Sri Shaik Abdul Shariff

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

- CUM- JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PONNUR.

Present: Sri Shaik Abdul Shariff,

Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ponnur.

e Monday, this the 20th day of November, 2023.

C.C.119/2021

Between:

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural Police Station. … Complainant.

And

1. Bonigalla Daveedu, S/o. Jaya Rao, 49 yrs, D.No.5-77, Doppalapudi Village, Ponnur Mandal.

2. Bonigalla YaKobu, S/o. Jaya Dasu Rao, 49 yrs, D.No.5-25, Doppalapudi Village, Ponnur Mandal.

3. Bonigalla Vimalamma, S/o. Jaydas, 54 yrs, D.No.5-20, Doppalapudi Village, Ponnur Mandal.

…. Accused

This case has come up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant Sri. P. Vijaya Kumar garu, advocate for the accused and the matter having heard on 14.11.2023 and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural Police

Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.101/2020 against the above noted accused for the offence U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code.

2

The case of the prosecution as held out from the First

Information Report which is as follows:

02. LW1, Sri Dasari Samuel states in the report that on 26.05.2020 while he was going to his house through church road, he noticed A1, A2 sat underneath the tree and whereupon, he questioned them as to why they sat across the road, on which A1 and A2 picked quarrel and during the quarrel A1 hit him with iron rod resulting bleeding injury. A2 and A3 hit him with a stick resulting injuries. Whereupon

L.W.1 lodged report. After termination of investigation, the case was culminated into charge sheet U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 of

IPC.

03. After perusal of the record, the case was taken on file for the offences U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A3. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them under section 207 Cr.P.C.,

04. A1 to A3 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and the sum and substance of charge sheet contents are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and on that charge U/Sec.324 r/w 34 IPC framed against the accused.

05. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got Exs.P1 to P4 marked.

06. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., on which they denied the incriminating material and stated that they have no defence evidence.

3

07. The learned prosecution counsel, Smt. P. Lakshmi garu invited the attention of this Court through the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.3 coupled with testimony of investigating officer i.e., P.W.4 and inter-alia maintains that the mind set of A1 to

A3 is the notorious and mischievous mindset and they have no respect towards the law. On 26.05.2020, after the work got over, P.W.1 was heading towards his house through church road and noticed A1 and A2 got seated underneath the tree.

P.W.1 questioned A1 and A2 as to why they sat underneath the tree on which, a heated argument took place in between the

P.W.1 and the accused and during the quarrel, A1 turned violent and hit P.W.1 with iron rod on his head resulting profuse bleeding. While A2 and A3 pulled the stick of the thatched fencing and poked P.W.1 on his eye. L.W.3 and L.W.4 who are the direct witnesses to the occurrence are not willing to support the case of the prosecution and they are won over by the accused and due to which reason L.W.3 and L.W.4 are given up. Corroboration is not a condition precedent for judicial reliance and interested witnesses also interested in speaking the truth. The wound certificate covered under Ex.P2 is unerringly pointer to the guilt of A1 to A3. Merely because, the investigating officer did not seize the incriminating material i.e, iron rod and stick and which perse does not cause any serious dent in prosecution case. The evidence of P.W.2 and

P.W.3 is within the zone of believability and credibility, and no taint of unreliability can be attached, and their evidence has ring of truth. Therefore, pronouncing the verdict of conviction is wholly sustainable in law.

08. The learned lawyer for the accused, Sri P. Vijaya

Kumar garu assailed the arguments advanced by learned A.P.P and inter-alia maintains that the accused has constitutional 4 right to maintain silence simplicitor throughout the trial, thus, it is the business of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt succinctly to the hilt. In the case on hand, the prosecution could not establish the alleged complicity of the accused as per the evidential standard. P.W.1 is highly ill-mannered and foul-mouthed person and abused A1 to A3 in a most offending language. A1 to A3 suffered silence in spite of the erratic behaviour of P.W.1. Every offence is committed with a particular motive. In the case on hand, the prosecution dismally failed to prove the commission of offence.

The testimony of P.W.1 is beset with numerous flaws and inconsistency is bordering on the line of falsehood. P.W.1 thoughtfully designed Ex.P1 in order to enmesh the accused in a false case. The wound certificate covered under Ex.P2 is strengthening the presumption of innocence lies in favour of the accused. The Investigating Officer ought to have bestowed his attention while conducting investigation, however his investigation is one sided and guided, and due to which, the innocent accused suffered the ordeal of the prosecution without any justifiable reason. Therefore, pronouncing the verdict of conviction is wholly unsustainable in law.

09. Now the question that germane for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt succinctly

to the hilt?

POINT:

10. Now, I am setting forth the scope of controversy under different heads which are stated below.

5

Whether P.W.1 gave-up the case as stated in Ex.P1 and

made out a new case during chief-examination?.

11. In this context, for better appreciation of the point, the contents of Ex.P1 need extraction word by word. Ex.P1 goes onto disclose that “Dinam 26.05.2020 va tedina Urilo

kooli paniki Vellinanu. Pani Ayipoyina tharuvatha intiki

church bazarlo vellichunnanu. Darilo chettu krinda maa

Grama kapurastulyna Bonigala Daaveedu, Yacobu,

Vimalammalu kurchoniunaaru. Endira maa bazaru

addamga kurchunnanu annanu.”

Now, the aforementioned factual scenario got to be tested on the measure of material emerged out from the chief- examination of P.W.1. P.W.1 states during chief-examination that “On the date of occurrence while I was getting back

home from the field, when I reached near to the house, A1

to A3 were standing on the middle of the road. I asked A1

to A3 to give way, on which, A1 to A3 turned violent. A1

and A2 hit me with rod on my head”

It is well recognized legal convention that, if the party to the lis endeavors to introduce a new version, a version which is materially and substantially different from one stated in the pleadings, it shall be presumed that the witness is a big liar, and his/her testimony cannot be relied upon. In the case on hand, Ex.P1 is sadly silent with respect to A1 to A3 were standing in the middle of the road and that P.W.1 asked to give way, on which, A1 to A3 turned violent. This material purports convey a strong message that P.W.1 waved a web of story in order to make the accused to suffer the ordeal of the prosecution.

6

Whether non-examination of L.W.3, L.W.4 and Kaalintha

Padma, Thaavuru Sarojini, Bonigala Hemalatha and Raaji

is a big serious infirmity in prosecution case and the

prosecution cannot escape from being blamed for their

non-examination?

12. The investigation reveals that L.W.3 and L.W.4 are the direct witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 testifies during cross-examination that “Kaalintha Padma, Thaavuru

Sarojini, Bonigala Hemalatha and Raaji were physically

present”. However, Kaalintha Padma, Thaavuru Sarojini,

Bonigala Hemalatha and Raaji are not examined by the prosecution nor the prosecution offered any good deal of reason for their non-examination. The learned APP filed a letter addressed by P.W.1 to her into this court, wherein it is mentioned that P.W.1 does not want to examine the aforementioned witnesses i.e., L.w.3 and L.W.4. In this regard, the reason assigned is not convincing.

It is the rule of essential justice that when the party to the lis obstructs or blocks such evidence, the presumption gets activated that purposefully the witnesses are withheld, so that the truth would come into light. In the case on hand, the prosecution could not offer any impressive reason for non examination of the aforementioned witnesses, who are able to throw better light upon the case of the prosecution.

Whether the case of the prosecution runs the risk of being

branded as false due to not offering explanation how A1

got into the custody of the iron rod ?

7

13. The accusation stems from the first information report covered under Ex.P1 that A1 assaulted P.W.1 with iron rod. The material available on record exposes that all of sudden in a spur of moment the quarrel took place. In such circumstances, how A1 and where from he got the iron rod to assault P.W.1. It is the never the case of the prosecution that

A1 was waiting for the arrival of P.W.1 for carrying out assault upon P.W.1. In this regard, no good deal of reason is assigned by the prosecution.

Whether some legal brain worked on Ex.P1 to rope A1 to

A3 in a false case?

14. P.W.1 testifies during cross-examination that “One

lawyer instructed for recording Ex.P1. I am not aware of

the name of the advocate.” It seems from the admission that

Ex.P1 is the result of an afterthought or second thought.

Whether the prosecution established the motive for the

commission of the offence?

15. In response to the question posed and for better appreciation of the point, I may reproduce the material emerged out from the cross-examination of P.W.1. P.W.1 emphatically asserts during cross-examination that “There were no cross

terms in between me and the accused prior to Ex.P1.”

Every offence is committed with a particular motive and the motive impels a person to commit the crime and no one commits the offence for fancy.

Admittedly, there are no past bitter ill-feelings interse in between P.W.1 and the accused. Therefore, not establishing 8 the motive for the crime by the prosecution is highly unbelievable.

Whether it is risky and hazardous to place reliance upon

Ex.P2/Wound Certificate in the light of the infirmities

pointed out from the testimony of P.W.1?

16. The medical evidence helps the court to evaluate the reliability and credibility of the witness, and it helps as a check upon the testimony of eye-witness and the injured witness. The prosecution did not establish the motive for commission of offence. On the other hand, the testimony of P.W.1 is highly discrepant. Therefore, in such circumstances prudence and commonsense are cautioning me not to place implicit reliance upon Ex.P2/Wound certificate.

Whether P.W.2 is a witness of truth and his testimony can

be relied upon?

17. P.W.1 states during cross-examination that he is assaulted with iron rod. Whereas, P.W.2 states that A1 assaulted P.W.1 with the leg of the wooden cot which is not the case of the prosecution as per the first information report.

Therefore, it is not safe enough to place trust upon the testimony of P.W.2.

Whether P.W.3 is a direct witness to the occurrence or his

testimony is indirect testimony?

18. P.W.3 states during cross examination that “I did

not see the occurrence. I came to learn through P.W.1 that

A1 to A3 assaulted him.” 9

In all cases best evidence has to be produced and direct evidence is the best evidence in terms of Sec.60 of Indian

Evidence Act. In the case on hand, the testimony of PW.3 is the derivative or hearsay evidence which has no probative significance.

As to what motivated the investigating officer not to

retrieve the incriminating material i.e., iron rod and stick

with which the assault is alleged to have been carried

upon P.W.1 by the accused?

19. I have been called upon by the learned counsel for the accused to scrutinize cross-examination of PW.4.

Question and Answers from the testimony of P.W.4:

Q.1 : Did you seize the iron rod as well as the stick?

Ans. : I did not

Q.2 : Did you examine the witnesses referred in Ex.P4?

Ans. : I did not.

The main object of conducting investigation is to find out the truth and to bring the real perpetrator of the crime before the court. In the case on hand, the investigating officer did not make any endeavor to seize the iron rod and stick and failed to focus his attention with respect to the actual genesis of the occurrence. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of evidence, however, if the material available on record gives rise to a serious doubt, in such a case, benefit of doubt has to be conferred to the accused. Therefore, I am constrained to bestow benefit out of doubt upon the accused.

10

20. In the wake of aforementioned material, I am of the considered view the prosecution could not prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

21. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.324 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. No property produced in this case, hence, no property order passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this 20th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- Shaik Abdul Shariff

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -cum-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PONNUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION : P.W.1 : Dasari Samuel P.W.2 : Dasari Suvarthamma P.W.3 : D. Mary Pradeepa, the then CAS, CHC, Ponnur. P.W.4 : Gollamudi Vijya Kumar P.W.5 : P. Koteswara Rao the then SI of Police, Ponnur Rural P.S.

FOR THE DEFENCE : -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : Ex.P1 : Statement of P.W.1. - Nil - Ex.P2 : Wound Certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P3 : FIR Ex.P4 : Rough Sketch

Sd/- Shaik Abdul Shariff

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -cum-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PONNUR.

11

FORM No.72 Calendar and Judgment District of Guntur

Calendar of cases tried by the Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ponnur.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.119/2021

Nature of Offence: U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC

Date of Judgment 20.11.2023

Commen Report of Apprehension Date of Release on Closure of Sentence or Offence cement of complainant of accused remand bail trial order trial 26.05.20 26.05.20 -- -- -- 11.05.23 14.11.23 20.11.23

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses.

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural P.S

Accused :

1. Bonigalla Daveedu, S/o. Jaya Rao, 49 yrs, D.No.5-77, Doppalapudi Village, Ponnur Mandal.

2. Bonigalla YaKobu, S/o. Jaya Dasu Rao, 49 yrs, D.No.5-25, Doppalapudi Village, Ponnur Mandal.

3. Bonigalla Vimalamma, S/o. Jaydas, 54 yrs, D.No.5-20, Doppalapudi Village, Ponnur Mandal.

Finding: Not Guilty

In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. No property produced in this case, hence, no property order passed.

Sd/- Shaik Abdul Shariff

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -cum-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PONNUR. Copy to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

- CUM- JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PONNUR.

Present: Sri Shaik Abdul Shariff,

Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ponnur.

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2023

C.C.139/2020

Between:

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural P.S. … Complainant.

And

1. Gera Ravinadh @ Ravi, S/o. Late Krishna Rao, 36 yrs, Mala, Chekuru Village, Chebrolu Mandal.

2. Gamidi Suseela, W/o. Prasad, 43 yrs, Mala, Chekuru Village, Cheborlu Mandal.

3. Gamidi Prasad, S/o. Late Adam , 51 yrs, Mala, Chekuru Village, Cheborlu Mandal.

4. Gamidi Prem Kumar, S/o. Prasad, 26 yrs, Mala, Chekuru Village, Cheborlu Mandal.

5. Gamidi Krishnaveni, D/o. Prasad, 31 yrs, Mala, Chekuru Village, Cheborle Mandal.

6. Gamidi Usharani, D/o. Prasad, 27 yrs, Mala, Chekuru Village, Cheborlu Mandal.

7. Gamidi Sirisha, D/o. Prasad, 24 yrs, Mala, Chekuru Village, Cheborlu Mandal.

... Accused.

This case has come up before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. P. Lakshmi garu, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri P. Vijaya Kumar garu, Advocate for accused and the matter having heard on 21.11.2023 and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

2

JUDGMENT

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural P.S filed charge sheet in Cr.No.219/2019 against the above noted accused for the offence U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of

D.P. Act.

The case of the prosecution as held out from the First

Information Report which is as follows:

02. L.W.1, Smt. G. Akhila states in the report that her parents got her married off with A1 by following the caste custom. After the marriage, she joined A1 to lead marital life and the marital life was comfortable for two years. A1 is addicted to vices and began demanding additional dowry amount. A2 to A7 used to instigate A1 and due to that A1 ill- treated her. Unable to bear the harassment, she lodged report.

After termination of investigation, the case was culminated into charge sheet under section 498-A of IPC and Sc.3 and 4 of

D.P.Act.

03. After perusal of the record, the case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act against A1 to A7. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them under section 207 Cr.P.C.,

04. A1 to A7 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. with regard to offence alleged against them, for which, they did not plead guilty of the offence U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and thus, the charge is framed U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act against them and whereupon, they were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied to have committed the offences and claimed to be tried.

3

05. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got Exs.P1 to P3 marked.

06. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A7 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., on which they denied the incriminating material and stated that they have no defence evidence.

07. The learned prosecution counsel, Smt. P. Lakshmi garu brought the attention of this court through the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.3 coupled with the testimony of P.W.4 who is the investigating officer, and interalia maintains that the parents of P.W.1 got her wedded off with A1 by following the vedic rituals. After the wedding, P.W.1 joined A1 to lead marital life. P.W.1 and A1 have had happy marital life for 3 years.

During the wedlock, P.W.1 begot two children. A1 is highly wicked and used to pester and torment P.W.1 to bring an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, on which P.W.1 informed him that her parents are weak on financial front and they have no sufficient financial capabilities to part with the amount. Ever since the refusal, A1 developed deep seated animosity and ill- will against P.W.1 and made her to suffer the physical and psychological ordeal. Due to malfunctioning of the marriage, the matter is placed before the elders. The elders brokered the deal to reset the matrimonial bond, however, A1 did not change his mischievous mind set and did not reform his character and continued to cause much sorrow to P.W.1. The minor discrepancies from the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.3 do not impact the case of the prosecution in a great measure. The case of the prosecution clearly falls within the net of Sec.498-A of IPC. Thus, it is a fit case to give a stamp of approval.

4

08. The learned counsel for the accused, Sri.

P. Vijaya Kumar Garu refuted the arguments advanced by the learned APP and interalia contends that in criminal cases, it is the business of the prosecution to alleviate its case to the grade of must be true and not may be true. In the case on the hand, the prosecution failed to prove the complicity of the accused as per the evidential standards. P.W.1 is highly arrogant and self willed woman and she follows her heart without caring A1 and in-laws. P.W1 used to pick quarrel with A1 when he asked to change the attitude. The status of parents of P.W.1 is the indigent status and they have no sufficient financial worthiness to part with the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as alleged to have been demanded. Due to the mis-behaviour of P.W.1, the marriage of A1 with P.W.1 proved disaster. P.W.1 abandoned the matrimonial home on her own volition without any probable reason. P.W.1 made unfounded allegations against the accused. P.W.1 has interest to continue the marital bond and she has intention to walkout from the marriage. The imaginations and conjunctures cannot take the place of proof, unless there is a dependable material pointer to the guilt of the accused. The testimony of P.W.1 is beset with numerous flaws and inconsistency is bordering on the line of falsehood.

Sec.498-A of IPC is being abused by the unscrupulous wives for simple reasons, and it is license to unleash harassment on the husbands. Therefore, affixing the stamp of approval to the case of the prosecution is wholly unsustainable.

09. Now the question that germane for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt succinctly to

the hilt?

5

POINT :

10. Now, I am setting forth the scope of controversy under different heads which are stated below.

Whether P.W.1 gave up the case as stated in Ex.P1 and in

her 161(3) Cr.P.C statement and made out a new case

during chief examination?

11.To get an answer to the question posed and for purposeful appreciation of the point, I may restate the cross examination of P.W.1. P.W.1 testifies during chief examination that “A1 is a alcoholic and used to assault me under the

influence of intoxication. A1 used to demand me to bring

an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-.”

It is well established proposition of law that when the prosecution endeavors to introduce a new version, a version which is materially and substantially different from other as stated in the former statement, it shall be presumed that, it is an afterthought or second thought. In the case on hand, P.W.1 did not state either in Ex.P1 or in her 161(3) Cr.P.C statement that A1 demanded an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards

additional dowry. It seems that P.W.1 spoke with improvised

version and this improvement renders her testimony unreliable.

Admittedly, the parents of P.W.1 have no financial backup and they are struggling to make the both ends meet. In such a case, how does A1 demand an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. The probability factors weaken the case of the prosecution in a great measure. Therefore, prudence and commonsense are cautioning me not to place implicit reliance upon the testimony of P.W.1.

6

Whether the variant versions of P.W.1 make her unworthy

of credit?

12. It is in the backdrop, I shall concisely restate the accusation comes from the first information report covered under Ex.P1. The factual antecedents reveal from Ex.P1 is that “Nenu 2017 lo May nelalo Garbhavathinynanu. Nannu

asupathri yandu kooda naa bhartha chupinchaledu, Sariga

bhojana vasathi kooda kalpinchevaru kaadu.”

Now, the aforementioned facts got to be tested on the measure of the material emerged out from the cross examination of P.W.1. P.W.1 confidently spoke in her evidence that “I do not remember whether I got treated by the doctor

at Tenali by A1 when I conceived the first pregnancy. A1

took me to the hospital when I was in a six month

pregnancy and got me treated.”

It is the doctrine of law laying down that the party to the proceedings cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold, play fast and loose and approbate and reprobate. In the case on hand, one breath P.W.1 says that A1 did not get her treated by the doctor and again she goes back from the former version, and states that A1 took care of her medical needs. Therefore, the multiple versions of PW.1 cast bad reflection upon the case of prosecution.

Whether the prosecution cited any scientific proof to show

P.W.1 got treated in a Health Hospital on 11.05.2019?

13. In this context, once again, I am back to the contents of Ex.P1. Ex.P1 goes on to specify that “Dinam 11.05.2019 7

na naa votu mamillapalli nandu unnanduna votu vesi

vanthanu ani naa bharthaku cheppi vellinanu. Akkada votu

veyutaku letu avuta valana sayamthram 5 gantalaku intiki

ragane intiki raaga naa bhartha ippatidaaka evaritho thirigi

vachinavu ani nannu naa bhartha kopamtho ekkadipadithe

chethulatho, kallatho ishtam vachinatlu kotti naa edama

chevi py gattiga kottaga naa chevi vembadi raktham

karinadi. Ayinanu naa atthamamalu, naa adabiddalu naa

bharathaku saportu chesinaru. Nenu chevi noppi

thattukoleka Health Hospital nandu chupinchukonaga

chevi yokka karnaberi pagilinadi.”

The cardinal rule of law of evidence is that in all cases best evidence has to be produced, production of best evidence is the rule and the proof never fall short of excellence in standard.

The evidence is the instrument through which the court gets convinced regarding the existence or non-existence of fact-in- issue. In the case on hand, the prosecution did not produce any scientific proof to show that P.W.1 suffered ear impairment due to the grievous assault.

Whether the case of the prosecution suffers from the vice

of interestedness?

14. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the parents of P.W.1. P.W.2 did not state in his evidence that A1 demanded the dowry amount.

On the other hand, it is the never the case of prosecution that

A1 turned away P.W.1 from the marital home on the ground that she begot the female child. Further it is not cropped up in his 161(3) Cr. P.C statement that A1 drove away P.W1 from the matrimonial home as she begot a female kid. P.W.3 did not state in her evidence that A1 demanded an amount of 8

Rs.15,00,000/- towards additional dowry amount. P.W.3 introduced a new version that A1 demanded an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards additional dowry. Therefore, in view of the inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, it is not safe enough to rely upon their testimony.

Whether on account of the imperfections in the

investigation, the accused had to suffer the ordeal of the

prosecution without any justifiable cause?

15. In this controversial backdrop, I have been called upon by the learned counsel for the accused to scrutinize the cross-examination of .PW.4 who is the investigating officer with utmost care and caution.

Question and answers:

Q.1 : Did you examine the witnesses visiting Sekuru?

Ans. : I did not.

Q.2 : Did you examine the witnesses referred in Ex.P3?

Ans : I did not.

Q.3 : Did you produce any documentary proof to show that P.W.1 was injured at the hands of A1?

Ans. : No.

The main object of conducting investigation is to find out the truth and to bring the real perpetrator of the crime before the court. In the case on hand, the investigating officer did not make any endeavor to examine the witnesses whose names are referred in Ex.P3 nor collected any Scientific proof with respect to the assault upon P.W.1.

9

16. In the wake of aforementioned material, I am of the considered view the prosecution could not prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17. In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P

Act and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this 22nd day of November, 2023.

Sd/- Shaik Abdul Shariff

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -cum-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PONNUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION : P.W.1 : Gera Akhila P.W.2 : Gummadi Syambabu @ Babu P.W.3 : Gummadi Subhashini P.W.4 : P. Koteswara Rao, the then S.I of Police, Ponnur Rural P.S.

FOR THE DEFENCE : -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION : Ex.P.1 : Report given by P.W.1. Ex.P.2 : FIR Ex.P.3 : Rough Sketch

FOR THE DEFENCE : -Nil-

Sd/- Shaik Abdul Shariff

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -cum-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PONNUR.

10

FORM No.72 Calendar and Judgment District of Guntur Calendar of cases tried by the Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ponnur.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.139/2020

Nature of Offence: U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act

Date of Judgment 22-11-2023

Commen Report of Apprehension Date of Release on Closure of Sentence or Offence cement of complainantof accusedremandbailtrialorder trial Prior to 14.12.19-- ---- 20.12.2210.11.2322.11.23 14.12.19 Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses.

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural P.S

Accused :

1. Gera Ravinadh @ Ravi, S/o. Late Krishna Rao, 36 yrs, Mala, Chekuru Village, Chebrolu Mandal.

2. Gamidi Suseela, W/o. Prasad, 43 yrs, Mala, Chekuru Village, Cheborlu Mandal.

3. Gamidi Prasad, S/o. Late Adam , 51 yrs, Mala, Chekuru Village, Cheborlu Mandal.

4. Gamidi Prem Kumar, S/o. Prasad, 26 yrs, Mala, Chekuru Village, Cheborlu Mandal.

5. Gamidi Krishnaveni, D/o. Prasad, 31 yrs, Mala, Chekuru Village, Cheborle Mandal.

6. Gamidi Usharani, D/o. Prasad, 27 yrs, Mala, Chekuru Village, Cheborlu Mandal.

7. Gamidi Sirisha, D/o. Prasad, 24 yrs, Mala, Chekuru Village, Cheborlu Mandal.

Finding: Not Guilty In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Shaik Abdul Shariff

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -cum-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PONNUR. Copy to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.