Sri Shaik Ibrahim Sharief

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS –

CUM – I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MACHILIPATNAM.

Present: Sri Shaik Ibrahim Sharief, Judl. Magistrate of I Class – cum – I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

Thursday, this the 19 th day of March, 2020

CALENDER CASE NO. 120 of 2019

BETWEEN:

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Chilakalapudi Police Station. ::: Complainant

A N D

1. Nukala Rajesh, S/o.Satyanarayana, aged about 39 years, D.No.20/154, Kobbarithota, Machilipatnam.

2. Nukala Vasanthi, W/o.Satyanarayana, aged about 65 years, D.No.20/154, Kobbarithota, Machilipatnam. ::: Accused 1 & 2

This case is coming on 16.03.2020 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant; and of Sri V.V.Varada Ralulu, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Chilakalapudi Police Station laid

Charge Sheet in Cr.No.57/2018 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that –

The marriage of PW1 with Accused No.1 was performed 5 years prior to the presentation of the report. PW1 gave birth to a male child on 11.07.2015 and the said child died, for which accused Nos.1 and 2 blamed PW1 that she is responsible for the death of the baby and used to harass her both mentally and physically and necked her out from the matrimonial home. The mediations were proved futile. On 15.03.2018 PW1 tried to enter into the house of accused with the help of Mahila Mandali president. Then, accused No.1 abused PW1 and threatened her with dire consequences, kicked her and she was admitted in the hospital. On 23.03.2018 morning accused No.1 broke open the locks of the house which was locked by PW1, then accused abused and kicked her. Accused did not allow her to reside in the said house, as such she presented a report. Hence, the case.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2. On appearance of accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. Accused

Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/s 239 of Cr.P.C., and charges under

Sec. 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P6. Ex.D1 is marked in the cross examination of PW1. Prosecution side evidence is closed.

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused

Nos.1 and 2 are examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for accused. Perused the evidence and material on record.

7. Now the points for determination are:

(1) Whether accused No.1 being the husband and accused No.2 being the mother-in-law have subjected PW1 to cruelty in connection with the demand of additional dowry and threatened with dire consequences and voluntarily caused hurt to her?

(2) Whether the Prosecution could be able to bring home the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the charges framed against them beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT NO.1:

8.The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that PW1 and accused No.1 are wife and husband and out of their wedlock

PW1 gave birth to a male baby and on 11.07.2015 the said baby died. Accused Nos.1 and 2 blamed PW1 that she is responsible for the death of the baby and harassed her both physically and mentally and necked her out from the matrimonial home. The mediation is made by PW1 is proved futile and they did not allow her into the matrimonial home. As such PW1, presented a report.

9.It is the contention of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is consistent that accused have harassed PW1 both physically and mentally and subjected her to cruelty. Accused No.1 has voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 and threatened her with dire consequences. Therefore, requested the court to convict the accused according to law.

10.It is the contention of the learned defence counsel that absolutely there are no ingredients attracting the offence under

Sec.498-A of IPC. There is no material to show that accused No.1 has voluntarily caused hurt to PW1. The medical evidence of PW1 is not consistent with the ocular evidence of PW1. Absolutely, there is no material to show that accused have threatened PW1 with dire consequences. Therefore, requested the court to extend benefit of doubt and to acquit accused Nos.1 and 2.

11.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7.

PW1 is the defacto-complainant. PW2 is said to be the eye witness to the occurrence. PW3 is the uncle of PW1. PW4 is the Medical officer. PW5 is said to be the neighbour. PW6 is the said to be the eye witness. PW7 is the Investigating Officer.

12.A perusal of Ex.P1 report reveals that it was presented on 23.03.2018 by PW1. Ex.P1 further reveals that marriage of PW1 with accused No.1 was held five years prior to the date of the complaint. She gave birth to a male baby on 28.05.2015 and the said baby died on 11.07.2015 for which accused Nos.1, 2 and her sister-in-law have harassed her and they are responsible for the death of baby by administering some medicines. They are not permitting her to lead matrimonial life with accused No.1 and abused her in filthy language. On 23.03.2018 at 7 AM accused

No.1 kicked her with legs.

13.But contrary to the contents of Ex.P1 report, PW1 has introduced a new story in her evidence before the court that at the time of the marriage towards pasupukumkuma an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- besides Rs.3,00,000/- towards gold given to accused

Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.1 used to assault her to transfer the property of her mother in the name of her sister-in-law. PW1 did not whisper in Ex.P1 report about the alleged demand of accused

No.1 to transfer the property of her mother in the name of her sister-in-law. PW1 has introduced a new story before the court.

14.Furthermore, PW1 has introduced a new story that during the period of her pregnancy she was not provided nutritious food. PW1 did not state in her evidence before the court about the said harassment.

15.In order to constitute the offence under Sec.498-A of

IPC the prosecution must able to establish following ingredients:

i. The woman should be tormented i.e., tortured either physically or mentally through constant interference or intimidation.

ii. Such act should be with a view to persuate or compel her to do something which she is legally or otherwise not expected to do by using force or threats.

iii. Intention to subject the woman should be to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill unlawful demand of any property, valuable security.

16. The evidence of PW1 is not revealing any one of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under

Section 498-A of IPC. The evidence of PW1 is not consistent with the contents of Ex.P1.

17.As far as the charge for the offence under Section 323 is concerned PW1 in her evidence before the court stated that when she was present at her parent’s house accused No.1 used to visit their house and used to assault her in the presence of her mother. This part of evidence of PW1 is not found place in Ex.P1 report. The allegation attributed against accused No.1 is serious in nature but that is not consistent from the evidence of PW1 with the contents of Ex.P1 report.

18.Furthermore, during the course of cross examination

PW1 categorically admitted that the dispute between herself and accused No.1 is that since her male child died at the age of 45 days after birth in her parent’s house. PW1 categorically admitted that immediately after the death of her child, accused No.1 lodged a report attributing that she is responsible for the death of her child. She went to her parents house during 3rd month pregnancy and stayed there till the 6th month pregnancy and she joined with accused No.1 and again went to her parents house 25 days prior to her delivery. From the own admission of PW1 it reveals that the dispute in between PW1 and accused No.1 arisen when the male baby died at the age of 45 days and that accused has lodged a report against PW1. Though, PW1 stated in Ex.P1 report that the postmortem was conducted on the body of the male baby but that is not placed before the court by the prosecution.

19.Contrary to the contents of Ex.P1 and the evidence of

PW1 the prosecution examined PW2 who is said to be the president of Mahila Mandali and she has introduced another version. PW2 stated in her evidence before the court that PW1 has informed that accused No.1 demanded PW1 to register the property in his name and accused No.1 demanded her to bring

additional dowry and with that condition accused No.1 stated to

PW1 that he will allow her to the matrimonial fold. This part of evidence of PW2 is quite contra to the contents of Ex.P1. PW2 further stated that by the time she visited the house of accused

No.1 he was not present and after arrival of accused No.1 on seeing PW1 he raised voice by loudly shouting. Accused Nos.1 and 2 left the house by locking the door from the back side of the door.

Then, she stated to PW1 that it is not safe for her to stay in the house. But PW1 replied that she needs accused No.1 and without accused No.1 she cannot live and she will die. One or two hours later PW1 made a call to her and informed that accused No.1 caught hold of her tuft of hair and dragged her from steps to the road. Then, she informed to Inspector of Police, Chilakalapudi and they proceeded to the house. This evidence of PW2 is not stated even by PW1. However, PW2 during the course of cross examination stated that by the time she visited the house of PW1, then accused Nos.1 and 2 present in the house. PW2 further stated that she stated before the court that she came to know about the assault made by accused Nos.1 nd 2 against PW1 through PW1 only. So, PW2 is only a hear say witness. Thus, the evidence of

PW2 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

20.The prosecution examined PW3 who said to be the maternal uncle of PW1 and in his evidence he stated that at the time of the marriage an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was presented as dowry besides one chain and bracelet. Even PW1 did not state in her evidence that an amount of Rs.7,00, 000/- was presented towards dowry. PW3 further stated that accused No.1 by suspecting that PW1 is responsible for death of male child and used to quarrel with her. Accused No.1 felt humiliated and stated that he will commit suicide. He further stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 used to abuse her and assault her. But during the course of cross examination PW3 stated that he is not having personal knowledge about the previous disputes between PW1 and accused

No.1 and he is not having personal knowledge about PW1 went to the house of her in-laws and accused assaulted her. Thus, PW3 is also an hear say witness. The prosecution examined PW5 who is said to be the neighbour. He did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution also examined PW6 who is said to be the eye witness but she also did not support the case of the prosecution.

21.The case of the prosecution is that on 23.03.2018 accused No.1 has voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by kicking her.

The prosecution examined PW4 the Doctor who treated PW1. PW4 stated in his evidence that on 23.03.2018 at 7.25 PM he examined

PW1 and found complaining of Myalgia it means a muscle pain. As per Section 319 of IPC hurt means “ whoever caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person.” According to the contents of Ex.P1, PW1 was beaten on 23.03.2018 at 7 Am and the

FIR was registered at 5 PM. If really, PW1 sustained any hurt injury she might have been referred to the hospital by the Investigating

Officer. But PW1 was examined by the Doctor at 7.25 PM. The ocular evidence of PW1 is not consistent with the medical evidence of PW4. If really, PW1 was beaten she must have received a injury. PW1 alleged to have received only a muscle pain found by PW4. PW4 did not find any visible injuries or invisible injury. Though, PW1 in Ex.P1 stated that accused has threatened her with dire consequences but in her evidence before the court she stated that on 28.03.2018 accused No.1 came to the house and thrown out her articles and caught hold of her and necked out her. This evidence of PW1 is not revealing that accused No.1 threatened her with dire consequences.

22.The Investigating Officer PW7 in his cross examination admitted that PW1 did not state before him as well as in Ex.P1 report about the presentation of Rs.6,00,000/- towards

Pasupukumkuma and accused No.1 used to assault her to transfer the property of her mother in the name of her sister-in-law. PW1 did not state either in Ex.P1 report or her statement before the court about demand of additional dowry. Thus, the prosecution utterly failed to bring home the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the charges leveled against them beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to show any one of the essential ingredients constituting the offence attributed against the accused. In these, circumstances, accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

POINT NO.2

23.In view of the discussion on the above point, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the charges leveled against them beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

24.In the result, accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC, therefore, accused 1 and 2 are acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and that of their sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per the provisions of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by her,corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 19th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- Shaik Ibrahim Sharief

Judl. Magistrate of I Class- cum -I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

On behalf of S.No. On behalf of Prosecution Defence

1.PW1- Nukala Jaya Naga Maha Lakshmi None

2.PW2- D.Venkata Ramani

3.PW3- Ch.Ramesh

4.PW4- L.Neehal

5.PW5- Vadde Venkata Ramana

6.PW6- K.Lalitha Kumari

7.PW7- G.Durga Prasada Rao Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Statement of PW1 Ex.P.2: Wound certificate of PW1 Ex.P.3: Statement of PW5 Ex.P.4: Statement of PW6 Ex.P.5: FIR Ex.P.6: Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence: Ex.D.1: Relevant portion in the deposition of PW1

Material Objects marked: NIL

Sd/- Shaik Ibrahim Sharief

Judl. Magistrate of I Class- cum -I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar Case No: 120/2019 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM – I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, MACHILIPATNAM.

Date of

Report or Apprehension Released on Commencem Closure of Sentence or Offence Complaint of Accused bail ent of trial trial Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23.03.2018 23.03.2018----28.06.201913.03.2020 19.03.2020

Explanation for Delay and Remarks (8): Originally, this case was taken on file under section 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC against accused 1 and 2. As per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, the case was transferred to this court for disposal. Accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. During the course of trial PWs 1 to 7 are examined and Exs.P1 to P6 are marked. On behalf of the accused Ex.D1 is marked. On 16.30.2020 heard arguments. Judgment pronounced on 19.03.2020. Hence, the delay.

Judgment in C.C. No.120/2019

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Chilakalapudi Police Station. ::: Complainant

A N D

1. Nukala Rajesh, S/o.Satyanarayana, aged about 39 years, D.No.20/154, Kobbarithota, Machilipatnam.

2. Nukala Vasanthi, W/o.Satyanarayana, aged about 65 years, D.No.20/154, Kobbarithota, Machilipatnam. ::: Accused 1 & 2 Offence: under Sec.498-A, 323, 506 of IPC Finding : Found not guilty Result:-Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC, therefore, accused 1 and 2 are acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and that of their sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per the provisions of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Sd/- Shaik Ibrahim Sharief

Judl. Magistrate of I Class- cum -I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

Copy submitted to:-The Hon’ble I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.207/2013/I-AJCJC/MTM110.04.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS; MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT; Sri.Shaik Ibrahim Sharief

I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, MTM

FAC/II-Additional Judicial 1 st Class Magistrate, MTM

Tuesday, this the 10th day of April, 2018

C.C.No. 207 / 2013

BETWEEN:

The State, Rep. by its The Sub-Inspector of Police, Machilipatnam Police Station.

... Complainant

And

Bezawada Suresh, S/o. Late Devapalana @ Chittibabu, aged about 35 years, SC-Madiga, Padsenpet Colony, Bapatla town, Guntur District.

... Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing and disposal in the presence of M/s.G.Anthoni, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri Ch.Musalaiah, Advocate for accused; and upon hearing on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Machilipatnam Police

Station, laid Charge Sheet in Cr.No.60/2012 for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC and u/Ss.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, against accused.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that –

P.W.1 is a resident of 30/56 at Malkapatnam town of

C.C.No.207/2013/I-AJCJC/MTM210.04.2018

Machilipatnam. During the year 2003, she got employment in a private hostel at Bapatla. The accused also worked as Water Filter repairer in the said hostel. The accused and P.W.1 fell in love with each other. On 31.10.2003 the marriage of P.W.1 with accused was held in the presence of one Pastor in his friend’s house. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of the accused, P.W.1 gave Rs.50,000/- cash to him, they lived happily for two months. The accused harassed P.W.1 both physically and mentally. They were blessed with one male and one female children. The accused used to consume alcohol and had illegal contacts with other women. P.W.1 asked him about his acts, then the accused grew wild and beat her and harassed her both physically and mentally, to bring additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents’ house. The accused also suspected the fidelity of P.W.1, P.W.1 bore the harassment with a fond hope that the accused will change his attitude. But, the accused did not change his attitude and frequently used to beat her, harassed her both physically and mentally and necked out her along with the children from the house. As such P.W.1 reached to her parents’ house at Malakapatnam of Machilipatnam. On 19.09.2012 the accused visited the house of P.W.1 at Malakapatnam and threatened her with dire consequences, as such P.W.1 presented a report. The

Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case and investigating the case.

C.C.No.207/2013/I-AJCJC/MTM310.04.2018

3.This case was taken on file for the offence u/Ss.498-A of

IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act against the Accused.

4.On appearance of the Accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences U/Secs.498-A of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act have been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.6. The evidence of

L.W.2-Ch.Padmavathi is given up by the prosecution and the evidence of L.W.8-V.Vijaya Kumar is closed as memo submitted by the prosecution. The prosecution side evidence was closed.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor as well as the learned defence counsel. Perused the evidence and material on record.

C.C.No.207/2013/I-AJCJC/MTM410.04.2018

9. Now the point for determination is : “Whether the

prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of Accused for

the charges leveled against him beyond reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

10.The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that while

P.W.1 and accused were working in a hostel at Bapatla, they fell in love with each other and they married. P.W.1 and accused were blessed with two children. Subsequently, the accused demanded

P.W.1 to bring dowry amount and used to beat P.W.1 in drunken state and used to have illicit intimacy with other women. P.W.1 bore the entire harassment with a fond hope he will change his attitude but the accused beat P.W.1 and necked out from the matrimonial home as such P.W.1 reached to her parents’ house at Malakalaptnam,

Machilipatnam. On 19.09.2012 the accused visited the house of parents’ house of P.W.1 and threatened her with dire consequences.

11.It is the contention of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent about the harassment made by the accused to P.W.1. Though the alleged eyewitnesses to the occurrence did not support the case of prosecution, in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 requested the

Court convict the accused according to law. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned defence counsel that there are so many

C.C.No.207/2013/I-AJCJC/MTM510.04.2018 contradictions and omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the other witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. The alleged harassment taken place at Bapatla and that no offence took place within the jurisdiction of this Court.

The Investigating Officer did not examine anyone of the inhabitants in the vicinity of P.W.1 at Machilipatnam. The prosecution failed to establish anyone of the essential ingredients constituting the offence

U/Sec.498-A of IPC, therefore requested the Court to extend benefit of doubt and to acquit the accused.

12.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3.

P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 is the father of P.W.1, P.Ws.3 to 6 are said to be the residents of Bapatla, P.W.7 is the Investigating

Officer.

13.In order to prove the offence U/Sec.498-A of IPC, the prosecution must able to prove the following essential ingredients.

i) The woman must be married; ii) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment and for proving offence U/Sec.498-A of IPC, the complainant must make allegation of harassing to the extent so as to coerce to meet any unlawful demand of dowry or any willful conduct on part of the accused of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit the suicide or to grave injury to to danger life limb or health; iii) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown to either by

C.C.No.207/2013/I-AJCJC/MTM610.04.2018 husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.

14.A perusal of Ex.P.1 report reveals that P.W.1 and the accused fell in love while they were working at Bapatla in a private hostel, then the accused demanded dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- but the father of P.W.1 taken away the amount, as such her marriage was performed by a Paster in a house. They lived happily for two months. Thereafter, the accused started harassing P.W.1 both physically and mentally. She was blessed with two children. The accused suspected her fidelity and he has developed illegal intimacy with other women and used to come to the house during mid-night in drunken state, when P.W.1 questioned the accused, then the accused used to beat her, this is the sum and substance of Ex.P.1 report. But, coming to the evidence P.W.1 in her chief-examination stated that their marriage was held in the year 2003. She has not given any dowry to the accused at the time of marriage and they were blessed with two children and they are now aged about 13 years and 12 years respectively. In the month of September, 2012 on one day the accused beat her and necked her out along with the children. In her cross-examination P.W.1 stated that she cannot give the names with whom the accused alleged to have got intimacy and she did not mention the names of the said women in Ex.P.1 report.

She denied the suggestion that she herself, harassed the accused suspecting his character. P.W.2 the father of P.W.1, in his evidence

C.C.No.207/2013/I-AJCJC/MTM710.04.2018 stated that he has not given any dowry at the time of marriage and he has not attended the marriage of P.W.1 with the accused. In the month of September, 2012, P.W.1 came out of the house and informed him that the accused is harassing P.W.1 both physically and mentally. In his cross-examination P.W.2 stated that the marriage of

P.W.1 with the accused is against his consent and will and he did not have personal knowledge about the disputes between P.W.1 and the accused. He did not personally witness the alleged harassment of accused towards P.W.1. Neither in Ex.P.1 nor in the evidence before the Court, P.W.1 stated that the accused demanded to bring

additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- as stated by the prosecution in the

charge sheet. The only allegation levelled against the accused by

P.W.1 is that the accused in drunken state, used to beat her and developed illicit intimacy with other women. But, P.W.1 in her cross- examination, did not state the names of the said women. Except making such allegation that the accused developed intimacy with other women, the prosecution did not produce any other material.

Though the prosecution examined P.Ws.3 to 6 were said to be the residents of Bapatla, they turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. They denied their statements given to the Police as in

Exs.P.2 to P.5 respectively. Even according to the contents of Ex.P.1 report, P.W.1 and accused lived happily for two months. If this version of P.W.1 is true and correct, what prevented P.W.1 in lodging the report for quite a long period, is not explained by the prosecution.

C.C.No.207/2013/I-AJCJC/MTM810.04.2018

Admittedly, P.W.1 and accused were blessed with two children and now they are aged about 13 and 12 years respectively. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 was necked out from the matrimonial home in the month of September, 2012. Admittedly, the marriage was held in the year 2003. This means P.W.1 and accused lived together for a period of 10 years, if the version of prosecution is true and correct that the accused started harassing P.W.1 two months after the marriage, the conduct of P.W.1 must be that she must have lodged or atleast placed the matter before the village elders. Even the prosecution did not examine the children of P.W.1, who are said to be the aged about 13 and 12 years by the year 2018, about the alleged harassment subjected by the accused to P.W.1. The whole evidence appears to be that the accused developed illicit intimacy with another woman. Our Hon’ble High Court in a decision in Besai Venkata

Ramana Murthy v. State by S.H.O., IV Town Law & Order P.S.,

reported in 2003 (2) ALT (Cr) 367 (AP),observed that –

“The whole evidence appears to be that the petitioner

developed illicit intimacy with A-4 and therefore he left

P.W.1 and her minor daughter and neglected them. The

moot question then is whether the same could be said to

have subjected the wife to cruelty as envisaged under

Sec.498-A, IPC. The first part of the section envisages the

willful conduct on the part of the husband or his relative

towards the woman, which may likely to drive the woman

to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to

life, limb or health (whether mental or physical). The

expression willful conduct, therefore, requires to be

understood in conjunction with the other requirement,

viz., the consequence of such a conduct on the wife. The

second part contemplates the harassment of the woman,

which harassment shall be with a view to coerce the

woman or any person created to her to meet any unlawful

demand for any property or valuable security or is on

C.C.No.207/2013/I-AJCJC/MTM910.04.2018

account of their failure to meet such demand. Therefore,

harassment must be accompanied by unlawful demand

for property or valuable security. The conduct on the part

of the husband alone is not sufficient, but it should be

accompanied by the necessary intention on his part.

Therefore, the willful conduct must be other than mere

desertion of the wife or the children by the husband.

Otherwise, every act of the husband in a family bickering

between the spouses should have to be considered as

willful conduct on his part attracting the offence of

cruelty punishable under Sec.498-A, IPC.”

15.In view of the above decision of our Hon’ble High Court and since P.W.1 failed to show the demand of additional dowry and in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they did not pay any dowry amount to the accused, as the marriage of P.W.1 with the accused is a love marriage. The prosecution failed to establish anyone of the essential ingredients constituting the offence U/Sec.498-A of IPC and

Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

16.IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act, therefore, he is acquitted u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. As there is no property,no specific order is passed. The accused shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed and typed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 10th day of April, 2018.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class-

cum-I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Machilipatnam.

FAC/II AJFCM, MTM.

C.C.No.207/2013/I-AJCJC/MTM1010.04.2018

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution: Defence: PW.1: B.Sujatha None PW.2: Ch.Ramesh PW.3: B.Kondamma PW.4: G.Vijayamma PW.5: P.Babu PW.6: N.Lakshmaiah PW.7: AVS Rama Krishna

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.6: FIR in Cr.No.60/2012of Machilipatnam PS.

Defence: NIL.

Material Objects marked

– Nil –

J.F.C.M/I–A.J.C.J.

FAC/II AJFCM, MTM.

C.C.No.207/2013/I-AJCJC/MTM1110.04.2018

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS;

MACHILIPATNAM.

C.C.NO. 207 / 2013

01.Date of offence:Prior to 19.09.2012

02.Date of Complaint :19.09.2012

03.Dt. of appearance of accused :09.12.2013

04.Commencement of trial:19.01.2008

05.Closure of trial:04.04.2018

06. Date of Judgment:10.04.2018

07.Name of the complainant:The Sub Inspector of Police, Machilipatnam Police Station.

08.Name of the accused: Bezawada Suresh, S/o. Late Devapalana @ Chittibabu, aged about 35 years, SC- Madiga, Padsenpet Colony, Bapatlatown,Guntur District.

09Offence :u/Ss. 498-A IPC & Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act.

10.Plea of the accused:Not Guilty

11.Finding:Not guilty

12. Result: IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act, therefore, he is acquitted u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.

13. Explanation for delay:- Originally this case taken cognizance by this

Court against Accused for the offence u/s. 498-A of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act. On 09.12.2013 case copies were furnished to the accused. On 27.08.2014, accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and during the course of trial, Pws.1 to 7 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.6. The accused was

C.C.No.207/2013/I-AJCJC/MTM1210.04.2018 examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C on 06.04.2018. Heard both sides on the same day i.e., 06.04.2018. Judgment was pronounced on 10.04.2018. Hence, the delay.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class- cum-I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Machilipatnam.

FAC/II AJFCM, MTM. Copy submitted to:-

The Hon’ble I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.207/2013/I-AJCJC/MTM1310.04.2018 // True Copy //

I – A.J.C.J FAC: II AJFCM,

Machilipatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

AVANIGADDA 

Present: Sri Shaik Ibrahim Sharief, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam, FAC/­ Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Avanigadda

Wednesday, this the 13 th day of February, 2019

CALENDER CASE NO. 609/2015

BETWEEN:

The State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Nagayalanka Police Station. ::: Complainant

A N D

1. Mogili Goutham Kumar, S/o. Pentaiah, aged 31 years, D.No.17­2­ 263, Madanapetm, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. Mogili Padmavathi @ Padamamma W/o. Pentaiah, aged 60 years, D.No.17­2­263, Madanapetm, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

3. Mogili Jagadeeswari, D/o. Pentaiah, aged 35 years, D.No.17­2­263, Madanapetm, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

::: Accused

This case is coming on 06.02.2019 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant; and of Sri B.Subrahmanyeswara Rao, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Nagayalanka Police Station laid

Charge Sheet in Cr.No.79/2015 for the offence punishable under Sec.

498­A, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and under Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, against the accused 1 to 3. 

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that – 

PW1 is a native of Nagayalanka and she belongs to a Vysya

Community. Accused 1 to 3 belongs to Schedule Caste Community. The 2 marriage of PW1 with Accused No.1 was held on 13.04.2014. At the time of their marriage, the parents of PW1 gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ towardsPasupukunkumaandRs.2,00,000/­towards

Adapaduchulanchanam. Immediately after the marriage, PW1 joined with Accused No.1 and they lead happy marital life for some time.

Subsequently, Accused No.1 addicted to bad vises and spent entire money for the vices. Accused No.1 along with his parents and unmarried sister used to harass her to bring additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/­ from her parents for the marriage of her sister­in­law. Due to wedlock,

PW1 gave birth to a child and at the time of pregnancy her parents asked them to send their daughter to their house. Then, they also demanded

Rs.10,00,000/­ additional dowry and sent her to parents house. On 19.06.2015 accused 1 to 3 visited the house of PW1. Accused No.1 assaulted PW1. PW1 lodged a complaint and the same was forwarded to the police for registration and investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer deleted the names of A2 to A9, except showing the names of Accused 1 to 3. Hence, the case.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 498­A, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and under Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act against the accused 1 to 3. On appearance of Accused

before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required

under section 207 Cr.P.C. They were examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C.

Charges for the offence punishable under Sec498­A, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and under Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A1 to A3 have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P3. Prosecution side evidence is closed.

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, Accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for accused. Perused the evidence and material on record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

i. Whether Accused 1 to 3 subjected PW1 to cruelty in connection with unlawful demand of additional dowry ? ii. Whether the prosecution cold able to establish the payment of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/­ to Accused ? iii. Whether the prosecution could able to establish that the accused demanded PW1 additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/­ ? iv. Whether the prosecution could able to establish that accused have voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 ? v. Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against them beyond all reasonable doubt ? 

POINT NO.1 to 4:

8.The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is that the marriage of PW1 with Accused No.1 was performed on 13.04.2014 and at the time of their marriage, parents of PW1 gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ towards Pasupukunkuma and Rs.2,00,000/­ as Adapaduchulanchanam.

After the marriage, PW1 joined with Accused No. 1 and lead happy marital life for some period. Subsequently, Accused No.1 addicted to bad vises and spent entire money for his vices. Accused 1 to 3 used to harass 4

PW1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/­ from her parent’s house.

9.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4. PW1 is the de­facto complainant. PW2 is father of

PW1. PW3 is the alleged elder for the marriage. PW4 is the Investigating

Officer. 

10.It is pertinent to note that PW1 belongs to Vysya Community and accused belongs to Schedule Caste Community. In the light of the above fact, now it has to be seen, whether the marriage of PW1 with

Accused No.1 is arranged marriage or a love marriage. Because, in her complaint under Ex.P1 alleged that her parents Rs.2,00,000/­ towards dowry and Rs.2,00,000/­ towards Adapaduchulanchanam. PW1 in her evidence stated that prior to her marriage with accused No.1, she underwent training for Multimedia at Hyderabad. She admitted that her marriage with Accused No.1 is a love marriage. While she was pursuing her graduation, there was a love affair between herself and accused No.1.

At the time of their love, she knew the caste of Accused No.1. She further admitted that A1 belongs to scheduled caste Madiga Community and she belongs to Vysya Community. From the above admissions of PW1 it is clear that the marriage of PW1 with Accused No.1 is a love marriage and it is not a arranged marriage. The question of payment of dowry will arise, when it is an arranged marriage by the parents. Furthermore, PW1 admitted that their marriage was performed in Arya Samaj, Hyderabad.

PW1 categorically stated in her evidence before the court that generally the marriages in Arya Samaj will be performed when, the parents of the spouses did not consent for their marriage. From the above admission it 5 is clear that the marriage of PW1 with Accused No.1 was performed against the will of the parents of both sides, because they belongs to different community. Therefore, the alleged giving of Rs.2,00,000/ as dowry and Rs.2,00,000/­ as Adapaduchulanchanam has to be seen a suspicious circumstance.

11.Whether the relationship between the parents of PW1 with

PW1 are cordial or not has to be ascertained from the material available on record for payment of alleged dowry and adapaduchulanchanam.

PW1 in her evidence stated that after the marriage she submitted a report at Madannapet Police Station, stating that there was threat to them from her parents. When, there is threat from the parents of PW1, how can the parents of PW1 give a dowry of Rs.2,00,000/­ and other lanchanam to

Accused 1 to 3 for performing the marriage of PW1 with Accused No.1.

So, the contention of the prosecution that at the time of marriage, the father of PW1 gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ dowry and Rs.2,00,000/­ as Adapaduchulancham is appears to be highly impossible. PW1 further stated that after the marriage, herself and her husband did not went to her parent’s house. So, this itself reveals that the marriage of PW1 with

Accused No.1 was performed against to the wish of the parents of both sides. Thus, the question of giving dowry does not arise at all.

12.Though, in the chief examination PW1 stated that when she intend to go to her parents house for delivery, they refused to send her.

During the course of cross examination, PW1 categorically stated that

before the birth of the child she came to her parents house for twice i.e.,

in the 5th month and 7th month of her pregnancy, thus PW1 is not speaking truth. PW1 gave different versions. PW1 further stated in her 6 evidence that she filed divorce petition against her husband. In her chief examination PW1 stated that on 19.06.2015 when she was at her parents house, during night time all the accused came to her parents house in a car bearing No. AP 09 CC 5557 questioned her why she was staying at her parent’s house without bringing additional dowry. Accused No.1 scolded her parents and beat her indiscriminately with hands over her cheeks and pushed her down. But, PW1 in her cross examination stated that she did not present any report on 19.06.2016 to the police of

Nagayalanka. If really, any incident occurred as stated by PW1, PW1 ought to have presented a report in respect of the alleged hurt caused by the accused. PW1 is not an illiterate woman and she is highly educated.

The conduct of PW1 in not presenting the report on the alleged incident on 19.06.2015 itself reveals that no incident occurred on 19.06.2015.

PW1 further stated in her evidence that in the Maintenance Case filed by her, she deposed that 2 months after her marriage with A1, her parents gave Rs.2,00,000/­ to her sister­in­laws and accused demanded to bring

Rs.10,00,000/­ additional dowry and she does not know whether her parents gave it to the accused. This is a new version putforth by PW1 in her maintenance case, which is quite contra to the contention of the prosecution in the present case.

13.The father of PW1 is examined as PW2. In his evidence PW2 stated that the marriage of PW1 with Accused No.1 is love marriage.

Though, PW1 stated that on 13.04.2014 the marriage of PW1 with A1 was held at Arya Samaj, Hyderabad and at the time their marriage, he gave

Rs.2,00,000/­ to him towards Pasupukunkuma and other house hold articles and also gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ as 7

Adapaduchulanchanam. But, in his cross examination, PW2 stated that as per their caste custom, they will perform the marriage of daughter at her parents house or in a marriage function hall. He did not perform the marriage of PW1 either at his house or in the marriage function hall. He got published the marriage invitation card. If really, PW2 has arranged the marriage of PW1 with Accused No.1 he ought to have celebrated the said marriage at his house or at least at the function hall. When the marriage of PW1 with A1 was held at Arya Samaj, this itself probablises that the marriage was performed against to the will of PW2. PW2 further stated in his evidence that he stated to the police that PW1 did not inform the harassment of the accused towards her as her marriage of Accused

No.1 is inter­caste marriage. Though, PW2 stated that on the next date of the alleged incident they informed to the police that nearly 30 people came to their house, but the prosecution did not produce any material

before the court, about the 30 people went to the house of PW2. Thus,

the prosecution even did not produce any material to show the alleged giving of Rs.2,00,000/­ as dowry and Rs.2,00,000 as

Adapaduchulanchanam as already stated, when the marriage of PW1 with Accused No.1 is a love marriage, the question of payment of dowry does not arise. When the giving of dowry is itself suspicious circumstance, the demand of additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/­ is also a suspicious circumstance. Ofcourse, the prosecution must have placed evidence before the court for the demand of additional dowry of

Rs.10,00,000/ by the accused. The prosecution examined PW3 a villager who said to be present when the dispute was going about 2 years ago at the residence of PW2. PW3 stated that accused are demanding them to 8 give additiona dowry and threatening them that if they did not give the demanded additional dowry, they will not take back PW1 to the matrimonial home. PW3 did not state in his evidence before the court the quantum of additional dowry demanded by the accused. In his cross examination, PW3 stated that he saw, the accused in the court on the date of his chief examination only and he does not have prior acquaintance with the accused. Since, PW3 did not state in his evidence

before the court about the quantum of additional dowry demanded by the

accused and he does not have any prior acquaintance with the accused and he not even a mediator for the dialogue between PWs 1 and 2 and the accused. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. PW4/Investigating Officer in his cross examination stated that he did not receive any report from PWs 1 and 2 or the villagers on 19.06.2015. PW4 further stated that he did not conduct investigation relating to the financial status of the accused. Nothing was stated by PW4 in respect of his investigation about the demand of

additional dowry and alleged payment of additional dowry. The

prosecution did not produce any material before the court about the alleged assault caused by the accused. However, PW1 during the course of her further cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused, categorically stated that she along with Accused 1 to 3 are living together and that the accused never harassed her for additional dowry and never assaulted her. At the intervention of the police, she stated in her chief examination that she never gave any report to the police. She further categorically stated that she got compromised the matter with the accused and has been living with them. In the light of above facts and 9 circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused 1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt and that they are entitled for benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, these points are answered. 

POINT NO.5

14.In the result, the accused 1 to 3 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498­A, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and under

Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, therefore, accused 1 to 3 are acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and that of their sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per the provisions of Sec.437­A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him,corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 13th day of February, 2019.

Sd/­ Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam, FAC/­ Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate,

Avanigadda

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

S.No. On behalf of Prosecution On behalf of Defence

1.PW1­ M.Vidya RaniNONE

2.PW2­ AK Basaveswara Rao

3.PW3­ V. Nagaiah

4.PW4­G. Anil

Exhibits marked on behalf of

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Complaint given by PW1

Ex.P.2: FIR

Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Defence: 

10

NIL 

Material Objects marked:

NIL

Sd/­ Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam, FAC/­ Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Avanigadda

//True Copy//

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

AVANIGADDA 

Present: Sri Shaik Ibrahim Sharief, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam, FAC/­ Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Avanigadda

Monday, this the 18 th day of February, 2019

CALENDER CASE NO. 514/2018

BETWEEN:

The State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Police Station. ::: Complainant

A N D

1. Pampana Sai @ Pavan, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged 26 years, Mustakhanpeta, Machilipatnam.

2. Ponnuru Anji @ Mutodu, S/o. Munaiah, aged 21 years, Polatithippa Village, Bandar Mandal. ::: Accused 1 and 2

This case is coming on 13.02.2019 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant; and of Sri E.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Police Station laid

Charge Sheet in Cr.No.158/2017 for the offence punishable under Secs.

454, 380 or 411 of IPC against the accused 1 and 2. 

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that – 

PW1 is a resident of Barlapaudi Road of Kuchupudi Village and he is doing tailoring work. His wife is doing agricultural coolie works. They have two children and one child is studying at Hyderabad and another child is studying at Challapalli. On 25.11.2017, the wife of PW1 went to

Coolie works and his daughter went to college, as such PW1 went to 2

Tailoring work and at about 1.00 PM, PW1 returned to the house to have a lunch, when he opened the door and entered into the house then found that the back door of the house was opened. Then, PW1 went into the bedroom and found that Iron safe was opened, cash chest was removed and placed on the cot. PW1 found missing of gold articles 1. Gold Black bead thread; 2. Gold Chain with Saibaba locket; 3. Ear studs two pairs;

4. Silver anklets two pairs; 5. Silver Kumkuma Barenalu Three; 6. Gold

Nanutradu; 7. Gold Papidi Chain one; 8. Gold Kalyanapu ring one; 9.

Gold Lakshmidevi ring one; 10. Gold ear buttalu one Pair; 11. Gold

Jukalu one pair. Some unknown offenders gained entrance from the back door and they have committed theft of gold ornaments worth

Rs.98,500/­. On receipt of report PW5 registered the case and investigated the case. During the course of investigation on 29.11.2017,

PW4 examined PW1 and on 30.11.2017, PW4 visited the scene of offence, observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and drafted scene observation report. On 02.12.2017, PW5 the Sub­Inspector of

Police took up further investigation in this case. On 04.05.2018, PW5 on information that Accused No.1 was arrested by Trainee Dy.S.P. who is incharge of Circle Inspector of Avanigadda and on the confession,

Accused No.1 stated about the commission of the offence. PW5 arrested

Accused No.1 in the presence of mediators and recovered the stolen property in this case.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 454, 380 or 411 of IPC against the accused 1 and 2. Since

Accused No.1 is an under trial prisoner and the whereabouts of the accused No.2 are not known, as such, the case against Accused No.2 is 3 separated and numbered as C.C.47/2019. On production of the accused

No.1 before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C.

Charges for the offence punishable under Sec. 454, 380 or 411 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P6 and exhibited MOs 1 to 7.

Prosecution side evidence is closed. 

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for accused. Perused the evidence and material on record.

7. Now the points for determination are:­ i. Whether the accused No.1 on 29.11.2017 gained entrance into the house of PW1 in between 9.00

AM and 1.00 PM at Barlapudi road and committed theft of gold ornaments or whether the accused is in possession of the stolen property knowing that it is a stolen property ?

ii. Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him, beyond all reasonable doubt ? 

POINT NO.1:

4

8.The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is that on 29.11.2017 as usual, PW1 by closing the doors of the house went to his tailoring work and at 1.00 PM he returned to his house for lunch and he opened the front door and entered into the house and found that the back door of the house was opened, then he observed that the iron safe was opened and the chest was removed. On verification, he found missing of gold ornaments, as such, he presented a report to the police.

9.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5. PW1 is the de­facto complainant. PWs 2 and 3 are said to be the mediators for recovery of the property and for Test Identification Parade. PWs 4 and 5 are the Investigating Officers.

10.It is the evidence of PW1 that the incident occurred on 29.11.2017 and at about 9.00 PM he left the house by locking the doors of the house and returned at 1.00 PM. He opened the lock and entered into the house and found that the back door of the house was broke opened and the steel almirah was opened. He found that black beads gold chain; Saibaba Locket Chain; Two pairs of ear studs; one Kalyanapu ring; one papidi chain; ear hanging – one pair; two pairs of solver anklets; one silver kunkuma barina found mission, as such went to the police station and presented a report. He further stated that on 12.06.2018, police conducted property identification parade at Panchayat Office,

Kuchipudi and he identified the stolen property. From the evidence of

PW1 it is clear that there is a theft in the house of PW1 on 29.11.2017.

The evidence of PW1 does not reveal that the accused is the person who gained entrance into the house of PW1 and committed theft. Even, the evidence of PW1 is silent, whether the theft was committed by unknown 5 offenders or not. However, now it has to be seen, whether the prosecution could able to show that the accused is the person who gained entrance in the house of PW1 and committed theft of MOs 1 to 7.

11.According to the case of the prosecution, on the confession given by the accused the property was recovered in the presence of PW2.

PW2 in his evidence stated that on 04.05.2018 at about 3.45 PM, he has accompanied police personnel and in between Hamsaladeevi and

Palakayathippa, the accused brought a bag from the drainage canal in their presence. In the presence of Police said bag opened and found MOs 1 to 7. The accused confessed that he has committed theft of MOs 1 to 7.

He drafted Ex.P2 mediatornama. But, whereas, during the course of cross examination, PW2 who is said to be the VRO of Ullipalem­II stated that there is one VRO to Hamsaladeevi and another VRO to Ullipalem.

Palakayathippa comes under Ullipalem Revenue Village. He further categorically stated that at that time, himself and police personal were only present. PW2 did not state the presence of the accused at the time of alleged seizure. The evidence of PW2 does not reveal that the police personnel have taken the accused along with them. Though ,PW2 stated that they went to a drainage canal in between Hamsaladeevi and

Palakayathippa, but the evidence of PW2 reveals that the police jeep directly went to a hut near a dolphin house. PW2 further stated that he along with the police personnel caught hold of the accused. On one hand, PW2 stated that he went along with the police personnel were present at the time of recovery stolen property on the otherhand PW2 stated that he was present when the police caught hold of the accused.

6

PW2 further stated that police have seized 10 articles from the accused, which includes one gold chain and ring. PW2 further stated that he subscribed 3 signatures on mediatornama. But, a perusal of Ex.P2 mediatornama reveals that there is only one signature. Thus, the very presence of PW2 and drafting of Ex.P2 mediatornama for recovery of the stolen property from the possession of the accused is a doubtful circumstance. It is the contention of the defence counsel that PW2 is a stock mediator. PW2 categorically stated in his cross examination that he scribed nearly 10 medaitornamas in Koduru jurisdiction. This admission of PW2 reveals that PW2 is a stock mediator. Since, the other revenue officials are working at the alleged place where the seizure of material objections taken place, why the police have choosen PW2 is a doubtful circumstance. Furthermore, the evidence of PW2 is inconsistent on all material particulars. Thus, the evidence of PW2 cannot be taken into consideration. The prosecution examined PW3 who said to be present, when the test identification of the property was conducted. In his evidence PW3 stated that on 13.11.2017 at about 10 AM, the Sub­

Inspector of Police brought some valuable items and stated that he will conduct Test Identification of the property. The Sub­Inspector of Police brought some valuable ornaments from outside the shops and mixed the same. The police have summoned PW1 and he identified the stolen property. Accordingly, a medaitornama was drafted under Ex.P3 and he signed on mediatornama. PW3 further stated that on the same day at about 10.30 AM, they proceeded to the house of PW1 and observed the scene of offence. Ex.P4 is the scene observation report. PW3 in the cross examination stated that they have found 7 types of jewels at the 7 identification parade. PW3 did not specifically state what are those 7 types of jewels. Ofcourse, the evidence of PW3 does not reveal that the accused is the person who gained entrance into the house of PW1. The prosecution examined PW4 who registered the case and who issued Ex.P5

FIR and who drafted Ex.P6 rough sketch of the scene of offence. But, during the course of cross examination, PW4 stated that he did not seize any incriminating material in this case. According to the case of the prosecution, on the date of the alleged offence, some unknown offenders have broke open the door of the house of PW1. PW4 the Investigating

Officer who said to have visited the scene of offence even did not seize any broken material. This itself create any amount of doubt as to PW4 visiting the scene of offence. Though, the prosecution examined PW5 the

Investigating officer, but he has only filed Prisoner Transit Warrant and produced the accused before the court. Further on 12.06.2018, he conducted Test Identification of the property. PW5 further stated that he does not conduct personal investigation in this case. The material objects were seized by the Koduru Police and handed over to him. Thus, the evidence of PW5 does not reveal the involvement of the accused in this case. The evidence of PWs 1 to 5 does not reveal any material against the accused that he gained entrance into the house of PW1 and committed theft of MOs 1 to 7. Though, the prosecution examined PW2 in whose presence, the police seized the stolen property from the accused, but the evidence of PW2 is not inspiring the confidence of the court, since he is a stock mediator. In these circumstance, a benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. Thus, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him beyond 8 reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

POINT NO.2:

11.In view of the discussion on the above point, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

12.In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 454, 380 or 411 of IPC therefore, the accused No.1 is acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. Since, case against Accused

No.2 is pending, as such, no property order is passed. The accused No.1 shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him,corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 18th day of February, 2019.

Sd/­ Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam, FAC/­ Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate,

Avanigadda

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

S.No. On behalf of Prosecution On behalf of Defence

1.PW1­ V.Srinivasa RaoNONE

2.PW2­ M.Babu Rao

3.PW3­ K.Venugopala Rao

4.PW4­ V.Venkateswara Rao

5.PW5­ P.Suresh

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report of PW1 given to the police Ex.P.2: Mediatornama Ex.P.3:Property Identification Mahajar. Ex.P.4: Mediator report for Scene observation Ex.P.5: FIR 9

Ex.P.6: Rough sketch. Defence: NIL

Material Objects marked:

MO1 :Gold Black beads Chain MO2 :Gold Chain with Saibaba Locket MO3 :Gold Papidichain MO4 :Pair of Gold Jumkalu MO5 :Gold Kalyanapu Ring MO6 : Silver Kumkuma Barine MO7 :Pair of Silver Ankles Sd/­ Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam, FAC/­ Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Avanigadda //True Copy//

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM

Present: Sri Shaik Ibrahim Sharief I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020

O.S.NO. 371/2018

Between:

Vaka Sivaranjani, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged about 45 years, Sweeper in Government District Hospital, R/o.Godugupet, Machilipatnam.

:::PLAINTIFF

A N D

Madireddy Subba Rao, S/o.Madhava Rao, Government Employee, aged about 59 years, R/o.Nuziveedu town and Mandal, Krishna District. ::: DEFENDANT

This suit is coming on 17.03.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Kumara Swamy, counsel for the Plaintiff;; and Sri G.V.Ramana, Advocate for defendant; and upon considering the material papers on record, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.4,03,650/­ being the

principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated

20.12.2015 and 17.03.2016 for Rs.1,50,000/­ each said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and for costs. 

The brief averments of the plaint are that –

2.The defendant to meet his family expenses borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 20.12.2015 and executed a promissory note on the even date in favour of the 2 plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. Again the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/­ on 17.03.2016 and executed a promissory note on the even date in faovur of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. Inspite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount. The defendant is a Government employee and drawing salary of Rs.46,000/­ per month in GGH,

Gandhi Nagar, Machilipatnam. Hence, the suit. 

3.The defendant filed written statement inter­alia denying the averments of the plaint and further contended that the plaintiff is a stranger to him. There is no debtor and creditor relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff never demanded the defendant to repay any amount. The plaintiff even did not issue any notice to the defendant prior to the filing of the suit.

After receipt of suit summons, the defendant made enquires and came to know that she is working as sweeper in District Hospitel,

Machilipatnam and close associate of first attestor of both promissory notes by name A.Srinivasa Rao. The said A.Srinivasa

Rao is the colleague of the defendant at Nuzvid and he is the person behind the filing of false suit. The defendant worked as Operation

Theater Assistant at Government Hospital, Nuzvid from 2004 till his retirement on 31.03.2019. The first attestor A.Srinivasa Rao is working in the same hospital as ambulance driver and he is friend of the defendant. Due to some family disputes the defendant used to reside alone at Nuzvid, his family members used to reside at

Warangal. The said Srinivasa Rao used to take hand loans from the 3 defendant to meet his family necessities and to pay fees to his children. The outstanding amount is Rs.2,50,000/­. As the defendant is not maintaining good health due to chronic liver disorder, the defendant started demanding Srinivasa Rao to repay the amount due to him. But he dragged the matter and finally refused to repay the amount. Hence, disputes arose between said

Srinivasa Rao and the defendant. The defendant questioned the unfair attitude of Srinivasa Rao and placed the matter before colleagues G.Venkateswara Rao, N.Venkateswara Rao and

Smt.Ratnam and they have admonished the said Srinivasa Rao. Not digested with this, the said Srinivasa Rao openly proclaimed that he will see the end of the defendant. Taking advantage of acquaintance with the signatures of the defendant, the said Srinivasa Rao might have fabricated the suit promissory note with the help of his kith and kin. 

4.The defendant never executed the suit promissory note and they are fabricated and rank forged. The suit promissory notes are not supported by any consideration. There is no necessity for the defendant to borrow any amount from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amounts.

5.The signatures on the promissory note dated 20.12.2015 and the promissory note dated 17.03.2016 are different with each other and they are not made by one and the same person. This itself, reveals that the suit promissory notes are forged. The defendant never been to Machilipatnam and never executed the promissory notes. In fact there is no GGH at Gandhi Nagar, Machilipatnam and 4 only to attract the territorial jurisdiction to file the suit at

Machilipatnam. The stamp affixed on the suit promissory note, age and shade of ink and paper used goes to show that they are ante dated. Therefore, requested the court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs. 

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

(i) Whether the two suit promissory notes dated 20.12.2015 and 17.03.2016 are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount, as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

7.During the course of trial the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. The defendant examined himself as DW1 but no document is marked. 

8.Heard arguments. Perused the evidence and material on record. 

ISSUE No.1:

9.It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant to meet his family necessities borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ on two occasions under two different promissory notes on 20.12.2015 and on 17.03.2016, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a.

10. It is the specific contention of the defendant that one

A.Srinivasa Rao, who is his colleague, is behind back in fabricating the suit promissory notes and that the suit promissory notes are not 5 supported by any consideration and that no transaction took place under Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes. The plaintiff is not having capacity to lend amount.

11.In view of the rival contentions of both parties, now it has to be seen whether the plaintiff is having capacity to lend the amount covered under Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes. The plaintiff who examined herself as PW1 during the course of cross examination stated that she is working as outsourcing employee at

Government Hospital, Machilipatnam and her salary is Rs.12,000/­ per month. In the year 2012 her salary was Rs.10,000/­ per month and that she is paying monthly rent of Rs.2,000/­ for her residence.

She further categorically admitted that she has shown her annual income at Rs.7,000/­ in her ration card. So, from the evidence of

PW1 it can be concluded that by the year 2015 the salary of the plaintiff was Rs.10,000/­ per month. The plaintiff said to have lent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ on 20.12.2015. PW1 in her cross examination stated that she has taken money from Dwkra Group relating to Sangam Sri Parameswari group and one A.Anusha is president of said Dwkra group and she can produce the said document before the court. But for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, she did not produce any such document before the court.

However, PW1 admitted that except her salary there will not be any rotation of money transactions in her bank account. If really, the plaintiff lent money from out of the Dwkra Group amount, she must have produced some document before the court to show that she was member of Sangam Sri Parameswari group and that she was 6 given Rs.1,50,000/­ on 20.12.2015 and that the same was lent by her to the defendant.

12.Quite surprisingly, the plaintiff filed Ex.A2 promissory note dated 17.03.2016 by stating that she lent another sum of Rs.1,50,000/­ to the defendant. The plaintiff stated that she has been the subscriber of the chit with one Pamarthi Achamma and she raised the said chit and received Rs.1,80,000/­. Though, PW1 stated that the said chit is for Rs.2,00,000/­ and her monthly subscription is Rs.5,000/­ but she stated that the said chit is for 25 months. If really, the chit is for Rs.2,00,000/­ and the rate of subscription is Rs.5,000/­ per month, the chit period would be 40 months but not 25 months. However, during the course of cross examination the plaintiff categorically stated that “on 17.03.2016 I

have obtained empty signed promissory notes and cheques

from the defendant” . Thus, the own admission of the plaintiff itself reveals that Ex.A2 promissory note, dt.17.03.2016 is not supported by consideration.

13.Furthermore, the plaintiff admitted that both the promissory notes are appears to be different with each other. The plaintiff admitted that she filed the present suit on coming to know that the defendant is going to attain superannuation. The facts and circumstances clinchingly establishes that the plaintiff is not having capacity to lend an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ under Ex.A1 promissory note on 20.12.2015 and that A2 promissory notes are not supported by consideration.

7

14.It is the specific contention of the defendant that one

A.Srinivasa Rao is behind the back of forging and fabricating the promissory notes and filing the present suit by the plaintiff. The plaintiff admitted that the first attestor of Ex.A1 and A2 is one

A.Srinivasa Rao and that he is resident of Nuzvid. The plaintiff also admitted that the defendant is an employee at Nuzvid and resident of Nuzvid. Though the plaintiff stated that Exs.A1 and A2 transactions took place at Machilipatnam, why the promissory notes under Exs.A1 and A2 were attested by A.Srinivasa Rao who is resident of Nuzvid is not stated by the plaintiff. On the other hand, it lend support to the contention of the defendant that the said

A.Srinivasa Rao, who is the colleague of the defendant is behind back for filing the present suit by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the 2nd atteestor of Exs.A1 and A2 is the mother of the plaintiff. Exs.A1 and

A2 are said to be scribed by one Venkata Swamy. But for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, she did not examine the scribe of Ex.A1 and A2 promissory notes. 

15.However, in Ex.A1 and A2 promissory notes it is mentioned that the defendant borrowed the amount to meet family expenses but whereas, the plaintiff in her cross examination stated that the defendant borrowed the amount to meet his medical expenses and the same was incorporated in Ex.A1 promissory note.

This itself reveals that PW1 does not know even the contents of

Ex.A1 promissory note. Added to that the plaintiff in her cross examination stated that she does not remember the age of the defendant mentioned in Ex.A1 promissory note, her age was shown 8

as 35 years in Ex.A1 promissory note. In Ex.A1 promissory note the

avocation of the defendant is mentioned as an employee in

Government Hospital. She does not know whether the avocation of the defendant is mentioned at the top or bottom of the promissory note. In Ex.A1 promissory note it was mentioned that she was a contract employee and she does not know where it was mentioned in

Ex.A1 promissory note. The above evidence of the plaintiff clinchingly establishes that the plaintiff even does not know even the contents of Ex.A1 promissory note. A perusal of Ex.A1 promissory note is not revealing either the age or the avocation of the plaintiff or the defendant. 

16.Furthermore, the plaintiff categorically stated in her evidence before the court that the defendant has given cheques, promissory notes, passbooks and that she is having other two empty signed promissory notes and two empty signed cheques of the defendant with her. The plaintiff who is an outsourcing employee earning Rs.12,000/­ per month and lending such a lakhs of rupees will create any amount of doubt as to the capacity of the plaintiff in lending the amounts.

17.On the other hand, the plaintiff admitted that she has deposited the cheque relating to Ex.A2 promissory note into her

Andhra Bank Account in the year 2018 one week prior to the filing of the present suit. But she did not get issue any registered notice in respect of the presentation of the cheque into the bank and that she did not mention the said fact in the plaint. Thus, the plaintiff has not placed true facts before the court. However, the fact remains is 9 that Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes are not true, not valid and not binding on the defendant. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff failed to prove her financial capacity to lend such a huge amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ under Ex.A1 promissory note and the own admission of the plaintiff reveals that Ex.A2 promissory note is not supported by consideration. Thus, Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes are not true, not valid and not binding on the defendant.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. 

ISSUE No.2:

18.In view of the finding of this court in issue No.1 that

Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes are not valid, not true and not binding on the defendant, as such the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issue No.3:

19.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- Shaik Ibrahim Sharief

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For PLAINTIFF: For DEFENDANT:

PW.1 – Vaka SivaranjaniDW1­ Madireddy Suba Rao

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff:

10

Ex.A.1: Promissory notice dated 20.12.2015 Ex.A.2: Promissory note dated 17.03.2016

Documents marked on behalf of Defendant: NilSd/- Shaik Ibrahim Sharief I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

11