Sheetal D.B

1 of 11 CC.No. 12261 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:

MAHILA COURT, HYDERABAD.

Present:Ms. SHEETAL D.B., XIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, (MAHILA COURT) Hyderabad.

Friday, this the 7 th day of November, 2025

CC. No. 12261 of 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana,Rep. by., The Sub-Inspector of Police, W.P.S, Begumpet, North Zone, Hyderabad. … COMPLAINANT.

AND

A1. Kandlakoya Shiva Kumar, S/o: Late K. Sri Ramulu, Age: 50 yrs, Occ: Welder,

A2. K. Raju, S/o: Sriramulu, Age: 56 yrs, Occ: Welding work,

Both are R/o: 12-1-1211, Shanthi Nagar, North Lalaguda,

Secunderabad. .... ACCUSED NO.1 & 2

This case is coming before me on 04.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Roopa, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. E. Radha Krishna, Advocate, for Accused Nos.1 and 2, and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court delivered the following :-

:: JUDGMENT::

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS, Begumpet, North Zone, Hyderabad, filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No. 99/2019 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:

(i) On 30.04.2019 at 2.30 PM, the defacto complainant - Smt. Kandlakoya

Lavanya, lodged a report stating that her marriage was performed with

2 of 11 CC.No. 12261 of 2019

Kandlakoya Shiva Kumar (A1) on 10.06.1995 as per Hindu rites and customs and it was an arranged marriage. During the wedlock, she was blessed with two children but her girl child got demised. After 3 months of their marriage, due to petty quarrels A1 used to get abscond leaving her alone at home. In 2004, A1 beat her black and blue and started harassing her. Due to which she poured kerosene on herself. In regard counselling was held in WPS

Begumpet and compromised. But, A1 did not change his behaviour and used to abscond from the house and return back after 6 months. Now A1 absconded from the house since two years and he took away her saving amount of Rs.1.40 lakhs besides that he/A1 had Rs.6.00 lakhs debt. The house which they are residing was collapsed. Brother of A1 i.e., A2 also used to harass her mentally and used to abuse her in filthy language whenever she asked about A1. Her mother got demised at that time also A2 did not give information about A1. The debtors who gave debts to her husband insisting her to pay the amounts. Hence the present complaint with a request to take necessary action against the accused persons.

(ii)Basing on contents of the above complaint, LW.5/Smt. R. Pramodini,

ASI of Police, WPS, Begumpet, Hyderabad, registered a case in Crime No.

99/2019 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and took up investigation.

(iii)During the course of investigation, LW.5/Smt. R. Pramodini, ASI of

Police, examined and recorded statement of defacto complainant/LW.1/

Kandlakoya Lavanya and collected wedding card adn 2 marriage photos as documentary evidence from LW.1. She/LW.5 also secured the presence of

3 of 11 CC.No. 12261 of 2019

brother of LW.1 namely LW.2/J. Anand and independent witnesses i.e.,

LW.3/B. Ajay Kumar and LW.4/Vinod Kumar, examined and recorded their statements. Then she/LW.5 issued and served notice under Section 41-A

Cr.P.C to the accused Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, LW.6/Smt. T. Jyothsna,

Inspector of Police, took up investigation from LW.5/Smt. R. Pramodini, ASI of Police, found it on correct lines. After completion of investigation,

LW.6/Smt. T. Jyothsna, Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

3.This Court took cognizance against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and the case was numbered as C.C.No.

12261 of 2019 and issued summons to A1 and A2. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2, copies were furnished to them as required u/sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

4. Upon perusing the material on record, this Court framed charge for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and they were examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, and same was read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating material appearing against them and reported no defence evidence.

4 of 11 CC.No. 12261 of 2019

7.Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section

498-A r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.The accused persons herein are charged for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC.

10.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

11.PW.1/Smt. K. Lavanya is the defacto complainant and victim. She deposed that she got married to A1 on 10.06.1995 and the marriage was an arranged one, performed according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.40,000/- in cash, 3 tulas of gold, and all other household articles. At the time of marriage, A1 was employed as a welder. After marriage, she joined A1 her in-laws’ house at Shantinagar and lived happily for about 2 to 3 months. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two children, and one daughter passed away. A1 was addicted to alcohol and used to leave the house for about 2 to 3 months without informing anyone in the family, returning whenever he wished. Despite such behavior of

A1, she continued her marital life with him. A2 who is the brother of A1, was aware of the whereabouts of A1, but he never disclosed it to them. When she informed her mother-in-law about the behavior of A1, she/her mother-in-law quarreled with her. In 2014, A1 beat her and attempted to kill her by pouring

5 of 11 CC.No. 12261 of 2019

kerosene on her and setting her on fire. A case was also registered in this regard. Considering the welfare of her children, she withdrew the said case against A1 and continued her marital life with him. A1 incurred a debt of around Rs.6.00 lakhs and committed theft of her savings of Rs.1.40 lakhs and left the house, and since then she was not aware of the whereabouts of

A1. After 6 months, she lodged a complaint at PS Lalaguda under man- missing, and on their advice, she lodged a complaint at PS Begumpet under

Ex.P1. Police examined and recorded her statement.

12.PW.2/Anand is the younger brother of PW.1. He deposed that in the year 1995, the marriage of Pw.1 was performed with A1. At the time of marriage, they gave 3 tulas of gold and Rs.40,000/- cash. Since marriage,

A1 had the habit of consuming alcohol. A1 left the house after two months of marriage, and when PW.1 was pregnant for the first time, at that time A1 came again and lived happily for some time with her. They do not know when

A1 left the house and when he came to the house, likewise after two months again A1 left the house and again he came after the second delivery. When the second female child was born, A1 poured kerosene on PW1, due to which

PW1 sustained burn injuries on her hand. They went there and took PW1 to the hospital and provided treatment to her. After that, the matter was placed

before the elders and the elders advised them to live amicably for their

children. In the year 2013, PW1’s second female child died and when the child was suffering from ill health, at that time also A1 was not looking after her properly and he was in an intoxicated condition at all times.

6 of 11 CC.No. 12261 of 2019

Even at the 5 days death ceremony of PW1’s daughter, A1 made galata. After that, for one or two years, A1 was coming and going, and after that, he left the house completely and did not return again. When PW1’s son phoned A1 and requested him to come home, A1 questioned to whom he was born and abused him. Whenever PW1 phoned A1, at that time one lady lifted the phone and informed that he would not return and he will stay there only.

Since then onwards, A1 did not come. After that, PW1 gave a complaint to the police. Police examined and recorded his statement.

13.PW.3/B. Ajay Kumar, is cited as an independent witness. He deposed that he knows PW1 since many years. A1 used to beat PW1 in an intoxicated condition. A1 used to go to Tirupathi saying that he was going for work pand used to return after 3 months, and he/A1 also used to borrow amounts (hand loans) from one person or another. For the last 6 years, A1 was not coming, but 1 or 2 times he came. PW1 was working as a President in Mahila

Mandali groups and in that also A1 borrowed amount as a loan. Afterwards,

A1 did not repay the same. In that regard, disputes arose in the Mahila

Mandali groups. Police examined and recorded his statement.

14.PW.4/Smt. T. Jyotsna, is the Investigating Officer. She deposed that as per record, LW5/R. Pramodini, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Begumpet, received complaint from PW1 on 30.04.2019 at 2.30 PM and basing on the contents of it, LW5/R. Pramodini, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.99/2019 U/sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code and issued FIR under Ex.P2. She/LW5 examined and recorded the statements of PWs 1 and

7 of 11 CC.No. 12261 of 2019

2 and collected documentary evidence. Further, she/LW.5 examined and recorded the statements of PW.3 and LW.4/Vinod Kumar. LW5/R. Pramodini,

Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, prepared and served Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notice on

A1 and A2 and handed over CD file to her/PW.2. She verified the investigation done by LW5/R. Pramodini, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, and found it on correct lines. She can identify the signatures of LW5/R.

Pramodini, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, on all the documents filed before this Hon’ble Court. After completion of entire investigation, she filed charge- sheet against A1 and A2.

15. Pw.1 in her evidence deposed that A1 was addicted to alcohol and used to leave the house without informing anybody in the family for upto two to three months and return home as and when he likes. On the contrary,

PW.1 admitted in her cross-examination that her husband (A1) is doing welding work and he was also going out of station for his welding work. A husband going out of station for work for eking livelihood, can in no manner be termed as an act of cruelty. Hence, in view of admission of PW.1 herself that A1 used to go out of station for welding work, no element of cruelty can be attributed to A1.

16.Furthermore, PWs.1 and 2 in their evidence deposed that at the time of marriage, parent of PW.1 gave Rs.40,000/- cash and 3 tulas gold. The said piece of evidence i.e., giving of alleged dowry is not find place in her complaint (Ex.P1). Furthermore, as admitted by the PWs.1 and 2 in their

8 of 11 CC.No. 12261 of 2019

cross-examination, they have not filed any proof before the Court to show that they gave Rs.40,000/- cash and 3 tulas gold to the accused. Therefore, there is no material evidence on record to establish that the alleged dowry was given to the accused at the time of marriage, more particularly on their demand.

17. PW.1 deposed in her evidence that in the year 2014 A1 beat her and tried to kill her by pouring kerosene on her and set fire. Surprisingly, there is no mention of the same by PW.1 in her complaint (Ex.P1). In other words,

Ex.P1 is totally silent about the alleged overt act of A1 trying to kill PW.1 by pouring kerosene on her and setting fire. This invariably goes to show that

PW.1 made improvements and embellishments to her version during the course of her evidence to suit the prosecution case.

18.Even otherwise, no medial report is forthcoming from the prosecution to substantiate the version of PW.1 that she sustained burn injuries due to alleged overt acts of A1 when A1 allegedly poured kerosene on PW.1 and set fire.

19.Further, it is pertinent to mention her that as per the case narrated by prosecution and also as per the evidence of PW.1, PW.1 was allegedly subjected to harassment at her in-laws' house at Shantinagar. Whereas

PWs.2 and 3 are residents of Bhongir and Rampally, Hyderabad respectively.

Albiet PW.3 in his evidence categorically deposed that A1 used to beat PW.1 by consuming alcohol, but as admitted by the PW.3 in his cross-examination,

9 of 11 CC.No. 12261 of 2019

the distance between his house and A1's house is 7 kilometers. The distance between house of PW.3 and A1 creates a considerable doubt about the possibility of PW.3 to witness A1 allegedly beating PW.1 by consuming alcohol. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that PWs.2 and 3 had personal knowledge about the marital affairs of PW.1 and also the alleged harassment meted out to her by A1. As such the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution.

20.Surprisingly, no independent witnesses from the neighbourhood where

PW.1 and A1 resided together during their marital life and where PW.1 was allegedly subjected to harassment by A1, were examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Therefore, the failure of the Investigating

Officer or the prosecution to examine any witnesses from the neighbourhood of the marital house of PW.1, proved fatal to the case of prosecution, thereby leaving the self-serving, omnibus testimony of PW.1 uncorroborated.

21.As far as allegations against A2 is concerned, except the self serving testimony of PW.1 alleging that A2 never disclosed whereabouts of A1 despite having knowledge of the same, there is no incriminating evidence in order to constitute the offence of cruelty against him. Further, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is totally silent about A2.

22.The evidence of PW.4/Investigating Officer is to the effect of investigation done by her pursuant to registering FIR (Ex.P2) by LW.5/R.

Pramodini, ASI of Police.

10 of 11 CC.No. 12261 of 2019

23.Except vague suggestion, nothing substantive has been elicited from

PW.4 in her cross examination to disprove the investigation done by her. But, mere proving the investigation done by PW.4, is not helpful to the case of the prosecution, when except self-serving and omnibus testimony of PW.1, there is no material and cogent evidence on record to bring home the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence alleged against them. Therefore, prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt, and hence they are entitled to acquittal.

24. In the result, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused No.2 shall be in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A

Cr.P,C.The Jail authorities are directed to release the accused No.1 forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or cases.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 7 th day of November, 2025.)

Sd/-

XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW.1: Smt. K. Lavanya, defacto complainant/victimNIL

PW.2: Sri. J. Anand, brother of PW.1

11 of 11 CC.No. 12261 of 2019

PW.3: Sri. B. Ajay Kumar, Independent witness

PW.4: Smt. T. Jyotsna, Inspector of police/Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1 - ComplaintNIL

Ex.P2 - FIR

MO MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-

XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

1 of 10 CC.No. 8932 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:

MAHILA COURT, HYDERABAD.

Present:Ms. SHEETAL.D.B., XIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, (MAHILA COURT) Hyderabad

Tuesday, this the 4 th Day of November, 2025

C.C.No. 8932 of 2024

Between:

The State of Telangana,Rep. by., Inspector of police, W.P.S., Begumpet, North Zone, Secunderabad. … COMPLAINANT.

AND

A1. K. Manohar, S/o: Late Rajeshwaraiah, Age: 55 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee, A2. K. Satyavathi, W/o: K. Manohar,

A3. K. Vinay Kumar, S/o: K. Manohar,

A4. K. Rakesh, S/o: K. Manohar, Age: 25 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee,

A5. K. Narsimha Rao, S/o: Late Rajeshwaraiah, Age: 58 yrs, Occ: Nil,

A6. K. Venkatshwarulu, S/o: Late Rajeshwaraiah, Age: 55 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee,

A7. K. Venkatesh, S/o: K. Manohar, Age: 28 yrs, (The case against A7 was abated on 01.09.2023) A1 to A6 are R/o: H.No. 1-2-246, Gunj Bhongir, Nalgonda Dist., … ACCUSED NOs. 1 to 7

This case is coming before me on 03.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Roopa, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Syed Lateef, Advocate, for accused Nos.1 to 6 and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this court doth delivered the following :-

2 of 10 CC.No. 8932 of 2024

:: JUDGMENT::

1. The Inspector of Police, WPS, Begumpet, North Zone, Secunderabad, filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 7 in Cr.No. 07/2014 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 417, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:

(i) On 10.01.2014 the defacto complainant- K.Swetha, lodged a report stating that she got married to Kasturi Vijay Kumar, who is eldest son of K.

Manohar (A1). K. Vinay Kumar (A3), K. Rakesh (A4) and K Ranjith are younger brothers of her husband. They have given a dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs and spent marriage expenses amounting to Rs. 10.00 lakhs which includes her gold ornaments and silver. Her husband is working as Audit Manager in

Deloite Company. After marriage, herself and her husband resided separately at Madhapur, Hyderabad due to job Convenience. On 30-03-2013 i.e., on the birthday of her husband, he woke up at 06:00 AM and suddenly fell down unconscious and blood coming from his mouth, immediately she got help from her neighbours and gave call for ambulance. The duty doctor who was in ambulance has declared her husband as dead, but as an last resort they took him to image hospital to get him medicated, but hospital doctors also declared him bought dead. Her parents got information about the incident at the same time her in-laws also came to the hospital and started there unruly behaviour and they took away her husband's body in an emergency. Seeing their behaviour her relatives and parents got suspicion and they contacted hospital doctor's for a report and on seeing the report they came to know

3 of 10 CC.No. 8932 of 2024

that her husband is carrying a stent which was implanted before her marriage (i.e., 11 years back). Even on the cremation day her in-laws behaved rudely and they have not allowed her to see her husband final rites giving her another jute which she couldn't recover for some days. She was in shock that her in-law and her husband also kept in dark about his condition. Previously once she saw scar on the chest of her husband and on her enquiry, he (her husband) told that it was an injury with a glass peace and got stitches. Due to sudden death of her husband, her carrier and future got spoiled. Hence requested to help her to recover her expenses, insurance articles and part of her share as per legality of her in-laws compaction. In that regard, several times they have approached her in-laws for her proportion, but they tried to assault her request her out of their house and she has been saved by her parents and relatives who were with her. At that time till date she has not league any complaint but they started harassing her indirectly and directly even after all this situation. One day they came to her house at Madhapur and took away all her belongings and they even withdrawn amount from her husband's account illegally. Vexed with the unruly behavior of accused, she lodged complaint against the accused persons with a request to take necessary action against them.

(ii)On receipt of above complaint, LW.9/Smt. A. Madhavi Latha, Inspector of Police, WPS, Begumpet, registered a case in Crime No. 07/2014 under

Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and took up investigation.

4 of 10 CC.No. 8932 of 2024

(iii)During the course of investigation, LW.9/Smt. A. Madhavi Latha,

Inspector of Police, examined and recorded statements of LW.1/K. Swetha and her parents i.e., LW.2/K. Rajesh and LW.3/K. Dhana Laxmi, and collected marriage photographs and wedding card as documentary evidence.

On 20.01.2014, deputed staff who apprehended A1 produced him before

LW.9/Smt. A. Madhavi Latha, Inspector of Police, then she/LW.9 affected the arrest of A1 and got him remanded to judicial custody. On transfer of

LW.9/Smt. A. Madhavi Latha, Inspector of Police, LW.10/Smt. P. Dhana

Laxmi, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation in this case.

She/Lw.10 examined and recorded statements of LWs.4 to 8 namely K.

Rahul, P. Ganga Kishan, N. Ratnam, G.S. Murali and N. Venkata Ramana respectively. Further, A4 to A7 obtained anticipatory bail from Hon'ble VIII

Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide Crl.M.P.No. 281/2014 but sureties were not furnished at Police Station. Then, LW.10/Smt. P. Dhana Laxmi,

Inspector of Police, issued and served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., to the accused Nos.2 to 7. Basing on the evidence collected, Sections 506, 417, 420 r/w 34 of IPC were added to existing Sections. After completion of her investigation, LW.10/Smt. P. Dhana Laxmi, Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 417, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.Initially the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, took cognizance against the accused Nos. 1 to 7 for the offence under Sections

5 of 10 CC.No. 8932 of 2024

498-A, 406, 506, 417, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and numbered the case as C.C.No.

20 of 2015 and issued summons to the accused Nos.1 to 7. On appearance of the accused persons, copies were furnished to them as required u/sec.207 of

Cr.P.C. At this stage, the accused No.7 was reported died and hence the case against A7 stood abated.

4. Upon hearing of both sides, charge for the offence under Sections 498-

A, 406, 506, 417, 420 r/w 34 of IPC were framed and the accused Nos.1 to 6 were examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, and same was read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.At this stage, as per the orders of Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad vdie Dis.No. 3878/2024 dated 22.07.2024, this case was transferred to this Court and directed the accused persons to appear before this Court. On receipt of case file, this case was renumbered as CC No.

8932/2024. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 6 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and they denied incriminating material appearing against them and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

6 of 10 CC.No. 8932 of 2024

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406,

506, 417, 420 r/w 34 of IPCbeyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.The case of prosecution is that the defacto complainant's marriage was performed with Late Kasturi Vijay Kumar, who is son of A1, on 29.10.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of the Accused No.1 to 3, parents of the defacto complainant had given a sum of

Rs 5.00 lakhs cash towards dowry and also given gold ornaments and all household articles worth Rs. 10.00 lakhs and performed the marriage in a grand scale. After the marriage, the defacto complainant and her husband (Vijay Kumar) used to live separately at Madhapur, Hyderabad due to job

Connivance of her husband. On 30-03-2013 at 06:00 AM, the husband of defacto complainant suddenly fell down unconscious and when she shifted him to Image hospital with the help of her neighbours, the doctors declared him bought dead. After going through medical report supplied by hospital authorities, she came know that her husband is carrying a stent which was implanted before her marriage i.e., 11 years back. After death of her husband, the in-laws of defacto complainant i.e., Accused Nos.1 to 7 subjected her cruelty by harassing her mentally and physically and abused her and her parents in most filthy language and they did not allow the defacto complainant to enter into their house. The entire gold ornaments,

7 of 10 CC.No. 8932 of 2024

household articles and other belongings which were given at the time of marriage by the parents of defacto complainant are in the custody of her in- laws. They threatened her and tried to misappropriate the same. All the accused with a common intention cheated the defacto complainant and her parents by not disclosing the fact of health condition of her husband prior to marriage. When the defacto complainant came to know about the fact through the hospital authority, then all the accused persons i.e, Accused

No.1 to 7 threatened her dire consequences. Thus, the accused persons committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 417, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.

10.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 and got marked

Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

11.The evidence of LW.1/Smt. K. Swetha, who is the defacto complainant/victim was closed by this court due to failure of prosecution to produce her before the court for her evidence, despite of granting several adjournments. The learned APP had given up the evidence of LWs.2 and 3 namely K.Rajesh and L. Dhana Laxmi (parents of LW.1) as they were reported died. The learned APP had also given up the evidence of LWs.4 to 8 namely K.

Rahul, P. Ganga Kishan, N. Ratnam, G.S. Murali and N. Venkata Ramana respectively, basing on the report filed by the police that LW.1/defacto complainant/victim is not interested in continuing the case.

8 of 10 CC.No. 8932 of 2024

12.The only evidence available on record is that of PW.1/B. Dhana Laxmi, who is the then Inspector of police, WPS, Begumpet, North Zone, Hyderabad and Investigating Officer in the present case and she deposed that as per the record, LW9/Madhavi Latha. Inspector of Police, WPS, Begumpet, North

Zone, received complaint from LW1 on 10.01.2014 at 11:00 hours and basing on the contents of it, she/LW9 registered a case in Cr.No. 07/2014 U/sec.

498-A. 406 of IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the complaint dated 10.01.2014 lodged by LW.1/K. Swetha. she/LW9 examined and recorded the statements of LWs 1 to 3 namley K. Swetha, K. Rajesh and K. Dhana laxmi respectively and collected documentary evidence. On 20.01.2014,

LW9/Madhavi Latha. Inspector of Police, received credible information upon which she/LW9 apprehended A1 and issued arrest memo and produced him

before this Hon'ble Court for judicial remand. As LW9/Madhavi Latha.

Inspector of Police, was transferred, she handed over the CD file to her/PW.1, and she can identify the signatures of LW9/Madhavi Latha. Inspector of

Police, on all the documents filed before this Hon'ble Court. She verified the investigation done by LW9/Madhavi Latha. Inspector of Police, and found it on correct lines. Further, she/PW.1 examined and recorded the statements of

LWs. 4 to 8 namely K. Rahul, P. Ganga Kishan, N. Ratnam, G.S. Murali and

N. Venkata Ramana respectively. Accused No.4 to 7 obtained anticipatory bail from Hon'ble VIII Addl. MSJ. Hyderabad, and thereafter she issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to A2 to A7. After completion of entire investigation, she filed charge-sheet against A1 to A7.

9 of 10 CC.No. 8932 of 2024

13. The cross-examination of PW.1 was recorded as Nil, due to no representation by the counsel for accused. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 with regard to investigation conducted by him remained not disproved.

14.As stated supra, the evidence of material witness i.e., LW.1/K. Swetha, who is defacto complainant has been closed by this court as the prosecution failed to produce her for her evidence and the learned APP given up the evidence of LW.2/K. Rajesh and LW.3/K. Dhana Laxmi (parents of LW.1) as they reported died and also given up all other remaining witnesses basing on the report filed by police that defacto complainant is not interested in continuing the case. Therefore, there is no incriminating evidence on record against the accused. In the absence of any incriminating evidence, particularly material witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that mere evidence of PW.1 independently which is only to the effect of investigation conducted by her, is not helpful to the prosecution to bring home guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence alleged against them. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 417, 420 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, and hence they are entitled to acquittal.

15. In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 417, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences.

10 of 10 CC.No. 8932 of 2024

The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 6 shall be in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr. PC. The case against A7 stood abated.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 4 th day of November. 2025.)

Sd/-

XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW1: Smt. P. Dhana Laxmi, Inspector of Police, NIL WPS, Beumpet, North Zone, Hyd/Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1 - FIRNIL

Ex.P2 - Complaint dated 10.01.2014

MO MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-

XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

1 of 7 CC.No. 121 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:

MAHILA COURT, HYDERABAD.

Present:Ms. SHEETAL D.B., XIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, (MAHILA COURT), Hyderabad.

Monday, this the 10 th day November, 2025

CC No. 121 of 2018

Between:

The State of Telangana, Rep.by, The Sub-Inspector of police, WPS, CSS, Hyderabad. … COMPLAINANT. AND

A1. E. Raj Kumar Yadav, S/o: E. Komaraiah, Age: 25 yrs (The case against A1 was split up vide CC No. 721/2024)

A2. E. Laxmi, W/o: E. Komaraiah, Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Housewife,

A3. E. Komaraiah, S/o: Late Narasaiah, Age: 50 yrs, Occ: Private employee, A2 & A3 are R/o: H.No. 8-3-144/7, Opp. Krishna Kant Park, Jawahar Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.… ACCUSED NOs. 2 & 3

This case is coming before me on 25.08.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.Roopa, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri E. Radha Krishna, Advocate, for accused Nos.2 and 3 , and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this court doth delivered the following :-

:: JUDGMENT::

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS, CCS, Hyderabad, filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No. 685/2015 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:

(i)On 14.11.2015 at 3.30 PM, the defacto complainant- Smt. E. Madhavi, lodged a report stating that her marriage was performed with E. Raj Kumar

2 of 7 CC.No. 121 of 2018

(A1) on 09.02.2014 at Ganugupahad village, Janagon Mandal of Warangal

District. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs. 2.00 lakhs cash,

Rs.2.00 lakhs worth of gold, 30 tulas of silver articles and Rs.30,000/- worth of household articles. After marriage, she joined at at her in-laws' house.

During wedlock, they blessed with one female child on 19.02.2015. Since marriage, A1 and her in-laws (i.e., A2 and A3) started harassing her to bring

additional dowry of Rs. 5.00 lakhs and other domestic reasons. Hence, she

requested to take necessary action against the accused persons.

(ii)Basing on contents of above complaint, LW.5/Smt. T. Jyothsna,

Inspector of Police, WPS, CCS, Hyderabad, registered a case in Cr.No.

685/2015, U/Secs. 498-A, 406 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act and entrusted the FIR to LW.6/P. Kamalamma, Sub-Inspector of Police, for further investigation.

(iii)During the course of investigation, LW.6/P. Kamalamma, Sub-Inspector of Police, examined and recorded statements of LWs.1 to 4 namely

E.Madhavi, D. Laxmi, D.Raghu and A. Devendar respectively. Later she/LW.6 issued and served notice u/Section 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused No.1 to 3. On transfer of LW.6/P. Kamalamma, Sub-Inspector of Police, LW.7/M.

Sarangpani, SI of Police, took up investigation and in turn LW.8/P. Vijay

Bhaskar, Sub-Inspector of Police took up CD file from LW.7 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

3 of 7 CC.No. 121 of 2018

3.This court took cognizance against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and the case was numbered as CC No. 121/2018 and issued summons to accused Nos.1 to 3. At this stage, accused Nos.2 and 3 filed a petition vide Crl.M.P.No. 4732/2023 praying this Court to split up the case against their son/A1 as he was found missing since 2019 (filed paper publication), accordingly the said petition was allowed on 30.01.2024 and the case against A1 was split up vide CC No. 721/2024. On appearance of accused Nos. 2 and 3 copies were furnished to them as required u/sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

4.Upon perusing the material on record, this court framed charges under

Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused No.2 and 3 and they were examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, and same was read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and reported closure of evidence. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LWs.2, 4 to 7 namely Smt. D. Laxmi, T.

Jyothsna/IO who issued FIR, P. Kamalamma/1st IO, M. Saranjapani/2nd IO and P. Vijay Bhaskar/IO who filed charge-sheet, respectively.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.2 and 3 were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., and they denied the incriminating material evidence appearing against them and reported no defence evidence.

4 of 7 CC.No. 121 of 2018

7.Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the material on record.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sections

498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act ,

beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

[10.PW1/Smt. E. Madhavi, is the defacto complainant/victim. She deposed that A1 is her husband, A2 and A3 are parents of A1. She further deposed that her marriage with A1 was solemnized on 09.02.2014 and that the accused persons never harassed her for additional dowry or for any other purpose at any point of time. She further deposed that she has not lodged any complaint to the police against the accused. She further deposed that the police obtained her signature on blank paper when she visited the police station on her personal work. Ex.P1 is her signature on the complaint dt.

09.11.2015, the contents of which are not known to her and that the police did not examine her, nor recorded her statement.

11.Basing on the evidence of PW1, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared PW.1 as hostile and during cross examination by Assistant Public

Prosecutor, PW.1 denied that she lodged a complaint against the accused persons to the police and also denied having stated before the police as in

Ex.P2 (Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1) and that she is deposing false.

However, she admitted that she had settled the matter with the accused persons through mediation as they are living separately since 2017.

5 of 7 CC.No. 121 of 2018

12. PW.2/D. Raghu, is the father of PW.1 and he deposed on the same lines with that of PW.1 stating that he performed the marriage of PW.1 with

A1 on 09.02.2014 and that the accused persons never harassed PW.1 for

additional dowry or for any other purpose at any point of time. He further

deposed that police did not examine him nor recorded his statement.

13.Basing on the evidence of PW.2, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor declared him as hostile and during cross examination by Asst. Public

Prosecutor, PW.2 denied having stated before the police as in Ex.P3 (Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2) and that he is deposing false. However, he admitted that PW.1 had settled the matter with the accused persons through mediation as they are living separately since 2017.

14.PW.3/P. Vijay Bhasker, is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, PS, WPS,

CCS Hyderabad/Investigating Officer. He deposed that as per record, LW.5/T.

Jyotsna, Inspector of Police, WPS, CCS, Hyderabad, received a complaint from PW1 on 14.11.2015 at 3.30 PM, basing on the contents of it, she/LW.5 registered a case in Cr.No. 685/2015 U/secs. 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act and issued FIR under Ex.P4. Ex.P5is the complaint dated 09.11.2015 lodged by PW.1. Thereafter, LW.5/T. Jyotsna, Inspector of Police, handed over CD file to LW.6/P. Kamalamma, WSI of Police, Hyderabad.

LW.6/P. Kamalamma, WSI of Police, examined and recorded the statements

PWs.1 and 2 and LW.2/D. Laxmi and LW.4/A. Devendar. She/LW.6 served

Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to A1 to A3 and handed over CD file to

LW.7/Sarangapani, SI of Police, WPS, CCS, Hyderabad. Later on 20.11.2016,

LW.7/Sarangapani, SI of Police, handed over CD file to him (PW.3), he verified

6 of 7 CC.No. 121 of 2018

the investigation done by LWs.5 to 7 and found it on correct lines. He/PW.3 can identify the signatures of LWs.5 to 7 on all the documents filed before this Court. After completion of entire investigation, he/PW.3 filed charge- sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

15.Except vague suggestions, nothing substantive has been elicited from

PW.3 by the learned counsel for accused to disprove the investigation done by him, LW.5/T. Jyotsna, Inspector of Police, LW.6/P. Kamalamma, WSI of Police and LW.7/Sarangapani, SI of Police.

16.Be that as it may, as stated supra, PWs.1 and 2 who are none other than the defacto complainant/victim and her father and material witnesses, did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. In the absence of any incriminating evidence, particularly from PWs.1 and 2 who are material witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the sole testimony of PW.3 (Investigating Officer) which is only to the effect of the investigation conducted in the present case, is not helpful to the prosecution case to bring home guilt of the accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences alleged against them. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of accused No.2 and 3 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt, and hence they are entitled to acquittal.

17. In the result, the accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1)

7 of 7 CC.No. 121 of 2018

Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused Nos.2 and 3, shall be in force for a period of six months U/Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my direct dictation to the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 10 th day of November, 2025.)

Sd/-

XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW.1 : Smt. E. Madhavi, defacto complainant/VictimNIL

PW.2: Sri. D. Raghu, father of PW.1

PW.3 :P. Vijay Bhasker/Sub-Inspector of police/Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1 - Signature of PW1 on the complaint dtd. 09.11.2015 NIL

Ex.P2 – Sec. 161 Cr PC statement of PW.1

Ex.P3 – Sec. 161 Cr PC statement of PW.2

Ex.P4 –FIR

Ex.P5 - Complaint

MO MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-

XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

1 of 7 CC.No. 225 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:

MAHILA COURT, HYDERABAD.

Present: Ms. SHEETAL D.B., XIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, (MAHILA COURT), Hyderabad.

Monday, this the 3 rd day of November, 2025

CC. No. 225 of 2014

Between:

The State of Telangana, Rep.by, The Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS, CCS, DD, Hyderabad. … COMPLAINANT.

AND A1. Mohd Saifuddin, S/o: Md. Nooruddin, Age: 32 yrs, Occ: Supervisor in B.Chandrasekhar Reddy Nagar Housing Society, R/o: H.No. 7-2, B.Chandrasekhar Reddy Nagar, D. Pochampally, Dundigal Post, Qutbullahpur, R.R. Dist.,

A2. Smt. Saleem Pasha, W/o: Md. Nooruddin, Age: 55 yrs, Occ: Housewife, (The case against A2 was abated on 25.04.2025)

A3. Smt. Nazia Sultana, Age: 29 yrs, H.No. 7-2, B.Chandrasekhar Reddy Nagar, D. Pochampally, Dundigal Post, Qutbullahpur, R.R. Dist., … ACCUSED NOs.1 to 3

This case is coming before me on 30.10.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Roopa, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri. B. Yugender Rao, Advocate, for accused No.1 and Sri. Jeevan Sukale, Advocate,

for accused No. 3, and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the

arguments on both sides, this court doth delivered the following :-

:: JUDGMENT::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 in Cr.No. 476 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition

Act.

2 of 7 CC.No. 225 of 2014

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:

(i)On 29.10.2012, the defacto complainant - Smt. Rafia Sultana, lodged a report stating that she was married to Saifuddin (A1) on 14.09.2000. For the last 10 years, A1 and his family members have been harassing her to bring money from her parents. But for 2 years, she was not able to bring money as her father expired 2 years ago, and nobody is there to give her money. She has 3 children. Her elder daughter is under the custody of her mother-in-law, but whenever her daughter need school fees, they used to ask her to pay the school fee and they (accused persons) have also not took admission for her two other children in school. Her husband (A1) left them two years ago and ran away to his brother's house. For the last one year, he/A1 has been giving Rs.2,000/- per month, but it is not enough for their livelihood. The accused persons took away her jewellery and also took away

Rs.3.00 lakhs which she/LW.1 received from Nizam Trust. 15 day back, A1 ran away with a married woman having two kids. Further, he/A1 stated that the said woman is his wife and harassing her to vacate the flat which is in his/A1's name. Her mother-in-law (A2) supported the acts of A1. They used to beat her and harassed her physically and mentally, as such she started residing with her children as they (her kids) are afraid of accused. Further, the accused persons sold away her father-in-law's land and received sale consideration of Rs.60.00 lakhs, even then also they said that they don't have money. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against the accused persons.

3 of 7 CC.No. 225 of 2014

(ii)On receipt of above complaint, LW.4/P. Janakamma,Inspector of Police,

WPS, CCS, DD, Hyderabad registered a case in Cr.No. 476/2012 U/secs.

498-A, 406 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act and handed over case file to

LW.5/C. Rama Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, for further investigation.

(iii)During the course of investigation, LW.5/C. Rama Swamy, Sub-

Inspector of Police, examined and recorded statement of defacto complainant and collected the required documents from her as material evidence.

Consequent to retirement of LW.5/C. Rama Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police,

LW.6/B. Rama Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, took up further investigation.

He/LW.6 tried to secure independent witnesses, but nobody came forward to speak about the facts. On 08.11.2012, the deputed staff who apprehended A1 produced before LW.5/C. Rama Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, then he/LW.5 affected the arrest of A1 and got him remanded to judicial custody.

Since A2 and A3 were absconding, notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C, was not served upon them and LW.6/B. Rama Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, made all possible efforts to arrest A2 and A3, but in vain. After completion of investigation, LW.6/B. Rama Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, filed charge- sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act by showing A2 and A3 as absconding.

3.This court took cognizance against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, and the case was numbered as CC No. 225/2014 and

4 of 7 CC.No. 225 of 2014

ordered summons to accused No.1 and NBW against A2 and A3. At this stage, A2 was reported died and hence the case against A2 stood abated. On appearance of accused No.1 and 3, copies were furnished to them as required u/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Upon perusing the material on record, this court framed charge under

Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused Nos.1 and 3 and they were examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, and same was read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 and reported closure of evidence.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, examination of the accused

Nos.1 and 3 U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with, since there is no incriminating material appearing against them.

7.Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

accused No.1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sections

498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act ,

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT:

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

5 of 7 CC.No. 225 of 2014

10.PW1/Smt. Rafia Sultana, is the defacto complainant/Victim. She deposed that A1 is her husband and A2 is her mother-in-law and A3 is the second wife of A1. PW.1 further deposed that her marriage with the accused

No.1 was solemnized on 14.09.2000. She further deposed that the accused persons never harassed her for additional dowry or for any other purpose, at any point of time and never beat her. She further deposed that she has not lodged any complaint to the police against the accused persons and that the police obtained her signature (Ex.P1) on blank paper when she visited the police station on her personal work and that the contents of complaint are not known to her and the police did not examine her nor recorded her statement.

11.Basing on the evidence of PW.1, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and during cross examination by Asst. Public Prosecutor,

PW.1 denied the suggestion that she has lodged complaint to the police against the accused persons and that she stated before the police as in Ex.P2 (Sec.161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW.1) and that she is deposing false. However, she admitted that she compromised the matter with the accused out of Court as they are living separately.

12.Since the material witness (i.e., PW.1) turned hostile, the learned Asst.

Public Prosecutor had given up the evidence of LW.2/Smt. Fouzia Sultana,

LW.3/Smt. Zeenathunnisa, LW.4/P. Janakamma, 1st Investigating officer,

LW.5/C. Rama Swamy and LW.6/B. Rama Swamy/Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet, stating that as the material witness i.e., PW.1 who is none

6 of 7 CC.No. 225 of 2014

other than defacto complainant/victim turned hostile, no purpose would serve even if they are examined.

13.For the reasons stated supra, I am of the considered opinion that as the material witness (PW.1) did not support the case of the prosecution, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 3 for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused

Nos.1 and 3 are entitled to acquittal.

14 .In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act , and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 3 shall be in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The case against

A2 stood abated.

(Typed to my direct dictation to the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 3 rd day of November, 2025

Sd/-

XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW.1:Smt. Rafia Sultana/Defacto complainant/victim NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1 - Signature of PW.1 on complaint dated 29.10.2012NIL Ex.P2 – Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

7 of 7 CC.No. 225 of 2014

MO MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-

XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

1 of 5 CC.No. 79 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:

MAHILA COURT, HYDERABAD.

Present: Ms. SHEETAL D.B., XIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, (MAHILA COURT), Hyderabad.

Thursday, this the 30 th day of October, 2025

CC. No. 79 of 2015

Between:

The State of Telangana, Rep.by, The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. … COMPLAINANT.

AND

Shaik Hasnuddin, S/o: Shaik Fakruddin, Age: 38 yrs, R/o: H.No. 10-5-380/12, Syed Nagar, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. … ACCUSED

This case is coming before me on 29.10.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Roopa, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri. S.M. Aazam, Advocate, for accused, and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this court doth delivered the following :-

:: JUDGMENT::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills PS, Hyderabad, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 1104 of 2014 for the offence under

Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:

(i)On 20.09.2014, the defacto complainant - Smt. Ashiya Begum, lodged a report stating that she got married to Shaik Hasnuddin (i.e., Accused herein) about 8 years back and she is his second wife. During their wedlock, 2 of 5 CC.No. 79 of 2015 she was blessed with one son, aged 6 yrs and that her husband is not giving maintenance for his son. As and when the accused visited her house, he used to abuse her in most filthy language and used to beat her. For which, she instructed him not to visit her house. Then the accused became angry, took kerosene bottle and poured kerosene on her. Due to fear, she came to

Police Station and lodged complaint for taking necessary action against the accused. Further, she stated that prior to this, the accused also threatened to pour acid on her.

(ii)On receipt of above complaint, LW.2/A. Anvesh Reddy, Sub-Inspector of

Police, PS Banjara Hills, registered a case in Cr.No. 1104/2014 U/secs. 498-

A, 506 IPC and handed over case file to LW.3/K. Ravi Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, for further investigation.

(iii)During the course of investigation, LW.3/K. Ravi Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, examined and recorded statement of defacto complainant. Later, he/LW.3 visited the scene of offence and caused enquiry, but nobody came forward to speak about the facts. Thereafter, he issued and served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused. On 25.09.2014, the accused appeared before LW.3/K. Ravi Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, and on his enquiry, the accused confessed to have committed the offence, then he/LW.3 effected the arrest of accused and released him on bail on furnishing sureties. After completion of investigation, LW.3/K. Ravi Kumar, Sub-

Inspector of Police, filed charge-sheet against accused for the offence under

Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC.

3 of 5 CC.No. 79 of 2015 3.This court took cognizance against the accused for the offence under

Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC, and case was numbered as CC No. 79/2015 and issued summons to accused. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished to him as required u/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Upon perusing the material on record, this court framed charge under

Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC against accused and he was examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, and same was read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 and reported closure of evidence.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, examination of the accused

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with, since there is no incriminating material appearing against him.

7.Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under sections 498-A,

506 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT:

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

4 of 5 CC.No. 79 of 2015

10.PW1/Smt. Asiya Begum, is the defacto complainant/Victim. She deposed that the accused is her husband and that her marriage with the accused was solemnized about 18 years ago as per Muslim Rites and

Customs. She further deposed that the accused never harassed her physically or mentally for additional dowry or for any other purpose, at any point of time. She further deposed that she has not lodged any complaint to the police against the accused and that the police obtained her signature (Ex.P1) on blank paper when she visited the police station on her personal work and that the contents of complaint are not known to her and the police did not examine her nor recorded her statement.

11.Basing on the evidence of PW.1, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and during cross examination by Asst. Public Prosecutor,

PW.1 denied the suggestion that she has lodged complaint to the police against the accused persons and that she stated before the police as in Ex.P2 (Sec.161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW.1) and that she is deposing false. However, she admitted that she compromised the matter with the accused out of

Court.

12.Since the material witness (i.e., PW.1) turned hostile, the learned Asst.

Public Prosecutor had given up the evidence of LW.2/A. Anvesh Reddy, 1st

Investigating officer and LW.3/K. Ravi Kumar/Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet, stating that as the material witness i.e., PW.1 who is none other than defacto complainant/victim turned hostile, no purpose would serve even if they are examined.

5 of 5 CC.No. 79 of 2015

13.For the reasons stated supra, I am of the considered opinion that as the material witness (PW.1) did not support the case of the prosecution, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence the accused is entitled to acquittal.

14 .In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my direct dictation to the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30 th day of October, 2025.)

Sd/-

XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW.1:Smt. Ashiya Begum/Defacto complainant/victim NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1 - Signature of PW.1 on complaint dated 20.09.2014NIL Ex.P2 – Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

MO MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-

XIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.