1
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: KOVUR
Present: Sri Shaik Pedakhasim,
I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur.
Monday, this the Twenty Third (23rd) day of March, Two Thousand and Twenty.
C.C.No.575 of 2015
State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Buchireddypalem Police Station
(Cr.No.159/2015) ...Complainant
// V E R S U S //
1. Syed Jakiya Begam, W/o Ahamad Mohiddin aged about 62 years,
2. Syed Ahamad Mohiddin (Died) S/o Jailabuddin, aged about 67 years, Both are Muslim by caste, R/o D.No.7/965, Iskadonka, Ranganayakulapet, Nellore City.
3. Syed Vasimunnisa W/o Abdul Muzeeb, aged about 32 years, R/o D.No.20-5-126, Opp Kathija Maseed, Meclane road, Kotamitta, Nellore City.
...Accused No.1 to 3
[A2 died, hence case against A2 was abated on
18.3.2019]
This case is coming on 23-03-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution/complainant and of Sri Patan Shafi Ahamed, learned Advocate for Accused no.1 and 3, upon hearing their arguments, this Court delivered the following Judgment today i.e., 23-03-2020 which is as follows:
J U D G M E N T
Fair Judgment 2
1)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Buchireddypalem Police Station, SPSR Nellore District filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.159/2015 for the offence punishable Under Sec.498-A IPC.
2) The case of the prosecution is that marriage of Syed
Arif Jan (LW1/PW1) who is daughter of Syed Rahamthulla (LW3) and sister of Syed Asif Ali Chistiya (LW2/PW2) was performed with Nasiruddin who is son of A1 and A2, brother of A3, after the marriage PW1 joined with A1, A2 and Nasiruddin, A1 and
A2 performed marriage of Nasiruddin with PW1 suppressing the fact that Nasiruddin was suffering with cancer, after the marriage PW1 found that Nasiruddin was suffering with cancer, then PW1 questioned Nasiruddin, A1 and A2, then Nasiruddin,
A1 to A3 harassed PW1 physically and mentally, they beat PW1 indiscriminately and necked out her from the in laws house situated at Isaka donka, Ranaganayukulapeta, Nellore city, having no other go PW1 went to her parents house at
Kajanagar, Buchireddypalem, later Nariruddin died due to his ill health, at that time also A1 to A3 not informed PW1 about death of Nasiruddin, after some time from death of Nasiruddin
PW1 came to know about the death of Nasiruddin then she went to house of A1 and A2, but A1 and A2 not allowed her into the house, A1 to A3 harassed PW1 mentally and physically attributing that PW1 and her parents did black majik (Chethabadi in Telugu) against Nasiruddin and caused his death, later PW1 lodged report, report of PW1 was registered as a case in crime no.159/2015 under section 498(A) IPC by
K.Srinivasa Rao (LW7/PW5), PW5 conducted investigation examining PW1, PW2, LW3, Syed Gousinnisa (LW4), Syed
Rafinnisa (LW5/PW3), Shaik Kaja Hadir (LW6), Shaik Allauddin (LW7/PW4), Sk Mujeeb (LW8), PW5 visited scene of offence and
Fair Judgment 3 prepared rough-sketch of the scene of offence, after completion of investigation PW5 filed charge sheet under section 498(A) IPC against A1 to A3. Hence the presence charge sheet against A1 to A3.
3)On 14.10.2015, this case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec. 498-A IPC against A-1 to A3. During pendency of case A2 was died, hence case against A2 was abated on 18.03.2019.
4)On 25-07-2019 on appearance of A-1, A-3, the case copies were furnished to them as required under Sec. 207 of
Cr.P.C.
5) On 18-09-2019, A-1, A-3 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. They denied the offences. Then, Charge for the offence under Sec.498-A IPC was framed against A-1, A-3, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which A1 and A3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6)During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.5 were examined and got marked
Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.
7)After closure of prosecution evidence, on 17-01- 2020, A-1, A-3 were examined U/s 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating evidence and reported they have defence evidence. DW.1 and DW.2 were examined and Ex.D1 to D7 were marked on their behalf.
8)Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for state and learned defence Advocate for the accused no 1 and 3.
9)Now, the point for determination is:
Fair Judgment 4
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
10)Point:- PW.1 who is informant and victim in this case deposed about her marriage with Nasiruddin, harassment committed by A1 to A3 and Nasiruddin, dowry given at the time of marriage, lodging report in the Police Station. PW2 to 4 deposed in support of evidence of PW1 on some aspects. PW5 deposed he registered case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.
11)The learned advocate for the accused submitted that there is long delay in lodging report, prosecution not assigned any reason for such long and inordinate delay, therefore the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. It is clear from the contents of report which is marked as Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW1 that report was lodged in the police station on 6.8.2015 at about 21.30 hours. PW1 in her evidence deposed that she was necked out from the house in February, 2015,
PW1 in her chief examination affidavit in DVC.No.46/2015 on the file of Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Trial prohibition and
Excise offences, Nellore which is marked as Ex.D2 deposed that finally she was necked out from the marital home on 21.2.2015. PW.1 in her cross examination clearly admitted that she has been residing in her parents house from February, 2015. She further admitted that after February, 2015 she got issued a legal notice to A1 to A3, they got issued reply notice to her legal notice. PW1 in her chief examination clearly deposed that her husband was died on 15.4.2015 due to ill health. The admissions made by PW1 to 4 in their evidence clearly established that PW1 was residing in her parents house
Fair Judgment 5 as on date of death of her husband moreover, she did not go to see her husband after his death. PW3 in her cross examination categorically deposed that PW1 was residing in her parents house since some time before death of her husband. The above facts clearly established that PW1 has been residing in her parents house from 21.2.2015, Nasiruddin was died on 15.4.2015 but PW1 not went to her in laws house to see dead body of her husband, ultimately on 6.8.2015 PW1 lodged report against A1 to A3 alleging that they harassed her.
It means PW1 lodged report after more than five months from the time she started residing in her in laws house. It is not the case of prosecution and evidence of any of the witnesses that during the time when PW1 was in the house of her parents any one of the accused or Nasiruddin went there and harassed
PW1. It is clear from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that PW1 not lodged any report in any police station more particularly within the III Town Police Station in whose jurisdiction house of
A1 and A2 is situated about the alleged incidents occurred against PW1 in the house of A1 and A2. PW1 kept quiet calm from lodging report in any Police Station, during the time she resided along with her husband, A1 and A2, immediately after death of her husband PW1 lodged report after more than five months from the date she left from matrimonial house and after three months from the date of death of her husband. PW1 and prosecution not assigned any reason for said long delay in lodging report. PW5 in his cross examination admitted that he did not conduct investigation to find out the reasons for said long delay. It seems there is no investigation by PW5 to find out the reason for long delay. On one hand PW1 lodged report after more than five months from the end point of the alleged cause of action, on the other hand prosecution utterly failed to
Fair Judgment 6 assign sufficient reason for said long delay. In view of these facts this court is of opinion that it is just and proper to give benefit of doubt to the accused.
12)The learned advocate for the accused submitted that the evidence of PW1 is not sufficient to prove essential ingredients of section 498-A IPC as there is no sufficient material to satisfy the explanation of cruelty provided under section 498-A IPC, therefore the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. PW1 in her evidence deposed that when she got doubt about ill treatment of her husband she questioned him about his ill health then he made all his relatives including
A1 and A2 to abuse her therefore she kept calm. PW1 in her evidence further deposed that after two days from the time they came from Hyderabad A1 to A3 and her husband abused her and necked out her from the house as they suspected she was person behind ill health of her husband. She further deposed that in pursuance of mediation she again joined with
A1 to A3 and her husband, they used to abuse her in filthy language and used to beat her, after one month they necked out from the house and tortured her. This is the evidence against A1 to A3 about the harassment committed by A1 to A3 against PW1. It is clear that PW1 not stated specify incidents, manner of offence committed by A1 to A3. PW1 simply stated that A1 to A3 and her husband harassed her, they abused her in filthy language. Explanation of cruelty provided under section 498-A IPC is very serious in nature, but if the evidence of PW1 is taken into consideration same is not sufficient to satisfy the ingredients of explanation of cruelty provided under section 498-A IPC. Further as per contents of Ex.P1, A1 and A2 alone necked out PW1 from the house but coming to the evidence of PW1, she deposed A1 to A3 and her husband
Fair Judgment 7 harassed her. It is not the evidence of any of the witnesses that PW1 was harassed after she started residing in the house of her parents. PW2 in his cross examination categorically admitted that he was not present when PW1 tried to jump from the five storied building. He further deposed that he was not present when PW1 was necked out from the house at
Ranganayukulapeta. Further as per the evidence of PW3 and
PW4, they are only hear say witnesses. PW3 in her cross examination admitted that she came to know all the facts through PW1. PW3 further admitted that she was not direct eye witness to any of the incidents occurred in the house of A1 and A2 as well as the hospital in Hyderabad. PW3 further admitted that she was not present at any point of time and she did not witness any incident, even she did not visit the house of A1 and A2 at any point of time. PW4 also in his evidence deposed that he is only an hearsay witness. Further the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses on the aspects deposed by her. This court compared the evidence of PW1 and contents of Ex.P1 but there are several things which PW1 mentioned in Ex.P1 but not stated in her evidence before this court. Taking all the aspects into consideration this court is of opinion that there is no sufficient evidence on record to satisfy the ingredients of section 498-A
IPC.
13) The learned advocate for the accused submitted that the ground alleged by PW1 for harassment is that PW1 questioned ill health of her husband then she was harassed but there are several contradictions on this aspect from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, therefore the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. The case of prosecution and contents of Ex.P1 is that parents of Nasiruddin i.e A1 and
Fair Judgment 8
A2 performed his marriage with PW1 suppressing the fact that he was suffering with cancer, but the material on record reveals that cancer was detected only after the marriage. PW1 in her evidence deposed that she went to her parents house for delivery, after delivery she came to her in laws house, after three months her husband suffered with ill health then found he was suffering with cancer and she was provided treatment.
PW1 in her cross examination admitted that Dr. Rajendra informed her that her husband in her presence that her husband was suffering with cancer. PW1 in her cross examination further deposed that she did not verify even not seen the medicine of Nasiruddin. PW2 in his evidence deposed that inspite of their best efforts they were unable to find out the health problem of Nasiruddin. PW2 further deposed that after delivery PW1 went to house of Nasiruddin later health condition of Nasiruddin became serious then they came to know that Nasiruddin was suffering with cancer. The admissions of PW1 and PW2 clearly established that only after the marriage of PW1 with Nasiruddin it was found that
Nasiruddin was suffering with cancer therefore the version of
PW1 and the prosecution that A1 and A2 performed marriage of PW1 with Nasiruddin by suppressing cancer is not proved. It appears that this ground is taken only to get the object of PW1 fulfilled. In these circumstances the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.
14)The learned advocate for the accused submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material with regard to the alleged dowry given at the time of marriage. He further submitted that parents of PW1 also has no financial capacity to give such amount as dowry. PW1 in Ex.P1 mentioned that cash Rs.2 lakhs
Fair Judgment 9 as dowry, Rs.1,50,000/- for household articles, Rs.50,000/- for motor cycle and 15 sovereigns of gold was given at the time of marriage. PW1 to 4 also in their evidence deposed same facts.
Further deposition of PW1 in DVC 46/2015 is marked as Ex.D2.
The deposition of PW2 is marked as Ex.D1. Legal notice is also marked on behalf of defence as Ex.D3. Order in DVC 46/2015 is marked as Ex.D7. As per Ex.D1 to D3 and D7, it is clear that whatever deposed by PW1 to PW4 in their evidence, mentioned in Ex.P1 is not correct. As per Ex.D1 to D3 and D7 cash Rs.1,50,000/-, 20 sovereigns of gold, silver articles worth of Rs.20,000/-, Jahaj articles worth of Rs.25,000/- and also cash
Rs.50,000/- for purchase of motor cycle was given at the time of marriage. Therefore the facts mentioned in Ex.D1 to D3 and
D7 are contrary to the evidence of PW1 to 4 and contents of
Ex.P1, this raises doubt about genuineness of prosecution and trustworthiness of evidence of PW1 to PW4. Further PW1 in her cross examination admitted that she was not present when cash by way of dowry and cash for household articles were given by her parents. She further deposed that she was not direct eye witness for giving dowry and cash for household articles. She further admitted that as per Muslim custom a list articles given as Jahaj will be prepared at the time of marriage, but she did not submit list of jahaz articles to the police, even not filed before this court. She further deposed that she do not know whether list of jahaj articles was prepared at the time of marriage. Further PW1 in her cross examination admitted that she did not handed over any documents to the police and not filed any document before this court to show the particulars of shops from which 20 sovereigns of gold articles were purchased. PW1 further admitted that she did not submit any document to police even not produce before this court to show
Fair Judgment 10 that her father borrowed amount from others and performed her marriage with the said amount. PW2 in his cross examination admitted that he did not file any document before this court even not submitted to the police to show they gave cash and gold as dowry at the time of marriage. PW3 in her cross examination admitted that she was not present when dowry by way of cash, gold and house hold articles were given.
PW4 in his cross examination admitted that he did not attend marriage of PW1 with Nasiruddin. The admissions made by
PW1 to PW4 clearly raises doubt whether dowry by way of cash, gold, silver, house hold articles were given at the time of marriage. Further the admissions made by PW1 and PW2 also raises doubt whether parents of PW1 has financial capacity to give dowry as alleged by PW1 and PW2. PW1 in her cross examination admitted that her father has no financial capacity to give dowry by way of cash, gold etc. She further deposed that her father borrowed amount from others and performed her marriage by given dowry, but she further admitted that she did not produce any document to show that her father borrowed amount from others and performed her marriage with the said amount. PW2 in his cross examination deposed that he is practicing as RMP doctor in Duvvur village, said village is situated in 5 km distance from his house. PW2 further admitted his father was RMP doctor. He further admitted that himself and his father do not have any occupation except practicing as RMP doctors. He further deposed that himself and his father earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He further admitted that himself and his father do not have any income except income as RMP doctor. These admissions of PW1 and PW2 raises doubt about financial capacity of parents of PW1 and
PW2 to give dowry as alleged by them in their evidence.
Fair Judgment 11
Further the perusal of Ex.D7 reveals that PW1 and her child filed DVC.46/2015 against A1 to A3, in the said complaint PW1 prayed for several reliefs including prayer for return of cash
Rs.1,50,000/- which was given as dowry. It is clear from the order in DVC 46/2015 that only A2 herein was ordered to return Rs.1,50,000/-, no order was passed against A1 and A3 in this case. The present case against A2 was already abated In these circumstances no liability can be attached to A1 and A3 with regard to the dowry amount. All the aspects discussed in this paragraph are clearly in favour of accused and against the prosecution.
15) The role played by A3 is one of the important aspect in this case. PW1 in her cross examination admitted that marriage of A3 was performed four years prior to her marriage with Nasiruddin. PW1 further admitted that A3 resided along with her husband and children in a house situated at 5 km distance from the house of A1 and A2, moreover A3 was house wife. PW2 in his cross examination also admitted that marriage of A3 was performed prior to marriage of PW1. PW4 also in his cross examination admitted that A3 is resident of Kotamitta, marriage of A3 was already performed prior to marriage of
PW1 with Nasiruddin. PW4 categorically deposed that he never saw A3 while she was in the house of A1 and A2. If these admissions of PW1, PW2 and PW4 are taken into consideration the version of PW1 that A3 also harassed her is not believable.
Therefore the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.
16) PW5 in his cross examination clearly admitted that as per the contents of Ex.P1 the entire harassment was occurred in Ranganayakula peta of Nellore city. He further admitted that as parents of PW1 are residents of Kaja Nagar,
Fair Judgment 12
Buchireddypalem of Nellore city, he registered report of PW1 as a case in Buchireddypalem Police Station. This court gone through the contents of Ex.P1 and other material. It is clear that no part of harassment was occurred within the jurisdiction ofBuchireddypalemPoliceStation,consequently
Buchireddypalem police station has no territorial jurisdiction in turn this court has no territorial jurisdiction. It appears that parents of PW1 are resident of Buchireddypalem vilalge, she filed report in the said Police Station and got registered even though no incidents was occurred from 21.2.2015 to till Ex.P1 was lodged.
17) It appears that PW5 not conducted proper investigation. PW5 in his cross examination admitted that he has shown names of Shaik Rafi, Kalesha and Shaik Kaja Hussan in Ex.P3 but he did not examine them. It means inspite of the facts that there are neighbours to the parents of PW1, PW5 not examined them to find out the truth. PW5 further admitted that he did not collect any document more particularly legal notice, receipts regarding jewels from PW1. The material on record clearly reveals that there was exchange of notices and other transactions between PW1 and her in laws. There is scope for PW5 to collect and come to a conclusion regarding involvement of accused in this case but without conducting any investigation PW5 simply filed charge sheet, these aspects also goes in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.
18) This court minutely gone through the evidence of
PW2. It is noticed that PW2 deposed several aspects which were not deposed by PW1 even not mentioned by her in Ex.P1.
PW2 in his chief examination deposed that when PW1 was in the hospital providing treatment to her husband, A1 harassed
Fair Judgment 13
PW1. But this fact is not deposed by PW1 in her evidence even not mentioned in Ex.P1. PW2 further deposed that due to harassment of A1, PW1 tried to jump from five storied building adjacent to Basava tharakam hospital with an intention to committed suicide, after this incident they came to know earlier also PW1 tried to commit suicide by consuming some tables, PW1 not stated in her evidence and not mentioned in
Ex.P1 that she attempted to commit suicide at one time by consuming sleeping tables and at another time by jumping from five storied building. PW2 further deposed that A1, A2 and Nasiruddin not allowed him and his parents to their house, they quarreled with him and his parents, they blamed him and his parents unnecessarily, due to unbearable harassment by in laws of PW1, PW1 became weak. In fact PW1 not stated in her evidence and not mentioned in Ex.P1 these facts. PW2 further deposed that after death of Nasiruddin PW1 went to house of her in laws but they did not allow her into the house. As per evidence of PW1 and other material PW1 not went house of in laws after 21.2.2015, even at the time of death of Nasiruddin.
Therefore the evidence of PW2 on several aspects is contrary to the evidence of PW1, more over same is not corroborated with the evidence of any other witness. This raises doubt about trustworthiness of evidence of PW2, therefore the benefit doubt shall be given to the accused.
19) One of the defence of accused is that as PW1 and
Nasiruddin were in medical field, Nasiruddin married PW1 without taking any dowry. PW1 in her cross examination admitted that herself and her husband were in the medical field by the time of their marriage. PW2 in his evidence deposed that PW1 completed D Pharmacy by the time of her marriage with Nasiruddin, Nasiruddin was also in medical field
Fair Judgment 14 by the time of marriage with PW1. Therefore to certain extent the admissions of PW1 and PW2 strengthens the defence of accused. Further PW1 in her cross examination deposed that she did not lodge report in III Town Police Station, Nellore when
A1 to A3 and her husband abused her as on the date they came from Hyderabad to Nellore. PW1 further admitted that she never lodged report in III Town Police Station or in any other Police Station except lodging report in this case. PW2 in his cross examination admitted that they did not lodge report in 3rd town Police Station, Nellore. He further deposed that they did not lodge report during life time of Nasiruddin. The admissions of PW1 and PW2 raises doubt why PW1 not lodged report inspite of there was harassment during life time of
Nasiruddin, why report was not lodged in III Town Police Station or woman Police Station Nellore, why report was lodged in
Buchireddypalem Police Station where no harassment was occurred. These aspects also raises doubt. Further PW3 evidence is only evidence on hearsay witness. PW3 in her cross examination admitted that she came to know the facts through PW1. During the cross examination by learned
Assistant Public prosecutor PW3 categorically admitted that she came to know the facts through PW1. As per evidence of
PW3, she came to know the facts through PW1. As per evidence of PW3, she do not have any person knowledge about the facts. PW3 categorically deposed that she did not visit the house of A1 and A2 at any point of time. As per evidence of PW3, she was not direct eye witness to the incident at hospital in Hyderabad as well as to the incidents in the house of A1 and A2. PW3 categorically deposed that she did not go to the house of A1 and A2 to see the dead body of
Nasiruddin. She further deposed that PW1 also not went to
Fair Judgment 15 house of A1 and A2 to see the dead body of Nasiruddin. The minute reading of evidence of PW3 established that PW3 has not acquittance with the facts of the case except knowing some aspects through PW1. Therefore it can be said that PW3 is only hearsay witnesses. Further this court minutely read the evidence of PW4. It is also clear that PW4 also do not have any personal knowledge abut the facts, he is also a hearsay witness. PW4 in his cross examination admitted that he do not know the name and other particulars of the persons who participated in the mediation along with him. He further admitted that he was not direct eye witness to any of the incidents. PW4 further admitted that he did not go to see
Nasiruddin after his death. PW4 further deposed that he do not know the Mujeeb whose house is situated in front of the house of A1 and A2. Therefore it can be said that all most all facts deposed by PW4 are only he came to know through others.
Therefore it can be said that he is also hearsay witness for material portion of his evidence. Further PW4 deposed a new version which is not deposed by PW1, PW2, not mentioned in
Ex.P1 by PW1. PW4 in his evidence categorically deposed that mediation was held in the house of A1 and A2, in the said mediation it was Agreed that A1 and A2 shall return the articles to PW1 as mentioned in the agreement, thereafter again PW1 went to her parents house in pursuance of agreement executed in the mediation. It means as per evidence of PW4 there was an agreement between PW1 on one hand A1 and A2 on the other hand. If the version of PW4 is believed the version of PW1 and PW2 shall be suspected. If the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is taken into consideration the evidence of PW4 shall be suspected. Therefore the evidence of
PW4 is not believable. Further this court minutely gone through
Fair Judgment 16 the contents of Ex.P1. PW1 not mentioned in Ex.P1 specific dates of instances, even not deposed in her evidence. PW5 categorically admitted in his cross examination that PW1 not mentioned dates, time of incidents in Ex.P1. He further admitted that PW1 not mentioned in Ex.P1 that she was necked out from the house on the date of lodging report.
Admittedly report was lodged after five months from the time
PW1 came to her parents house. In these circumstances PW1 not mentioning dates of incidents and other particulars in
Ex.P1 raises doubt. All the aspects discussed in this paragraph raises serious doubt about genuineness of prosecution and trustworthiness of evidence of prosecution witnesses, therefore the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.
20) During the trial DW1 and DW2 are examined, Ex.D1 was marked through PW2, Ex.D2 was marked through PW1,
Ex.D3 to D7 were marked through DW1. Shaik Jakia begum who is A1 in this case deposed evidence in this case as DW.1.
DW1 in her evidence clearly narrated how her son was died, the circumstances under which A1 to A3 are implicated in this case and other cases. Syed Mujeeb is examined as DW2. As per evidence of DW2 the house of DW2 is situated opposite to house of A1 and A2. This court minutely perused the material and found that Mujeeb in his evidence deposed in support of
DW1 as well as defence version. It appropriate to look into the documents filed by the defence. In Ex.D2 it is mentioned that on account of ill treatment and harassment made by the respondents i.e., A1 to A3 herein along with Nasiruddin PW1 brought a sum of Rs.50,000/- in three occasions from her parents. It is also mentioned in Ex.D3 that additional dowry was given due to harassment. But none of the witnesses stated before this court, even PW1 not mentioned in her Ex.P1
Fair Judgment 17 that additional dowry to the tune of Rs.50,000/- was given in three occasions. This aspect also raises doubt about the trustworthiness of case of PW1. It is further mentioned in
Ex.D2 that at the time of Barasala function A1 to A3 demanded amount then with great difficulty PW1 brought Rs.20,000/- from her parents. This aspect also not disclosed or stated by any of the witnesses, even not mentioned in Ex.P1. Further it is mentioned in Ex.D2 that parents of PW1 sent mediators namely Shaik Sardar, Syed Salem, Syed Khadir, Shaik Shakir,
Shaik Iliaz and others to prevail upon A1 to A3 and Nasiruddin but A1 to A3 and Nasiruddin bluntly reused to take back PW1.
This fact is not deposed by any of the witnesses in this case.
As per the evidence of PW1 before this court and in Ex.D2,
PW1 alone taken Nasiruddin to Hyderabad and provided treatment. But as per the evidence of PW2, A1, A2 and PW1 taken Nasiruddin and provided treatment. As per the version of
PW1 before this court she alone incurred expenditure for the treatment of Nasiruddin, but as per admissions of PW1 in
Ex.D2 it is clear that the gold ornaments of A3 were also pledged for the treatment of Nasiruddin. PW1 in Ex.D2 admitted that she has an account in Tamil Nadu Mercantile bank. She further admitted in Ex.D2 that 4 sovereigns of gold jewelry of sister of her husband was pledged in that bank for the treatment of her husband. All these aspects are contrary to the case of prosecution and either suppression of material facts before this court or the improvements in DVC case. These aspects raises doubt about genuineness of prosecution case, therefore the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.
21) It appears that the intention of PW1 in issuing legal notice, filing DVC case and this case is only for the purpose of claiming share in the house property. This court perused Ex.D3.
Fair Judgment 18
One of the demand in Ex.D3 is that A1 to A3 shall partition the notice schedule property by meets and bounds with good and bad conditions and deliver the possession of the same to PW1.
It means the route cause for PW1 lodging report after death of her husband, more particularly after more than five months from the time she left the matrimonial house appears that for claiming right and possession over the property mentioned in
Ex.D3. In fact PW1 or any other witness not disclosed this fact in this case before this court until the defence filed several documents and got marked the same before this court on behalf of the accused. This aspect also raises serious doubt about genuineness of prosecution and trustworthiness of evidence of prosecution witness, therefore the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.
22) This court compared evidence of PW1 with her chief examination affidavit and cross examination in DVC 46/2015 which is marked as Ex.D2. PW1 deposed contradictory facts in both the cases. Further legal notices and reply notices raises several doubt about the trustworthiness of case of prosecution, therefore the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.
23) Order passed Hon'ble Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, for Trial of Prohibition and offences, Nellore in DVC.46/2015 dt.10.2.2017 also plays vital role in deciding this case. In fact order in DVC.46/2015 is not binding on this court but same may be taken into consideration in view of the facts existing in this case and as parties are one and the same. PW1 in this case is 1st aggrieved person in DVC.46/2015. A1 to A3 herein are respondents 1 to 3 in DVC.46/2015. In DVC.46/2015 several reliefs were prayed against A1 to A3. After completion of enquiry DVC.46/2015 was partly allowed. DVC.46/2015 was
Fair Judgment 19 dismissed for all the reliefs except directing A2 herein to return
Rs.1,50,000/- to the aggrieved person. Protection order, residence order etc were not granted to the aggrieved persons. The scope and ambit of Domestic Violence is very wider in nature. The scope and ambit of the word cruelty provided under section 498-A IPC is very strict in nature. The present case is criminal case therefore prosecution is under obligation to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. DVC case is a case filed under beneficial legislature made for the protection of woman. It is clear from the order in DVC.46/2015 that PW1 utterly failed to establish that A1 to A3 committed acts of Domestic Violence against her. The subject matter of this case as well as subject matter in DVC.46/2015 is all most one and same. Once PW1 failed to prove that A1 to A3 committed Domestic Violence against her it can not be said that prosecution proved its case against A1 and A3 beyond all reasonable doubt. After going through the order in DVC 46/2015 this court is of opinion that same shall be taken into consideration, after same is taken into consideration it raises several doubts about genuineness of prosecution and trustworthiness of evidence of PW1 to PW4, more particularly the evidence of PW1, therefore the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.
24)In view of the above facts, circumstances and other material on record this court is of opinion that prosecution miserably failed to prove its case for the charged offences against A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of A1 & A3 and against the prosecution.
Fair Judgment 20
25)In the result, A1 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498-A IPC. Accordingly A1 and A3 are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C and they are set liberty. The bail bonds of A1, A3 and their sureties furnished under section 437-A Cr.P.C shall be in force for the period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. No property in this case.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected, signed
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 23 rd day of March, 2020.
Sd/-Shaik Pedakhasim
I Additional Judicial Magistrate of
I Class, Kovur
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution
P.W.1 :Syed Arifa Jan P.W.2 :Sd. Asif Ali Chistiya P.W.3 :Syed Rafiunnisa P.W.4 :Sahik Allauddin P.W.5 :K.Srinivasa Rao
Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution: Ex.P.1 :Report of P.W.1 dt.6.8.2015 Ex.P.2 : FIR No.159/2015, dt.6.8.2015 Ex.P.3 : Rough-sketch of scene of offence
Material Objects marked on behalf of prosecution: Nil.
Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: D.W.1:Syed Jakia Begum D.W.2:Syed Mujeeb Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
Ex.D1:Certified copy of deposition in DVC.46/2015 on the file of Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for the Trial of Prohibition and Excise offences, Nellore.
Ex.D2:Deposition of PW1 in DVC No.46/2015 on the file of Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for the Trial of Prohibition and Excise offences, Nellore (Certified copy).
Fair Judgment 21
Ex.D3:Received copy of legal notice from B. Ramakrishna Reddy to Syed Ahmed Mohiddin and two others, dt.11.6.2015
Ex.D4:Office copy of the reply notice dt.27.6.2015 from B. Bhaskaran, advocate to B. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate (photo copy) along with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.D5:Office copy of reply notice dt.26.6.2015 from Patan Shafi Ahmed, Advocate to B. Ramakrishna Reddy, advocate (Photo copy) along with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.D6:Office copy of legal notice dt.27.7.2015 from R. Bhaskaran, advocate to the station House office, Buchireddypalem along with the postal acknowledgement.
Ex.D7:Certified copy of order in DVC.46/2015, dt.10.2.2017 on the file of on the file of Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for the Trial of Prohibition and Excise offences, Nellore.
Sd/-Shaik Pedakhasim
I Additional Judicial Magistrate of
I Class, Kovur
// True Copy //
I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovur
Fair Judgment