1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
SPECIAL MOBILE COURT : NELLORE.
Present : Sri Shaik Atheeque Ahmad,
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Special Mobile Court, Nellore.
Friday, the Thirteenth (13 th ) day of March, Two thousand and Twenty
CALENDAR CASE No.481 of 2015
State: represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police station,
Nellore city.
... Complainant ...
-Versus-
A1-Kanugaboina Vedanayakam, S/o.Pushpa Raj, aged 30 years, Nassam village, Sanjamula Mandal, Kurnool District and native of
Ramachandrayapalli village, Jammalamadugu Mandal, YSR Kadapa
District. A2-Kanugaboina Sulochanamma, W/o.Pushpa Raj, aged 50 years, Nassam village, Sanjamula Mandal, Kurnool District and native of
Ramachandrayapalli village, Jammalamadugu Mandal, YSR Kadapa
District. A3-Kanugaboina Pushpa Raj, S/o.Jacob, aged 62 years, Nassam village,
Sanjamula Mandal, Kurnool District and native of Ramachandrayapalli village, Jammalamadugu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. A4-Kanugaboina Sathya Babu, S/o.Pushpa Raj, aged 35 years,
Veerapanaiyunipalli, Vempalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
… Accused ..
This case is coming on 10.03.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of the I/C Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri J.King Paul, Advocate for the Accused Nos.1 to 4, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Nellore City filed charge sheet in Cr.No.35 of 2015 for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.,) and Sec.3 & 4 of 2 Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred as D.P. Act) against the accused
Nos.1 to 4.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- Prior to 2009, the first marriage of L.W.1-K.Swapna was performed with one Pidugu
Shoban Babu and later due to misunderstandings, they both taken divorce.
When the alliance came to L.W.1 for second marriage, her parents i.e., L.W.2-
D.Singaiah and L.W.3-D.Munemma narrated the facts to A1 to A4 and they agreed to perform the marriage of A1 with L.W.1. On 27.11.2009 L.Ws.2 & 3 performed the marriage of L.W.1 with A1 at Ramachandrayapalli village of
Kadapa District in a Church according to their religious customs. At the time of marriage, LWs.2 & 3 provided one sovereign of gold ring, Honda Shine
Motorcycle and cash of Rs.4,00,000/- towards dowry including household articles to A1 as required by A2 to A4. A1 who is working as a Pastor shifted his family at first to Giriganuru village, from there to Choutapalli village of
Kadapa Distict and then to East Godavari District. During their conjugal life,
A2 to A4 who are having perverted minds with guilty conscious of first marriage of L.W.1, started harassing L.W.1 both physically and mentally by instigating A1. At that instant, A1 colluded with A2 to A4 and beat L.W.1 frequently and demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parental home and finally they necked out her from the house by saying that A1 did not allow her, if she won’t get additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parental home as suggested by A2 to A4. Further A1 visited the house of L.Ws.2 & 3 and threatened them to provide Rs.1 lakh as to lead marital life with L.W.1, otherwise A1 will discard L.W.1 and also broken the household articles in the house of L.Ws.2 & 3. Finally, L.W.1 approached the
Women Police Station, Nellore and gave a report to the police. Basing on the report of L.W.1, a case was registered in Cr.No.35/2015 under section 498-A r/w 34 I.P.C., and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act of Women Police Station, 3 Nellore and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned. During course of investigation, L.W.12-K.Malakondaiah, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,
Women Police station, Nellore visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses, recorded their statement and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. On 30.08.2015 at 11:00 hours A1 to A4 surrendered before L.W.12.
Then L.W.12 served notices under section 41-A Cr.P.C., against A1 to A4 and directed them to appear before the Court, when ever their presence is required. After completion of investigation, L.W.12 filed chargesheet against the accused for the above said offences.
3. This case was taken on file by my learned predecessor for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A I.P.C., and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act against the accused Nos.1 to 4.
4. On appearance of the accused No.1 to 4 before this court, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter it is referred as Cr.P.C.,) and they were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of accusation made against them in Telugu, for which they denied. The charges for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A I.P.C., and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained the charges to A1 to
A4 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. The prosecution examined the defacto- complainant/L.W.1-Kanagaboina Swapna as P.W.1, L.W.2-Darla Singaiah as
P.W.2, L.W.3-Darla Munemma as P.W.3, L.W.4-Alli Ramaiah as P.W.4, L.W.6-
Dola Naga Prasad as P.W.5, L.W.8-Bandi Suryanarayana Reddy as PW.6,
L.W.9-Anki Reddy Obulu Reddy as P.W.7 and L.W.12-K.Malakondaiah, the then
Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Nellore as P.W.8. The learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.5-Gunduboina 4 Venkateswarlu, L.W.7-Dola Samrajyam, L.W.10-Nese Danam and L.W.11-
Anjala Narasimhulu.
6. Ex.P1 is the Complaint of P.W.1, dated:12.06.2015 given to police.
Ex.P2 is the marriage registration certificate, dated: 27.11.2009. Ex.P.3 is
Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4. Ex.P4 is the F.I.R., in Cr.No.35/2015 of
Women Police Station, Nellore. Ex.P5 is Rough sketch of scene of offence.
Ex.P6 is Rough sketch of second scene of offence.
7. On closure of prosecution side evidence, A1 to A4 were examined
U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses by explaining the same to them in
Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence side evidence on their behalf.
8. Heard arguments on both sides. The counsel for accused also filed written arguments. Perused the material on record.
9. Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offences punishable U/sec.498-A I.P.C., and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?”
10. Point:- The case of the prosecution is that A1 being the husband of
P.W.1 and A2 and A3 being the parents of of of A1; and A4 being the brother of A1, subjected P.W.1 to cruelty by harassing her for additional dowry and thereby committed the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A I.P.C., and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
11. The learned A.P.P., argued that by examining P.Ws.1 to 8 and by got marking Exs.P1 to P6 the prosecution has proved its case. The learned A.P.P., argued that though P.W.4 turned hostile, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 to 7 is corroborating with each other and in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the counsel for accused could not elicit any material supporting 5 to defence. The learned A.P.P., argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and A1 to A4 are liable for the charges against them.
12. The counsel for accused argued and mentioned in the written arguments the following material points:- P.W.1 failed to say the name of churt in which the marriage took place even though she lived in her in-laws house for 8 months as stayed by her. P.W.1 in her cross-examination stated that she used to go to Vellore Hospital as she suffered with ulcer, but she supressed this fact with A1. P.W.1 not disclosed about her first marriage and taking divorce with her first husband. She did not mention the same in her complaint and alo did not state before police. P.W.1 stated in her cross- examination that she took mutual divorce from her first husband, but she diid not file any proof for divorce with her first husband. P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed different versions with regard to giving of dowry. P.W.2 in his cross- examination changed his version of giving dowry. At one time he stated that he gave dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- in shapre of household articles. At another time he stated that he gave cash of Rs.4,00,000/- and asked the A1 to A4 to purchase household articles whatever necessary. The evidence of P.W.8 clearly shows that there are material omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. A2 to A4 are falsely implicated in this case. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as such the accused are entitled for acquittal.
13. A perusal of evidence on record, the Defacto-complainant/P.W.1 in her chief-examination deposed that her marriage with A1 was performed by her parents on 27.11.2009 at Church at Ramachandraya Palli of
Jammalamadugu Mandal of Kadapa District according to the Christian
Religious Customs. At the time of her marriage with A1 her parents gave
Rs.4,00,000/- cash and one sovereign of gold and a two wheeler towards 6 dowry to A1. At the time of her marriage A1 was working as Pastor in a
Church in Sundupalli villge of Rayachoti Mandal of Kadapa District. After marriage she joined A1 and they resided in Sundupalli village in Church where A1 was working. They stayed in Sundupalli for a period of 2 months.
Subsequently they shifted family to Ramachandraiah Palli of
Jammalamadugu Mandal to the house of her in-laws. They resided in her in-laws house for a period of 2 months. In that house she, A1, A2 to A4 were residing. At that time her father retired from Service as a A.S.I., On that A2 to A4 instigated A1 to demand for bringing Additional Dowry from her father as her father will get retirement benefits. On that A1 to A4 started harassing her to bring Additional Dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. Later A1 left her in her parents house stating that only after securing Additional Dowry of
Rs1,00,000/- she has to come to his house. Later L.W.6 Dola Naga Prasad,
L.W.7 Dola Samrajyam along with her parents conducted a mediation with the A1 to A4 and sent her to the house of A1 to A4. A1 to A4 shifted their residence to Goraganuru village of Jammalamadugu Mandal. She joined A1 to A4 in that village and resided with them. They stayed in that village for a period of 5 months. Even there A2 to A4 instigated A1 against her for trivial issues. Later her husband and she shifted family to Tuni town of East
Godavari District to work as Pastor by A1. They stayed there for 8 months.
When they were in Tuni A3 used to call A1 over Cell Phone and used to ask to desert her. Due to that A1 used to beat her. Again A1 demanded for
Additional Dowry and left her in her parents house. Again a mediation was
conducted by her parents through L.W.6 D.Naga Prasad and L.W.7
D.Samrajyam and again sent her to the house of her in-laws in Goraganuru village. She informed to A2 about A1 beating her. A2 stated that if she is not interested she has to leave A1. Again A2 to A4 sent her to her parents house by asking her to bring Dowry from her parents house. Later A1 was 7 transferred to M.Chowtapalli village of Pendlivarri Mandal of Kadapa District to work as a Pastor in a Church. She joined A1 in that village and they lived together for 2 months. Again A2 to A4 instigated A1 to harass her. Due to that A1 started harassing her for Additional Dowry. A2 to A4 used to visit their house in M.Chowtapalli villge. They used to encourage A1 to harass her.
Later the elders of Church i.e., L.W.8 Bandi Surya Narayana Reddy, L.W.9
Anki Reddy Obul Reddy, L.W.10 Nese Danam, L.W.11 Akula called A2 to A4 and L.W.6 D.Naga Prasad and conducted counselling between her and A1.
But at the time of mediation A3 asked A1 to desert her. As A3 instigated A1 in the presence of elders itself the mediation turned in vain. Later A1 left her in her parents house. A1 stated to Church elders that as he is going to
Hyderabad to attend a meeting he is leaving her in her parents house but actually he deserted her as her parents could not give additional dowry. A1 left her in her parents house on 01.03.2015. After one week A1 came to her parents house and asked for money. As she stated that her parents have no capacity to give Additional Dowry, A1 beat her and left the house. A1 stated that he can escape from law stating that he is having psychological depression. A1 stated that he also got treatment in Yerragadla mental hospital. A1 also took treatment in Narayana Medical Hospital, Nellore. The
Doctors called her and asked whether the A1 was really suffering psychological problem. The Doctors asked to stay in the hospital for 2 days.
Later after 17 days the Doctors discharged A1 stating that he has no any mental ill-health and he joined in Hospital by saying false things. Later she and A1 came to her parents house. Again A1 beat her stating that she has not brought Additional Dowry. Later A1 left her parents house. She also informed this fact to A2 to A4. They sarcastically stated that to go to
Yerragadla mental hospital and to search for A1. She waited for 2 weeks, but
A1 did not turn up. Hence she went to Women Police Station, Nellore and 8 gave a Complaint. Later Police called A1 to A3 and conducted counselling. A1 to A3 accepted to look after her properly and gave a written undertaking to that effect. Later they took her to their relatives house in Nellore. Again A1 beat her in that house and left her on the road. This incident happened on 09.6.2015. Again on 12.06.2015 she went to Women Police Station, Nellore and gave a Complaint to Police. Ex.P1 is the Complaint, dated: 12.06.2015 given by her to Police. Police examined her and recorded her statement.
Before marriage the A1 got acquaintance with her in C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore
as he brought another Pastor to Hospital for treatment. At that time they talked with each other. Later A1 came to her parents house with a proposal to marry her. She stated to him that she was a divorcee. In spite of that A1 agreed to marry her. Later A1 brought A2 to A4 to her house and their marriage was fixed. She filed her marriage certificate with A1. Ex.P2 is the marriage registration certificate, dated: 27.11.209. One Naga Prasad (L.W.6) was witness on her behalf and signed in Ex.P2. The Junior paternal uncle of
A1 signed as witness in Ex.P2 on behalf of A1.
14. P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the parents of P.W.1, in their chief- examination deposed almost all in the same version of P.W.1. P.W.4, who is resident of Bujabuja Nellore in the same locality where P.Ws.2 and 3 are residing, turned hostile to the case of prosecution. He stated that he does not know anything about this case and Police never examined him. As he turned hostile to the case of prosecution the learned A.P.P., cross-examined him and got marked his 161 Cr.P.C., statement as Ex.P3.
15. P.W.5, whom the prosecution examined as independent witness, deposed that he is resident of Surareddypalem of Tangutur Mandal of
Prakasam District. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are his relatives. The marriage of P.W.1 with A1 was performed in the presence of both side elders in a Church at
Ramachandrapuram of Kadapa District in the year 2009. He also attended 9 the said marriage. He also signed as a witness in the marriage certificate of
P.W.1 and A1. Ex.P2 contains his signature as a 2nd witness. He acted as elder of marriage as P.W.1 is his niece. At the time of marriage the parents of P.W.1 gave one Gold Ring, one Gold Bracelet and a two wheeler to the accused
No.1, towards dowry. The parents of P.W.1 also gave house hold articles worth Rs.4,00,000/- at the time of marriage. The parents of P.W.1 performed the marriage by meeting all the expenses. After marriage P.W.1 and A1 put up family in Sundupalli Village of Kadapa District. At that time A1 was working as a Pastor. Subsequently P.W.1 called him over Phone and informed that they were transferred to Chowtupalli of Pellimarri Mandal of Kadapa
District. P.W.1 also informed that A1 was harassing her. Then he went to
Chowtupalli of Pellimarri Mandal to the Church of that Village. At that time a mediation was held in the Church in the presence of P.W.1, A1, A3, A4 and the Church elders were present. He was also present in that mediation. In the mediation A1, A3 and A4 have not responded properly. Due to that he returned to his Village. The mediation was not fruitful. A1 demanded for
additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from the parents of P.W.1. A1 insisted for
the additional dowry and stated that if P.W.1 not bring that amount she has to stay in her parents house. He came to know this fact through P.W.1. The parents of P.W.1 expressed their inability to give additional dowry. Later
P.W.1 gave a Complaint in Women Police Station, Nellore. Police examined him and recorded his statement.
16. P.W.6, who is also another independent witness, deposed that he is resident of M.Chowtupalli village of pendli marri mandal of YSR kadapa
District. In the year 2013 in or around July month A1 joined as paster in
M.Chowtu palli Church. A1 came to their village along with P.W1. P.W.1 and
A1 resided in one of the rooms in the premises of church compound. For some time p.W.1 and A1 lived happily. Subsequently he came to know that 10 there were no good terms between P.W.1 and A1. When he asked P.W.1 about the disputes between her and A1, P.W.1 informed to her that A1 was harassing her for additional dowry as her father retired from government service. He conducted mediation along with L.W.9/A.Obul Reddy,
L.W.10/Neese Danam and L.W.11/A.Narasimhulu @ Akula. But the father of
A1 stated that if P.W.1 is unable to live with A1 she has to separate from him.
A1 also stated to him not to interfere in his family matters. In the year 2015
A1 left the church and came to Nellore. On 15.06.2015 the Sub Inspector of
Police by name Mala kondaiah came to Church in M.Chowtu palli and examined him and recorded his statement.
17. P.W.7, who is also another independent witness, deposed that he is resident of Yarasu palli village of pendli marri Mandal of YSR kadapa District.
In the year 2013 in or around July month A1 joined as paster in M.Chowtu palli Church. A1 came to their village along with P.W.1. P.W.1 and A1 resided in one of the rooms in the premises of church compound. For some time
P.W.1 and A1 lived happily. Subsequently he came to know that there were no good terms between P.W.1 and A1. P.W.6 informed to him that he was intending to conduct mediation. In the year 2014 a mediation was held in the presence of P.W.6, L.W.10/Neese Danam and L.W.11/A.Narasimhulu @
Akula. At that time A3 also present. In the mediation no agreement was arrived between P.W.1 and A1 and he left the mediation. In the year 2015 A1 left church and came to Nellore. In the year 2015 the Sub-Inspector of Police by name Mala kondaiah came to Church in M.Chowtu palli and examined him and recorded his statement.
18. P.W.8, who is the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 12.06.2015 at 4:00 P.M., while he was present in Women Police station, Nellore P.W.1 came to police station along with her parents and presented Ex.P1 complaint. Basing on Ex.P1 registered a case in Cr.No.35/2015 U/Sec.498-A 11 r/w 34 I.P.C., and U/Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Ex.P4 is the F.I.R., in
Cr.No.35/2015 of Women Police station, Nellore. Immediately he examined
P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C., statements. On 13.06.2015 he visited the scene of offence situated at Bujabuja Nellore of Venkatachalam
Mandal. He went to Yadava street of Bujabuja Nellore and prepared rough sketch of the house of L.W.1. Ex.P5 is the rough sketch of the house of L.W.1.
He secured the presence of P.W.4, L.W.5 G.Venkateswarlu, P.W.5, L.W.7
D.Subrahmanyam and examined them and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C., statements. On 15.06.2015 he went to Chowtapalli village of Pendlimarri
Mandal of YSR Kadapa District and went to the church in which P.W.1 and A1 resided and prepared rough sketch of the said place. Ex.P6 is the rough sketch of the church of Chowtapalli. He secured the presence of P.W.6, P.W.7,
L.W.10 N.Danam and L.W.11 A.Narasimhulu and examined them and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C., statements. Later he served Sec.41 Cr.P.C., notices to A1 to A4. Later, after completition of investigation he laid chaege sheet in this case.
19. In this case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8. P.W.1 is the
Defacto-complainant. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the parents of P.W.1. P.W.5 is the maternal uncle of P.W.1. P.Ws.4, 6 and 7, are the independent witnesses.
P.W.8 is the investigating Officer. P.W.4 turned hostile to the cae of prosecution. As per the case of prosecution the main reason for disputes between P.W.1 and A1 is that the A1 harassed P.W.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- P.W.1 in her chief-examination stated that after marriage she joined A1 and they resided in Sundupalli village in a church where A1 was working for a period of 2 months and subsequently they shifted their family to Ramachandraiah palli of Jammalamadugu Mandal to the house of her in- laws and they resided in their in-laws house for a period of 2 months. At that time her father retired from servicee as A.S.I., and on that A2 to A4 12 instigated A1 to demand to her to bring additional dowry from her father as her father will get retirement benefits. A1 to A4 started harassing her to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- Later A1 left her in her parents house stating that only after securing additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- she has to come to his house. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that 4 months after marriage, A1 to A4 started harassing her to bring additional dowry of
Rs.1,00,000/-. In her cross-examination she stated that after marriage she and A1 put up family at Sundupalli village and resided there for 8 months.
Later they shifted their residence to Ramachandraiah Palli village and resided in her in-laws house. From her in-laws house she went to her parents house as her in-laws sent out her by raising dispute with her. As per her chief-examination after 4 months of marriage A1 brought and left her in her parents house demanding her to bring additional dowry. But as per her cross- examination after 8 months of marriage she went to her parents house as her in-laws raised dispute for additional dowry. P.W.2 in his chief-examination stated that when P.W.1 and A1 were residing in Ramachandrapalli village in the house of in-laws of P.W.1, he and his wife went to the house of in-laws of
P.W.1 and they stayed in that house for two days. At that time A1 to A4 demanded P.W.1 to ask for Rs.1,00,000/- from him as he was going to retire shortly by that time. P.W.1 stated to A1 to A4 that he was not in a position to give Rs.1,00,000/- and due to that A1 to A4 started harassing P.W.1 and beat her for additional dowry. As he could not provide Rs.1,00,000/- A1 to A4 necked out P.W.1 from their house. P.W.1 did not state that when her parents came to her in-laws house, A1 to A4 demanded her for additional dowry of
Rs.1,00,000/-. She also did not state that A1 to A4 beat her. P.W.3, who is the mother of P.W.1, in her chief-examination stated that after two years of marriage A1 started harassing P.W.1 to bring additional dowry of
Rs.1,00,000/- Even in her cross-examination P.W.3 stated that she stated 13
before police that P.W.1 and A1 lived happily for two years. She also stated in
her cross-examination that P.W.1 and A1 resided in Sundupalli village for two years. The evidence of P.W.3 disclosing that only after two years of marriage of P.W.1 with A1, disputes arose between them as A1 to A4 demanded for
additional dowry and till then P.W.1 and A1 resided happily. This evidence of
P.W.3 is totally contradictory to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.3 did not state that she and her husband went to the in-laws house of P.W.1 and at that time A1 to A4 harassed P.W.1 for additional dowry. The evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 3 is not consisting with regard to the aspect when A1 to A4 started harassing P.W.1 for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. Further P.W.1 in her cross-examination stated that after one year of her marriage her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- to A1 towards additional dowry, while they resided in
Goraganuru village. She did not state this fact in her chief-examination and also in Ex.P1 complaint. P.Ws.2 and 3 have not stated that they gave
Rs.1,00,000/- to A1 towards additional dowry after one year of marriage of
P.W.1 with A1. This is a major material contradicition in the evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 3.
20. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, when P.W.1 and A1 were residing in M.Chowtupalli village of Pendlimarri Mandal of Kadapa District a mediation was held by the church elders i.e., P.W.6, P.W.7 and others. P.W.5 also stated that he went to Chowtupalli village to the church of that village and a mediation was held by church elders. He was also present at the time of mediation. P.W.5 stated that A1 demanded for additional dowry of
Rs.1,00,000/- from the parents of P.W.1 and stated that if P.W.1 not bring that amount she has to stay in her parents house. P.W.5 further stated that he came to know this fact through P.W.1. It clearly shows that in the presence of
P.W.5 A1 has not demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- P.W.6, who is the church elder in M.Chowtupalli village stated that he along with P.W.7, 14 L.W.10 N.Danam and L.W.11 A.Narasimhulu conducted mediation. He stated that P.W.1 informed to him that A1 was harassing her for additional dowry.
He did not state specifically the amount of additional dowry demanded by
A1. P.W.7 in his chief-examination stated that in the year 2014, P.W.6 conducted mediation and he was also present along with L.W.10 and L.W.11.
He did not state that A1 demanded additional dowry from P.W.1. In his cross- examination P.W.7 stated that he mediated with regard to the disputes between P.W.1 and A1. He further stated that he does not know the family affairs of P.W.1 and A1. The evidence of mediators i.e., P.Ws.6 and 7 not specifically disclosing that A1 demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from the parents of P.W.1. They did not state that in the mediation A1 demanded for additional dowry. P.W.7 categorically stated that he does not know the family affairs of P.W.1 and A1. The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 is not corroborating with each other and not disclosing that A1 to A4 demanded
additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from P.W.1. Hence I feel that the evidence
of P.Ws.6 and 7 is not useful to the case of prosecution.
21. Now coming to the aspect of giving dowry to A1 at the time of marriage, P.W.1 in her chief-examination stated that at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.4,00,000/- cash, one sovereign of gold and a two wheeler towards dowry. But P.W.2 in his chief-examination stated that he gave one gold ring of one sovereign, a two wheeler and house hold articles worth Rs.4,00,000/- on the demand of A1 to A3. But in his cross-examination he stated that the two wheeler worth Rs.70,000/- includes Rs.4,00,000/- that was given for house hold articles. He further stated that he gave
Rs.4,00,000/- in shape of articles. He again stated that he gave one sovereign of gold ring, one two wheeler worth Rs.70,000/-. He again stated that he gave Rs.4,00,000/- in cash and asked A1 and his family members to purchase hold house articles whatever necessary. P.W.3 in her chief- 15 examination stated that at the time of marriage they gave dowry worth
Rs.4,00,000/- by way of cash and household articles and they also gave a two wheeler. P.W.5, who is none other than the brother-in-law of P.W.2, in his chief-examination stated that the parents of P.W.1 gave one gold ring, one gold bracelet, a two wheeler to A1 towards dowry and also gave house hold articles worth Rs.4,00,000/- In his cross-examination P.W.5 categorically stated that the parents of P.W.1 gave one sovereign of gold, cooking utencils, a motor cycle all worth Rs.4,00,000/- and no cash was given by the parents of P.W.1 to A1. The evidence of P.W.5 falsifying the evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 3 that cash was also given towards dowry. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 is inconsistent with each other with regard to the mode of giving dowry by the P.W.2. It is raising a doubt over the case of prosecution with regard to giving of dowry to the A1.
22. To bring home an offence U/Sec.498-A I.P.C., the prosecution is to prove that first, a woman has been subjected to cruelty as contemplated in clause (a) or clause (b) to Explanation of Section 498-A I.P.C., Secondly, that woman is or was married; thirdly that the cruelty has been practiced by her husband or his relatives. According to the Explanation given to Section 498-
A I.P.C., cruelty for the purpose of that section means (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or heath (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b)harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
23. In the present case at hand, as discussed above the evidence of
Prosecution witnesses is not consistent with each other and there are material contradictions in their evidence. Due to the contradicitions and 16 inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses it is clearly proved that there is no such material appearing to attract the ingredients of
Sec.498-A I.P.C., The entire material on record is not establishing the case of prosecution.
24. In view of my above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that in this case there are no such situations appearing that the accused harassed the P.W.1 to attract the above ingredients of cruelty. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to attract the ingredients of Sec.498-A I.P.C., and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In such case the accused are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.
25. In the result, the A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.498-A I.P.C., and U/Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibiton
Act and they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the A1 to
A4 shall be in force for six months U/Sec.437A Cr.P.C., and thereafter they shall stands cancelled.
Typed by me personally, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th day of March, 2020.
Sd/-Sk.Atheeque Ahmad
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Special Mobile Court, Nellore.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witness examined
For Prosecution: - For Defence: - P.W.1: Kanagaboina Swapna. NIL
P.W.2: Darla Singaiah.
P.W.3: Darla Munemma.
P.W.4: Alli Ramaiah.
P.W5 : Dola Naga Prasad.
P.W.6: Bandi Suryanarayana Reddy.
P.W.7: Anki Reddy Obulu Reddy.
17 P.W.8: K.Malakondaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Nellore.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: -
Ex.P.1: Complaint of PW.1, dated:12.6.2015 given to police.
Ex.P.2: Marriage registration certificate dated 27.11.2009.
Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4.
Ex.P.4: FIR., in Cr.No.35/2015 of Women Police Station, Nellore.
Ex.P.5: Rough sketch of scene of offence.
Ex.P.6: Rough sketch of second scene of offence.
For Defence: - NIL
M.Os. Marked for Prosecution: - NIL-
Sd/-S.A.A.
J.M.F.C., Spl.M.C., NLR., // True copy //
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Special Mobile Court, Nellore.
18 // True copy //
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Special Mobile Court, Nellore.