IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.
Present : Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb.
Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Guntur.
Monday, this the 31 st day of December, 2018
C.C. No.237 of 2018
Between: The State, Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattabhipuram PS (Crime No.266/2014)
..Complainant.
And:
1. Boppana Surendra, S/o.Nagabushanam, aged about 32 years, caste by Kamma D.No.S4, Siri Enclave, Nagarjuna Nagar, Vijayawada, Now at Sandiego, California State, USA.
2. Boppana Nagabushanam, S/o.Gangaraju, aged about 60 years, caste by Kamma D.No.S4, Siri enclave, Nagarjuna Nagar, Vijayawada.
3. Boppana Usharani, W/o. Nagabhushanam, aged about 58 years, caste by Kamma, D.No.S4, Siri enclave, Nagarjuna Nagar, Vijayawada.
4.Surapaneni Srivalli, W/o.Sridhar, aged about 30 years, caste by Kamma, Atlanta, Georgia State, USA.
5. Surapaneni Sridhar, S/o.Bhaskara Rao, aged about 35 years, caste by Kamma, Atlanta, Georgia State, USA.
6. Gundapaneni Satish, S/o.Govardhana Rao, aged about40 years, caste by Kamma, Irvine, California State, USA.
7. Gundapaneni Sabitha, W/o.Satish, Age about 35 years, caste by Kamma, Irvine, California State, USA.
8. Gutta Ramakrishna, S/o.Rajeswara Rao, aged about 49 years, caste by Kamma Plot No.302, Vayu Apartment, Lotus Land Mark, Vijayawada. … A.1 to A.8
(Case against A2, A3, A6 and A7 was separated and
renumbered as CC.118/2016 by the Hon’ble Special Magistrate
of I Class for Proh & Excise, Guntur as per the docket order
dt.08.03.2016 and that split up case was transferred to this
court as per the proceedings of the Hon'ble District court,
Guntur, in dis No.1893, Dt. 19-03-2018 and the same was re-
numbered as CC.365 of 2018 and the same is pending.)
This case coming before me on 27.12.2018 for hearing in the presence of Sri APP for the State and of Sri D.Umamaheswara Rao, learned Advocate for the A1, A4 and A5 and Sri. R.N.V.K, Advocate for the A8 upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-
J U D G M E N T
The state represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattabhipuram P.S, has filed a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 8 in Crime No.266/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Secs 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The brief allegations of the charge sheet are that :- That LW.2 and LW.3 (Chimmiri Hanumantha Rao and Chimmiri Vasundhara) who are the parents of LW.1 Chimmiri Anusha, are the resident of H. No.1-6-3/N, Brundavanam, Opp Mahila Polytechnic College, Gujjanagundla, Guntur, and they were blessed with LW.1 Chimmiri Anusha and LW.4 Chimmiri Vidya Sagar. On 11.12.2010, LW.2, to LW.4 (Chimmiri Hanumantha Rao, Chimmiri Vasundhara and Chimmiri Vidya Sagar) performed the engagement of LW.1 Chimmiri Anusha with A1 in Venkatesh Grand Hotel, 2/2 lane, Arundelpet, Guntur and at the time, on the demands of A2, they gave cash of Rs.5-00 lakhs to A4 towards adapaduchu lanchanam. On 13.02.2011, her parents/ Lws.2 and 3 performed the marriage of LW.1 with A1 in Surya Devara Kalyana Mandapam, Ring Road, Guntur and at that time on demands of A2, LW.2 to LW.4 gave cash of Rs.50.00 lakhs to him towards dowry and has presented 200 sovereign of gold ornaments. After the marriage, they stayed at her in-laws house situated at Vijayawada for a span of one month and later on 7.3.2011, A1 took LW.1 to USA where A1 subjected LW.1 to physical and mental cruelty with the instigation of A2 to A7 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.50 crores. On 27.03.2014, A1 handed over LW.1 to LW.4 Chimmiri Vidya Sagar in Hyderabad Airport and A1 returned to America after cancelling the VISA, bank accounts and all the cards of LW.1. On 31.03.2014, A8 contacted LW.2 – Chimmiri Hanumantha Rao and he threatened stating that they must not make negotiations with anybody relating to the marital life of LW.1. On 02.04.2014, LW.2 – Chimmiri Hanumantha Rao, LW.5 Vajrala Subba Reddy, LW.6 – Muddana Swamy and LW.7- Munamala Lakshmi Narayana visited to Vijayawada to meet A8, where LW.2 asked A8 to return I7 and 97 forms of LW.1, for which A8 blackmailed to give divorce to A1 and LW.1 must not file any police case against A1 to A.7 and then only he will return the above forms and as such, on 03.04.2014 at 06-00 p.m., LW.1 filed a complaint against the accused in Pattabhipuram PS.
Basing on the report of LW.1, LW.8-Sk.Mohiddin, HC of Pattabhipuram PS registered as a case in crime No: 266/2014 of Pattabhipuram, under Section 498- A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and LW.9- Y.Srinivasa Reddy, Inspector of Police, investigated the case by allotting Ref. No.51/WPS/14, dt.04.04.104.
During the course of investigation, LW.9- Y.Srinivasa Reddy examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 12.08.2014 the Superintendent of Police, Guntur instructed SI of Police, Women PS to finalize the investigation and file the charge sheet immediately without delay vide C. No.98/D1/Genl/DCRB/2014 and accordingly, LW.10 – G.C.Babu Rao, SI of Police, Women PS, Guntur urban, investigated the case further. On 03.10.2014, on 15.10.2014 LW.10 – G.C.Babu Rao served notices to A2, A8 and A3 under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C after explaining them the facts of the case and A1, A4 to A7 are residing in USA and hence he failed to serve notices to them and in consultant with the APP, he filed the charge sheet against all the accused by showing A1, A4 to A7 as absconding.
3.Originally, this case was taken on file by the Hon'ble Spe- cial Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and Excise Court, Guntur against A1 to A8 for the offences Under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act 1961 assigned as CC. No.698 of 2014.
Subsequently, this case was transferred to this court as per the orders in Crl. MP. No.421 of 2018, dt.19.03.2018 of Hon'ble District
Judge, Guntur communicated in Dis. No.1893, dt.19.03.2018 and this
court renumbered as CC No.237 of 2018.
The case against A2, A3, A6 and A7 was split up from the
main CC. No.698 of 2014 and assigned as new CC.No.118 of 2016 as
the NBWs are long pending and the said splitup case was transferred
to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon'ble District court, Gun-
tur in dis No.1893, Dt. 19-03-2018 and the same was re-numbered as
CC.365 of 2018 and the same is pending.
4.On appearance of the A1, A4, A5 and A8, copies of case records as required Under Section 207 Cr.P.C., have been supplied to them.
5.The A1, A4, A5 and A8 are examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C and charges Under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3 & 4 of DP
Act 1961, have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the matter was posted for trial.
6.To prove its case against the A1, A4, A5 and A8, the Prose- cution got examined PWs. 1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked and be- sides Ex D.1 to Ex D.12 .
7. After closure of the Prosecution evidence, the Spl. Vakalat holder for A4 & A5 [As per order of the Hon'ble High Court for the
State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh of AP
vide Crl. RC. No.1770/2016 dt.11.07.2016] and the A.1 and A.8 were examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and further Spl. Vakalat holder of the A.1 [As per orders of the Hon'ble High Court for the
State of Telangala and for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Vide
Crl. MP. No.11823 of 2018 dt.12.11.2018] examined further section 313 Cr.P.C., enabling them to explain the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses for which the ac- cused denied the evidence as false. No evidence adduced on behalf of defence, but Ex.D1 to D12 were marked during the cross-examination of PW1.
In this case, the Hon'ble High Court of AP passed an
order in Crl. MP .No.9641 of 2018, dt.09.10.2018 and given
direction to this court to dispose of this case expeditiously
within two months from the date of receipt of that order and
that order was received by this court on 09.11.2018 and it has
to be disposed off on or before 09-01-2019, so in the obedience
to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, this case was taken up
for disposal.
8. Heard Arguments on both sides and both side counsels filed their written arguments along with their legal decision respectively:
9.Now the point for determination is:
Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the A1,
A4, A5 and A8 for the offence punishable Under Section
498-A IPC and Section 3 & 4 of DP Act 1961 with which
they were charged. If so, whether the accused are liable
for punishment of the same ?
10. POINT :
To prove its case against the accused, though the prosecu- tion has cited as many as (10) witnesses, Out of them 6 witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked EX.P1 to Ex P.17 and besides Exs.D1 to D.12.Ex.P1 is the report of PW.1, Ex.P2 is the signature of PW.1 in the report, Ex.P3 is the bunch of three e-mails, Ex.P4 is the bunch of 4 e-mails, Ex.P5 is the e-mail sent by PW.1 to her friend Rajvir dt.11.01.2014 at 12.18 p.m, and reply given by him dt. 12.01.2014 at 12.32 a.m., Ex.P6 is the certificate given by Department of Biology, San Diego, State University, to PW.1 stating that she discontinued the mid terms II and III for Biology course in the year 2013, Ex.P7 is the e-mail sent by brother of PW.1 namely Vidya Sagar to Pradeep Kumar in order to forward the same to her father. The said e-mail dt.24.01.2014 was sent by A1 to her brother and it was forwarded to Pradeep Kumar, Ex.P8 is the attested true copy of PW.1 visa of the USA (Ex.P8 is also contains the attested copy of passport of the Republic of India), Ex.P9 is the for- warded e-mail sent by PW.1 brother dt. 5.8.2014 at 9-20 p.m., to her fa- ther, through Pradeep Kumar, it contains to fro Itinerary of American Air- lines tickets of herself and A1. Ex.P10 is the attested copy of petition filed by A1 for divorce, on the file of Hon'ble Family Court, Vijayawada, Ex.P11 is the order in OP 233/14 on the file of Hon'ble Family Court, Vi- jayawada dt.21.1.2015 under which the petition dismissed for default, Ex.P12 is the decretal order in IA.986/2015 in OP 233/14 dt.30.12.2014 on the file of Hon'ble Family Court, Vijayawada, Ex.P13 is the attested copy of the order in IA 986/15 in OP.233/14, dt.30.12.2014 on the file of
Hon'ble Family Court, Vijayawada, Ex.P14 is the attested copy of petition
and affidavit in IA 986/15 in OP 233/14 respectively, Ex.P15 is the letter issued by the banker Charler SCHWAB, dt.13.5.2014 stating that her ac- count was closed as requested, Ex.P16 is the FIR and Ex.P17 is the docu- ment depicting obtaining of educational loan for PW.1 along with the re- ply written arguments. Sri Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has given up LWs. 4 to 6 and 10 (Chimmiri Vidya Sagar, Vajrala Subba Rao, Mud- danna Swamy and G.C.Babu Rao, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Guntur urban.
11.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW.1 to PW.6. Out of them, PW.1 is the Defacto complainant. PWs.2, 3 are the paretns of PW.1, PW.4 is the independent witness, PWs.5 and 6 are the Investigating Officers in this case.
12. The contention of the Sri learned APP is that A1 at the instigation of A2 to A7, harassed PW.1, beating and abused her and demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50 crores from PW.2 and the A8 threatened the PW.1 and blackmailed her to sign on a divorce papers of the A1. To prove the same the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.17 and the evidence of PW.1 is coupled with the evidence of PWs.2 to 6 and also the contents of Exs.P1 to P17 and requested the court to punish the accused as per law.
13.On the other hand, the case of the defence is that PW.1 is an adamant character lady and she harassed the A1 at USA and also disturbed the A1 at his office timings and this case was filed by her to counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the A1 at Vijayawada on 27.03.2014 and subsequently, filed this case by the PW.1 in order to harass the accused and also got filed DVC cases and also MC cases in India and after withdrawal of the MC case, she got filed the said case in USA and also launched so many proceedings at USA against the accused. And the evidence of the PW.1 is not coupled with the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 and further contended that PW.1 and as well as the parents of PW.1 i.e., PWs.2, 3 had deposed in their evidence before this Court exaggerated and improved versions and which are not stated to the PW.6/Investigating Officer during their examination under Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements and there is so many discrepancies and contradictions found in their evidence, as such the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 not cogent, trustworthy and even PW.1 has no property in her name, but she had deposed in her evidence that A1 insisted her to sell away the property which is stands in her name and to fetch the sale proceeds amount for that land of Rs.50-00 crores as additional dowry and that was not mentioned in earliest stage in Ex.P1- report and even Ex.P1 does not discloses about the dowry particulars paid by the PW.2, hence, request the court to acquit the accused.
14.The crux of the case, on hand is that, A1 and his relatives shown as A2 to A8 of PW.1/defacto complainant, harassed her to cruelty and consequently, the accused are liable for punishment under Sec.498- A of IPC. As stated supra, this case only remains against A1, A4, A5 and A8. A1 is no other than the husband of PW.1, A4 and A5 are no other than the sister and brother-in-law of A1, whereas, A8 is a family friend of A1.
15. The prosecution witnesses did not mention either in the Ex.P1 or in their evidence that the actual relationship of A8 with A1, except mentioned that A8 is the family friend of A1 and he telephoned to the PW.2 and informed to him that A1 left PW.1 and he was not intending to take her back and A8 would made further correspondence on behalf of the A1 and later A8 further informed to PW.2 that, PW.1 life was in cross roads and documents required for proceedings to USA are with him and if no case is filed by PW.1, then, A8 would return the documents to her.
16.Under these circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove that A8 is the relative of the A1. In such an event, A8 cannot be roped with the offence under Sec.498-A IPC. The said offence is applicable to the husband and the relatives of the husband of victim/woman in respect of dowry harassment/cruelty as defined under Sec.498-A IPC.
17.Coming back to the case of the prosecution against A1, A4, A5. It is the specific case right from the beginning that A1 at the instigation of A2 to A7, harassed the PW.1 during their stay at USA by demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50.00 crores and also abused her and not providing food to her.
18.The cruelty is defined in Explanation to the Sec.498-A of IPC and the same is extracted below for easily understanding:- “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty–Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman, to cruelty, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” 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 health (whether mental or physical) of woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with a 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.”
Admittedly, this case does not fall under explanation (a) as stated supra. The court has to consider how the prosecution harassment for demanding of dowry, cruelty as mentioned (b) of 498-A IPC.
To bring home the guilty of the offence under Sec.498-A IPC against A1, A4, A5 and A8. The charge sheet averments and the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 who is no other than victim/woman and her parents shows that on demand of A2, PW.2 paid cash of Rs.5-00 lakhs to the A4 as Aadapaduchu katnam at the time of engagement on 11.12.2010, Rs.50- 00 lakhs besides 200 sovereigns of gold was given to the A2 at the time of marriage which was held on 13.02.2011. On a plain reading of Ex.P1 report given by PW.1 for registration of this Crime to make the criminal law into motion for the offence under Sec.498-A of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
19.It is evident that PW.1 has no where mentioned in Ex.P1 about either the payment of Aadapaduchu katnam at the time of engagement or alleged dowry of Rs.50-00 lakhs and 200 sovereigns of gold given custody to the A2 at the time of marriage. If really, the Aadapaduchut katnam and the dowry amount has mentioned in the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer or deposed by PW.1 to 3 were happened, PW.1 ought to have mentioned about the same in Ex.P1 report. Therefore, a strong doubt arise in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 are related to each other i.e., daughter and parents regarding demand of Adapaduchu katnam and dowry.
20.The defence counsel vehemently argued that the evidence of PW.1 is not coupled with the contents of Ex.P1 report and she had deposed an exaggerated and improved versions in her chief- examination and what she stated in her chief-examination is not deposed before the PW.6/Investigating Officer during the examination under Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement and so also PWs.2 and 3. So the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 not believable, cogent and trustworthy and the intention of PWs.1 to 3 are to extract the money from the A1 and she filed only this case to counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the A1 at Vijayawada on 27.03.2014. If really, any harassment/cruelty was meted out by the accused while she was stayed with A1 at USA that would inform to her parents. In the present case, when the PW.1 was came along with A1 from the USA to India on 27.03.2014 and after delay of eight days, she presented Ex.P1 report on 03.04.2014 to Pattabhipuram police that itself shows that in order to harass the accused, she given Ex.P1 report to the police and as such, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 were not looked into, hence, request the court to acquit the accused.
21.There is a force on arguments submitted by the defence counsel in respect of exaggerated and improved versions given by the PWs.1 to 3 in a Court of law while they had deposed in their evidence. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, she stated that A1 started beating her, abused her and he demanded her to sell away her property and fetch Rs.50 crores and so also PW.1 deposed that herself and A1 came to India in December, 2013, their father was met with an accident as such, A1 stayed in her parents house for two days and then had taken her to Vijayawada to the house of her parents in-law and further deposed that at Vijayawada, A1 insisted her to sell her property and fetch Rs.50 crores, thus, they stayed at Vijayawada for about twenty days then left for the USA. “ if really the above fact may be true, she ought to got mentioned in Ex.P1 report, but as admitted by the PW.1 in her cross-examination that between March, 2011 and December, 2013, she never came to India and further adds in her cross-examination that A1 did not allow her to go to India. So it indicates that as per the version of PW.1, she never came to India in the month of December, 2013, but whereas, she stated in her chief-examination itself that herself and A1 came to India in the month of December,2013, and where they were went to Vijayawada and wherein A1 insisted her to sell her property and to fetch Rs.50 crores. So, she came to India along with A1 in the month of December, 2013 is not correct and not believable as admission made by her that in the month of December, 2013 herself with A1 at USA.
22.The specific allegation of PW.1 in her Ex.P1 report that A1 harassed her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50 crores, but whereas coming to the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, they stated that to sell away the property stands in the name of the PW.1 to fetch Rs.50 crores to the accused. The PW.1 deviated her earlier version which was mentioned in Ex.P1 report that she added that the A.1 sell away her property which was stands in her name and to fetch Rs.50 crores.
23. In the cross-examination of PW.1, she admitted that she do not know about the property particulars stands in her name. PWs.2 and 3 who are the parents of the PW.1 admitted in their cross- examination that, there is no property in the name of the PW.1. So, when there is no property stands in the name of the PW.1, how the PW.1 had deposed that the A1 insisted her to sell away the property stands in her name, so, the version of the PW.1 in resepct of the property stands in her name was false. PW.6/Investigating Officer also admitted in his cross-examination that PW.1 during her examination had not stated
before him the fact that A1 had demanded her to sell her property and
fetch Rs.50 crores to him and further PW.6/Investigating Officer stated that PW.1 had not stated before him about the fact that in the month of December, 2013 PW.1 and A1 had come directly to her parents house from then they left to Vijayawada where the A1 had stayed at Vijayawada for twenty days and then, left for USA that the attitude of A1 had not changed. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW.6/Investigating Officer admitted in his cross-examination that PWs.1 to 3 did not state before him with regard to the material facts i.e., to sell the property of the PW.1 and to fetch Rs.50 crores. In December, 2013 A1 and PW.1 came to India and even PW.6/Investigating Officer also stated that PW.2 had not stated before him that on 29.12.2013, A1 and PW.1 had come to India and stayed in his house for about three to four days and as PW.1 was not felling well, PW.3 had asked A1 about the condition of PW.1, and A1 had promised that he would not demand for
additional dowry and would look after PW.1 well in future and after
twenty days, they had left for the USA. So, PWs.1 to 3 what they stated in their chief-examination as exaggerated and improved versions, which they have not stated before the PW.6/IO during their examination under section 161 cr.P.C., and so also not found even in Ex.P1 report, as such the evidence of PW.1 can be doubted.
24. As per the version of PW.1, PW.2 paid cash of Rs.50 lakhs to the A1 and also her father presented 200 sovereigns of gold to her and the same was given custody to A2 and A2 kept with his bank locker. If that fact may be true, the PW.1 ought to have got mentioned in her Ex.P1 report at the earliest point of time, but PW.1 did not mention the same in Ex.P1 report and for the first time, she had deposed in the court about the said fact. But whereas, PW.6/Investigating Officer stated in his cross-examination that he did not seize any account books and lockers with regard to the jewellery of 200 sovereigns and as admitted by the PW.6, he did not conduct investigation on those lines. So, if really, the PW.2 presented the 200 sovereigns of gold to PW.1, at least the PW.1 had deposed the details of the ornaments but that was not do so, so also, the PWs.2 and 3 also stated that they presented 200 sovereigns of gold to PW.1 by the PW.2. But no details were mentioned and the facts of the gold was also not got mentioned in their income tax returns about the cash of Rs.50 lakhs and the above said gold, so in the absence of the same, PW.2 presented the said dowry of cash of Rs.50-00 lakhs and 200 sovereigns of gold to the PW.1 and the same was in the custody of lockers of the A2 can be doubted and unbelievable.
25No doubt, PW.4 witness who is not the relatives of PWs.1 to 3 stated during his chief-examination that at the time of marriage, PW.2 had agreed to given an amount of Rs.50 lakhs and 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments as a dowry to the parents of the A.1 and accordingly, given the said amount and gold ornaments to them. The name of the PW.4 is not stated by the PWs.1 to 3 during their evidence that the PW.4 is personally present at the time of engagement demanding of dowry by the A2 or payment of dowry by PW.2 to A2 at the time of marriage.
26. In the cross-examination of the PW.4, he admitted that he is doing cotton business for the past fifteen years and PW.2 also doing the same business for the past ten years and as such he had acquaintance with PW.2 and he is residing at S.V.N.Colony near Gujjanagundla, Guntur and further PW.4 admitted in his cross- examination that the deposition was made by him on the information given by the PW.2 and he do not have any personal knowledge with regard to the deposition given on 02.06.2017. So, it indicates that PW.4 is the co-business man of the PW.2 and he is the interested witness to the PW.2 and as admitted himself that he has no personal knowledge about the facts mentioned in his deposition. So it shows that PW.4 is not trustworthy for consideration of the case of the prosecution as he comes under the category of hearsay evidence which is inadmissible in evidence for consideration to the case of the prosecution.
27.PWs.5 and 6 are the police personnels, they have no personal knowledge about the case of the prosecution or alleged harassment/cruelty made by the A1 towards PW.1 at the instigation of other accused more particularly by the A1, A4, A5 and A8. If the evidence of PW.4 is eliminated for consideration for the reason mentioned above, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 alone remains for scrutiny. PWs.2 and 3 are no other than the parents of PW.1 even as per the case of the prosecution or the evidence of PW.1, PWs.2 and 3 who are residing at Brundavanam Gardens, H.No.1-6-3/V, near Gujjanagundla, Guntur, A.P. India, are not present and witnessed the alleged incident to have been took place in the house of A1 which resides the PW.1 with him at USA.
28.It is not the case of the PWs.1 to 3 that PW.1 is informed the alleged cruelty meted out by her in the hands of accused more particularly, A1 over phone from USA to her parents i.e., PWs.2 and 3 who are residing at Gujjanagundla, Guntur. Under these circumstances, PWs.2 and 3 will not know what was happened between PW.1 and A1 at USA. PW.1 did not state in her chief-examination and as well as in Ex.P1 report about the conversation between the A2 and A1 over by phone but her version is that after completion of the call ended from A2, then, A1 harassed her but even in Ex.P1 report, she did not say any conversation between the A1 and A2 over by phone. So, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 are not helpful to the case of the prosecution to say that the evidence of PW.1 to corroborate with the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. So, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is not trustworthy for consideration in this case. Coming to the scrutiny of evidence of PW.1, she did not disclose any details of the incident regarding cruelty as required under Sec.498-A IPC explanation [b] and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act, except the making the general allegation that A1 used to demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50 crores, abused her and not providing food to her.
29.On close scrutiny of PW.1 and as discussed supra and in the light of the contents of Ex.P1 and statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C, there are some contradictions and material omissions were found. The above contradictions and material omissions found in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is forced, this court to hold that PWs.1 to 3 are had deposed exaggerated facts during the evidence in the court and consequently carries no value and more over PW.6/Investigating Officer did not take any steps to examine the neighbours of the house of A1 and PW.1 at USA and did not cite them in this case as the prosecution witnesses. When PW.1 admitted in her cross-examination that in India she never tried to mediate the matter in the presence of the elders but only her brother spoke to A1, but the brother of PW.1 i.e., LW.4 namely Vidya Sagar was not examined by the prosecution as a witness, the reasons are best known to them. If LW.4 examined as the prosecution witness in this case, the facts came into light, so, non-examination of the LW.4 [who mediates with A1 is a material witness] is a fatal to the case of the prosecution and further, PW.1 admitted during her cross-examination that she given Ex.P1 report to police at Pattabhipuram PS after filing of the divorce petition filed by the A1. So, Ex.P1 report is nothing but counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the A1. Even as per the case of PW.1, A1 and PW.1 returned from USA to Hyderabad on 27.03.2014, but whereas, PW.1 presented Ex.P1 to PW.5/Investigating Officer in Pattabhipuram PS on 03.04.2014. There is no explanation put forth by the prosecution as well as the PW.1 explanation for the delay of lodging of Ex.P16 FIR to Pattabhipuram Police. If really, A1 had harassed the PW.1 in USA, PW.1 ought to have informed the same to the police over by phone or atleast lodged a complaint at Pattabhipuram PS or at least she take steps in USA for the alleged harassment meted out by the accused towards her. Admittedly, PW.1 in her cross-examination that she did not launch any proceedings in the USA about the alleged harassment meted out by the accused. So in the absence of the same, the harassment meted out by the accused can be doubted.
30. A perusal of the Exs.P3 and P4 that are the seven e-mails and it was sent by PW.1 to A1 and to her friend Preeti. In some of the e- mails, PW.1 and A1 disclosed with regard to the final transactions and in Ex.P3, it clearly mentioned and admitted by the PW.1 in her cross- examination that “I was not ready to accept my husband's hard earned money going freely”, so it indicates that the contents of e- mail are relates to the financial issues in between the PW.1 and the A1. Ex.P5 is also another e-mail sent by PW.1 to her friend Rajvir dt.11.01.2014, Ex.P7 is also the another e-mail sent by PW.1’s brother namely Vidya Sagar to Pradeep Kumar, Ex.P9 is the forwarded e-mail sent by PW.1’s brother, dt.05.08.2014 and the above e-mails does not disclose any harassment/cruelty within the meaning of the explanation
(a) (b) of 498-A IPC. Ex.P10 is the attested copy of the petition filed by the A1 for divorce on the file of the Hon’ble Family court, Vijayawada, Exs.P11 to P15 are the orders copy in OP 233 of 2014 on the file of
Hon’ble Family court, Vijayawada and its orders passed in IA.986 of
2015. Ex.D1 is the copy of the petition filed by the PW.1 in MC.172 of 2014 on the file of the Hon’ble Family Court, Guntur, Ex.D2 is the certified copy of divorce petition filed by the PW.1 against A1 in a superior court of California. Ex.D2 is the marital agreement statement with A1 and PW.1 admitted the same in her cross-examination and Ex.D4 is the certified copy of Reporter’s Transcript, dt. 07.04.2016 in the superior court of California. PW.1 admitted in her cross-examination that Ex.D1 and D2 are the part of the divorce petitions filed by her. Ex.D5 is the certified copy of the register of actions in the divorce case filed by PW.1. Ex.D6 is the attachment to the responsive declaration, dt. 16.04.2015, Ex.D7 domestic violence case filed by PW.1 vide DVC.040388, Exs.D8 and D9 are the orders of the superior court of California. Ex.D10 is the certified copy of register of actions in domestic violence case. Exs.D2 to D10 and Ex.D12 are the petitions and order copies of the superior court of California with regard to the divorce, DVC petitions and they are filed subsequently to filing of this case and they were no way connected to this case. As per Ex.D3 and D5, it discloses that PW.1 and the A1 marriage was dissolved by the USA court and it will have effect from 07.04.2016 as per the Ex.D5 and the same was also admitted by the PW.1 in her cross-examination and further PW.1 admitted that she received for 74,964/- $ from A1 which is inclusive of interim maintenance.
31. The defence counsel argued that all the matters were settled in USA in between the PW.1 and the A1, but in order to extort money from the A1, PW.1 given false Ex.P1 complaint against the accused in order to harass them and to grab the money for which PW.1 also filed a DVC case, MC case in India and the PW.1 and her mother namely Vasundhara (PW.3) is litigant person used to file number of cases against the accused and also in Mobile court, Guntur one of the DVC case for full and final settlement. Pws.1 to 3 are demanded Rs.6-00 crores for settlement. So it shows that without any harassment meted out by the accused simply filed false cases against them and request the court to acquit the accused.
32. This is a force on arguments by the defence counsel and as discussed supra, Pws.1 to 3 admitted that filing of the cases in India against the accused i.e., MC, DVC.
33. The complainant counsel submitted his written arguments along with decisions reported in 2015 Law Suit (ALL) 3066 dt.03.11.2015, Crl.A.No.309 of 2013 on 25.05.2012 of Gowhati High Court and Surandar Singh Vs State of Haryana [SC].
I have gone through the above decisions and the said decisions were squarely not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
34. The defence counsel filed a written arguments along with the decisions. The defence counsel vehemently argued that there are number of material improvements and exaggerations with regard to the presentation of the dowry, Aadapaduchu lanchanam and 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments and PW.1 has improved upon her report under Sec.154 Cr.P.C and the statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C, where there is no specific allegation against the accused is that showing that the accused used to cause cruelty covered under Sec.498-A IPC towards PW.1 and the Hon’ble Delhi High court in Crl.A.No.574/2000, dt.30.03.2017 in the case of Satish Kumar Bhatiah Vs. State wherein the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, got mentioned in Para No.25 of their Judgment
in the case of Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and Anr (2013) 12 SCC 796 where the Apex Court held as under :
“As is evincible, the High Court has also taken note of certain omissions and discrepancies treating them to be material omissions and irreconcilable discrepancies. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then, it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission (See Leela Ram vs. State of Haryana and another, Rammi alias Rameshwar V. State of M.P and Shyalam Ghosh v. State of West Bengal.)” and further the Hon'ble Apex Court was also observed in another case of
State of Gujarat vs. Kishanbhai etc (2014) 5 SCC 108
“that glaring inconsistencies and infirmities in statement
of witnesses render their statements unreliable. Hence, benefit
of doubt must be given to the accused.” I have gone through the above said decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the above said decisions were
applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this Case as so many ommissions and descrepencies found in the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and and also so many infirminities in their evidence. As such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
35.So in view of my above fore going discussion, the prosecu- tion miserably failed to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/s 498-A IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibi- tion Act, thereby the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.
34.In the result, A1, A4, A5 and A8 are found not guilty for the of- fences punishable Under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3 & 4 of DP Act, 1961 and accordingly they are acquitted Under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said of- fence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after lapse of 6 (Six) months period. As the case against the A2,A3,A6 and A7 are pending vide CC.No.365 of 2018.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 31st day of December,2018.
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE: --NONE-- PW1 / 29.08.2016 : Ch. Anusha. PW2 / 26.10.2016 : Ch.Hanumantha Rao. PW.3 / 26.10.2016 : Ch.Vasundhara. PW.4 / 02.06.2017 : M.Laxminarayana. PW.5 / 12.07.2017 : Sk.Mohiddin. PW.6 / 19.07.2017 :Y. Srinivasa Reddy. [D.S.P of Police].
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: EX.P1: Report of PW.1. Ex.P2:Signature of PW.1 in the report. Ex.P3:Bunch of three e-mails, the first e-mail sent by PW.1 to A1 on 6.6.2012 at 5.05 a.m., the second e-mail sent by me to my counsel dt.30.07.2016 at 10.24 am, forwarding the first e-mail
dt. 6.6.2012. The third e-mail sent by me to A1 dt.
19.01.29014 at 9.50 p.m.
Ex.P4:Bunch of e-mails, the first e-mail sent by me to A1 dt.22.08.2013 at 10.34 p.m, the second e-mail sent by me to A1 dt. 17.09.2013 at 1.51 am and the third e-mail sent by me to my friend Preethi dt. 26.12.2013 at 9.48 am the fourth e-mail sent by Preethi to me dt.7.4.2014 at 11.19 p.m.
Ex.P5: e-mail sent by me to my friend Rajvir dt.11.01.2014 at 12.18 p., and reply given by him dt. 12.01.2014 at 12.32 a.m.,,
Ex.P6 is the certificate given by Department of Biology, San Diego, State University, to me stating that I discontinued the mid terms II and III for Biology course in the year 2013.
Ex.P7: e-mail sent by my brother Vidya Sagar to Pradeep Kumar in order to forward the same to my father. The said e-mail dt.24.1.2014 was sent by A1 to my brother and it was forwarded to Pradeep Kumar.
Ex.P8:Attested true copy of my visa of the USA (Ex.P8 is also contains the attested copy of passport of the Republic of India).
Ex.P9:Forwarded e-mail sent by my brother dt. 5.8.2014 at 9- 20 p.m., to my father, through Pradeep Kumar, it contains to fro Itineraty of American Airlines tickets of myself and A1.
Ex.P10:Attested copy of petition filed by A1 for divorce, on the file of
Hon'ble Family Court, Vijayawada.
Ex.P11: Order in OP 233/14 on the file of Honourable Family Court, Vijayawada dt.21.1.2015 under which the petition dismissed for default, Ex.P12:Decretal order in IA.986/2015 in OP 233/14 dt.30.12.2014 on the file of Hon'ble Family Court, Vijayawada.
Ex.P13:Attested copy of the order in IA 986/15 in OP233/14, dt.30.12.2014 on the file of Hon'ble Family Court, Vijayawada.
Ex.P14:Attested copy of petition and affidavit in IA 986/15 in OP 233/14 respectively.
Ex.P15:Letter issued by the banker Charler SCHWAB, dt.13.5.2014 stating that my account was closed as requested.
Ex.P16: FIR. Ex.P17: Document depicting obtaining of educational loan for PW.1 along with the reply written arguments. FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D1: Copy of petition filed by PW.1 in MC.172/2014 on the file of Honourable Family Court, Guntur.
Ex.D2: Certified copy of divorce petition filed by PW.1 against A1 in the Superior court of California.
Ex.D3:MSA signed by PW.1. Ex.D4:Certified copy of Reporter’s Transcript Dt.7.4.16 in the Superior court of the State of California.
Ex.D5: Certified copy of the Register of Actions in the Divorce case filed by PW.1. Ex.D6: Attachment to responsive Declaration, dt.16.4.2015.
Ex.D7: Domestic Violence case filed by PW.1. Ex.D8: order of Superior court of California passed in DV.040388, dismissing PW.1’s case.
Ex.D9: Restraining order passed the Superior court of California in DV 040388. Ex.D10: Certified copy of the Register of actions in Domestic Violence case No.040388. Ex.D11: Resume. Ex.D12: Domestic Violence Applicant packet in the case filed by PW.1 at the US.
MATERIAL OBJECTS: –- NIL ---
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR
PROHIBITION AND EXCISE: GUNTUR.
C.C.No.237/201 8
Date of offence: 03.04.2014 Date of filing: 17.10.2014 Date of apprehension of accused:-- Date of release on bail:-- Date of commencement of trial:29.08.2016 Date of close of trial: Date of sentence or order:31.12.2018 Explanation of delay:Due to non production of witnesses by the prose- cution. Name of the complaint:The Sub Inspector of Police, Pattabhipuram PS (Crime No.266/2014) Name of the AccusedFather's Name AgeReligionVillage &Mandal
1. Boppana Surendra, S/o.Nagabushanam, aged about 32 years, caste by Kamma D.No.S4, Siri Enclave, Nagarjuna Nagar, Vijayawada, Now at Sandiego, California State, USA.
2.Boppana Nagabushanam, S/o.Gangaraju, aged about 60 years, caste by Kamma D.No.S4, Siri enclave, Nagarjuna Nagar, Vijayawada.
3. Boppana Usharani, W/o. Nagabhshanama, aged about 58 years, caste by Kamma, D.No.S4, Siri enclave, Nagarjuna Nagar, Vijayawada.
4.Surapaneni Srivalli, W/o.Sridhar, aged about 30 years, caste by Kamma, Atlanta, Georgia State, USA.
5. Surapaneni Sridhar, S/o.Bhaskara Rao, aged about 35 years, caste by Kamma, Atlanta, Georgia State, USA.
6. Gundapaneni Satish, S/o.Govardhana Rao, 40 years, caste by Kamma, Irvine, California State, USA.
7. Gundapaneni Sabitha, W/o.Satish, Age about 35 years,caste by Kamma, Irvine, California State, USA.
8. Gutta Ramakrishna, S/o.Rajeswara Rao, aged about 49 years, caste by Kamma Plot No.302, Vayu Apartment, Lotus Land Mark, Vijayawada.
(Case against A2, A3, A6 and A7 was separated and renumbered as
CC.118/2016 by the Hon’ble Special Magistrate of I Class for Proh & Excise,
Guntur as per the docket order dt.08.03.2016)
Offence: U/Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 & 4 D.P.Act Plea of accused: Not Guilty Finding: Found not guilty
Sentence or Order: In the result, A1, A4, A5 and A8 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3 & 4 of DP Act, 1961 and accordingly they are acquitted Under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after lapse of 6 (Six) months period. As the case against the A2,A3,A6 and A7 are pending vide CC.No.365 of 2018.
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.
Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban.