Ms. Radhika Jaiswal, B.a, L.l.b.

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present : Ms. Radhika Jaiswal,

VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Monday, this the 30 th day of January, 2017.

D.V.C.No. 58/2014

Between:

S.Sujatha W/o. S.Balakrishna Prasad, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Presently staying at her Sister’s house at H.No. 5-1-112, Balajinagar colony, Bandlaguda, R.R.District.

..Aggrieved person

AND

1.Balakrishna Prasad So. Late Ramurthy, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Venkatapuram township near cricket ground, Narapally, Ghatkesar , R.R.District.

2.Smt. Revathi , Aged about 60 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Meerpet, R.R.District.

3.Muktha W/o. Ramakrishna, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Meerpet, R.R.District.

4.Ramakrishna Aged about 40 years, Occ: Lecturer, R/o. Meerpet, R.R.District.

5.Subhadra Aged about 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Meerpet, R.R.District.

.. Respondents No. 1 to 5

2

This petition is coming today before me for final disposal in the presence of Mr. P.Amarnath Reddy, Advocate for the Aggrieved person and of Sri. V.Sreenivas Rao, Advocates for Respondent No.1 to 4 and Respondent No.5 Set exparte and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

ORDER

1.The aggrieved person/wife filed this application against the

respondent No.1/husband, mother-in-law, Co-sister, Brother-in-

law and sister-in-law through the Protection Officer, District Women and Child Development Agency, Ranga Reddy District, under the

Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the Act, praying to pass protection order, residence order monetary relief and compensation order under Sec. 18 to 20 and 22 of the Act.

2.On registering the case, notices of this were sent to the

Respondent No.1 to 5. R.1 only made his appearance and R.2 to R.5 set exparte as per docket order dated 12.01.2015, thereafter respondents came forward for filing petition to set-aside exparte order only on behalf of R.1 to R.4 and after hearing both sides order of exparte against R.1 to R.4 was set-aside. But no steps were taken for

R.5 as per docket order dated 19.03.2015.

3.Aggrieved person is examined as PW1 and no documents are marked on her behalf and on behalf of respondents, respondent

No.1 is examined as RW1 and marked Ex.R.1 to R.8 and RW2 who is neighbour of Respondent No.1 who filed her chief examination 3 affidavit and RW3 who is also neighbour of Respondent No.1 who also filed his chief examination affidavit but the evidence of RW2 and 3 were eschewed as even after giving ample of opportunities they did not come forward for cross examination.

4.From the contents of the report of the aggrieved person/Pw1, her sworn affidavit and her evidence, the case of the aggrieved person is that her marriage with respondent No.1 was held on 13.06.2012 which was an arranged marriage performed as per Hindu

Rites and customs. Since her parents expired she is staying with her elder sister Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi, who performed her Kanyadanam along with her husband Sri. Radhakrishna who gave Rs.1,50,000/- cash and other household articles to the respondent.

The respondent No.1 is in the business of taking the lease of a cricket ground to provide the facilities to the players for playing matches and apart from that the respondent No.1 is also do the

Purohityam i.e. being Brahmin as his profession and he is earning

Rs.50,000/- per month. The respondent No.2 is the mother in law and the Respondent N.3 and 4 are brother in law and his wife the respondent No. 5 is the sister in law.

Soon after one week of the said marriage the respondent No.1 and his mother, brother in law and his wife i.e. Respondent No.2 to 5 started harassing her.

The respondent No.2 and 3 abused and humiliated her if she entered into the kitchen saying that she should seek their permission prior to enter into the kitchen confining her to the extent that she 4 should not drink the water without their permission if she drink water or touch anything or eat anything without their permission the respondent No.2 to 5 used to create big galata in the house and tried to manhandle her and also instigate the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 upon their instigation without any explanation he used to beat her. When she tried to contact in the phone with her sister, the respondent No.2 to 5 informed to the respondent No.1 and he used to hit her head to the wall by holding her hair and threatened that if anything is disclosed to her sister she will face the consequences. That she informed her sister how she subjected to humiliation and harassment by the respondents. Thereafter as she conceived and was carrying twins the same was informed to the respondents by her sister, but there is no response from their side .

That she requested the respondent No.1 tot ake her as everybody is asking the reason of her stay in the house of her sister and it is the custom to stay in the marital house till Nine months of pregnancy, but the respondent No.1 did not responded for the same.

The respondent No.1 forced her to lead conjugal life in his same sadist way, though she tried to prevent him as which was not advisable by the doctors at the time of pregnancy as she is carrying twins and the said acts of respondent No.1 resulted discharging of water but the respondent No.2 to 5 did not bothered to take her to the hospital within time and the situation has become worsen then the respondents taken her to the hospital in the seven months of pregnancy in Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad without informing to the sister and brother in law as a result the premature male babies were born 5 who died soon after their birth . Thereafter when again she went to the house of the respondents where she was subjected to harassment and humiliation and the respondent No1 beat her. She also noticed that a lady is staying with respondent No.1 in the room taken by respondent No.1 near the ground whose name is Suguna along with a daughter who is aged about 7 years. The respondent

No.1 started beating her saying that why did she disclosed about their relationship to the owner and her sister and when they came galata took place. The owner of the house called his relative who is constable in PS Ghatkesar to help him.

She approached PS. Rajendranagar along with her sister and brother in law seeking necessary action.

Therefore, she prayed this Court to grant the below reliefs.

 The respondents may be restrained from committing any act of domestic violence or aiding and abetting the commission of domestic violence and  Protection order as enshrined U/s. 18 of DV Act to her and her family.

 Direct the respondent No.1 to provide alternate accommodation as enshrined in Section 19(1) of D.V. Act.

 To pay her a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance to her for the rent and other expenses.

 To pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, ill-treatment and for loss of life caused to her and thereafter, 6

During cross examination PW1 denied that the contents of her complaint given in DVC to protection officer and the contents of her chief affidavit is not tallying. She do not know exactly which ( june) Masam it was when her marriage performed. She admitted that she had mentioned in the complaint that she stayed in her mother-in-law’s house for three months after marriage. Her mother expired prior to her marriage i.e in the year 2008. She admitted that marriage took place at the house of her husband, but not at her sister’s house. Prior to her marriage, she know what the respondent was earning. She had not filed any document to show the earnings of the respondent.

The complaint given to Ghatkesar PS which was forwarded to

Rajendranagar PS in which she mentioned the humiliation done by all the respondents. She denied that she had not mentioned the same in the complaint. She came to know that she was pregnant when she was at her sister’s house. The doctor said her she was carrying twins, when she was three months pregnant when she was seven months pregnant she was at her sister’s house. She admitted that, the kitchen and bed room are two separate rooms in her mother in law’s house. She denied that there was no circumstances to get the water to her room. She denied that she had not stated in her complaint that the respondent was harassing her.

She denied that she do not know the contents of her chief affidavit. She admitted that in the month of November, 2013, respondent threatened her to kill.

7

She admitted that she had not mentioned in the complaint the respondent even threatened his sister and brother in law. She cannot file any documentary proof to that effect. She admitted that she had mentioned in her complaint that through the respondent only she came to know that R.1 has taken the ground. She denied that as she cannot produce any witness, as such it is false.

5.Respondent No.1 filed his counter chief and chief examination affidavit and also filed counter on behalf of R.2 to

R.4 and marked certain documents and also admitted on 13.06.2012 he married the complainant which was an arranged marriage. He was told by the brother-in-law of the complainant that as her parents died in the childhood of complainant. She was living with them and he spent an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for their marriage. Moreover complainant side never paid a single pie for anything for them.

He submit that petitioner stayed in his house only 3 months.

He submit that his wife used to shout loudly in the night times, when she is in sleeping stage that she like and love her brother in law and also abuse him in all manners.

He submit that In 2012 December, because of her unexpected stomach problem he took her to the hospital in Jillellaguda and the doctor confirmed that she is not carrying and no serious problems or any other problem. Later She left to her sister’s house in the third week of December. But she informed later to R.1 that she is carrying as such he asked her how she got pregnancy when she is at her 8 brother in law’s house. She had not given any reply. He submit that her brother in law and sister with cunning nature dropped her in their house 15 days before of delivery with an intention of escaping the delivery hospital expenses. In 7th month i.e. after 15 days because of her unexpected stomach problems, he took her to hospital and she delivered premature children’s who both died.

He submit that because of her loneliness and because of his deterioration of health his well wishers made him to be in an other activity at taking a ground, for cricket players. He submit that because of mental, illness and as he was not in a stage to think properly, he blindly signed in agreement that he will pay an amount of

Rs.90,000/- per month as rent and thus he was forced to suffer with a loss Rs.14,00,000/- through he was not having any moveable or immovable assets.

He submit that the petitioner unexpectedly and suddenly appeared in the month of May, 2014 and made galata and also filed a case against him Nacharam PS by alleging false allegations.

However, he is ready to take her again as his wife by ignoring all the previous alleged allegations and pray to dismiss the petition.

He had filed following documents marked as:-

Ex.R.1 is the Diagnostic Centre report, dt. 09.12.2012 showing normal report. Ex.R.2 is the payment receipt, dt. 10.12.2012, Ex.R.3 is the Scanning report showing normal, Ex.R.4 is the Blood report showing normal, Ex.R.5 is the Biochemistry report dt. 10.12.2012,

Ex.R.6 is the Thyroid report dt. 10.12.2012 , Ex.R7 is the Medical 9 prescription dt. 11.12.2012 and Ex.R.8 is the Discharge card dt.

09.06.2013 to 10.06.2013 all 2013 . In all the documents the patient’s name is Sujatha/petitioner.

,

6.During the cross-examination of RW1 he stated that he had not completed his B Tech studies. He had no knowledge regarding the medical subject. As per Ex.P.7 the LMP date is 25.11.2012 and all the other documents are dt. 10.12.2012. The last week of

December commence after 15th December. He do not know that from 25.11.2012 to 10.12.2012 if the petitioner got checked herself regarding the pregnancy. He denied that he filed the false certificate for showing illicit relationship of petitioner with someone. He know the contents of his chief affidavit. He denied that he had made the false allegations in his chief affidavit on the petitioner. He denied that he had not incurred any expenditure in their marriage and also that the petitioner not stayed only for three months after marriage with him. He denied that petitioner was not abusing her. He denied that petitioner has not filed the case in Nacharam Police station.

7.Arguments:

At the time of arguments, the learned petitioner side counsel

submitted that the respondent has filed medical documents which

are created for the purpose of this case and also harassed petitioner

as such pray to grant relief under the Domestic violence Act whereas

the respondent side counsel by filing the written arguments

submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of

10

petitioner/aggrieved person regarding the dates of alleged

harassment . He also submitted that

1. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 13th August 2010, Justice

Shiv Narayana Dhingra bench in their judgment mentioned that:

“ Domestic Violence is a violence which is committed when parties are in Domestic Relation sharing same household and sharing all the household goods with an opportunity to commit violence but, when such acts of violence take place when one is living separate these may be punishable under different provisions of IPC or other penal laws but they cannot be covered under

Domestic Violence Act”.

2. Like that in another case of Hon’ble High court at Bombay in

Crl. Appeal No. 160/2011 7th March, 2013 the Hon’ble

Judge, mentioned that

“ When the relations having came to an end and one of the party had lived earlier but, as the relation came an end and that too the physical relation came to an end she cannot be taken to be living in any domestic relationship”.

He submitted that the petitioner/aggrieved person was not living along with the respondent and there is no domestic relationship between them as such he prayed to dismiss the petition.

11

8 . 1) To prove the case of domestic violence against R.1 to R.5,

petitioner/aggrieved person is required to prove that she is the

aggrieved person as described U/sec. 2(a) of Domestic Violence Act

and she was living in the Domestic relationship along with R.1 to R.5

in the shared household as defined U/sec. 2(f) and (s) of Domestic

Violence Act and during that period R.1 to R.5 has committed

Domestic Violence on her as per Section 3 of the Act.

2) If so , to what relief?

9. POINT-1:

Petitioner/aggrieved person examined herself as PW1 and it is her case that prior to her marriage, she was residing with her sister and brother in law due to death of his parents who performed her marriage by doing Kanyadanam and Rs. 1,50,000/- and other household articles were given and after marriage, she was staying along with R.1 to R.5, R.1 who is her husband, R.2 mother in law , R3 and R.4 brother in laws and his wife and respondent No.5 is sister in law.

In the chief affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 he too admitted his marriage which was performed with the aggrieved person/Pw1 on 13.06.2012 and they were living together as such it is proved that Pw1/aggrieved person where in Domestic relationship with the R.1 to R.5 at one point of time and lived in the shared household after her marriage with R.1.

PW1/aggrieved person evidence is that after marriage respondent No1 on instigation of other respondents used to beat her and was not providing food and many times hit her hair to the wall by 12 holding her hairs. In the cross examination she admitted that for 3 months after the marriage she stayed along with R.1 to R.5.

Thereafter due to the ill-treatment made by the respondents she was forced to leave the house and informed the same to her sister and stayed in her sister’s house as her parents expired.

Nothing was elicited in the cross examination to discredit the evidence of the aggrieved person or to say that the respondent No.1 was looking well to the petitioner/aggrieved person and not committed any acts of Domestic Violence.

It is the case of petitioner /aggrieved person that when she came to know that she was pregnant she came back to the house of respondent but the respondent did not care and forced her to leave conjugal life which was not advisable by the doctor which resulted in the discharge of water and the premature birth of male babies who were died after their birth. The plea taken by the defence that petitioner/aggrieved person was having illicit relation with her brother in law and during evidence he marked documents Ex.R.1 to

R.8 i.e. Ex.R.1 is the Diagnostic Centre report, dt. 09.12.2012 showing normal report. Ex.R.2 is the payment receipt, dt.

10.12.2012, Ex.R.3 is the Scanning report showing normal, Ex.R.4 is the Blood report showing normal, Ex.R.5 is the Biochemistry report

dt. 10.12.2012, Ex.R.6 is the Thyroid report dt. 10.12.2012 , Ex.R7 is

the Medical prescription dt. 11.12.2012 and Ex.R.8 is the Discharge card dt. 09.06.2013 to 10.06.2013 . It was elicited in the cross examination by the petitioner counsel that petitioner was not taken to any checkup from 25.11.2012 to 10.12.2012 if she would have taken 13 for check up, respondent would have know that she was pregnant during that period. Respondent has not made any attempt to examine the author of the medical document which are marked

Ex.R.1 to R.8. The respondent even has not examined any other witness to say that petitioner/aggrieved person did not turn up after 3 months of her marriage and both of them did not live together. Both the parties admitted that respondent was having knowledge prior to their marriage that petitioner’s parents expired as such plea taken by the respondent is not having force.

It is the case of the petitioner that due to unbearable harassment she has also filed complaint to the police, Rajendranagar against all the respondents U/sec. 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. But the testimony of PW1/aggrieved person did not disclose the specific overacts of Domestic Violence against

R.2 to R.5. There is no corroborative evidence, or material on record to show that other respondents also humiliated or violated the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. Therefore by the above discussion it prima-facie established that petitioner/aggrieved persons was turned out from the shared household and subjected to the act of

Domestic Violence on the hands of respondent No.1 /husband and was also deprived of financial resources and statutory rights of residence. Therefore, she is said to be an aggrieved person as defined U/sec. 2(a) of Domestic Violence Act and proved that

Respondent No.1 has committed Domestic violence against her under Explanation (i) Physical abuse (ii) Sexual abuse and (iv) 14

Economic abuse, Domestic violence case not proved against R.2 to R.5.

10.POINT - 2:

To what relief ?

It is submitted by the PW1/Aggrieved person that the respondent is doing purohitham by profession being Brahman and also doing business of taking the lease of cricket ground and providing the facilities to the players for playing match and earning

Rs.50,000/- per month, but the respondent No.1 denied the same and submitted that he has taken loans and has the burden to repay the same.

It submitted by the petitioner that she is household wife and presently staying in her sister’s house and became burden on her as such seeing the present standard of living first of all respondent

No.1 directed not to commit Domestic Violence against the petitioner U/sec. 18 of the Domestic Violence Act. The

Respondent No.1 directed to pay Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand only) U/sec. 19(f) of the DVC Act for the alternative accommodation,

The Respondent No.1 directed to pay Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only) U/sec. 20(3) of the Actunder maintenance.

Respondents No.1 is directed to pay Totally Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees

Ten thousand only) per month to be paid from the date of this order. Respondent No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees one lakh only) as compensation U/sec. 22 of Domestic

Violence Act for the mental agony undergone by the PW1/aggrieved 15 person and the same shall be paid within three months from the date of this order.

Petitioner is directed to give her account Number to the

Respondent No.1 and he is directed to deposit the amount in the said

Account number.

11.In the result, Domestic Violence Case is allowed against respondent No. 1 and dismissed against Respondent No. 2 to 5.

1.The respondent No.1first of all directed not to commit any

Domestic Violence against the petitioner U/sec. 18 of the Act.

2.The Respondent No.1 directed to pay Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand only) U/sec. 19(f) of the DVC Act for the alternative accommodation

3. The Respondent No.1 directed to pay Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only) U/sec. 20(3) of the Actunder maintenance.

4. Respondents No.1 is directed to pay Totally Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees Ten thousand only) per month to be paid from the date of this order

5.Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees one lakh only) is directed to pay by the Respondents No. 1 as compensation U/sec. 22 of the Domestic

Violence Act for the mental agony undergone by the PW1/aggrieved person the same shall be paid within three months from the date of this order and the petitioner is directed to give her account Number to the Respondent No.1 and he is directed to deposit the amount in the said Account number.

16

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30th day of January, 2017.

VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Aggrieved person For Respondents

PW1: Sujatha RW1: Bala Krishna Prasad RW2: Smt. K. Durga devi RW3: Siva Ramakrishnaiah ( Rw2 and 3 Eschewed)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Aggrieved person :

-Nil-

For Respondents :

Ex.R.1 is the Diagnostic Centre report, dt. 09.12.2012 showing normal report. Ex.R.2 is the payment receipt, dt. 10.12.2012. Ex.R.3 is the Scanning report showing normal. Ex.R.4 is the Blood report showing normal. Ex.R.5 is the Biochemistry report dt. 10.12.2012. Ex.R.6 is the Thyroid report dt. 10.12.2012 Ex.R7 is the Medical prescription dt. 11.12.2012 Ex.R.8 is the Discharge card dt. 09.06.2013 to 10.06.2013 .

VIII MM

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present : Ms. Radhika Jaiswal,

VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Monday, this the 30 th day of January, 2017.

D.V.C.No. 58/2014

Between:

S.Sujatha W/o. S.Balakrishna Prasad, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Presently staying at her Sister’s house at H.No. 5-1-112, Balajinagar colony, Bandlaguda, R.R.District.

..Aggrieved person

AND

1.Balakrishna Prasad So. Late Ramurthy, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Venkatapuram township near cricket ground, Narapally, Ghatkesar , R.R.District.

2.Smt. Revathi , Aged about 60 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Meerpet, R.R.District.

3.Muktha W/o. Ramakrishna, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Meerpet, R.R.District.

4.Ramakrishna Aged about 40 years, Occ: Lecturer, R/o. Meerpet, R.R.District.

5.Subhadra Aged about 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Meerpet, R.R.District.

.. Respondents No. 1 to 5

2

This petition is coming today before me for final disposal in the presence of Mr. P.Amarnath Reddy, Advocate for the Aggrieved person and of Sri. V.Sreenivas Rao, Advocates for Respondent No.1 to 4 and Respondent No.5 Set exparte and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

ORDER

1.The aggrieved person/wife filed this application against the

respondent No.1/husband, mother-in-law, Co-sister, Brother-in-

law and sister-in-law through the Protection Officer, District Women and Child Development Agency, Ranga Reddy District, under the

Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the Act, praying to pass protection order, residence order monetary relief and compensation order under Sec. 18 to 20 and 22 of the Act.

2.On registering the case, notices of this were sent to the

Respondent No.1 to 5. R.1 only made his appearance and R.2 to R.5 set exparte as per docket order dated 12.01.2015, thereafter respondents came forward for filing petition to set-aside exparte order only on behalf of R.1 to R.4 and after hearing both sides order of exparte against R.1 to R.4 was set-aside. But no steps were taken for

R.5 as per docket order dated 19.03.2015.

3.Aggrieved person is examined as PW1 and no documents are marked on her behalf and on behalf of respondents, respondent

No.1 is examined as RW1 and marked Ex.R.1 to R.8 and RW2 who is neighbour of Respondent No.1 who filed her chief examination 3 affidavit and RW3 who is also neighbour of Respondent No.1 who also filed his chief examination affidavit but the evidence of RW2 and 3 were eschewed as even after giving ample of opportunities they did not come forward for cross examination.

4.From the contents of the report of the aggrieved person/Pw1, her sworn affidavit and her evidence, the case of the aggrieved person is that her marriage with respondent No.1 was held on 13.06.2012 which was an arranged marriage performed as per Hindu

Rites and customs. Since her parents expired she is staying with her elder sister Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi, who performed her Kanyadanam along with her husband Sri. Radhakrishna who gave Rs.1,50,000/- cash and other household articles to the respondent.

The respondent No.1 is in the business of taking the lease of a cricket ground to provide the facilities to the players for playing matches and apart from that the respondent No.1 is also do the

Purohityam i.e. being Brahmin as his profession and he is earning

Rs.50,000/- per month. The respondent No.2 is the mother in law and the Respondent N.3 and 4 are brother in law and his wife the respondent No. 5 is the sister in law.

Soon after one week of the said marriage the respondent No.1 and his mother, brother in law and his wife i.e. Respondent No.2 to 5 started harassing her.

The respondent No.2 and 3 abused and humiliated her if she entered into the kitchen saying that she should seek their permission prior to enter into the kitchen confining her to the extent that she 4 should not drink the water without their permission if she drink water or touch anything or eat anything without their permission the respondent No.2 to 5 used to create big galata in the house and tried to manhandle her and also instigate the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 upon their instigation without any explanation he used to beat her. When she tried to contact in the phone with her sister, the respondent No.2 to 5 informed to the respondent No.1 and he used to hit her head to the wall by holding her hair and threatened that if anything is disclosed to her sister she will face the consequences. That she informed her sister how she subjected to humiliation and harassment by the respondents. Thereafter as she conceived and was carrying twins the same was informed to the respondents by her sister, but there is no response from their side .

That she requested the respondent No.1 tot ake her as everybody is asking the reason of her stay in the house of her sister and it is the custom to stay in the marital house till Nine months of pregnancy, but the respondent No.1 did not responded for the same.

The respondent No.1 forced her to lead conjugal life in his same sadist way, though she tried to prevent him as which was not advisable by the doctors at the time of pregnancy as she is carrying twins and the said acts of respondent No.1 resulted discharging of water but the respondent No.2 to 5 did not bothered to take her to the hospital within time and the situation has become worsen then the respondents taken her to the hospital in the seven months of pregnancy in Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad without informing to the sister and brother in law as a result the premature male babies were born 5 who died soon after their birth . Thereafter when again she went to the house of the respondents where she was subjected to harassment and humiliation and the respondent No1 beat her. She also noticed that a lady is staying with respondent No.1 in the room taken by respondent No.1 near the ground whose name is Suguna along with a daughter who is aged about 7 years. The respondent

No.1 started beating her saying that why did she disclosed about their relationship to the owner and her sister and when they came galata took place. The owner of the house called his relative who is constable in PS Ghatkesar to help him.

She approached PS. Rajendranagar along with her sister and brother in law seeking necessary action.

Therefore, she prayed this Court to grant the below reliefs.

 The respondents may be restrained from committing any act of domestic violence or aiding and abetting the commission of domestic violence and  Protection order as enshrined U/s. 18 of DV Act to her and her family.

 Direct the respondent No.1 to provide alternate accommodation as enshrined in Section 19(1) of D.V. Act.

 To pay her a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance to her for the rent and other expenses.

 To pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, ill-treatment and for loss of life caused to her and thereafter, 6

During cross examination PW1 denied that the contents of her complaint given in DVC to protection officer and the contents of her chief affidavit is not tallying. She do not know exactly which ( june) Masam it was when her marriage performed. She admitted that she had mentioned in the complaint that she stayed in her mother-in-law’s house for three months after marriage. Her mother expired prior to her marriage i.e in the year 2008. She admitted that marriage took place at the house of her husband, but not at her sister’s house. Prior to her marriage, she know what the respondent was earning. She had not filed any document to show the earnings of the respondent.

The complaint given to Ghatkesar PS which was forwarded to

Rajendranagar PS in which she mentioned the humiliation done by all the respondents. She denied that she had not mentioned the same in the complaint. She came to know that she was pregnant when she was at her sister’s house. The doctor said her she was carrying twins, when she was three months pregnant when she was seven months pregnant she was at her sister’s house. She admitted that, the kitchen and bed room are two separate rooms in her mother in law’s house. She denied that there was no circumstances to get the water to her room. She denied that she had not stated in her complaint that the respondent was harassing her.

She denied that she do not know the contents of her chief affidavit. She admitted that in the month of November, 2013, respondent threatened her to kill.

7

She admitted that she had not mentioned in the complaint the respondent even threatened his sister and brother in law. She cannot file any documentary proof to that effect. She admitted that she had mentioned in her complaint that through the respondent only she came to know that R.1 has taken the ground. She denied that as she cannot produce any witness, as such it is false.

5.Respondent No.1 filed his counter chief and chief examination affidavit and also filed counter on behalf of R.2 to

R.4 and marked certain documents and also admitted on 13.06.2012 he married the complainant which was an arranged marriage. He was told by the brother-in-law of the complainant that as her parents died in the childhood of complainant. She was living with them and he spent an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for their marriage. Moreover complainant side never paid a single pie for anything for them.

He submit that petitioner stayed in his house only 3 months.

He submit that his wife used to shout loudly in the night times, when she is in sleeping stage that she like and love her brother in law and also abuse him in all manners.

He submit that In 2012 December, because of her unexpected stomach problem he took her to the hospital in Jillellaguda and the doctor confirmed that she is not carrying and no serious problems or any other problem. Later She left to her sister’s house in the third week of December. But she informed later to R.1 that she is carrying as such he asked her how she got pregnancy when she is at her 8 brother in law’s house. She had not given any reply. He submit that her brother in law and sister with cunning nature dropped her in their house 15 days before of delivery with an intention of escaping the delivery hospital expenses. In 7th month i.e. after 15 days because of her unexpected stomach problems, he took her to hospital and she delivered premature children’s who both died.

He submit that because of her loneliness and because of his deterioration of health his well wishers made him to be in an other activity at taking a ground, for cricket players. He submit that because of mental, illness and as he was not in a stage to think properly, he blindly signed in agreement that he will pay an amount of

Rs.90,000/- per month as rent and thus he was forced to suffer with a loss Rs.14,00,000/- through he was not having any moveable or immovable assets.

He submit that the petitioner unexpectedly and suddenly appeared in the month of May, 2014 and made galata and also filed a case against him Nacharam PS by alleging false allegations.

However, he is ready to take her again as his wife by ignoring all the previous alleged allegations and pray to dismiss the petition.

He had filed following documents marked as:-

Ex.R.1 is the Diagnostic Centre report, dt. 09.12.2012 showing normal report. Ex.R.2 is the payment receipt, dt. 10.12.2012, Ex.R.3 is the Scanning report showing normal, Ex.R.4 is the Blood report showing normal, Ex.R.5 is the Biochemistry report dt. 10.12.2012,

Ex.R.6 is the Thyroid report dt. 10.12.2012 , Ex.R7 is the Medical 9 prescription dt. 11.12.2012 and Ex.R.8 is the Discharge card dt.

09.06.2013 to 10.06.2013 all 2013 . In all the documents the patient’s name is Sujatha/petitioner.

,

6.During the cross-examination of RW1 he stated that he had not completed his B Tech studies. He had no knowledge regarding the medical subject. As per Ex.P.7 the LMP date is 25.11.2012 and all the other documents are dt. 10.12.2012. The last week of

December commence after 15th December. He do not know that from 25.11.2012 to 10.12.2012 if the petitioner got checked herself regarding the pregnancy. He denied that he filed the false certificate for showing illicit relationship of petitioner with someone. He know the contents of his chief affidavit. He denied that he had made the false allegations in his chief affidavit on the petitioner. He denied that he had not incurred any expenditure in their marriage and also that the petitioner not stayed only for three months after marriage with him. He denied that petitioner was not abusing her. He denied that petitioner has not filed the case in Nacharam Police station.

7.Arguments:

At the time of arguments, the learned petitioner side counsel

submitted that the respondent has filed medical documents which

are created for the purpose of this case and also harassed petitioner

as such pray to grant relief under the Domestic violence Act whereas

the respondent side counsel by filing the written arguments

submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of

10

petitioner/aggrieved person regarding the dates of alleged

harassment . He also submitted that

1. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 13th August 2010, Justice

Shiv Narayana Dhingra bench in their judgment mentioned that:

“ Domestic Violence is a violence which is committed when parties are in Domestic Relation sharing same household and sharing all the household goods with an opportunity to commit violence but, when such acts of violence take place when one is living separate these may be punishable under different provisions of IPC or other penal laws but they cannot be covered under

Domestic Violence Act”.

2. Like that in another case of Hon’ble High court at Bombay in

Crl. Appeal No. 160/2011 7th March, 2013 the Hon’ble

Judge, mentioned that

“ When the relations having came to an end and one of the party had lived earlier but, as the relation came an end and that too the physical relation came to an end she cannot be taken to be living in any domestic relationship”.

He submitted that the petitioner/aggrieved person was not living along with the respondent and there is no domestic relationship between them as such he prayed to dismiss the petition.

11

8 . 1) To prove the case of domestic violence against R.1 to R.5,

petitioner/aggrieved person is required to prove that she is the

aggrieved person as described U/sec. 2(a) of Domestic Violence Act

and she was living in the Domestic relationship along with R.1 to R.5

in the shared household as defined U/sec. 2(f) and (s) of Domestic

Violence Act and during that period R.1 to R.5 has committed

Domestic Violence on her as per Section 3 of the Act.

2) If so , to what relief?

9. POINT-1:

Petitioner/aggrieved person examined herself as PW1 and it is her case that prior to her marriage, she was residing with her sister and brother in law due to death of his parents who performed her marriage by doing Kanyadanam and Rs. 1,50,000/- and other household articles were given and after marriage, she was staying along with R.1 to R.5, R.1 who is her husband, R.2 mother in law , R3 and R.4 brother in laws and his wife and respondent No.5 is sister in law.

In the chief affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 he too admitted his marriage which was performed with the aggrieved person/Pw1 on 13.06.2012 and they were living together as such it is proved that Pw1/aggrieved person where in Domestic relationship with the R.1 to R.5 at one point of time and lived in the shared household after her marriage with R.1.

PW1/aggrieved person evidence is that after marriage respondent No1 on instigation of other respondents used to beat her and was not providing food and many times hit her hair to the wall by 12 holding her hairs. In the cross examination she admitted that for 3 months after the marriage she stayed along with R.1 to R.5.

Thereafter due to the ill-treatment made by the respondents she was forced to leave the house and informed the same to her sister and stayed in her sister’s house as her parents expired.

Nothing was elicited in the cross examination to discredit the evidence of the aggrieved person or to say that the respondent No.1 was looking well to the petitioner/aggrieved person and not committed any acts of Domestic Violence.

It is the case of petitioner /aggrieved person that when she came to know that she was pregnant she came back to the house of respondent but the respondent did not care and forced her to leave conjugal life which was not advisable by the doctor which resulted in the discharge of water and the premature birth of male babies who were died after their birth. The plea taken by the defence that petitioner/aggrieved person was having illicit relation with her brother in law and during evidence he marked documents Ex.R.1 to

R.8 i.e. Ex.R.1 is the Diagnostic Centre report, dt. 09.12.2012 showing normal report. Ex.R.2 is the payment receipt, dt.

10.12.2012, Ex.R.3 is the Scanning report showing normal, Ex.R.4 is the Blood report showing normal, Ex.R.5 is the Biochemistry report

dt. 10.12.2012, Ex.R.6 is the Thyroid report dt. 10.12.2012 , Ex.R7 is

the Medical prescription dt. 11.12.2012 and Ex.R.8 is the Discharge card dt. 09.06.2013 to 10.06.2013 . It was elicited in the cross examination by the petitioner counsel that petitioner was not taken to any checkup from 25.11.2012 to 10.12.2012 if she would have taken 13 for check up, respondent would have know that she was pregnant during that period. Respondent has not made any attempt to examine the author of the medical document which are marked

Ex.R.1 to R.8. The respondent even has not examined any other witness to say that petitioner/aggrieved person did not turn up after 3 months of her marriage and both of them did not live together. Both the parties admitted that respondent was having knowledge prior to their marriage that petitioner’s parents expired as such plea taken by the respondent is not having force.

It is the case of the petitioner that due to unbearable harassment she has also filed complaint to the police, Rajendranagar against all the respondents U/sec. 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. But the testimony of PW1/aggrieved person did not disclose the specific overacts of Domestic Violence against

R.2 to R.5. There is no corroborative evidence, or material on record to show that other respondents also humiliated or violated the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. Therefore by the above discussion it prima-facie established that petitioner/aggrieved persons was turned out from the shared household and subjected to the act of

Domestic Violence on the hands of respondent No.1 /husband and was also deprived of financial resources and statutory rights of residence. Therefore, she is said to be an aggrieved person as defined U/sec. 2(a) of Domestic Violence Act and proved that

Respondent No.1 has committed Domestic violence against her under Explanation (i) Physical abuse (ii) Sexual abuse and (iv) 14

Economic abuse, Domestic violence case not proved against R.2 to R.5.

10.POINT - 2:

To what relief ?

It is submitted by the PW1/Aggrieved person that the respondent is doing purohitham by profession being Brahman and also doing business of taking the lease of cricket ground and providing the facilities to the players for playing match and earning

Rs.50,000/- per month, but the respondent No.1 denied the same and submitted that he has taken loans and has the burden to repay the same.

It submitted by the petitioner that she is household wife and presently staying in her sister’s house and became burden on her as such seeing the present standard of living first of all respondent

No.1 directed not to commit Domestic Violence against the petitioner U/sec. 18 of the Domestic Violence Act. The

Respondent No.1 directed to pay Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand only) U/sec. 19(f) of the DVC Act for the alternative accommodation,

The Respondent No.1 directed to pay Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only) U/sec. 20(3) of the Actunder maintenance.

Respondents No.1 is directed to pay Totally Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees

Ten thousand only) per month to be paid from the date of this order. Respondent No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees one lakh only) as compensation U/sec. 22 of Domestic

Violence Act for the mental agony undergone by the PW1/aggrieved 15 person and the same shall be paid within three months from the date of this order.

Petitioner is directed to give her account Number to the

Respondent No.1 and he is directed to deposit the amount in the said

Account number.

11.In the result, Domestic Violence Case is allowed against respondent No. 1 and dismissed against Respondent No. 2 to 5.

1.The respondent No.1first of all directed not to commit any

Domestic Violence against the petitioner U/sec. 18 of the Act.

2.The Respondent No.1 directed to pay Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand only) U/sec. 19(f) of the DVC Act for the alternative accommodation

3. The Respondent No.1 directed to pay Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only) U/sec. 20(3) of the Actunder maintenance.

4. Respondents No.1 is directed to pay Totally Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees Ten thousand only) per month to be paid from the date of this order

5.Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees one lakh only) is directed to pay by the Respondents No. 1 as compensation U/sec. 22 of the Domestic

Violence Act for the mental agony undergone by the PW1/aggrieved person the same shall be paid within three months from the date of this order and the petitioner is directed to give her account Number to the Respondent No.1 and he is directed to deposit the amount in the said Account number.

16

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30th day of January, 2017.

VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Aggrieved person For Respondents

PW1: Sujatha RW1: Bala Krishna Prasad RW2: Smt. K. Durga devi RW3: Siva Ramakrishnaiah ( Rw2 and 3 Eschewed)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Aggrieved person :

-Nil-

For Respondents :

Ex.R.1 is the Diagnostic Centre report, dt. 09.12.2012 showing normal report. Ex.R.2 is the payment receipt, dt. 10.12.2012. Ex.R.3 is the Scanning report showing normal. Ex.R.4 is the Blood report showing normal. Ex.R.5 is the Biochemistry report dt. 10.12.2012. Ex.R.6 is the Thyroid report dt. 10.12.2012 Ex.R7 is the Medical prescription dt. 11.12.2012 Ex.R.8 is the Discharge card dt. 09.06.2013 to 10.06.2013 .

VIII MM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present : Ms.Radhika Jaiswal,

VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar.

Friday, this the 27 th day of January, 2017.

C.C.No. 1082/2014

Between : The represented by

The SHO, P.S.Shamshabad ..Complainant

AND

A.1Kummari Venkatesh S/o. Late Balaiah, Age: 28 yrs, Occ: Driver, caste: Kummari, R/o.H.No. 1-10, Madanapally, Shamshabad.

A.2Kummari Santosh S/o. Late Balaiah, Age: 23 yrs, Occ: Auto driver, Madanapally, Shamshabad.

A.3Yengani Sataiah S/o. Late Laxmaiah, Age: 46 yrs, Occ: Labour, Caste: SC, H.No. 1-15, Madanapally, Shamshabad.

A.4Nenavath Lalu Singh S/o. Redya, Age: 30 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, H.No. 3-52, Madanapally Patha Thanda, Shamshabad and

A.5Varanasi Nagaraju S/o. Late Ganesh, Age 23 yrs, Occ:Labour, Caste: SC ( Budgajangam), H.No. 1-13/2, Madanapally, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R.Dist.

...Accused No.1 to 5

This case is coming on 19.01.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for prosecution and of Sri. P.Amarnath Reddy, Advocate for Accused No.1 to 5, and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

2

JUDGEMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Shamshabad, filed charge sheet against the accused No. 1 to 5 for the offence punishable under

Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, alleging that based on the statement of

PW1- Smt. Gunti Venkatamma, on 08.07.2014 at about 10:45 hrs, a case in Crime No. 196/2014 is registered under section 324 r/w 34

IPC and investigated into. After completion of investigation, which established the commission of the said offence by the accused No.1 to 5, charge sheeted them accordingly.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, PW1 lodged

Ex.P.1complaint stating that on 08.07.2014 at about 10:45 hours while the complainant along with her relatives were returning to their home after attending her brother in law’s funeral rights at Kalwakole village on the way near Madanpally village they stopped the Swift car

Br.No. AP 28 BU 0799 and their children went for toilet in meanwhile

Madanpally villagers Venkatesh Santhosh and others were came there and abused in filthy language and beat his relatives

M.Venkatesh Sagar, M.Krishna Sagar and others. Hence the complainant requested to take necessary action.

During the course of investigation,PW9 examined and recorded the detailed statement visited the scene of offence and caused enquires about the incident and secured the presence of two mediators and conducted the scene of offence panchanama, drawn the rough sketch of the scene. On 10.07.2014 at 10:30 hrs the accused persons A.1 to A.5 apprehended and brought to PS. As 3 such the accused persons taken into custody and on interrogation them. The accused A.1 to A.5 were voluntarily confessed their guilt and offence committed by them. The arrested accused persons A.1 to A.5 were sent to the Hon’ble Court under proper report on 10.07.2014 and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet

before this court.

3.On the strength of the above charge sheet this case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC against A.1 to A.5 and on appearance of the accused No.1 to 5

before this Court, they were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and

charge for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 IPC is framed, read over and explained to them. Accused No.1 to 5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On behalf of prosecution PWs 1 to 9 are examined and Exs.

P1 to P8 are marked. After prosecution was closed, accused No.1 to 5 are examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They denied the offence and reported no defence witnesses.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point that arises for determination is,

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

No.1 to 5 for the offence u/sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt with which they were charged ?

4

7. Evidence of witnesses are as follows:

PW1 – Venkatamma, stated that about two years back in the night hours 8:00 or 9:00 p.m, she along with LW3 and other children were in the car and in order to attend the nature call, they have stopped the car besides village of the accused. She did not say the village name. A.1 came and disputed with her and beat her on her cheek with his hand and she sustained bleeding injury. He even picked up the stone and forcibly tried to put on her car. When LW3 tried to stop him, all the accused came there and put all the stones and sticks on the car. They even pulled the gold chain of her relative by name Suvarna. They went to the hospital and also given complaint to the police . Ex.P.1 is her complaint.

During cross examination Pw1 stated that she do not know to read and write. She do not know who has drafted Ex.P.1. She admitted that she do not know the contents of the complaint as she do not read. On the same date they have given complaint. She admitted that for reaching their village, one has to cross Shamshabad

Police examined her on the same day. She denied that she had not stated before the police that A.1 beat her on her cheek and all the accused put stones and sticks on the car of LW3 and A.1 put stone on the car of LW3 and also that all the accused pulled the gold ornaments of Suvarna. She admitted that it was dark in the night on the spot. She admitted that one cannot identify the other person as it was dark and that prior to the incident she had not seen the accused and after the incident also she had not seen them. She denied that she was deposing false and none of the accused beat her. She 5 admitted that she had stated to the doctor who has examined her that some unknown person beat her with hands. She denied that she was deposing false and she do not know where the incident took place.

PW2- Vijay Lakshmi- stated that about two years back she along with LW3 and PW1, LW4 and one Chandrakala, Suvarna and some children were coming in the car from Mahabubnagar District to

Hyderabad and in the night hours they have stopped the car where they found the light and the children were insisting for nature call. All the accused came there and disputed with them and also with PW1.

She had seen that A.1 beat Pw1 on her cheeks and she sustained bleeding injury in the meantime Lw3 went to rescue and A1 pushed him. A.2 caught hold her when she tried to rescue them. A.1, A.2 and A.4 beat LW3 with hands. In the meantime police came there and all the accused were also disputing with the police and in the meantime they have also found one bus coming but all the accused were threatening the driver to go away. The accused even pulled gold ornaments of one lady Suvarna who was with them. In the dispute her health was suffered and thereafter they went and gave complaint to police they referred to them to the hospital.

During cross examination Pw2 stated that she do not know police referred them to Government hospital or private hospital but in her opinion it was Government hospital. She denied that what the evidence she had given is given first time in the court and not stated

before the police. She admitted that prior to the incident she had not

seen the accused and after the incident also she had not seen the accused and that she had not given the identity particulars of the 6 accused in her statement to the police. She denied that no such incident took place and she was deposing false.

PW3- Anjanailu, PW4- Nagesh and PW5- Shashagiri ( The learned APP treated the witness as hostile to the case of the prosecution).

During cross examination by learned APP PW3 denied that he stated before the police as in Ex.P.2.

During cross examination by learned APP PW4 and PW5 denied that denied that police conducted scene of offence panchanama and after knowing the contents they had signed on it and now they were deposing false to help the accused.

PW6- Madam Shetty Venkatesh stated that on 08.07.2014 at around 10:40 p.m when he was standing at Madanapally Board and found that PW1 car was stopped and accused came there and was disputing with Pw1. He was also present in the car with PW1. All the accused came there and started disputing with them. All the accused beat him and PW1 and PW2 with sticks. He sustained injuries all over his body. They even damaged the car.

During cross examination PW6 denied that he had not stated in his statement given to the police that all the accused beat him. He admitted that after the incident he had not seen the accused. He had not stated the identity particulars of the accused. He admitted that the incident occurred in the night hours. He denied that no such incident took place and deposing false.

7

PW7- P.Rajitha, stated that about two years back in the night hours she along with PW1, 2, 6 were travelling in the car along with the children and stopped near the Madanpally village for attending nature call for the children. All the accused came and beat to PW1, 2 6 and even to her. PW1 and 2 sustained serious injuries. After sometime police came there and all the injured persons went to the hospital. All the accused beat with sticks and stones.

During cross examination PW7 stated that first they went to

Government hospital then to Private hospital. Prior to incident and after the incident. She had not seen the accused. Police have not shown accused to her after the incident and she had not stated the identify particulars of each accused in her statement given to the police. The incident occurred in the night hours. All the other witnesses are her relatives. She denied that as all are her relatives and giving false evidence and no such incident occurred.

PW8- Dr.V. Shivaram Nayak, stated that on 09.07.2014 at around 12:30 pm he examined Vikayalakshmi /PW2 and found following injuries. There were no external injuries. He had issued the examination report and Ex.P.5 is the same. On the same day, he had examined Pw1 and found the following injuries. No external injuries.

He had given the report and Ex.P.6 is the same. Venkatamma/PW1 had the bleeding nose which he had mentioned in Ex.P.6.

During cross examination PW8 stated that as per Ex.P.5 and

P.6 the injured stated to him that they had been beaten by some unknown person. He admitted that there are other hospitals in the

Shamshabad. Generally police will referred the injured person to 8 their hospital. He denied that at the instance of police though the injured won’t have any injuries they issued certificate.

PW9- B.Sathyanarayana, stated that on 09.07.2014 at 9:00 hours, he received complaint from Pw1 and basing on it, he registered the case in Cr.No. 196/2014 and issued FIR. Ex.P.7 is the

FIR. He recorded the statements of PW1, PW2 and 6 at police station and went to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence pancahnama and rough sketch in presence of PW4 and 5 under Ex.P.8 CDF. There was no recovery from the scene. He also recorded statement of PW3. He went to the Trident hospital,

Shamshabd and recorded the statement of PW7/Rajitha. He received MLC report. After investigation, he filed charge sheet. He adds that he had remanded the accused on 10.07.2014.

During cross examination PW9 stated that the reasons for the delay for giving complaint is not stated by PW1 in her complaint. He admitted that Trident hospital is in Shamshabad and the incident took place in the night hours and it is not mentioned that there was any light or current available at the spot. He admitted that all the eye witnesses are relatives of Pw1. In the complaint PW1 stated only the names of A1 and A.2, and thereafter stated that other accused were friends of A.1 and A.2. She has not disclosed the relationship and also how the accused were known to them for giving their names in the complaint.

In statements of witnesses they have given their names. He admitted that specific over acts of each accused apart from A.1 and 9

A.2 is not mentioned by any of the witnesses. Only LW3 has stated that A.1 and A.2 along with others came and beat to all the injured persons. Specifically he has not disclosed that A.1 and A.2 beat

PW1. He admitted that no witness has stated that which accused beat which witness on what place ( part of body). The neighbours shown in the CDF were not examined as it was late at night.

There was no recovery from the scene. As per Ex.P.5 and P.6- medical report, the injured stated to the doctor that they were beaten with hands. He admitted that identify particulars of each accused were not stated and no TI parade was conducted and not examined any shamshabad Government doctor. He denied that no such incident took place and he had not investigated properly and filed false charge sheet.

Arguments:

8. At the time of arguments, the learned APP submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused No.1 to 5 by the evidence adduced by Pws 1 to 9 coupled with Exs P1 to

P8 and prays for conviction. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 324 IPC against the alleged accused as the investigation officer has also not seized any weapons from the scene of offence and there is no corroboration in the prosecution evidence. No independent witness were examined by the prosecution or the investigation officer and specific overacts of each accused was not deposed 10

by any of the witness. He filed memo of citations reported in:

(1) 2015(2) ALD ( Crl.) 165 Guguloth Jagan vs. state of Telangana and another.

(2) 2011 Crl. L.J. 4257 Bandela Devender Vs. State of AP.

(3) 2011 Crl.L.J. 2640 Kuldip Yadav & Ors. V. State of Bihar.

(4) AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 501 Thulia Kali Vs. the State of

Tamilnadu (5) Air 1979 SUPREME COURT 1127 Kanan and others Vs. State of Kerala.

(6) Air 1976 SUPREME COURT 423 Ishwar Singh V. The State of

Uttar Pradesh (7) 2008(1) ALD (Crl.) 419 (A.P) Perela Veeraiah V. State of

Andhra Pradesh and submitted that investigation officer has not conducted Test Identification parade and not seized any weapon as such he prayed to acquit the accused.

Let us glance on:

Section 324 IPC:- Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means:-

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire, or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood or by means of any animal, shall be punished 11 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.

POINT:

9.It is the case of the investigation officer through chargesheet that the complainant/PW1 gave complaint to the police alleging that all the accused beat PW1 and her relatives who were along with her on the alleged date.

Complainant was examined as PW1 and she deposed that A.1 beat her on her cheek with his hand as such she sustained injury .

Therefore she gave complaint to the police under Ex.P.1.

It is not her case that any weapon was used for commission of the offence to attract section 324 IPC. She did not even whisper that the alleged accused beat to her relatives on the alleged date where as the prosecution got examined PW2 who is said to be relative of

PW1, who added to the evidence of Pw1 that A.1 beat PW1 on the cheeks and A.1, A.2 and A4 bet LW3 with hands This part of the evidence was not whispered by the complainant, whereas the other eye witnesses examined as PW6 and 7 and PW6 evidence is completely different from the evidence of Pw1 and 2 which is not corroborated as he stated that all the accused beat Pw1 and 2 with sticks and they sustained injury.

The evidence of PW7 also disclose that all the accused came and beat to Pw1, 2 and 6. This shown that there is no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witness examined on record.

Though all the witnesses stated that they are related to each other and the investigation officer has not cited any independent 12 witness who witnessed the incident on the alleged date.

Two of the eye witnesses examined as PW3 who turned hostile and did not supported the prosecution case and even the panch for scene witness examined as PW4 and 5 also turned hostile and did not supported the prosecution case.

The complainant during evidence not stated what was the place of alleged incident and the prosecution even not elicited the said fact from the other witness ie. PW2.

Doctor who was examined as PW8 stated that as per the medical certificate Ex.P.5 which he has issued on examining PW2 on the alleged date he found no external injuries and he even stated that there were no external injury as per Ex.P.6 which is on the name of PW1 but deposed that on the alleged date PW1 had the bleeding nose. The complainant/Pw1 in her evidence did not stated that where did the alleged accused beat her and that from where she was bleeding if so the accused beat her. Because it cannot be presumed that PW1 was having bleeding nose due to the occurrences of the incident, Because one can have the various reasons for bleeding nose. The doctor did not stated that there were any injuries on the alleged date when he examined PW1 and 2.

As it is rightly pointed out by the defence counsel by filing citations and after going through the citations in the instant case also investigation officer has not seized any weapon neither Pw1 stated that any weapon were used for the commission of the offence.

It is also admitted by the investigation officer that Test

Identification Parade proceedings were also not conducted, as 13 admitted by all the prosecution witnesses that the incident occurred in the late night hours where they were no street lights and all the witnesses identified the accused first time in the court after lapse of one year. Moreover the evidence of prosecution witnesses not corroborated to each other. Therefore, prosecution failed to prove the case against all the accused beyond reasonable doubt as such benefit of doubt is given to all the accused and they are acquitted.

10.In the result, accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty of the offence punishable u/sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted u/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 5 shall stand cancelled from the date of judgment.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of January, 2017.

VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Accused

1.PW1 – Venkatamma 2.PW2 – Vijay Lakshmi 3.PW3 – Anjanailu 4.PW4- NageshNil

5. Pw5 – Shashagiri 6.PW6- Madam Shetty Venkatesh 7.PW7- P.Rajitha 8.PW8- Dr.V. Shivaram Nayak 9.PW9- B.Sathyanarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

1. Ex P1 – Complaint

2. Ex P2 – 161 Cr.P.C.statement of Pw3Nil

3. Ex P3 – Signature of PW4 on CDF 14

4. Ex P4 – Signature of Pw5 on CDF

5. ExP5 – medical report of PW2

6. Ex P6- medical report of PW1. 7.Ex.P.7-FIR. 8.Ex.P.8-CDF

VIII MM

Copy of This Judgment is directed to send To the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad as per the directions given by The Hon’ble Prl District and Sessions Judge, Vide Dis.No. 9668/2015,dt. 09.12.2015.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present : Ms.Radhika Jaiswal,

VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar.

Friday, this the 27 th day of January, 2017.

C.C.No. 995/2015

Between : The represented by

The SHO, P.S.RGI Airport. ..Complainant

AND

A.1Syed Chand Pasha @ Chand @ Pasha, S/o. Jalaluddin , age: 21 yrs, Occ: Driver, R/o. Rented House, H.No. 12-1-497/A, Syed Ali Guda, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

A.2Mohammed Majeed S/o. Late Mohammed Fareed, Age: 38 yrs, Occ: carpenter, R/o. Rented house, H.No. 12-1-558/9/B, Syed Ali Guda, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

A.3Syed Khaja Pasha @ Khaja, S/o. Late Shaheen, age: 26 yrs, Occ: Marketing, R/o. Rented House, H.No. 10-5-391/54/201, Syed Nagar, Fastlancer, MLA colony, Banjara hills, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

...Accused No.1 to 3

This case is coming on 17.01.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for prosecution and of Sri.G.Bandaiah, Advocate for Accused No.1 to 3, and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

JUDGEMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. RGI Airport, filed charge sheet against the accused No. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under

Section 384 IPC, alleging that based on the statement of PW1- Sri.

Godha Ramesh, on 07.08.2015 at about 19:30 hrs, a case in Crime 2

No. 235/2015 is registered under section 384 IPC and investigated into. After completion of investigation, which established the commission of the said offence by the accused No.1 to 3, charge sheeted them accordingly.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, PW1 lodged

Ex.P.1complaint stating that the complainant is working as office boy at Rama Krishna Lorry Transport at Gaganpahad for last four months.

On 07.08.2015 at about 17:20 hours Rama Krishna Transport manager Santosh kumar gave Rs.20,000/- to complainant to hand it over to a lorry driver by name Mohammed Khan at Shamshabad bus stand. As such he boarded an auto at Gaganpahd ‘U’ turn to go to

Shamshabad, in that auto there were two passengers and a driver .

On the way the driver of auto turned the vehicle into a road opposite to SS convention function, Sathamrai. Where the three accused threatened the complainant and extorted Rs.20,000/- from him and dropped at Siddanthi Maszid, took ‘U’ turn and fled away in the same direction. The auto number he noticed is TS-07-U-6161. Hence complainant requested to take necessary action in this regard.

Hence the complainant requested to take necessary action.

During the course of investigation, LW9 Investigation officer issued FIR. PW8 Investigation officer has examined and recorded the detailed statement of the victim/PW1 in Police station rushed to the scene of offence and examined the scene minutely, secured the presence of mediators, conducted the scene of offence panchanama, drafted the rough sketch of the scene . On 10.08.2015 served notice 3

U/sec. 41(a)(1) Cr.P.C. to the accused A.1 to A.3 and instructed them to cooperate and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet

before this court.

3.On the strength of the above charge sheet this case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 384 IPC against

A.1 to A.3 and on appearance of the accused No.1 to 3 before this

Court, they were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence punishable under section 384 IPC is framed, read over and explained to them. Accused No.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On behalf of prosecution PWs 1 to 8 are examined and Exs.

P1 to P10 are marked. After prosecution was closed, accused No.1 to 3 are examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They denied the offence and reported no defence witnesses.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point that arises for determination is,

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

No.1 to 3 for the offence u/sec. 384 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt with which they were charged ?

7.Evidence of witnesses are as follows:

PW1 – Ramesh, stated that he was doing job in Ramakrishna

Lorry Transport, situated at Gaganpahad as an office boy , since four months, prior to this incident and on 7th August, 2015 at around 5 p.m, he came to shamshabad, with an amount of Rs. Twenty thousand 4 and boarded the auto near the signal and in the said auto along with the driver there were two other persons when they reached near

Shathamrai prior to police station shamshabad, there is one Masjid, when auto took the U-turn and other persons who were sitting in the auto, threatened him and those persons has forcibly taken his

Rs.twenty thousand and necked him out of the auto. Accused standing in the court are the same persons along with him one more persons was there, who is not present . Thereafter, he had given complaint to the police. ExP.1 is his complaint. He identified A.1 and A. 3 in the court , A.2 is absent.

In further chief examination PW1 he stated that as matter is compromised outside of the court he did not identified the accused ( the learned APP treated the witness as hostile to the case of the prosecution).

During cross examination by learned APP PW1 denied that he stated before the police as in Ex.P.2 and that now he was deposing false to help the accused.

PW2- Santhosh Kumar, stated that on 07.08.2015 around 5 p.m he had given Rs. Twenty thousand to Pw1 for some work for handed over to some driver, who is residing at Shamshabad and he received phone call from PW1 that some persons has threatened and taken an amount of Rs. Twenty thousand from him near SS convention Hall, as such they gave complaint to the police.

During cross examination Pw2 stated that he had not stated from which phone he had received phone call fromPW1. He had 5 stated to the police from where he had got the amount of Rs. Twenty thousand. He denied that had stated to the police the same. He admitted that he had not stated the driver name to the police. In further cross he had not given any documents to show that he was working in the said transport business to the police. He denied that he had not given any amount to Pw1, and he was deposing false. He denied that he had not stated the same to the police that he had given the amount to Pw1.

PW3- Fayaz Khan stated that about two years back, he had taken the auto which he do not know the number at present from Auto consultancy situated at Punjagutta by paying Rs forty thousand and he returned back that auto to one person from whom he had taken and he cannot say his name and later, he came to know that the theft was committed in that auto.

PW4- Sai Reddy, PW5 Gandaiah, PW6 Mohd. Abdul Sami and

PW7 N.Srinivas ( The learned APP treated the witnesses as hostile to the case of the prosecution).

During cross examination by learned APP PW4,PW5,PW6 and PW7 denied that police conducted scene of offence panchanama and confessional panchanama and after knowing the contents they had signed on it and now they are deposing false to help the accused.

PW8- Venkateshwar, stated that on 07.08.2015 at 1930 hours, LW9 received complaint from Pw1 and basing on it, he registered the case in Cr.No. 235/2015 and issued FIR. Ex.P.7 is the 6

FIR. Ex.P.8 is the his signature on FIR, he can identify as he worked with him and alter he entrusted the investigation to him and he recorded the statement of Pw1. He proceeded to the scene and conducted scene panchanama in the presence of PW4 and 6, under

Ex.P.9-CDF. On 10.08.2015 apprehended A.1 to A.3 by one constable and brought to the police station. On interrogation as the accused confessed this offence, he recorded confession panchanama of A.1 to A.3 under Ex.P.10 in presence of PW5 and 7 and recovered Rs.11,000/- 9 Rupees eleven thousand only) from the possession of A1 to A.3. As per Crl.M.P.No. 1284/2015, the property/cash is handed over to G.Ramesh. Arrested the accused and sent to court for judicial remand. After investigation, he filed charge sheet depositing the property.

During cross examination PW8 denied that he did not proceeded to the scene of offence and not conducted any panchanama and not seized any cash and falsely implicated the accused in this case.

Arguments:

8. At the time of arguments, the learned APP submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused No.1 to 3 by the evidence adduced by Pws 1 to 8 coupled with documents Exs P1 to P10 and prays for conviction. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 3 submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident to say that all the accused have committed the offence as such he prayed to 7 acquit the accused.

Let us glance on:

Section 384 IPC:- Punishment for extortion:-

Whoever, commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both.

9.POINT:

It is the case of the investigation officer through prosecution that

Pw1 gave complaint to the police stating that on 07.08.2015 at 1100 hours all the accused in Auto gave lift to PW1 and extorted an amount of Rs.20,000/- and threatened her as such he gave complaint to the police.

Complainant was examined as PW1 on two dates. First time he stated that A.1 and A.3 were the persons who extorted amount of

Rs.20,000/- ( Rupees twenty thousand only) forcibly and threatened him, On 7th August-2015 in an auto near Sathamrai village when accused No.2 was absent during evidence for identification by the witness the learned APP deferred his evidence then later on the next day after one week when he was examined before the court he stated that matter was compromised outside of the court and did not identified accused.

As per evidence on record, there is no other eye witness or independent witness to the incident and panch for confession of the alleged accused was examined as PW5 and 7 but turned hostile and did not supported the prosecution case.

8

It is the evidence of the investigation officer examined as PW8 that he recovered Rs.11,000/- from the possession of A.1 to A.3 when they were apprehended and recorded their confession in the presence of mediators . He stated that confession done in the police station, which is hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Even the prosecution has not elicited by the complainant that whether the denomination of the cash stated in his complaint to link with the amount seized from the possession of alleged accused.

Moreover complainant is inconsistent with his evidence as he stated that he compromised the matter outside of the court.

Therefore the amount seized by the investigation officer cannot be presumed that it the said amount of PW1 for which he has given complaint. Moreover the property was not brought before the court during the evidence and was not marked by the prosecution.

Therefore, prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and they are acquitted.

10.In the result, accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable u/sec. 384 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted u/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled from the date of judgment. Property given as per Crl.M.P.No 1284/2015 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of January, 2017.

VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar 9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Accused

1.PW1 – Ramesh 2.PW2 – Santhosh Kumar -Nil- 3.PW3 – Fayaz khan 4.PW4- Sai Reddy

5. Pw5 – Gandaiah 6.PW6- Mohd. Abdul Sami 7.PW7- N.Srinivas 8.PW8- Venkateshwar

EXHIBITS MARKED

1. Ex P1 – Complaint

2. Ex P2 – 161 Cr.P.C.statement of Pw1 -Nil-

3. Ex P3 – Signature of PW4 on CDF cum seizure panchanama.

4. Ex P4 – Signature of Pw5 on confession panchanama of A.1 to A3

5. ExP5 – Signature of PW6 on CDF.

6. Ex P6- Signature of PW7 on confession panchanama of A.1 to A.3. 7.Ex.P.7-FIR. 8.Ex.P.8-Signature of PW8 on FIR. 9.Ex.P.9- CDF. 10.Ex.P.10- Confession panchanama.

VIII MM

Copy of This Judgment is directed to send To the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad as per the directions given by The Hon’ble Prl District and Sessions Judge, Vide Dis.No. 9668/2015,dt. 09.12.2015.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present : Ms.Radhika Jaiswal,

VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar.

Friday, this the 27 th day of January, 2017.

C.C.No. 563/2005

Between :

The represented by The SHO, P.S.Shamshabad

...Complainant

AND Ch.Bheemaiah S/o. Late Lingaiah, Age 25 yrs, SC Madiga, Occ: Labour, R/o. Peddatupra village, Shamshabad Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming on 25.01.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for prosecution and of Sri. P.Amarnath Reddy, Advocate for Accused and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

JUDGEMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Shamshabad, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, alleging that based on the statement of PW1- Sri. Modi

Suresh, on 15.08.2004 at 1715 hrs, a case in Crime No. 273/2004 is registered under section 324 IPC and investigated into. After completion of investigation, which established the commission of the said offence by the accused, charge sheeted him accordingly.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, PW1 lodged

Ex.P.1complaint stating that on 14.08.2004 night at about 10:40 p.m while he was at Youth Association and busy in preparation and 2 making arrangement of flag hoisting in view of independence day, heard the noise of his sister-in-law Lavanya, hearing this, immediately he and his brother rushed to the house and on asking with his sister- in-law, she revealed that neighbour cherra Bheemaiah, came to her and used force to outrage modesty. Then he went to the house of

Bheemaiah to ask about the acts done by him, while he was asking, the accused Bheemaiah beat him on head with stick and caused injuries. Afterwards Bheemaiah absconded from the place. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action.

During the course of investigation, LW7 issued FIR and examined and recorded the detailed statement of PW1 and LW2 to

LW5. Visited the scene of crime and caused thorough enquires.

During further course of investigation, LW8 has taken up further investigation and made efforts to arrest the accused but was absconding and present whereabouts are not known. The accused was absconding and evading to his arrest. Hence, the Hon’ble Court is prayed to issue NBW against the accused to arrest and produce him before this court and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet before this court.

3.On the strength of the above charge sheet this case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC against accused and on appearance of the accused before this Court, he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC is framed, read over and explained to him. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

4.On behalf of prosecution PW 1 is examined and Ex P1 and P2 are marked. PW1 – Suresh, stated that he gave complaint to the police in the year 2004 and as the matter is compromised outside the Court, he did not want to proceed further. Ex.P.1 is his complaint. PW1 when cross- examined by the learned APP, who in one voice denied to have been stated to police as in Exs P2 i.e., his 161 Cr.P.C. statement and deposing false to help the accused.

5.Prosecution given up LWs 2 to 8, who are the victim in Cr.No.

272/2004, witnesses, treated the injured and issued MC, issued FIR and 1st I.O. and I.O and filed charge sheet and closed their evidence, as nothing incriminating will be proved against the accused as PW 1 in his evidence stated that he did not want to proceed further as the matter is compromised outside the Court.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as nothing incriminating him is elicited in prosecution evidence.

7. In view of non-examination any witnesses except PW 1, who turned hostile to the prosecution case and non-examination of victim in Cr.No.

272/2004, witnesses, treated the injured and issued MC, issued FIR and 1st I.O. and I.O and filed charge sheet , this Court is of the view that charge leveled against accused is not proved and there is no alternative except to acquit the accused for the charge leveled against him.

4

8.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled from the date of Judgment.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27th day of January, 2017.

VIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, AT RAJENDRANAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

1.PW1 : Suresh -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

1. Ex P1 – Complaint -Nil-

2. Ex P2 - 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1

VIII MM