1
APWG140012422023
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)- CUM-
JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE :: TADEPALLIGUDEM.
Present: SMT. S.SURYA KIRAN SRI,
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF
I CLASS, TADEPALLIGUDEM.
Tuesday, this the 24 th day of March, 2026.
C.C. No. 626 OF 2023
Between:
The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Nidamarru Police Station...Complainant
A N D
1. Pithani Aravind Kumar, S/o Vijayananda Prasad, Age 32 years, Pithapuram Village cum Mandal.
2. Pithani Vijayananda Prasad, S/o Yedukondalu, Age 59 years, Pithapuram Village cum Mandal.
3. Pithani Dhanalakshmi, W/o Vijayananda Prasad, Age 54 years, Pithapuram Village cum Mandal.
4. Rayudu Sailaja, W/o Sathish, age 36 years, Chebrolu Village, Now residing at Kakinada.
5. Rayudu Satish, S/o Saibaba, age 40 years, Chebrolu Village, Now residing at Kakinada.
6. Yallaboina Pavani, W/o Srinivas, age 34 years,
Rajahmundry. ...Accused
This case is coming on 02-03-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for Prosecution, and of Sri K.V.V. Satyanarayana, Learned Advocate for accused Nos. 1 to 6, and upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:
2
J U D G M E N T
The accused i.e. A1 to A6 were prosecuted for the offence under
Section 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (In short Indian Penal Code) and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Cr.No.75/2023 of Nidamarru Police
Station.
2.The brief averments of charge sheet filed by Sub-Inspector of
Police, Nidamarru P.S. are as follows:
PW.1 parents’ village is Adavikolanu Village of Nidamarru Mandal.
They are four children to their parents. Out of them two are sons and two are daughters. PW.2 who is the father of PW.1 performed the marriage of PW.1 on 15.04.2022 with A1 who is son of A2, at Pithapuram Village of East Godavari
District. At the time of marriage, on the demand of A1 to A3, PW.2 gave an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-dowry and also gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards Adapaduchu lanchanam, ½ kg. Silver articles and also Gold articles.
While sending PW.1 to lead marital life with A1, PW.2 gave house hold articles and sent PW.1 to her matrimonial house. About two months the accused looked after the PW.1 very well. Later, A1 to A6 harassed PW.1 by saying that the dowry brought by PW.1 is not sufficient to them and they demanded to bring additional dowry and harassed PW.1 both mentally and physically. Further, A1 used to chat with another lady in cell phone and when PW.1 asked, he threatened her that if she go from the house, he would marry another woman. When PW.1 informed the same to A2 to A6 about the attitude of A1, they also supported the version of
A1 and they also harassed PW.1 both physically and mentally. Unable to bear the harassment of A1 to A6, PW.1 informed the same to PW.2, but, PW.2 did not ask them anything and he tried to pacify the matter. On 15.12.2022, A1 to A6 demanded PW.1 to bring additional dowry and necked out her from her matrimonial house. Then, she came to her parents’ house in Adavikolanu Village.
When she called A1 to A3 through phone, they threatened that if she fails to 3 bring additional dowry, A1 marry another woman. Then, PW.1 gave report to
Nidamarru police, for taking action against A1 to A6.
Basing on the strength of report given by PW.1, the above crime was registered by PW.7 on 18.04.2023 at 5.30 P.M. and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined the same.
He examined witnesses and recorded their statements. He served Sec. 41-A
Cr.P.C. notice to A1 to A6 on 22.04.2023. Later, PW.8 took up further investigation and he verified the investigation done by Pw.7. After completion of investigation, PW.8 filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.
3.Considering the material on record this court took cognizance of the offence punishable U/s 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, against A1 to A6.
4.On appearance of the accused, relevant copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
5. A1 to A6 were examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and they denied the contents of charge sheet and after hearing on hearing both sides, charge u/Sec.498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, has been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined
P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P6.
7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating evidence leveled against them and reported no defence evidence.
8.Heard arguments of both sides.
9.Now the point for determination is:
4 "Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of accused i.e. A1 to A6 for the offence u/Sec. 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, beyond all reasonable doubt"?
10.P O I N T :
To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as PW.1, her father as PW.2, her sister as PW.3, the independent witnesses as Pws. 4 to 6 and the Investigating Officers as PW.7 and
PW.8 and got marked the report of PW.1 as Ex.P1, Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Pws. 4 to 6 as Exs.P2 to P4, the original F.I.R. as Ex.P5, rough sketch as
Ex.P6.
11.The offence alleged against the A1 to A6 is Sec. 498-A IPC and
Secs. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, the prosecution has to prove that the A1 being the husband and A2 to A6 being relatives of husband of PW.1 subjected PW.1 to cruelty and they took dowry and other lanchanams at the time of marriage of PW.1 with A1, on demand, and they again demanded PW.1 to bring additional dowry amount and for that they harassed PW.1 and subjected her to cruelty. The cruelty which is referred under Sec. 498-A IPC corresponds to “a willful conduct of such nature that may cause danger to life, limb and health of women which is inclusive of mental and physical health and the harassment caused to her by coercing her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security”. Further, the demand for dowry in terms of Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act referred to both a direct and indirect manner of demand for dowry made by husband or his family members. In order to meet the threshold of the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC and Secs. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the allegations cannot be ambiguous or made in thin air. This was held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Chaddha Vs. the State of Utter Pradesh
reported in 2026 LawSuit (SC) 706.
12.Coming to the present case, the PW.1 gave report to Nidamarru police on 18.04.2023 at 5.30 p.m. which was reflected on the Ex.P1 report given 5 by PW.1. She alleged in the said report that her marriage was performed with A1 on 15.04.2022, at the time of marriage as per the wish of her mother-in-law and father-in-law, they paid Rs.10,00,000/- dowry, Rs.2,00,000/- towards
Adapaduchu lanchanams, ½ kg. Silver articles and Gold and also sent her along with house hold articles. A1 lead marital life with her properly for one month only.
Later, her mother-in-law, father-in-law her two sisters-in-law and her husband told that the dowry paid by them is not sufficient and harassed her to bring
additional dowry amount. A1 told her that if she leaves him, he would marry
another girl. She caught hold A1 when he chit chatting with other girls. When she informed the same to her mother-in-law and father-in-law, they supported her husband. PW.1 further alleged in Ex.P1 that the accused harassed her physically and mentally everyday and due to unbearable harassment, she informed the same to her father many times, but, her father did not ask anything. On 15.12.2022 her husband and his relatives sent her from the village, ever since, she has been residing in Adavikolanu at the house of her parents. When she called over phone, the accused demanded to bring additional dowry and told that they would perform marriage of A1 with another girl. Hence, PW.1 gave Ex.P1 report to Nidamarru Police with the above allegations and requested to take action against A1 to A6.
13.Now, coming to the oral evidence of Pws. 1 to 6. During the course of evidence of PW.1, she deposed that on 15.04.2022 her marriage was performed with A1 in Pithapuram as per Hindu rights and customs. At the time of marriage their family presented Rs.10,00,000/- cash towards dowry,
Rs.2,00,000/- towards Adapaduchu lanchanams, ½ kilogram of Silver, one gold ring and other lanchanams to the family of the accused. PW.2 who is father of
PW.1 deposed that in the month of February, 2022, he performed the marriage of
PW.1 with A1. He paid Rs.10,00,000/- cash and Rs.2,00,000/- towards
Adapaduchu katnam at the time of marriage of A1 and PW.1, he also presented
Silver articles and gave Sare samans. PW.3, who is sister of PW.1 deposed that the marriage of PW.1 with A1 was performed on 15.04.2022 in Pithapuram as 6 per Hindu Rites and customs, her parents paid rs.10,00,000/- towards dowry,
Adapaduchu katnam of Rs.2,00,000/-, ½ kg. Silver, 20 Sovereigns of Gold, Sare samans worth of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused at the time of their marriage.
PW.4, who is independent witness deposed that about three years ago, the marriage of PW.1 was performed with A1, PW.2 who is father of PW.1 paid
Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry, Rs.2,00,000/- as Adapaduchu katnam and also presented Silver to the accused at the time of their marriage. PW.5, who is another independent witness deposed in his evidence that on 15.04.2022 the marriage of PW.1 was performed with A1, they paid Rs.10,00,000/- prior to one week of marriage when they went to purchase the marriage clothes. Later, they paid Rs.2,00,000/- as Adapaduchu katnam on the date of marriage. PW.2 also paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the father of A1, at the time of marriage, at Pithapuram, on his demand. PW.6 who is another independent witness did not depose anything about the dowry and other lanchanams paid by the parents of PW.1 to the accused. According to Ex.P1 report, as per the wish of the parents-in-law of
PW.1, they paid Rs.10,00,000/- dowry and Rs.2,00,000/- Adapaduchu lanchanams, ½ kg. Silver articles and Gold. In Ex.P1 report PW.1 did not mention that the accused demanded the above amounts, Silver and Gold and on their demand they paid the said amounts, Silver and Gold. In the evidence of
Pws. 1 to 4 also they did not depose that on the demand of the accused, PW.2 paid the amounts, Silver and Gold.
14.Further, in order to prove that PW.2 paid Rs.10,00,000/- towards dowry, Rs.2,00,000/- towards Adapaduchu lanchanams, ½ kg. Silver and Gold to the accused, except the oral evidence of Pws. 1 to 5, no documentary evidence was produced. During the course of cross examination of PW.1, she stated that her elder brother transferred some amount through his account to the accused towards dowry and other lanchanams, some amount was given at the time of purchasing the marriage clothes. She admitted that she has not submitted the bank account copy and any bills to the police along with her complaint and she has not filed them before the court. PW.2 also stated that he has not paid 7
Rs.10,00,000/- dowry and Rs.2,00,000/- Adapaduchu lanchanams through any bank or by way of cheque. PW.2 did not depose that some amount of dowry was paid by his son through bank and some amount was given at the time of purchasing marriage clothes, as stated by PW.1. PW.3 deposed in her evidence that they gave 20 sovereigns of Gold and sare samans worth of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused. But, PW.1 deposed that they presented one Gold Ring, but PW.1 did not depose about 20 sovereigns of gold and sare samans worth
Rs.1,00,000/-. PW.2 did not depose about ½ kg. Silver and about Gold which was alleged to be presented to the accused by Pws. 1 and 3 in their evidence.
PW.4 deposed about Rs.10,00,000/- dowry and Rs.2,00,000/- Adapaduchu lanchanams and about Silver, but, he did not depose that PW.2 gave ½ kg. Silver and Gold to the accused. PW.5 also deposed about Rs.10,00,000/- amount and about Rs.2,00,000/- Adapaduchu lanchanams, but, he deposed that they paid
Rs.10,00,000/- prior to one week of marriage when they went to purchase the marriage clothes and later, they paid Rs.2,00,000/- towards Adapaduchu lanchanams on the date of marriage. He also deposed that PW.2 paid
Rs.1,00,000/- to the father of A1 at the time of marriage at Pithapuram on his demand. But, PW.2 did not depose the same. Hence, the evidence of Pws. 1 to 5 is not consistent with regard to payment of dowry and other lanchanams to the accused.
15.Further, Pws. 1 to 5 did not specifically depose and PW.1 did not mention in Ex.P1 that they paid the amount and lanchanams to particular accused i.e. either to A1 or to A2 and A3 or other accused, on their demand.
Further, the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 with regard to demand of amounts by accused is not consistent. Further, PW.3 also stated during her cross examination that there are no bills for payment of dowry and other lanchanams, since they were paid in the presence of elders, and they did not hand over any bills to the police at the time of giving complaint to the police. PW.4 admitted during his cross examination that he did not witness when PW.2 paid cash and
Silver to the accused. PW.5 stated during his cross-examination that in their 8 caste, the marriage expenses will be incurred by bridegroom family. Further,
PW.5 deposed that they paid Rs.10,00,000/- one week prior to marriage when they went to purchase marriage clothes and paid Rs.2,00,000/- Adapaduchu katnam on the date of marriage. But, PW.1 stated that her elder brother transferred some amount through his account to the accused towards dowry and other lanchanams and some amount was given at the time of purchasing marriage clothes. PW.7, who is the Investigating Officer admitted during his cross-examination that PW.1 stated before him that her father is doing agricultural coolie works. He further stated that he has not enquired and has not collected any documents with regard to means of PW.2. He stated that PW.1 did not submit any documentary proof with Ex.P1 with regard to payment of dowry and other lanchanams to the accused and did not submit any receipt with regard to ½ kg. Silver which is alleged to be presented to the accused during marriage, along with Ex.P1.
16.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the amount and lanchanams paid at the time of marriage without any demand of accused and with the wish of family of bride does not come under dowry demand and there is no application of Sec. 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act to the present case. Sec. 3 (2) of Dowry Prohibition Act states that “Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to,
or in relation to, (a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to
the bride (or) bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that
behalf). The Sub-Section 2 further provide where such presents are made
by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such
presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive
having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose
behalf, such presents are given”. During the course of cross-examination of
PW.2 he stated that he is serving as Village Sarpanch and he has properties in his name. Hence, it shows that PW.2 has financial status. Here in this case, as there are no specific allegations against the accused that on the demand of accused, the PW.2 paid the cash, Silver and Gold and moreover, the evidence of 9
Pws. 1 to 5 is not consistent with regard to demand of cash, Silver and Gold and there is no proof to show that PW.2 paid cash, Silver and Gold to the accused on their demand, hence, this court hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused for the offence under Sec. 3 of Dowry Prohibition
Act.
17.Further, PW.1 mentioned in Ex.P1 report that after marriage, A1 looked her well for one month. But, in her evidence PW.1 deposed that she lead marital life with A1 in Pithapuram, after 10 days of marriage there was a change in the attitude of A1 and he was caught hold by her when he was chit chatting with a girl on line and she saw love symbols in the said chatting, when she enquired with A1, he told that as the said girl was on line, he was chit chatting with her. Whatever PW.1 deposed in her evidence, the same was not mentioned by her in Ex.P1. Further, PW.2 did not depose that P.W.1 and A1 lived happily for one month, but, he deposed that after two months of marriage, he came to know that A1 has no job. PW.3 deposed that after ten days of marriage, there was change in the attitude of A1 and he used to talk in phone by going to another room. Pws. 4 and 5 did not depose anything about the change in the attitude of
A1 and about his chit chatting with another girl as deposed by PW.1. PW.1 further mentioned in Ex.P1 that after one month of marriage, her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sisters-in-law and her husband told that the dowry which was paid by them is not sufficient and harassed her to bring additional dowry amount. But,
PW.1 did not mention in Ex.P1 how much additional dowry amount was demanded by accused. Further, in the evidence of PW.1, she did not depose that accused demanded her to bring additional dowry amount. She deposed that on one or two occasions A3 demanded additional dowry from her, but, she refused by stating that she never depended upon her parents. Except, this PW.1 did not depose that all the accused harassed her by demanding additional dowry amount, as mentioned by her in Ex.P1 report. PW.2 also deposed that the accused demanded additional dowry amount from PW.1. But, he also did not depose how much amount of additional dowry amount was demanded by the 10 accused. PW.3 did not depose that the accused demanded additional dowry amount from PW.1. Pws. 4 and 5 did not depose that the accused harassed
PW.1 for additional dowry amount. PW.1 further mentioned in Ex.P1 that when she informed to her in-laws about chatting of A1 with another girl, they supported him and everyday they harassed her physically and mentally. But, the same was not deposed by Pws. 1 to 3. PW.1 further deposed that the A1 has no job prior to marriage and after their engagement they came to know the same when she asked him, he assured that he would do job after their marriage, on that, she trusted him and married him. But, the same was not mentioned by PW.1 in
Ex.P1. PW.2 deposed that they performed the marriage of PW.1 with A1 as the accused informed them that A1 is also doing job and A1 pretended that he is doing job by keeping Laptop in front of him and by doing something in Laptop, on that, he trusted him. PW.2 did not depose that A1 has no job prior to marriage of
PW.1 with A1 as deposed by PW.1. PW.3 deposed that A1 has no avocation and it came to know PW.1 before marriage, when PW.1 asked A1 he promised that he would get job. Pws. 4 and 5 did not depose anything about the job of A1.
Hence, from the evidence of Pws. 1 and 3, it is clear that PW.1 married A1 even though she knows that he has no job. Further, during the course of cross examination of PW.1 she admitted that prior to their marriage when the parents of A1 did not agree for their marriage, herself and A1 talked with each other in
Tadepalligudem. Hence, from this it is clear that even though the parents of A1 did not agree for the marriage of PW.1 and A1 and even though the PW.1 knows that A1 has no job, she married him.
18.PW.1 further deposed that A1 used to harass her physically and mentally by suspecting her character whenever she attended any call through her phone and he used to demand her to attend calls in his presence and demanded to record calls. She further deposed that on one occasion when she was talking with her grandmother, A1 pulled her phone, on that, she requested to give her phone and when she tried to take back her phone accidentally the banian of A1 was torn, on that, he kicked on her stomach, by that time she was in 11 monthly periods, on that, she suffered a lot, but, A1 did not provide any treatment to her, then, she went to her parents’ house and got treated there. When she informed about A1 to A2, he told that PW.1 married A1 for her necessity, as such, she has to bear the harassment of A1. When she questioned about their acts, A1 put off the power, confined her in a room. He did not provide food to her then, she informed the same to her family members, who in turn asked the A1 through phone, on that, he unlocked the room and she came out, but, he did not provide food, then she withdrew her amount and purchased fruits and ate them.
Whatever PW.1 deposed about the above incident, she neither mentioned the same in Ex.P1 report nor stated the same before the police. First time, she deposed about the said incident before this court. PW. 2 deposed that after two months of marriage, they came to know that A1 has no job when they enquired with A1, he stated that he has sufficient money, as such, he has no necessity to do job. The accused demanded the PW.1 to bring additional dowry amount and they did not provide food to PW.1, A1 slapped two or three times and kicked in her abdomen. When PW.1 informed him through phone, he went and asked A4 to A6 who in turn asked him why he has not grown the PW.1 properly and they came upon him. Whatever PW.2 deposed was not deposed by PW.1 and whatever the incident deposed by PW.1 was not deposed by PW.2. PW.3 deposed that after marriage A1 did not do any job and used to play Pubjee games and other games in his Laptop, when PW.1 asked A1 to do job and asked him to come to Hyderabad for job, A1 suspected PW.1 by stating that whether any persons are there in Hyderabad as PW.1 asked him to come to Hyderabad and he also used to beat PW1. Whatever PW.3 deposed in her evidence was not deposed by Pws. 1 and 2. Pws. 4 and 5 did not depose any incident as deposed by PW.1. Further, PW.1 deposed that accidentally the banian of A1 was torn on that he kicked in her stomach. But, during the course of cross-examination of
PW.1, the learned counsel for the accused put a suggestion to PW.1 that when
A1 and PW.1 went to the house of maternal grandmother of PW.1 in Nauduru of
Veeravasaram mandal and when they were returning from her maternal 12 grandmother house on bike, a dispute arose on that, she slapped A1. But, PW.1 voluntarily stated that when A1 asked her whether they constructed the house by doing prostitution, for that word, she slapped him. PW.2 who is father of PW.1 stated during his cross examination that A1 complained him that PW.1 beat him and due to that his shirt was torn. PW.2 voluntarily stated that A1 also kicked
PW.1 in her abdomen. Hence, from the above evidence of Pws. 1 and 2, it is clear that a dispute arose in between PW.1 and A1 on that both of them beat each other. PW.1 deposed that A1 kicked in her stomach, when accidentally his banian was torn. But, the same was not mentioned by PW.1 in Ex.P1 report.
During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, she admitted that she did job in
Chennai for 1 ½ years prior to her marriage, she received an amount of
Rs.55,000/- nearly towards her salary. PW.2 also stated that PW.1 is getting a salary of Rs.48,000/- p.m. and she is working and there is no need to pay any amount to PW.1 for her monthly expenses. PW.3 also admitted that prior to three years of marriage of PW.1, herself and PW.1 did their respective jobs and PW.1 used to get Rs.50,000/- p.m. towards her salary.
19.The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.1 married A1 even though he has no job but, later, she demanded A1 to come with her to
Hyderabad to do job due to that disputes arose in between them, when A1 refused to come along with PW.1, she foisted false case against accused. PW.1 deposed in her evidence that when she asked A1 to come to Hyderabad to do job, he did not agree to come with her when she told to A2 and A3, A2 told that there is no necessity to A1 to do job and A3 also told that A2 also did not do any job likewise there is no necessity to A1 to do job, as they have properties and asked her to resign the job and to stay with them. She further deposed that on 15.12.2022 she requested A1 to come with her to Hyderabad for job but, he bluntly refused to come with her, on the same day her father came to the house of A1 and took her to his house, later, she went to Hyderabad from her father’s house after Pongal for job. During the course of cross examination of PW.1 she stated that at present she is living in Hyderabad. A suggestion was put to PW.1 13 by the learned counsel for the accused on 15.12.2022 she left the house of accused without intimating the accused by taking her articles with the help of packers and movers. But, PW.1 denied the same and voluntarily stated that she left the house of accused by informing the same to the accused. PW.2 deposed that his elder son assured him to provide job toA1 at Hyderabad. He requested
A1 to go to Hyderabad along with PW.1. At first he agreed, but, later, he demanded them that he would come to Hyderabad but all the expenses have to bear by PW.1, A2 and A3 supported A1. He further, deposed that during
Ashadam he took Pw.1 to his house and as A2 agreed to send PW.1 and A1, all the articles of PW.1 and A1 were sent to Hyderabad. Later, after Ashadam he sent PW.1 to Hyderabad, but, A1 did not come to Hyderabad. During the course of cross examination of PW.2, he admitted that PW.1 and himself took back her articles with the help of packers and movers and brought them from the house of
A1 from Pithapuram. Hence, from the above admissions of Pws. 1 and 2, it is clear that the Pws. 1 and 2 brought the things of PW.1 from the house of accused themselves and no one sent PW.1 from the house of accused. But, in
Ex.P1 report PW.1 mentioned that her husband and his relatives sent her from the village on 15.12.2022. Further, as submitted by the learned counsel for the accused, disputes cropped in between PW.1 and A1 as he failed to do job. Even though Pws. 1 to 3 deposed that the accused harassed PW.1 to bring additional dowry amount but, their evidence was not supported by any independent evidence. PW.4 deposed that after marriage of PW.1 and A1 they came to know that A1 has no job, when disputes arose they went to Pithapuram for two times and tried to convince the matter. The mother of PW.1 told that the accused used to beat PW.1 Ashadam, they brought PW.1 to their house, later, the accused did not take her back. He also deposed that PW.1 informed him that the accused abused her when she requested A1 to come with her and to do job. Except this
PW.4 did not depose anything against the accused as deposed by PW.1. PW.5 deposed that they came to know that A1 has no job later, PW.1 came to know that A1 had illegal contact previously and a case was also registered against him.
14
PW.1 and A1 disputed with each other they went to Pithapuram and tried to convince A1, but, A1 did not heed their words. Later, PW.1 gave report to police.
But, the same was not deposed by Pws. 1 to 4. Further, Pws. 1 and 3 deposed that A1 used to talk with another girls through phone but, no evidence was collected on this aspect. PW.7, the Investigating Officer categorically admitted during his cross-examination that PW.1 did not submit any proof along with
Ex.P1 to prove that A1 is chatting with other girls through phone and he has not collected any evidence.
20.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that PW.1 suspected A1 that he had illegal contact with daughter of his maternal uncle, on that, she told the same to the husband of daughter of maternal uncle of A1 on that, the marital life of daughter of maternal uncle of A1 was spoiled. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1 she admitted that the daughter of maternal uncle of A1 is residing in Vizag. A suggestion was put to PW.1 that after their marriage she invited them for lunch, on that, they went to Vizag and she suspected the A1 and the daughter of his maternal uncle and she placed the matter before the elders and also informed the same to her husband. But, PW.1 denied the same. But, voluntarily stated that she caught hold A1 and daughter of his maternal uncle when they were chit chatting in the phone. But, Pws. 2 to 5 did not depose that A1 has illegal contact with the daughter of his maternal uncle and PW.1 did not mention the same in Ex.P1 report. Pws. 1 and 3 deposed that
A1 used to chit chatting with other girls, but, they did not referred the name of daughter of maternal uncle of A1. Further, to prove that A1 chit chatting with other girls through phone, no evidence was produced by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the PW.1 gave false report when A1 failed to do job and as she suspected A1 that he has illegal contact with others. He further argued that PW.1 gave report after one year of her marriage and if really the accused harassed PW.1 and subjected her cruelty in such a manner as contemplated under Sec. 498-A of I.P.C., PW.1 ought to have given report immediately either in Pithapuram Police Station. where she was alleged to 15 subjected to harassment by the accused or in the Nidamarru Police Station, immediately after she came to her parents’ house, but, in this case, PW.1 gave report to police after one year of her marriage. PW.1 deposed in her evidence that she gave Ex.P1 report after she came to her parents’ house from Hyderabad when sister and brother-in-law of A2 called her father over phone and threatened that if PW.1 did not come to the house of A1, they would give report to police against them, on that, she came to her father’s house from Hyderabad and after discussion with her family members, she went to Nidamarru Police Station and gave report to the Nidamarru police, since they harassed her physically and mentally and in turn threatened them to give police report. During the course of cross-examination of PW.2, he admitted that the father of A1 requested PW.1 to stay at his house till A1 get a job. He further admitted that A1 went to his relative namely Hari who is residing at Hyderabad and also requested him to settle the disputes. He further admitted that the accused family went to the house of his brother-in-law namely Venkata Rao who is residing in Bhimavaram and requested him to settle the disputes. PW.4 also admitted that after PW.1 came to the house of PW.2 in Ashadam she did not go to the house of A1 and later gave report to the police against the accused. PW.8 the Investigating Officer admitted that he received complaint on 18.04.2023 and on the same day he registered
FIR, he did not conduct any counseling and did not send the parties to the
Counseling Centre to Eluru. He further admitted that as PW.1 refused for counseling he registered FIR on the same date. Further, as could be seen from
FIR, when was marked as Ex.P5, it was registered on 18.04.2023 at 5.30 P.m.
According to the evidence of Pws. 1 to 3, PW.1 came to the house of PW.2 on 15.12.2022. but, till 18.04.2023 she did not give any report to the police. She did not give any report either in Pithapuram where she alleged to be harassed by the accused. But, in Col.No.8 of FIR it was mentioned that so many times, the PW.1 tried to settle the matter in the presence of village elders, but, accused did not change their attitude. But, the same was not deposed by Pws. 1 to 5 and the investigating officer. Hence, the prosecution failed to explain the delay properly 16 and the said delay is fatal to the prosecution case. Further, PW.1 categorically admitted that when the relatives of accused threatened her father, then only she came to her parents’ house and gave report to police. If really PW.1 was harassed by accused for additional dowry amount or harassed by A1 by suspecting her character or having illicit intimacy with other girls, as deposed by
Pws. 1 to 3, PW.1 ought to have taken immediate action against A1 or other accused but, here in this case she did not give any report either in Pithapuram or in Nidamarru till 18.04.2023. Further, Pws. 3 and 4 deposed that the PW.1 came to the house of PW. 2 in Ashadam, but Pws. 1 and 2 deposed that PW.2 brought
PW.1 from the house of accused on 15.12.2022, whereas PW.1 mentioned in
Ex.P1 that the accused sent her from the village on 15.12.2022. Hence, there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws. 1 to 4 and the contents of Ex.P1.
21.Further, the PW.1 showed A2 to A6 along with A1 in this case but, she categorically admitted during her cross examination that the husband of A4 is a Lineman by the time of their marriage, A4 resided in Samarlakota and now she is residing in Kakinada, she further admitted that the husband of A6 is working in Railways and they are residing in Rajahmundry. The Investigating
Officer i.e. PW.8 also stated that as per his investigation A4 and A5 are residing in Kakinada and A6 is residing in Rajahmundry. But, PW.1 mentioned in Ex.P1 that all the accused harassed her for additional dowry amount. The learned counsel for the accused submitted a citation reported in 2025 Law Suit (SC) 706
in between Rajesh Chaddha Vs. State of Utter Pradesh in which the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held by referring another judgment in between Dara
Lakshminarayana and others Vs. State of Telangana that “mere reference
to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a
matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active
involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well recognized fact, borne
out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the
members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a
matrimonial discord. Such generalized and sweeping accusations
17
unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot
form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in
such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and
avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members”. Here in this case, PW.1 mentioned in Ex.P1 report that all the accused harassed her for
additional dowry amount, but, when coming to the evidence of Pws. 1 to 5 no
specific allegations were made against specific accused. Pws. 1 to 3 did not depose anything against A2 to A6 except that they supported A1. Further, PW.1 did not depose and did not mention in Ex.P1, the dates when A1 chit chatting with another girl through phone, when she caught hold him, when he beat her on her abdomen, when the accused harassed her physically and mentally, no dates were deposed by Pws. 1 to 3 and no dates were mentioned by PW.1 in Ex.P1 report, except the marriage date and except the date when the accused alleged to be sent the PW.1 from the village. Further, PW.1 is not an illiterate. She is a
Software Engineer and doing job at Hyderabad. If really she was subjected cruelty and harassment by the accused, why she kept quiet without giving any report against A1 or other accused in Pithapuram or in Nidamarru immediately after she came to her parents’ house and why she gave Ex.P1 repoert after one year of her marriage, even Pws. 1 to 3 deposed that the accused started harassment after ten days of marriage of A1 and PW1, as per the version of
PW.1 and after one month of marriage of PW.1 and A1 as per the version of
Pws. 2 and 3. The same was not properly explained by the prosecution. Except the evidence of Pws. 1 to 5, out of them PW.1 is defacto complainant, PW.2 is her father, PW.3 is her sister, PW.4 is nephew of PW.1 and PW.5 is cousin of
PW.2, no other evidence was produced by prosecution. Further, the evidence of
Pws. 1 to 5 is not consistent with regard to payment of dowry and other lanchanams, with regard to the alleged harassment of accused towards PW.1.
Hence, this court hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge agianst accused beyond reasonable doubts and by placing cogent evidence. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.
18
22.Therefore, in the result, the accused i.e., A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec. 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of accused if any shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The A1 to A6 are directed to appear before the appellate authority, if their presence is required before the appellate authority. The accused are further directed to execute a self bond for Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) each u/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in
the open Court, on this the 24 th day of March, 2026.
Sd/-Smt.S.Surya Kiran Sri,
Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-
Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
P.W.1: Pala Ramya.Nil
P.W.2: Pala Venkateswara Rao.
P.W.3: Pala Lavanya.
P.W.4: Petcheti Venkateswara Rao.
P.W.5: Pala Satyanarayana.
P.W.6: Nadipalli Madhava Kumar.
P.W.7: Ganasala Vinayak, H.C.
P.W.8: K. Swamy, S.I.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Report of L.W.1/Pala Ramya.
19
Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.
Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.5.
Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.6.
Ex.P.5: Original FIR.
Ex.P.6: Rough sketch.
FOR DEFENCE:
-Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
- Nil -
Sd/-Smt.S.Surya Kiran Sri,
Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-
Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem.
20
CALENDAR & JUDGMENT
WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO:626 of 2023 ON THE FILE OF
PRL.CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
I CLASS, TADEPALLIGUDEM.
Date of
OffenceComplaintApprehensiRelease CommenceClose of Sentence of or reporton of on bail-ment of trialOrder accusedtrial
Prior to 15.12.202218.4.202322.4.202322.4.202323.10.2024 27.1.202624.3.2026
Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C.
Explanation for delay: NIL
Cr.No. : 75/2023 of Nidamarru Police Station.
Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Nidamarru P.S.
Offence : Under Section 498 (A) r/w 34 IPC & Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act,
Name of the accused:
1. Pithani Aravind Kumar, S/o Vijayananda Prasad, Age 32 years, Pithapuram Village cum Mandal.
2. Pithani Vijayananda Prasad, S/o Yedukondalu, Age 59 years, Pithapuram Village cum Mandal.
3. Pithani Dhanalakshmi, W/o Vijayananda Prasad, Age 54 years, Pithapuram Village cum Mandal.
4. Rayudu Sailaja, W/o Sathish, age 36 years, Chebrolu Village, Now residing at Kakinada.
5. Rayudu Satish, S/o Saibaba, age 40 years, Chebrolu Village, Now residing at Kakinada.
6. Yallaboina Pavani, W/o Srinivas, age 34 years, Rajahmundry.
Finding: A1 to A6 found not guilty.
Result: In the result, the accused i.e., A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec. 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of 21 accused if any shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.
The A1 to A6 are directed to appear before the appellate authority, if their presence is required before the appellate authority. The accused are further directed to execute a self bond for Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) each u/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.
Sd/-Smt.S.Surya Kiran Sri,
Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-
Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem.
Copy submitted to:
The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru