1C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020
Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.487 of 2016 on the file of the
Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of
Prohibition & Excise offences :: Nellore.
1. Date of Offence: Prior to 25.05.2014
2. Date of report: 25.05.2014
3. Date of arrest of accused: 11.08.2014(A1), 01.07.2014(A2 to A5)
4. Date of release on bail: 11.08.2014(A1), 01.07.2014( A2 to A5)
5. Date of commencement of trial: 26.10.2017
6. Date of close of trial: 12.03.2020
7. Date of judgment: 23.03.2020
8. Complainant : State :The Inspector of police, Women Police Station, Nellore.
9. Accused : 1Jonnalagadda Varun Kumar, S/o.Jonnalagadda Prasad, aged 24 years,Caste by Padmasali, Nalugukalla Mandapam, Santhapet, Nellore.
2Akula Priyanka, W/o.Vamsi, aged 25 years,Caste by Padmasali, Nalugukalla Mandapam, Santhapet, Nellore.
3Akula Vamsi, S/o Akula Nagendra, aged 30 years, Caste by Padmasali, Nalugukalla Mandapam, Santhapet, Nellore.
4Jonnalagadda Samanthaka Mani, W/o .Jonnalagadda Prasad, aged 52 years,Caste by Padmasali, Nalugukalla Mandapam, Santhapet, Nellore.
5Jonnalagadda Prasad, S/o.Venkata Rathnam, aged 57 years, Caste;Padmasali, Nalugukalla Mandapam, Santhapet,Nellore. ( Death certificate of Accused No.5 filed on 07.02.2020, Hence Case against accused No.5 is abated)
10. Offence : under section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act.
11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
12. Finding of court: Found not guilty
13. Sentence or order: In the result, Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of 2C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 D.P.Act and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 to
Accused No.4 are set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment under Section 437A
Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since no property in this case.
14. Explanation for delay : Originally This case was taken on file against Accused
No.1 to 5 for the offence under section 498A r/w 34 of IPC as C.C.No.1068/2014 by
Vth Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore on 16.09.2014. On 17.12.2014
Copies of documents were furnished to Accused No.1 to 5 under section 207 Cr.P.C.
On 14.12.2016 this case was transferred to this Court as per the proceedings of
Hon'ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Nellore in Dis.No.6648 dated. 27.10.2016 and
it was renumbered as C.C.No.487 of 2016. On 05.06.2017 Accused No.1 to 5 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and charge under section 498A r/w 34 of I.P.C and Section 4 of D.P.Act are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu language, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 26.10.2017 PW1 was examined in chief and got marked Ex.P1. On 2112017 PW1 partly was cross examined. On 17.11.2017 PW1 was further crossexamined. On 07.12.2017 PW2 was examined in chief and on 15.12.2017 PW2 was crossexamined. On 21.12.2017 PW3 was examined in chief and On 28.12.2017 PW3 was crossexamined. On 22.03.2018
PW4 was examined and got marked Ex.P2. On 12.04.2018 PW5 was examined and got marked Ex.P3. On 12.04.2018 PW6 was examined and got marked Ex.P4. On 19.04.2018 the learned APP given up the evidence of LW2. On 07.05.2018 the counsel
for accused filed a petition under section 311 Cr.P.C Vide Crl.M.P.No.1889/2018 and
the same was allowed on 19.06.2018. On 13.07.2018 PW1 was further crossexamined as per Crl.M.P.No.1889/2018. On 24.07.2018 PW7 was examined and got marked
Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. On 01.10.2018 the accused No.1 to 5 was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence but Ex.D1 is marked on their behalf during the course of crossexamination of
PW3. This matter posted for filing of written arguments at request of learned APP &
Counsel for accused from time to time. On 29.11.2018 the Learned APP filed written arguments and at request of counsel for accused for filing of written arguments posted from time to time. On 18.01.2019 the counsel for accused filed written arguments and at request posted for further arguments on 25.01.2019. On 22.02.2019 the counsel for accused filed a memo along with citations and at request of learned APP posted further 3C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 arguments from time to time. On 26.04.2019 the learned APP filed a petition under section 311 Cr.P.C & section 294 Cr.P.C vide Crl.M.P.No. 344/2019 & 345/2019 and the same is allowed on 05.07.2019 & 19.07.2019 and PW1 further chiefexamined and
Ex.P7 & Ex.P8 got marked and at request of counsel for accused posted for cross examination of PW1 on 26.07.2018. On 01.11.2018 PW1 was further crossexamined and posted for under section 313 Cr.P.C examination on 08.11.2019. On 04.12.2019 the accused No.1 to 5 was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating in evidence appearing against them in the additional evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no defence and posted for arguments on 13.12.2019. On 27.12.2019 the counsel for accused filed a memo stating that accused No.5 is died and for filing of death certificate of accused No.5 this matter posted from time to time. On 07.02.2020 the counsel for accused filed death certificate of accused No.5 and case against accused No.5 is abated and posted for arguments from time to time. On 28.02.2020 Heard arguments of learned APP in part and posted for arguments of counsel for accused from time to time. On 12.03.2020 Heard arguments both sides and posted for Judgment on 23.03.2020. On 23.03.2020
Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.
Sd/ Sk.Md. A. Parveez
Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Prohibition & Excise Offences :: Nellore.
Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble chief judicial Magistrate of First class cum Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Nellore
Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Nellore. // True Copy //
Spl.J.M.F.C For Trial P&E Offences Nellore 4C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS FOR TRIAL OF PROHIBITION & EXCISE OFFENCES :: NELLORE
Present: Sri Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Prohibition. & Excise Offences:: Nellore.
Monday, this the 23 rd day of March, 2020
Calendar Case No.487 of 2016
State : The Inspector of Police, Women Police Station,.Complainant Nellore.
Vs
1.Jonnalagadda Varun Kumar, S/o.Jonnalagadda Prasad, aged 24 years,Caste by Padmasali, Nalugukalla Mandapam, Santhapet, Nellore.
2.Akula Priyanka, W/o.Vamsi, aged 25 years,Caste by Padmasali, Nalugukalla Mandapam, Santhapet, Nellore.
3.Akula Vamsi, S/o.Akula Nagendra, aged 30 years, Caste by Padmasali, Nalugukalla Mandapam, Santhapet, Nellore.
4.Jonnalagadda Samanthaka Mani, W/o .Jonnalagadda Prasad, aged 52 years,Caste by Padmasali, Nalugukalla Mandapam, Santhapet, Nellore.
5.Jonnalagadda Prasad, S/o.Venkata Rathnam, aged 57 .....Accused
years,Caste;Padmasali, Nalugukalla Mandapam, No.1 to 5 Santhapet,Nellore.( Death certificate of Accused No.5 filed on 07.02.2020, Hence Case against accused No.5 is abated)
This case is coming on 12.03.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor and of Sri R.Roja Reddy, Advocate for accused
No.1 to 5, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
// J U D G M E N T //
01.The State represented by Inspector of Police, Women Police Station,
Nellore filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.39/2014 of Women police station for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: While
PW1/Jonnalagadda Sai Swapna was studying 1st year B.Tech, at Quba College of
Engineering and Technology, V.Sasthram, she fell in love with Accused No.1 and they 5C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 got married on 22.08.2013 at Jonnawada Temple without the knowledge of her parents (LW2/Mada Suresh Kumar and PW2/Mada Revathi). Later LW2/Mada Suresh
Kumar and PW2/Mada Revathi learnt about the love marriage of PW1 with Accused
No.1 and they allowed both PW1 and Accused No.1 to their house. After the marriage,
PW1 joined with Accused No.1 in joint family consisting with Accused No.2 and
Accused No.3. Only two days PW1 lived happily with Accused No.1. Then troubles started in her life as Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 were started to harass PW1 mentally and physically. Knowing about the harassment of accused, LW2/Mada
Suresh Kumar and PW2/Mada Revathi pacified PW1 to adjust with the accused without spoiling her matrimonial life. After that also Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 were harassed PW1 that she did not bring any dowry from her parental house and started to demand PW1 to go and bring dowry of Rs.10 lakhs from her parental house and beat her with hands and legs. On seeing the harassment of Accused No.1 to
Accused No.5 against PW1, PW5/Kadiyam Ravitheja advised them not to harass PW1 but they did not cared the words of PW5/Kadiyam Ravitheja. When PW2/Mada
Revathi visited the house of accused, Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 picked up a quarrel with PW2 in the dowry matter and tired to assault her with dish wire. Seeing the same PW3/Kondapalli Ravi intervened and saved PW2 from the hands of Accused
No.2 and Accused No.3. Since then Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 were intensified their harassment against PW1. Due to their unbearable harassment, PW1 left their house and reached her parental house. On the request of LW2/Mada Suresh Kumar and PW2/Mada Revathi, PW6/Pallavolu Chandu and PW4/Manto Sreenivasulu conducted mediations in between the families of accused and PW1. But the accused did not allow the elders and did not agreed to join PW1 with Accused No.1 without fulfill their dowry demands. Later on 25.05.2014 at 1400 Hours, PW1 went to the
Women Police Station, Nellore accompanied with LW2/Mada Suresh Kumar and
PW2/Mada Revathi and she lodged a complaint about the occurrence. PW7/Smt. M.
6C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 Nageswaramma, Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Nellore registered a report of PW1 as case in Cr.No.39/2014 under section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of
D.P.Act and investigated into. PW7 examined PW1 to PW6, LW2 and recorded their statements and inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. Accused No.2 & Accused No.3 were got anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble court of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge vide Crl.M.P.No.750/2014, dated:
17.06.2014. Accused No.4 & Accused No.5 were also got anticipatory bail from the
Hon'ble court of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge vide Crl.M.P.No.756/2014,
dated: 17.06.2014 and they surrendered before V Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First class, Nellore on 01.07.2014 and enlarged on bail. Accused No.1 is also got
anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble court of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge vide
Crl.M.P.No.997/2014, dated:30.07.2014 and accused No.1 surrendered before V
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Nellore on 11.08.2014 and enlarged on
bail After completion of investigation, PW7/Smt. M. Nageswaramma, Inspector of
Police of Women Police Station filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 5 under section 498A r/w 34 I.P.C & Section 4 of D.P.Act.
03. Originally This case was taken on file against Accused No.1 to 5 for the offence under section 498A r/w 34 of IPC as C.C.No.1068/2014 by Vth Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore on 16.09.2014. On 17.12.2014 Copies of
documents were furnished to Accused No.1 to 5 under section 207 Cr.P.C. On 14.12.2016 this case was transferred to this Court as per the proceedings of Hon'ble
Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Nellore in Dis.No.6648 dated. 27.10.2016 and it was renumbered as C.C.No.487 of 2016. On 05.06.2017 Accused No.1 to 5 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and charge under section 498A r/w 34 of I.P.C and Section 4 of D.P.Act are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu language, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020
04.To prove its case the Prosecution has examined the defacto complainant as PW1, mother of PW1 was examined as PW2, PW3 to PW6 are independent witness and PW7 is investigating officer and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.
05. Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C.
by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence but
Ex.D1 is marked on their behalf.
06.Heard arguments both sides and perused the written arguments filed by both parties.
07.Now the point arise for determination is
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and
Section 4 of D.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt?’
08. ARGUMENTS:
The learned A.P.P for prosecution argued that the PW1 who is defacto complainant during her chief examination narrated the entire facts happened for the cause of action of the report given by her. The learned defence counsel tried to dislodge her version by putting the suggestions to her but the evidence of PW1 is constant in the aspects of harassment meted out by her in the hands of all the accused who are all residing in one and the same house. PW1 further denied the suggestions put by the counsel for the Accused No.1 to 5 that the contents of chief examination are false and also denied the suggestion that the accused never harassed her for want of
additional dowry at any point of time and that she foisted a false case against the
accused with an intention to grab the property of his fatherinlaw. Except these type of suggestions, nothing is elicited by the counsel for the accused No.1 to 5 to dislodge her case. PW1 filed a D.V.C case before this Court in D.V.C 34/2014 against accused
No.1 to 5 and the same was disposed off by this Hon’ble Court and come to conclusion that PW1 was harassed at the house of accused. This fact which is against the accused 8C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 was purposefully not suggested to the PW1. As such, this Court can safely presume the fact that the said D.V.C was allowed in favour of the PW1. The Learned APP further argued that another most important aspect to consider is that the accused preferred criminal appeal also against the orders of tis Hon’ble Court passed in
D.V.C.No.34/2014 before the Hon’ble VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore in Criminal Appeal No.214/2017 and the same was also dismissed on 19.03.2018 confirming the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court and thus, it is settled that there is cruelty on the part of the accused towards the PW1. The crossexamination suggesting the facts have no evidentiary value and PW1 is constant in the entire evidence that she was harassed by the accused as contended by her.
The Learned A.P.P further argued that the evidence of PW2 who is mother of PW1 supporting the version of PW1 about her illtreatment in the hands of the accused. Though the defence counsel crossexamined PW2 but nothing is elicited to disprove her contentions in her chief examination except putting the suggestions which were denied by her. The defence counsel tried to elicit the fact that the PW1 never lived in the house of accused and lived at her house and that false case is foisted against the accused etc. But there is no suggestion whatever is put to this witness that there is no harassment whatever is caused by the accused and hence there is no value for the crossing examination put to PW2.
The Learned A.P.P further argued that PW3 is independent witness. He categorically deposed that in his chief examination that he witnessed the incident about the harassment towards the PW1 which was informed to him by PW1, he also witnessed the incident happened on 11.05.2014 and earlier incidents and beating of
PW2 by Accused No.3 with dish wire and rescued her by him and necking out of the
PW1 from the house of accused and about the report given by PW1. Though the learned counsel for the accused crossexamined him at length but nothing is elicited contra to his deposition except putting the suggestions to him. PW4 to PW6 turned 9C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 hostile. PW7 investigating officer deposed about her investigation in this case and filing of charge sheet.
The Learned A.P.P further argued that even though PW4 to PW6 turned hostile, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 clinchingly established the version of harassment of the accused towards PW1. PW1 to PW3 constantly in their evidence deposed that there is harassment towards PW1 which is sufficient to convict the accused. The
Learned A.P.P further argued that as per the observations in D.V.C 34/2014 by this
Hon’ble Court about the harassment towards PW1, there is sufficient evidence before
this Hon’ble Court to convict all the accused. Hence, the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, all the accused are liable for punishment.
The learned counsel for accused argued that the marriage between
Accused No.1 and PW1 was love marriage and no dowry was given. The entire chief examination of PW1 with regard to alleged harassment attributed to accused is out right omission in Ex.P1 report and also 161 Cr.P.C. Statements. The counsel for
accused relied on decision of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
P.Gangadhar Vs State in reported in 2006 (1) ALD Criminal Page No.493 A.P;
where in the Hon'ble Lordships held that; 15.The Supreme court in Yudhishtir Vs State of Madhya Pradesh ,1971 SCC Crl 684 held that when a particular fact deposed to by witnesses does not find mention both F.I.R and in statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C; it is an improvement and it can not be considered.
The counsel for accused further argued that Omission of important fact in report and 161 Cr.P.C. statements are vital to the prosecution and should not be relied upon. So entire chief examination except 1st 4 lines of page No.1 is out right omission.
The counsel for accused further argued that PW1 admitted in her crossexamination that “It is true to say that she deposed in her evidence in DVC as “ She was there in the home of her parents in law for one day after her marriage”. This admission belies the allegations of PW1 as to her living in the house of accused for days together and 10C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 accused harassed her for one or other reason. PW5 deposed in his chief examination that that after marriage both PW1 and Accused No.1 went to house of PW2 and resided there. So the evidence of PW5 in the light of admission of PW1 shows that the prosecution case as to PW1 in the house of accused is false. PW1 deposed that on the same day of marriage she and Accused No.1 went to the house of Accused No.4 and
Accused No.5 but as per the admission of PW1 in her crossexamination that “ she went to home of her parents in law on the second day of their marriage. On that day they were in the house of friend of R1 by name Naveen”. From the above admissions, it is clear that after marriage PW1 and Accused No.1 never resided at the house of accused and they resided at the house of parents of PW1, is probable.
The learned counsel for the accused further argued that PW1 stated at the time of counseling before Mahila Police that “Nenu Vallaintiki Velthanu, separate gaa
Vundadam Naku Safe kadu”. PW1 deposed in DVC case that “she does not want to join the respondent if he takes separate home from them. She is intending to join her husband and inlaws jointly. She will be happy if her parentsinlaw also reside along with them”. The said admission belies the case of prosecution as to accused harassed the PW1. If really PW1 had been harassed by A2 to A5 she would not have chosen to live with them. So the evidence of PW1 is not inspiring confidence as to truthness of her allegations of harassment on the part of accused.
The learned counsel for the accused further argued that PW2 deposed that on 22.08.2013 Accused No.1 called her through phone as he married her daughter/PW1 . Prior to marriage she does not know what happened in between PW1 and Accused No.1. On 22.08.2013 PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi called her as “Accused No.1 married with PW1 and the parents of Accused No.1 are in home and they wanted to talk with her”. Then she along with her husband went to the house of PW3/Kondapalli
Ravi, then the parents of Accused No.1 told that they liked PW1 and they want to take her with their house and also parents of Accused No.1 told that to brought the 11C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 Adapaduchu Katnam and Ugadi Sari and Pooja Silver articles and etc to her. On the next day she taken all things, which was demanded by the parents of Accused No.1.
Accused No.1 and PW1 lead the matrimonial life at parents house of Accused No.1.
The said portion was not stated by PW2 in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement and it is out right omission in her 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2. The learned counsel for the accused marked the relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 “ Aa Vidhamuga
Vivaham Chesukunna Vishayam Maaku Konthakalamunaku Thelisinadhi”. It falsifies the said version of PW1 and PW2 also.
The learned counsel for the accused argued that on 09.05.2014 PW1 called her through phone and informed that Accused No.1 and their family members started harassment for want of dowry, on that she went to the house of Accused No.1, then
Accused No.3 came and beat her with dish wire and talked her with filthy language, then she left the house of Accused No.1 at that time PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi came there and also pacified that matter. The same was not stated by PW2 in her 161 Cr.P.C.
statement. PW2 also deposed that on 11.05.2014 Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 beat
PW1 with stick and necked her from their house at that time Accused No.1 was kept silent. After that Accused No.1 left PW1 in house of PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi and PW1 waited up to evening hours after that she along with PW1 went to III Town P.S and gave a report. It is contrary to the evidence of PW1 and PW3.
The learned counsel for the accused argued that entire chief of PW3 there is nothing on par with 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. As such the same is unreliable.
PW5 deposed that after marriage PW1 and A1 stayed at outside for a period of 4 days and after that PW1 mother came and taken them to their house. It is supported the version of defence that after marriage PW1 never stayed in the house of accused. The above admissions falsifies allegations of harassment by the accused. The prosecution relied upon the D.V.C No.34 of 2014 but the said proceedings were not exhibited in this case as per the procedure. As such the Court is precluded to assume as to what 12C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 happened in the D.V.C basing on the written arguments of the prosecution. The counsel for accused further argued that apart from that D.V.C proceedings are summary in nature the order and observation in D.V.C not relevant in trail in Criminal case under section 498A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. So the prosecution could not adduce any reliable evidence to prove the charges under section 498A of
IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act.
09. POINT: To prove its case the Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The defacto complainant as PW1, mother of PW1 was examined as PW2, PW3 to PW6 are independent witness and PW7 is investigating officer
(a)PW1Jonnalagadda Sai Swapna in her evidence deposed that she joined B.Tech First Year in Quba college of Engineering and Technology, V. Satram in the month of June, 2012. At that time Accused No.1 Studying B.Tech Second year in same college. Herself and Accused No.1 fell in love and herself and Accused No.1 married on 22.08.2013 at Jonnawada Temple without the knowledge of her parents in the presence of PW5/Kadiyam Ravi Theja, some other friends. On the same day Ac cused No.1 informed his parents that herself and Accused No.1 married and also Ac cused No.1 informed her parents also. On the same day Accused No.5 went to the house of PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi and called her parents to the house of PW3/ Kondapalli
Ravi and also negotiations made in presence of PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi and both side el ders agreed their marriage and went to the her fatherinlaw house. In her fatherin law house herself and Accused No.1, Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 and brother of Ac cused No.1 living in same house as a joint family. Herself and Accused No.1 lead happy married life for a period of two days. Her fatherinlaw house is consist of three floors, ground floor let out the shop. In first floor herself and Accused No.1, Accused
No.4 and Accused No.5 and sister of Accused No.5 were living. In second floor Ac 13C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 cused No.2 and Accused No.3 are residing. Accused No.2 usually harassed her in petty issues with an intention to her as she not live with Accused No.1 in her fatherinlaw house. After two days of her marriage Accused No.5 asked her to brought
Rs.10,00,000/ from her parents and also informed that he did not interest their mar riage and herself and Accused No.1 to put separate family. In this regard there was galata took place in between the family members, on that Accused No.1 informed his father with regard to herself and Accused No.1 live in same house, then Accused No.5 did not agree and stated that to go the house of her parents and to live with them.
Later, Accused No.2 and Accused No.4 usually harassed her as if Accused No.1 married with another woman they get Rs.25,00,000/ dowry to them. Due to the ill health of her, Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 did not provide any treatment for her, as such her self and Accused No.1 went to the house of her parents in the month of February, 2014 for treatment. Later, they went to the house of her fatherinlaw and stayed up to
March, first week of 2014. In the month of March, 2014, she got operation for tonsils at Audi Narayana E.N.T. Hospital, Nellore. At that time nobody came to her to look her welfare. Her mother provided the entire medical treatment to her and also look her welfare and also she stayed up to in first week of May, 2014. Later she went to herinlaws. Again Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 started harassment towards her and also Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 stated to Accused No.1 as Accused No.1 to give di vorce to her and also they performed the marriage of Accused No.1 with another woman and also informed that they get the dowry. The harassment of Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 informed to her mother. On 09.05.2014 her mother came to her in laws house, then Accused No.5 called PW3/Kondapalli Ravi then PW3 came to her in laws house and also her mother and PW3, Accused No.5 talking with each other, then
Accused No.3 came and beat her mother, then PW3 rescued her mother in the hands of
Accused No.3 and warned to Accused No.3, then Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 stated that to go and stay at one old house i.e, belongs to the grandmother of Accused 14C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 No.1, herself and A1 went to the house of his grandmother but the said house is not in a position to live there, then she informed the said information to PW3/ Kondapalli
Ravi, there after her mother went to her house. On 11.05.2014 at about morning hours, Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 necked her from their house and also beat her, then her husband/Accused No.1 sleeping in first floor on hearing of her cries Accused
No.1 came and also took her and went to the house of PW3/Kondapalli Ravi and left her husband to his house. PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi informed the said information to her mother, then her parents came to the house of PW3, then herself and her mother,
PW3/ went to her in laws house and also mediation made by the PW3 with herinlaws but futile, Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 thrown away her clothes on road and necked her from their house, then herself and her mother went to the Nellore III Town P.S.
and she informed the harassment of Accused No.1 to Accused No.5, then Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 came to Police station and also mediation made but failed as such the
S.I of III Town P.S. advised her to go to the Women P.S., Nellore, then the Inspector of
Police, Women P.S., called Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 and made the counseling in between both the parties but futile. On 25.05.2014 in afternoon hours she went to women police station along with her parents and gave report against Accused No.1 to
Accused No.5. Ex.P1 is her report. Police examined her. PW1 in her evidence further deposed that She filed the following documents. Ex.P7is Order in D.V.C.34/2014 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Prohibition and Excise
Court, Dated: 28.04.2017 & Ex.P8 is Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.214/2017 on the file of Hon’ble Family Court Cum VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nel lore, Dated:19.03.2018.
(b)PW2Mada Revathi in her evidence deposed that on 22.08.2013 Ac cused No.1 called her through phone as “ he married with her daughter/PW1”. Prior to marriage she does not know what happened in between PW1 and Accused No.1. On 22.08.2013 PW3/Kondapalli Ravi called her as “ Accused No.1 married with PW1 and 15C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 the parents of Accused No.1 are in home and they wanted to talk with her”. Then she along with her husband went to the house of PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi, then the parents of Accused No.1 told that they liked PW1 and they want to take her with their house and also parents of Accused No.1 told that to brought the Adapaduchu Katnam and
Ugadi Sari and Pooja silver articles and etc to her. On the next day, she taken all the things which was demanded by the parents of Accused No.1. Accused No.1 and PW1 lead the matrimonial life at parents house of Accused No.1. In the month of February, 2014 A1 brought PW1 to her house and told that PW1 suffering with Tonsils and left her house. Then she taken PW1 to the hospital and Doctor told that she is suffering with allergy and throat infection and advised that to brought PW1 in mother of March, 2nd week and operation held. After operation of PW1, A1 and their family members did turned to look PW1. Later PW1 herself left her house and went to the house of Ac cused No.1 in the month of May, 2014. On 09.05.2014 PW1 called her through phone and informed that A1 and their family members started harassment for want of dowry, on that she went to the house of Accused No.1, then Accused No.3 came and beat her with dish wire and talked her with filthy language, then she left the house of Accused
No.1 at that time PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi came there and also pacified that matter. On 11.05.2014 Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 beat PW1 with sticks and necked her from their house at that time Accused No.1 was kept silent. After that Accused No.1 left
PW1 in house of PW3/Kondapalli Ravi and PW1 waited up to evening hours after that she along with PW1 went to III Town Police station and gave a report, they stated that it was referred to the Mahila Police station and they go to the Mahila Police station and lodged a complaint. Police examined her.
(c) PW3Kondapalli Ravi in his evidence deposed that on 22.08.2013 Accused
No.5 Jonnalagadda Prasad came to his house at about 1230 P.M., and informed the marriage of Accused No.1 with PW1 and also requested him to call the parents of
PW1 to his house and also gave the phone number of PW2. First he called the mother 16C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 of PW1 i.e, PW2 and her husband then they came to his house and also he called Ac cused No.5/Jonnalagadda Prasad and Accused No.4/Samanthakamani, they also came to his house, then he called Accused No.1 and PW1 to his house. After mediation in between the both the parties Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 agreed to take the PW1 and A1 to their house and also they take them to their house. He involved in the love marriage of Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 and also made the mediations in between the parents of Accused No.2 and Accused No.3. After two months of marriage of PW1 with Accused No.1, Accused No.5 called him to his house. When he went to the house of Accused No.5, PW1 standing outside of Accused No.5 house with a bag, then PW1 informed him with regard to the harassment of Accused No.1 and his family members and also informed that Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 abused PW1 in filthy language, then he pacified the matter. Again after 15 to 20 days PW1 called him to the house of
Accused No.5 and informed that Accused No.2 abused PW1 with filthy language and also harassing with her at that time also he pacify the matter and sent the PW1 to the house of Accused No.5. In the March 2014, Accused No.1 came to his shop and in formed that PW1 suffering with Tonsils and also he joined her in to the hospital, the same is informed by PW2 to him, then he went to the Hospital. On 09.05.2014 after discharging of the hospital, PW1 went to the house of Accused No.1 matrimonial life.
On 11.05.2014 at about morning hours, Accused No.5 called him to come his house ur gently, then he immediately went to the house of Accused No.5 at that time Accused
No.3 beat PW2 with a dish wife, then Accused No.3 told that PW2 abused Accused
No.2 on that he beat PW2. At that time all the accused were present in the house, then he pacified the matter and he left the house of Accused No.5, after two days of the incident Accused No.1 came to his house with PW1 and informed that Accused
No.2 to Accused No.5 necked the PW1 from their house and left PW1 in his house, then he called PW2 to his house, then PW2 came to his house, then himself and PW2 went to the house of Accused No.5 and asked the cloths of PW1, then Accused No.4 17C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 and Accused No.5 thrown the cloths bag of PW1 from their house and also told that they did not allow the PW1 to their house. On that PW1 and PW2 went to III Town
Police station and gave the complaint against all the accused, then police came to his house and called him to the police station. While he reached to the police station, at that time all the accused were present at the police station and PW1 and PW2 also present, then the circle inspector of Police asked him what happened then he told the everything to the police. After that again Mahila Police station called him and also ex amined him. After marriage PW1 and Accused No.1 lived in the house of Accused No.5 and also the reason for dispute in between PW1 and all the accused is PW1 did not have any place to live in the house of Accused No.5/Jonnalagadda Prasad and Accused
No.2 and Accused No.3 are living in the house of Accused No.5/Jonnalagadda Prasad.
(d) PW4Manto Sreenivasulu in his evidence deposed that he does not know anything about this case. Police did not examine him. During the crossexamina tion by the learned A.P.P., he denied the contents of his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement marked as Ex.P2.
(e) PW5Kadiyam Ravitheja in his evidence deposed that the marriage of
PW1 and Accused No.1 took place at Jonnawada Kamakshamma temple. At about 4 years back himself and PW6/ Pallavolu Chandu and some other his friends attended the love marriage of PW1 and Accused No.1. After the marriage PW1 and Accused
No.1 stayed outside for a period of 4 days after the PW1’s mother I.e, PW2 came and taken them to their house. In the year 2013 PW1 and PW2 called him through phone and requested him to came to Nellore III town P.S. At that time PW2 stated that there was dispute ariased in between PW1 and Accused No.1. He does not know what hap pened in between PW1 and Accused No.1 except this he does not know anything about this case. Police did not examine him. During the crossexamination by the learned
A.P.P., he denied the contents of his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement marked as Ex.P3.
18C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020
(f) PW6Pallavolu Chandu in his evidence deposed that the marriage of
PW1 and Accused No.1 took place at Jonnawada Kamakshamma temple. At about 3 years back himself and PW5 and some other his friends attended the love marriage of
PW1 and Accused No.1. Except this he does not know anything about this case. Police did not examine him. During the crossexamination by the learned A.P.P., he denied the contents of his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement marked as Ex.P4.
(g)PW7Smt.M.Nageswaramma, Inspector of Police, Women P.S., Nellore in her evidence deposed that on 25.05.2014 at about 1400 hrs, PW1 came to the P.S., along with LW2/Mada Suresh Kumar, PW2 and gave written report I.e, Ex.P1. Based on Ex.P1 she registered a case in Cr.No.39/2014 under section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 D.P.Act i.e, Ex.P5 is F.I.R. Later she sent the original F.I.R. to the
Hon’ble Court and copies to all concerned. On the same day she examined PW1 and
PW2, LW2/Mada Suresh Kumar and examined them and recorded their section 161
Cr.P.C. statements at Police station. On the same day, she visited the scene of offence i.e, house of accused which is situated at Nalugukalla Mandapam, Santhapet, Nellore.
She secured PW3, PW5 examined them and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C. state ments and also observed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of of fence, Ex.P6 is Rough Sketch of scene of offence . On the same day, she visited the
A.B.M. compound, Subedarpet, Nellore town and secured the presence of PW4 and
PW6 and examined them and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C. statements. Later, Ac cused No.2 and Accused No.3 were got anticipatory bail from Hon’ble Court of VI Addi tional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore vide Crl.M.P.No.750/2014, dated 17.06.2014 and Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 were got anticipatory bail from
Hon’ble VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore vide Crl.M.P.No.756/2014
dated 17.06.2014. Later Accused No.1 got anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble VI Addi
tional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore vide Crl.M.P.No.997/2014 dated 30.07.2014. After completion of investigation, she filed the charge sheet against Ac 19C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 cused No.1 to Accused No.5 under section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and under section 4 of
D.P.Act.
10. In order to prove the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC &
Section 4 of D.P.Act , the prosecution examined PW1 who is defacto complainant.
PW1 in her evidence deposed that herself and Accused No.1 lead happy married life for a period of two days. Her fatherinlaw house is consist of three floors, ground floor let out the shops. In first floor herself and Accused No.1, Accused No.4 and Ac cused No.5 and sister of Accused No.5 were living. In second floor Accused No.2 and
Accused No.3 are residing. Accused No.2 usually harassed her in petty issues with an intention to she is not to live with Accused No.1 in her fatherinlaw house. After two days of her marriage, Accused No.5 asked her to brought Rs.10,00,000/ from her par ents and also informed that he did not interest their marriage and herself and Ac cused No.1 to put separate family. In this regard, there was galata took place in be tween the family members, on that Accused No.1 informed his father with regard to herself and Accused No.1 live in some house, then Accused No.5 did not agree and state that to go the house of her parents and to live with them. Later Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 usually harassed her as if Accused No.1 married with another women they get Rs.25,00,000/ dowry to them.
11.Whereas, PW2 in her evidence did not depose above facts but she de posed that on 22.08.2013 PW3/Kondapalli Ravi called her as “ Accused No.1 married with PW1 and the parents of Accused No.1 are in home and they wanted to talk with her”. Then she along with her husband went to the house of PW3/Kondapalli Ravi, then the parents of Accused No.1 told that they liked PW1 and they want to take her with their house and also parents of Accused No.1 told that to brought the Adapaduchu
Katnam and Ugadi Sari and Pooja silver articles and etc to her. On the next day, she taken all the things which was demanded by the parents of Accused No.1. PW1 did not 20C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 depose that her mother brought all the things as demanded by the parents of Accused
No.1. The learned counsel for the accused argued that above said portion is out right omission in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 so not to be relied upon. PW2 in her cross examination by counsel for accused categorically admitted that “ Aa vidhamuga Viva hamu Chesukonna Vishayamu Naaku Konthakalamunaku Thelisinadhi”. It falsifies the said version of PW1 and PW2 also. PW3 also in his evidence did not depose above said facts.
12.PW1 in her evidence further deposed that Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 started harassment towards her and also Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 stated to Ac cused No.1 to give divorce to her and also they performed the marriage of Accused
No.1 with another woman and also informed that they get the dowry. The same was not deposed by PW2 and PW3.
13.PW1 in her evidence further deposed that the harassment of Accused
No.1 to Accused No.5 informed to her mother. On 09.05.2014 her mother came to her inlaws house, then Accused No.5 called PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi then PW3 came to her inlaws house and also her mother and PW3, Accused No.5 talking with each other, then Accused No.3 came and beat her mother, then PW3 rescued her mother in the hands of Accused No.3 and warned to Accused No.3, then Accused No.4 and Accused
No.5 stated that to go and stay at one old house i.e, belongs to the grandmother of Ac cused No.1, herself and Accused No.1 went to the house of his grandmother but the said house is not in a position to live there, then she informed the said information to
PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi, there after her mother went to her house.
14.Whereas, PW2 in her evidence deposed that on 09.05.2014 PW1 called her through phone and informed that Accused No.1 and their family members started harassment for want of dowry, on that she went to the house of Accused No.1, then Ac cused No.3 came and beat her with dish wire and talked her with filthy language, then she left the house of Accused No.1 at that time PW3/Kondapalli Ravi came there and 21C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 also pacified that matter. The learned counsel for the accused argued the above said portion is omission in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.
15.Whereas PW3 in his evidence deposed contrary to the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW3 in his evidence deposed that on 09.05.2014 after discharging of the hospital, PW1 went to the house of Accused No.1 matrimonial life. On 11.05.2014 at about morning hours, Accused No.5 called him to come his house urgently, then he im mediately went to the house of Accused No.5 at that time Accused No.3 beat PW2 with a dish wife, then Accused No.3 told that PW2 abused Accused No.2 on that he beat
PW2. At that time all the accused were present in the house, then he pacified the matter and he left the house of Accused No.5.
16.On perusal of evidence of PW1 to PW3, this Court observed that as per the evi dence of PW1, PW3/Kondapalli Ravi was present in the house of inlaws of PW1 at the time of above incident but as per the evidence of PW2, PW3/Kondapalli Ravi was came to inlaws of PW1 after the incident when PW2 left the house of Accused No.1.
The above contradiction raises doubts about the case of prosecution whether the inci dent took place on 09.05.2014 or 11.05.2014 ? Whether PW3/Kondapalli Ravi was present at the time of incident ? or whether PW3/Kondapalli Ravi was came there af ter the incident ?.
17.On perusal of Ex.P1 report this Court observed that PW1 stated con trary to her evidence. PW1 stated that on one day her mother Revathi came to her in laws house in order to see her. Then Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 picked up quar rel with her mother about the dowry and A3 tried to beat her mother with dish wire.
Then the mediator Ravi came and rescued her mother. It shows that Accused No.3 tried to beat the mother of PW1 but as per the evidence of PW1 to PW3, Accused No.3 beat PW2 with dish wire. PW1 did not state date in which the incident occurred and 22C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 what purpose the mediator Kondapalli Ravi came to house of her mother in law at that time. These omission raises serious doubt about the case of prosecution.
18.PW1 in her evidence further deposed that on 11.05.2014 at about morn ing hours, Accused No.2 to Accused No05 necked her from their house and also beat her, then her husband/Accused No.1 sleeping in first floor on hearing of her cries Ac cused No.1 came and also took her and went to the house of PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi and left her husband to his house. PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi informed the said informa tion to her mother, then her parents came to the house of PW3, then herself and her mother, PW3 went to herinlaws house and also mediation made by the PW3 with her in laws but futile, Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 thrown away her clothes on road and necked her from their house, then herself and her mother went to the Nellore III Town
P.S.
19.Whereas PW2 in her evidence deposed that on 11.05.2014 Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 beat PW1 with sticks and necked her from their house at that time Ac cused No.1 was kept silent. After that Accused No.1 left PW1 in house of PW3/ Konda palli Ravi and PW1 waited up to evening hours after that she along with PW1 went to
III Town Police station and gave a report.
20.Whereas PW3 in his evidence deposed that after two days of the incident
Accused No.1 came to his house with PW1 and informed that Accused No.2 to Accused
No.5 necked the PW1 from their house and left PW1 in his house, then he called PW2 to his house, then PW2 came to his house, then himself and PW2 went to the house of
Accused No.5 and asked the cloths of PW1, then Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 thrown the cloths bag of PW1 from their house and also told that they did not allow 23C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 the PW1 to their house. On that PW1 and PW2 went to III Town Police Station and gave the complaint against all the accused.
21.On perusal of evidence of PW1 to PW3, this Court observed that PW1 did not depose that she was beat by accused with sticks. PW2 also did not depose that
PW3 called her to his house, then PW2 came to his house, then PW3 and PW2 went to the house of Accused No.5 and asked the cloths of PW1, then Accused No.4 and Ac cused No.5 thrown the cloths bag of PW1 from their house and also told that they did not allow the PW1 to their house. These contradictions raises serious doubt about the case of prosecution. Moreover, as per the evidence of PW3 the incident took place on 13.05.2014 I.e two days of the incident i.,e 11.05.2014. It also raises serious doubt about the case of prosecution.
22.On perusal of Ex.P1 and 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1, this Court fur ther observed that PW1 did not state in her report i.,e Ex.P1 and her 161 Cr.P.C
Statement that Accused No.2 and Accused No.4 usually harassed her as if Accused
No.1 married with another woman they get Rs.25,00,000/ dowry to them. Due to ill health of her, Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 did not provided any treatment for her, as such herself and Accused No.1 went to the house of her parents in the month of Febru ary, 2014 for treatment. Later, they went to the house of her fatherinlaw and stayed up to March, first week of 2014. In the month of March, 2014, she got operation for tonsils at Audi Narayana E.N.T. Hospital, Nellore. At that time nobody came to her to look her welfare. Her mother provided the entire medical treatment to her and also look her welfare and also she stayed up to in first week of May, 2014. Later she went to her inlaws. Again Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 started harassment towards her and also Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 stated to Accused No.1 as Accused No.1 to give divorce to her and also they performed the marriage of Accused No.1 with another woman and also informed that they get the dowry. The harassment of Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 informed to her mother. On 09.05.2014 her mother came to her in 24C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 laws house, then Accused No.5 called PW3/Kondapalli Ravi then PW3 came to her in laws house and also her mother and PW3, Accused No.5 talking with each other, then
Accused No.3 came and beat her mother, then PW3 rescued her mother in the hands of
Accused No.3 and warned to Accused No.3, then Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 stated that to go and stay at one old house i.e, belongs to the grandmother of Accused
No.1, herself and Accused No.1 went to the house of his grandmother but the said house is not in a position to live there, then she informed the said information to PW3/
Kondapalli Ravi, there after her mother went to her house. On 11.05.2014 at about morning hours, Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 necked her from their house and also beat her, then her husband/Accused No.1 sleeping in first floor on hearing of her cries
Accused No.1 came and also took her and went to the house of PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi and left her husband to his house. PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi informed the said informa tion to her mother, then her parents came to the house of PW3, then herself and her mother, PW3 went to her in laws house and also mediation made by the PW3 with her in laws but futile, Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 thrown away her clothes on road and necked her from their house, then herself and her mother went to the Nellore III Town
P.S. and she informed the harassment of Accused No.1 to Accused No.5, then Accused
No.1 to Accused No.5 came to Police station and also mediation made but failed as such the S.I of III Town P.S. advised her to go to the Women P.S., Nellore, then the In spector of Police, Women P.S., called Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 and made the counseling in between both the parties but futile. On 25.05.2014 in afternoon hours she went to women police station along with her parents and gave report against Ac cused No.1 to Accused No.5. PW1 stated only about the demand of dowry amount of
Rs.10,00,000/ in her report and 161 Cr.P.C. statement.
23.The learned counsel for the accused argued the entire chief examination of PW1 of alleged harassment attributed to accused is out right omission in Ex.P1 and also 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Hence, omission of important fact in 161 Cr.P.C.
25C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 Statement is fatal to the prosecution and should not be relied upon. The counsel for ac cused relied on decision above mentioned supra I.e P.Gangadhar Vs State wherein the Lordships held that “ a particular fact deposed by witness during trial not men tioned in F.I.R or Statements recorded under 161 Cr.P.C, it is an improvement and can not be considered. On perusal of above decision, with due respect to the above deci sion, I am of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances of above decision is applicable to present case on hand as PW1 to PW3 did not depose what all they stated before the police under 161 Cr.P.C statements and more improvements in their evidence and it can not be considered.
24.The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW1 stated before the
Mahila Police at the time of counseling that “Nenu Vallaintiki Velthanu, separate ga
Vundadam Naku Safe Kadu”. PW1 also deposed in D.V.C case that “ she do not want to join the respondent if he takes separate home for them. She is intending to join her husband and inlaws jointly. She will be happy if her parentsinlaw also reside along with them”. The counsel for accused further argued that the said admission belies the case of prosecution as to accused harassed the PW1. If really PW1 had been harassed by Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 she would not have chosen to live with them saying she would be happy in case of her residing along with them. So from any angle, the evidence in chief of PW1 is not inspiring confidence as to truthfulness of her allegations of harassment on the part of accused. On observing the above admissions of PW1, this
Court come to conclusion that there is no truthfulness in the evidence of PW1 and it raises serious doubt about the case of prosecution with regard to harassment of ac cused against PW1.
25. On perusal of Ex.P1 this Court further observed that PW1 herself left the house of accused due to unbearable harassment. Hence, the evidence of PW1 that Ac 26C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 cused No.2 to Accused No.5 thrown away her clothes on road and necked her from their house is not believable. On perusal of evidence of PW1 and PW5, this Court ob served that there are several contradiction elicited in between their evidence with re gard to stay of PW1 after the marriage. PW1 in her evidence deposed that herself and
Accused No.1 married on 22.08.2013 at Jonnawada Temple without the knowledge of her parents in the presence of PW5/ Kadiyam Ravi Theja, some other friends. On the same day Accused No.1 informed his parents that herself and Accused No.1 married and also Accused No.1 informed her parents also. On the same day Accused No.5 went to the house of PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi and called her parents to the house of PW3/
Kondapalli Ravi and also negotiations made in presence of PW3/ Kondapalli Ravi and both side elders agreed their marriage and went to the her father in law house. PW5 who is friend of Accused No.1 and who present at the time of marriage of PW1 and
Accused No.1, PW5 in his evidence deposed that after the marriage PW1 and Accused
No.1 stayed outside for a period of 4 days, after that PW1’s mother I.e, PW2 came and taken them to their house. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW1 ad mitted in her cross examination that “It is true to say that she deposed in her evidence in D.V.C as “ she was there in the home of her parents inlaw for one day after her marriage”. This admission belies the allegations of PW1 as to her living in the House of Accused for days together and accused harassed her for one or other reason. The counsel for accused further argued that after marriage PW1 and Accused No.1 never resided at the house of accused and they resided at the house of parents of PW1 is probable. Hence, the evidence of PW1 that on the same day she went to her father inlaw house is not believable.
26.On perusal of evidence of PW1 this Court observed that there are some more contradictions elicited regarding admission of PW1 in the Hospital for her illhealth.
PW1 deposed that due to illhealth of her, Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 did not pro 27C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 vide any treatment for her, as such herself and Accused No.1 went to the house of her parents in the month of February, 2014 for treatment. Later they went to house of her fatherinlaw and stayed up to March first week of 2014. In the month of March, 2014 she got operation for tonsils at Audi Narayana E.N.T. Hospital, Nellore.
27.Whereas PW2 in her evidence deposed that in the month of February, 2014 A1 brought PW1 to her house and told that PW1 suffering with Tonsils and left her house. Then, she taken PW1 to the Hospital and Doctor told that she is suffering with allergy and throat infection and advised that to brought the PW1 in the month of
March, 2nd week and operation held.
28.Whereas, PW3 in his evidence deposed that in the March, 2014, Accused
No.1 came to his shop and informed that PW1 suffering with Tonsils and also he joined her into the Hospital the same is informed by PW2 to him, then he went to the
Hospital. On 09.05.2014 after discharging of the hospital, PW1 went to the house of
A1 matrimonial life. On perusal of evidence of PW1 to PW3, this Court raises seri ous doubt whether PW1 discharged from Hospital in the month of March, 2014 or on 09.05.2014. PW1 did not state the above facts in her report i.e, Ex.P1. Further PW1 did not file any documentary proof before this Court that she got admitted in the al leged Hospital and operation was done on the alleged date. PW1 did not depose that on which date she went to her in laws after discharging from the Hospital. PW2 de posed that PW1 herself left her house and went to the house of Accused No.1 in the month of May, 2014. These contradictions raises serious doubt about the case of pros ecution.
29. In order to prove the case the prosecution, the prosecution further ex amined PW4 to PW6 are independent witness. But they turned hostile to the case of 28C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 prosecution and did not depose anything against the accused. Finally, the prosecution examined PW7 who is investigating officer. PW7 in her evidence simply deposed about her role that on 25.05.2014 at about 1400 hrs, PW1 came to the P.S., along with LW2/ Mada Suresh Kumar, PW2 and gave written report I.e, Ex.P1, based on
Ex.P1 she registered a case in Cr.No.39/2014 under section 498A r/w 34 of I.P.C and
Section 4 D.P.Act, on the same day she examined PW1 and PW2, LW2/Mada Suresh
Kumar and examined them and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C. statements at Police station, on the same day, she visited the scene of offence i.e, house of accused which is situated at Nalugukalla Mandapam, Santhapet, Nellore, she secured PW3, PW5 exam ined them and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C. statements and also observed the scene of offence, on the same day, she visited the A.B.M. compound, Subedarpet, Nel lore town and secured the presence of PW4 and PW6 and examined them and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C. statements and after completion of investigation, she filed the charge sheet against Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 under section 498A r/w 34 of
IPC and section 4 of D.P.Act. On perusal of evidence of PW7, this Court observed that
PW7 did not examine neighbouring house owners as mentioned in rough sketch of scene of offence. The same was admitted by PW7 in her crossexamination that “ It is true that she did not examine the persons mentioned houses in rough sketch of the scene of offence. PW7 further added that she examined PW4 who is mentioned in rough sketch. But PW4 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The evidence of PW7 is no way helpful to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 498A r/w 34 of IPA and Section 4 of D.P.Act.
30.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the entire evi dence of PW2 and PW3 is out right omission in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement and should not be relied upon. The prosecution relied upon the order passed by this court in
D.V.C No.34/2014 & Judgment passed by Hon'ble family court, Nellore in Criminal ap 29C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 peal No. 214/2017. The counsel for accused argued that the proceedings of D.V.C are summary in nature the order and observation in D.V.C not relevant in trial in criminal case under section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act. On perusal of evidence of
PW1 to PW3, not corroborated each other and several contradictions, improvements elicited in their evidence.
31.Under these circumstances, as there are several contradictions and omis sions & improvements elicited in the evidence of PW1 to PW3, as PW4 to PW6 turned hostile to the case of prosecution, as the evidence of PW7 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution and as PW7 failed to examine the neighbouring house owners at the scene of offence to prove the guilt of accused No.1 to 5 for the offence punishable un der section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act. Accordingly, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under sec tion 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act.
32.In the result, Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 are set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment under Section 437A Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since no property in this case.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, typed by him directly on computer system,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 23 rd day of March, 2020.
Sd/ Sk.Md. A. Parveez
Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Prohibition & Excise Offences :: Nellore.
// Appendix of evidence //
Witness examined
For Prosecution For Defense PW.1Jonnalagadda Sai Swapna.None PW.2Mada Revathi 30C.C.487 of 2016 Dated:23.03.2020 PW.3Kondapalli Ravi PW.4Manto Sreenivasulu PW.5Kadiyam Ravitheja PW.6Pallavolu Chandu PW.7Smt.M.Nageswaramma.
Exhibits marked for Prosecution
Ex.P1Report of PW1. Ex.P2Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW4 Ex.P3Section 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW5 Ex.P4Section 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW6 Ex.P5F.I.R. Ex.P6Rough sketch of Scene of offence. Ex.P7Certified copy of order in D.V.C 34/2014 on the file of Special
Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Prohibition &
Excise Offences Nellore dated: 28.04.2007 Ex.P8Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.214/2017 on the file of
Hon'ble Family court cum VIth Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Nellore Dated: 19.03.2019.
Exhibits marked for Accused
Ex.D1Part contents of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3
Material objects marked
NIL
Sd/ Sk.Md. A. Parveez Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Prohibition & Excise Offences :: Nellore.
// True Copy //
Spl.J.M.F.C For Trial P&E Offences Nellore