dowry also and finally unbearable with the harassment they have been to the police station and gave complaint but police have not registered the same for which, they have filed a private complaint against the accused.
18.Perused the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.3 is a third party witness who stated in his evidence that he do not know anything about the case and police came to his house as per the address given and they have not examined him. Inspite of cross examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor nothing was impeached from the evidence of P.W.3.
19.Perused the evidence of P.W.4. P.W.4 is one of the son of the accused and P.W.1 and he stated in his evidence that no harassment was committed by the accused against his mother and he do not know anything about the facts of the case and inspite of cross examination by the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor nothing was impeached from the evidence of P.W.4.
20.Perused the evidence of P.W.5. He stated in his evidence that P.W.1 and accused are his parents and to his knowledge his father used to abuse his mother and used to harass her by doubting her fidelity and used to beat his mother. He further stated that presently his father is retired as Assistant Sub
Inspector of Police and himself and his brother /P.W.2 also made some efforts to settle the disputes between his parents but his father did not listen their words and used to continue his attitude and used to harass his mother and the accused used to express that, he unnecessarily married his mother if he would marry a better woman he would have a better life and used to harass
P.W.1 frequently stating that he will get additional dowry, if he would have marry another women and the accused eventhough knowing his grandmother is sick the accused used to propaganda against his mother in her native place and in his neighbouring places. He further stated that due to unbearabale harassment against his mother, his mother gave complaint to police but the police have not accepted the same for which, his mother has filed a private 8 complaint in the court in the month of November, 2017 and his father/accused made efforts to beat his mother for which, she telephoned to him and he immediately telephoned to No.100 and he came to the court to depose his evidence as his mother requested protection from his father.
21.Perused the evidence of P.W.6. P.W.6 is the Sub Inspector of Police,
Women Police Station who registered the case and filed charge sheet in this case. He stated in his evidence that on 22.11.2016 he received the complaint from the court basing on it, he registered the case in Cr.No.39/2016 for the offence under sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and he sent the original First Information Report to the court and he has been to the scene of offence and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence and he recorded the statements of P.W.s 2 to 5 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.
22.On perusal of the entire evidence of prosecution side, P.W.1 stated in her evidence that she has filed a private complaint which was forwarded to the police officials and then, they have registered the case against accused hence, in these circumstances the entire evidence of prosecution should be scrutinized carefully.
23.On perusal of the evidence of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined P.Ws 1 to 6 who are the de-facto complainant and children of P.W.1 and accused and one third party witness and Station House Officer and also got marked Ex.s P1 to P5.
24.In catena of judgments by the Honourable APEX Court and by
Honourable High Court the prompt lodging of First Information report was
given.
25.In a case between “State of A.P. Vs., N. Madhusudhan Rao 2008 (3)
Law Summary at page 204 (Supreme Court)” 9 “it was held by the Honourable Court that First Information
Report should be lodged at the first instance. Immediately after the offence and if there be any delay it needs to be suspected. In para 18 it is held that time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of First Information Report has been high lightened. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which a creature of an after thought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity the danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident of a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on it's veracity. Therefore, it is essential that they delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.”
26.In the present case on perusal of the entire record and evidence given by the P.W.1, a private complaint was lodged by her which was referred to the police station and basing on the complaint the Station House Officer,
Women Police Station has registered the case against accused and so in this case as it is a matrimonial case, the prompt lodging of First Information
Report can be exempted being the victim is a lady and she may have some restrictions and constrains to immediately lodge the First Information Report.
So, the prosecution should explain the delay in lodging of First Information
Report by placing proper reasons.
27.The alleged charges against accused are under sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
28.To prove the guilt of the guilt of the accused the prosecution has to prove the ingredients under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and the cruelty mentioned in Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. In section 498-A of
Indian Penal Code, it is clearly mentioned that the cruelty against a person should be in such a manner that the person is subjected to cruelty that she may commit suicide.
10
29.On perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 stated in her evidence that she got married 40 years back and at the time of marriage half acre land , Rs.3,000/- cash and 20 tulas of gold and sarisamans worth of
Rs.2,000/- were given and she gave birth to three male children and since the marriage, the accused used to harass her by abusing her in filthy language and suspecting her fidelity and used to beat her and also used to harass her for
additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. But, on perusal of the evidence given by
P.W.1 nowhere in her evidence, the P.W.1 has specified any particular incident or date when she was harassed by the accused and what are the words used by the accused to abuse her and what is the particular incident and date which she was subjected to cruelty which drove her and to go to the police station to give complaint against accused. It is an admitted fact by both the parties that the marriage between the accused and P.W.1 was performed about 40 years back and they have three male children. On perusal of the evidence of prosecution all the three male children were examined and on perusal of their evidence also no one have specifically mentioned any particular dates of the incident which drove P.W.1 to give complaint in the police station. Curiously one of the son i.e the elder son of the P.W.1 and accused turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution.
30.In view of the facts and circumstances of this case it is necessary to consider the legal aspects of section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. In so far as the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is concerned in order to come to the conviction of the accused for the offence charged under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, the evidence should be given in such a manner to prove the ingredients under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.
31.In the case of “C.Veerudu Vs., State of A.P (1998 (2) ALT 171)their lord ships while dealing with section 498 A of Indian Penal Code in para
No.11 held that “it is in the light of the above principles, section 498 A of Indian
Penal Code has got to be scrutinized to find out whether the legislature has intended to exclude mens rea for the purpose of establishing the offence there under. Since, mens rea is an essential 11 ingredient of every offence, it's exclusion can only be deduced if the legislature has either expressly ruled it out or by implication intended it's exclusion. A look at the provision section 498 A reveals that there are no express terms as such ruling out the existence of mens rea. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the legislature has by implication intended the exclusion. The best acceptable method of test is to see whether the offence is comparatively of a minor nature. It is the punishment prescribed for the offence that gives out the clue in this respect. The punishment prescribed for the offence under section 498 A of
Indian Penal Code is sentence of imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also imprisonment of fine. So, the offence is not of a comparatively minor nature to hold that the legislature has by implication intended to rule out the existence of mens rea. On the other hand, the explanation appended to section 498 A of Indian Penal Code clinches the issue otherwise by giving out the meaning “ Cruelty” as “any wilful conduct” which is of such a nature as is likely drive the woman to commit suicide etc.,.
The adjective “Wilful” qualify the word “Conduct” contemplates obstinate and deliberate behaviour on the part of the offender for it to amount to “Cruelty” the sole constituent of the offence as such.
The term “Wilful Conduct” is thus explicit in character and reflects intention of the legislature that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence.”
In para No.15 their lordships further held that “On an analysis of the cases noted supra, it can be culled out that (i) the standards of proof of cruelty are higher in degree in criminal law than in civil law under the matrimonial causes, (ii) the intention or mens rea on the part of one spouse to injure the other is not a necessary element of cruelty in civil law for matrimonial causes while it is an essential element in criminal law (iii) it is enough if cruelty is proved by preponderance of probabilities in civil law while criminal trails the conduct of cruelty has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, (iv) it is immaterial in civil law 12 whether the respondent's conduct was aimed the other spouse or due to unwarranted indifference attributable, perhaps, to selfishness or laziness while it is very much material in criminal proceedings, and (v) for the relief of matrimonial causes in civil law the conduct of the spouse need not necessarily result in danger of life, limb or health, but a reasonable apprehension of such a danger is enough, whereas section 498 A of Indian Penal Code contemplates such a conduct besides being “Wilful ” to result in the likelihood of driving the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.
32.It is not every harassment or every type of cruelty would attract section 498- A of Indian Penal Code and the prosecution has to establish that beating and harassment with a view to force wife to commit suicide or to fulfil illegal demands of husband and in-laws.
33.Now in the present case, P.W.1 stated that P.W.3 witnessed the entire harassment. Curiously the P.W.3 who is the 3rd party to the case turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution and P.W.2 who is one of the son of P.W.1 stated in his evidence that the accused beat his mother indiscriminately and on perusal of record, no single medical certificate was submitted or placed by the prosecution regarding the injuries caused by beating P.W.1 indiscriminately. Curiously not even one surrounding person has been examined by the police officials to support their version. P.W.2 stated in his evidence that the accused used to propaganda against his mother in the neighbourhood and also at his grand mothers place. But no even one witness was examined from the neighbourhood of the accused and P.W.1 or from the place of his grand mother.
34.On perusal of the record in this case, there is no single whisper as the details of the harassment caused by the accused and also about the specific overtacts of the accused.
13
35.It has been held in a case between “Atluri Ravindra Vs. State of
Andhara Pradesh 2006 (3) ALT (Crl) page 82” that “when there are no specific overtacts as to whether the harassment was mentally or physically if so what kind of harassment and when such harassment was caused etc., to rope all the family members, the allegations does not constitute prima facie case and the case made against the accused can be quashed. The general statement made by P.W.1 and her father and there is no evidence in respect of the alleged harassment and demand for cash the accused should be acquitted.
36.Now coming to the present case, after marathon matrimonial life of 40 years the de-facto complainant filed a private complaint against the accused who is her husband under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and the same was referred for investigation and after due investigation, the concerned Station House Officer, Women Police Station has filed charge sheet. On perusal of the prosecution evidence, it is alleged in the complaint that on 23.08.2016 the accused subjected the complainant to cruelty by using filthy language and demanding additional dowry. It is known fact that the cruelty is mentioned under section 498-A of Indian penal Code is not elaborately described but considering the facts and circumstances of the case whether the victim is subjected to cruelty or not will be decided by the court.
37.The de-facto complainant was examined as P.W.1 and their three sons were examined as P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5. Neither P.W.1, nor her sons stated specifically the dates as mentioned in the complaint and the incident happened which lead to cruelty. It is an admitted fact revealed from the evidence that in the wedlock the de-facto complainant and accused begot three sons, they are settled at different places, no one is there in the matrimonial home. Thereby, it is clear that the sons of
P.W.1 did not witness the incidents which was alleged by P.W.1 in the complaint. On perusal of the entire record, the Investigating Officer did 14 not choose to examine any neighbour and the Investigating Officer gave an explanation that no one come forward to give evidence.
38.One of the allegations is that the accused demanded additional dowry, it is nothing but cruelty if it is proved. It reveales from the evidence of P.W.1 that P.W.1 is a house wife and she has no income and the father of the de-facto complainant died and her aged mother who is sick. It is admitted from the evidence that they are well established financially and it is clear from the evidence that the accused is retired as
Assistant Sub Inspector and constructed a house and he is the source of income of the family. It is further revealed from the evidence that all the three sons were educated and settled on the financial support of the accused. In these circumstances accused demanding additional dowry is not proved and established.
39.Coming to the oral evidence of P.W.1, she stated that she is residing separately. By viewing the complaint itself she made it mentioned that herself and accused are residing under the same roof and in the same address. Any how by viewing in any angle the de-facto complainant failed to establish that the accused subjected her to cruelty as defined under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code
40. It is also well settled law that every act that may be resulted on account of difference between wife and husband cannot be granted as cruelty as defined in Explanation appended to Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code. It is only when the acts complained of wilful in nature and accentuated with the object of coercing the wife or any person related to her to meet the unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, that an offence under section 498 A of Indian Penal Code can be said to have been committed. In a case between Vadala Vinay Kumar Vs. State of A.P 2006 (1) Law Summary 333 at para 13 it is held that “omnibus allegations such as the appellant (accused) was ill- treating the deceased (wife) by beating, insulting and demanding 15 her to bring money would not come within the meaning of cruelty as defined under section 498 A of Indian Penal Code”.
41.Keeping in view of the above judgment mentioned supra, in the light of the above discussion as the evidence as to demand of additional dowry is not only vague and also omnibus in nature, it is held that the evidence on record in this case felt much short of the requirement in convicting the accused for the offence charged under section 498-A of Indian
Penal Code. Hence, this point is decided against the prosecution.
42.Point No.2:
Now coming to the charged offence under section 506 of Indian Penal
Code. It is pertinent to mention the ingredients under section 506 of Indian
Penal Code which reads as follows:
Section 506 of Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 8 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
43.Curiously on perusal of the record, nowhere the witnesses have stated any particular dates or any particular filthy language used by the accused or any specific incident which caused the criminal intimidation against P.W.1 by the accused. A bald statement that the accused abused P.W.1 in filthy language is not enough to prove the section 506 of Indian Penal Code. P.W.1 16 stated in her evidence that P.W.3 witnessed the harassment but curiously
P.W.3 turned hostile. P.W.2 stated in his evidence that the surrounding people witnessed the harassment. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to examine any of the neighbours who witnessed the harassment and abused P.W.1 in filthy language and intimidated P.W.1. This shows the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients under section 506 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, this point is also decided against the prosecution.
44.Point No.3:
Now coming to another charge of section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
To prove the offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act it is pertinent to mention the said section which reads as follows:-
Penalty for demanding dowry.—If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:" Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
45.Now coming to the present case, P.W.1 stated in her evidence that at the time of marriage her parents gave dowry of
Rs.3,000/- cash, half acre of agricultural land and 20 tulas of gold and sarisamans worth of Rs.2,000/- and further stated that the accused demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- but on perusal of the evidence placed by the prosecution, the P.W.1 stated and admitted in her evidence that she is not having any source of income and it is an admitted fact that out of wedlock she has given birth to three male children and all of them are educated and have been settled and living separately from their matrimonial home and it is also admitted fact that the accused retired as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and he is only 17 source of income for their family and all of the three children have been got educated and settled out of the source of income of the accused.
46.On perusal of the entire evidence placed by the prosecution nowhere any whisper or utter regarding the demand of additional dowry was stated by the witnesses a formal statement is not enough to prove the ingredients under section of 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and P.W.1 failed to show that there was a transaction of dowry and demand of dowry by accused and the prosecution did not place any single piece of evidence to prove that the accused demanded additional dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/- as contemplated under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act regarding the demand of dowry and hence, this point is also decided against the prosecution.
47.Reconciling the entire evidence placed by the prosecution and in view of discussions made supra the P.W.1 has formally stated regarding the harassment but she did not depose any exact dates or episode and exact overtacts of harassment against her and hence, the prosecution failed to place any evidence to support their version as they did not even examine one of the neighbours of the matrimonial home of P.W.1 and accused and the prosecution failed to place any evidence to support that the version of the accused that the accused demanded additional dowry contemplated under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, in these circumstances all the points are decided against the prosecution.
48.For herein above circumstances, as the prosecution failed to establish the paramount ingredients of sections 498-A,506 of Indian
Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.
49.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,506 of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1)
Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked case property, if any shall be 18 destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in open Court this the 3rd day of June, 2020.
Sd/-R.Shanthi Sree
Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum - Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution:
P.W.1:29.03.2019: Rokkam Alivelumangamma P.W.2:06.08.2019: Rokkam Ramadasu P.W.3:07.01.2020: Darapu Sairaju P.W.4:07.01.2020: Rokkam Durga Prasad P.W.5:10.03.2020: Rokkam Umasankar P.W.6: 10.03.2020: G.Syamalarao,Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station , Srikakulam For Defence : None
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1: 22.11.2016: Complaint given by P.W.1 to Police Ex.P2: 22.11.2016: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P3: 22.11.2016: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P4: 22.11.2016: Original First Information Report. Ex.P5: 22.11.2016 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence For Defence:Nil Material Objects: Nil
Sd/-R.Shanthi Sree
Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum - Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.
//True Copy//
Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum - Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.
19 20 21