C.C.No.344/2017 1 Dt.17.03.2021
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM –
I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACHILIPATNAM.
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Kalyan,
Spl. Judl. I Class Magistrate,
Spl. Mobile Court,
FAC/- Judl. Magistrate of I Class – cum –
I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,
Machilipatnam.
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 17 th DAY OF MARCH, 2021
C.C.No.344 of 2017
Between: The State represented by The Station House Officer, Mahila Police Station, Machilipatnam. … Complainant.
And
1. Seelam Sunil, S/o. Vijaya Kumar, aged about 29 years, D.No.201, Sidareddy Nagar Colony, near Rural Police Station, Madhira, Khammam District.
2. Seelam Devamma, W/o.Vijay Kumar, aged about 48 years, D.No.7/5061, AGK Nagar Colony, Vuyyuru, Krishna District.
3. Seelam Vijay Kumar, S/o.Devadanam, aged about 53 years, D.No.7/5061, AGK Nagar Colony, Vuyyuru, Krishna District.
4. Seelam Naveen, S/o.Vijaya Kumar, aged about 27 years, Assistant Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Kothagudem, Khammam District.
... Accused.
This case is coming on 17.03.2021 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri V.V.Varada Rajulu, Advocate for accused
C.C.No.344/2017 2 Dt.17.03.2021
Nos.1 to 4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following;
J U D G M E N T
1.The Station House Officer, Mahila Police Station filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 in Cr.No.7/2017 for the offence punishable under sec.498A, 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and Sec.3, 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The brief facts of the chargesheet are as follows:
The marriage of L.W1/PW1Addanki Lakshmi Priyanka with accused No.1 was held on 26.02.2015 as per the Christian Customs in
K.C.P. Function Hall at K.C.P., employment colony, Vuyyuru in the presence of both side elders. At the time of the marriage parents of PW1 gave cash of Rs.10,00,000/, gold articles worth Rs.5,00,000/ and gave other articles worth Rs.3,00,000/ to accused Nos.1 to 3. After one month of her marriage, PW1 went to her inlaws house at AGK Nagar Colony,
Vuyyuru, thereafter one month PW1 along with accused No.1 went to
Madhira of Khammam District for continuing her marital life. Since the marriage of PW1 with accused No.1, Accused no.1 used to use filthy language, harass her mentally and physically without reason, PW1 informed to A2 and A3 about the attitude of accused No.1 but they are not responded. In the month of August, 2015, PW1 carried pregnancy, at the time of pregnancy accused No.1 and 2 directed her to take sit ups. Accused
Nos.1 to 3 tried to remove her pregnancy as she will give birth to a female
C.C.No.344/2017 3 Dt.17.03.2021 child. On 01.04.2016 PW1 gave birth to a female child. The matter was informed to accused Nos.1 to 3, but they did not turn up. At the time of the marriage parents of PW1 presented cash and gold ornaments, accused utilized the same for their own. Further demanded PW1 to bring
additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/ from her parents, used filthy language,
accused Nos.1 to 4 harassed her mentally and physically. PW1 unable to bear the harassment caused by accused, she came to her parents house and presented a report. Hence, the charge.
3. This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Sec.498A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P Act and issued summons to accused
Nos.1 to 4.
4.On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when they were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C for which they denied the charge sheet allegations for the offence under sec.498A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of
D.P Act , the substance of the same is read over and explained to them in
Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and
Exs.P1 to P.5 were got marked.
C.C.No.344/2017 4 Dt.17.03.2021
6.Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating evidence appearing against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.
7. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.
8.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:
Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.498A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.3& 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act ?
9.POINT:
In view of the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution and on perusal of contents of chief examination of PW.1 it connotes that PW1 is wife of A1 and A2 to A4 are family members of A1. PW2 and 3 are father and younger sister of PW1, PWs.4, 5 and LW9 known to her. LWs.3, 4 and
LW6 are mother, elder sister son of PW1 and maternal uncle. As per PW1 her marriage was performed on 26.02.2015 at KCP Function Hall at
Vuyyuru with A1 in the presence of both sides elders and well wishers as per Christian rites and customs. The marriage was solemnized and consummated. At the time of marriage parents of PW1 given cash of
Rs.10,00,000/, gold worth Rs.5,00,000/, house hold articles worth
Rs.3,00,000/ were presented to A1 to A3. Immediately after the marriage
C.C.No.344/2017 5 Dt.17.03.2021
PW1 joined with A1 for cohabitation at her matrimonial home situated at
AGK Nagar, Vuyyuru and therein resided together with accused and lead happy married life with A1 for a period of one month as house wife, as A1 is Bank Manger of APGVP at Madira of Khammam District, in that context A1 and PW1 went to Madira to lead marital life. Further as per
PW1 since from the date of the marriage A1 used to suspect and abuse her in filthy language and also used to check the phone calls, messages, mails such that used to harass her mentally, as the same was reportedly informed to her inlaws about the attitude of A1 for which A2 advised A1 to maintain the wife as slave with that A1 at the instigation of A2 used to harass PW1, in addition to that accused utilized the given dowry amount to luxuries of A2 and A3. Further A2 to A4 demanded PW1 to bring
additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/ in that context A2 to A4 instigated A1 to
assault PW1 for additional dowry and used to harass her in demand of
additional dowry as they residing at Madira A1 used to go to Bank by
locking the house confining PW1 inside the house, as PW1 informed about the same to her parents with that A1 tried to kill PW1 with the help of pillow and thereinafter A1 restrained PW1 to contact her parents with that A1 used to harass her both physically and mentally. While the matter stood thus, on one day at midnight A1 taken PW1 to another room in the house and folded her hands to back and while PW1 raising huge cries A1 not allowed her to do so and kept her like that till 4 a.m and A1 continued to behave in such a sadistic manner, during the month of August, 2015 as
C.C.No.344/2017 6 Dt.17.03.2021
PW1 conceived A1 subjected her to urine test as he wants only male baby not female, for which A2 and A3 tried to perform abortion to her, at that juncture, accused not provided proper food, in accordance to that directed her to take sit ups for normal delivery. Inspite of suffering of PW1 they not even taken her to doctor, in the meanwhile during the 5th month of her pregnancy as PW1 consulted doctor at Machilipatnam, therein Doctor advised her not to make long journey to Madira, thereinafter, on knowing about the same A1 altercated with PW1 over phone, although intimated to
A2 and A3, they not even turned up to her. Further on 01.04.2016 PW1 as given birth to a female baby and same was intimated to A1 for which A1 abused her in filthy language then A2 and A3 were intimated through parents of PW1 for which they reiterated parents of PW1 in the same manner, having no other go PW1 waited till 7th month of the baby on delivery the accused not even turned up, for which PW1 having no other go lodged report against accused at Mahila Police Station with that the police therein held counseling for which A1 not taken PW1 to conjugal fold and moreover filed divorce OP against PW1 as she begotten female baby and accordingly, PW1 lodged report on 09.03.2017 to the police with that
Ex.P1 and later police examined PW1.
10. Further during the cross examination of PW1 the learned defence counsel sincerely made efforts to rebut the contents of chief examination and PW1 version, in that regard it was elicited certain
C.C.No.344/2017 7 Dt.17.03.2021 material facts against the case of the prosecution, as part and parcel of that PW1 admitted neither in Ex.P1 nor in her statement before police under Section 161 Cr.P.C contains recitals to show dowry transaction that said to be taken place at the time of the marriage and surprisingly through PW1 it was elicited that prior to her marriage and after engagement, the father of PW1 given the dowry amount by going to the house of the accused, in addition to that it was admitted that PW1 lodged report during the month of November, 2016. After their marriage A1 put up separate family at Madira within 25 days from the date of the marriage, further admitted that during 3rd month of her pregnancy A1 suffered with dengue fever, at that juncture PW1 visited Machilipatnam for medical checkup is inconsistent to that of her statement made in DVC case and it cannot be simply thrown away, in addition to that admitedly & reportedly PW1 visit to her parents house is also inconsistent to that of her earlier version as to DVC case is also surprising, unreliable causing reasonable disbelief and it cannot be simply thrown away. Further it was elicited that PW1 visited Machilipatnam on 07.11.2015 and not turned up to A1 conjugal fold on the advise of doctor so as to take bed rest and no other and also admitted that PW1 not lodged report relating to the alleged harassment either at Vuyyur or at Madira and moreover as per PW1 her birthday was celebrated on 16.07.2015 at Madira wherein her parents joined and surprising through PW1 it was elicited that on 01.08.2015 on the demise of paternal grandfather of A1 the parents of PW1 along with
C.C.No.344/2017 8 Dt.17.03.2021
PW1 attended the cremation ceremony and surprisingly PW1 cannot say the exact dates when A1 used to lock her in the house whereas it was mentioned the period as March, 2015 onwards for three months, connectedly as per PW1 accused Nos.1 to 4 made her to take sit ups from 02.10.2015 to 09.10.2015 during which A1 was admitted at hospital due to dengue fever at that point of time PW1 denied that she never visited A1 at
Vuyyuru is causing reasonable suspicion as to the version of PW1 because, it was elicited through PW1 that she was at her parents house from
November, 2015 and she never turned up to either Madira or Vuyyuru and moreover admittedly she denied that she evaded reunion with A1 due to conditions that stipulated by A1 and other accused, further through
PW1 it was elicited that, she is willing to join the conjugal fold of A1 and more surprisingly since from the date of their separation PW1 never sent her parents to A1 in the same is causing reasonable disbelief as to the version of PW1. Further as per PW1 it was elicited that one Bhagyam is the maidservant of their residence at Madira and one Narayana is a auto driver used to pick up lunch box from PW1 to A1 as and when required and as to that the said auto driver i.e., Narayana used to act as car driver of them as and when needed and also it was elicited that one Reddy was house owner at Madira and she not known his full name in detail and further elicited that wife of his house owner used to do saree business and also admitted that one Satyanarayana who is teacher was neighbor at
Madira, further through PW1 it was elicited that father of PW1 herein
C.C.No.344/2017 9 Dt.17.03.2021
PW2 is a retired head constable of police department and additional superintendent of police namely Sagar is also relative of PW1 and accordingly, PW1 denied that through them this case was foisted against the accused.
11.Further on close perusal of testimony of PW1 it clearly connotes that there is no material piece of evidence in order to establish the alleged offences against the accused apart from her inconsistent ocular evidence, further as per PW1 her married life was happily and continuously lead for only one month and as per PW1 since from the date of her marriage she subjected to harassment in demand of additional dowry both physically and mentally in the hands of the accused that resulted into PW1 suffering of mental agony, in that context it is clearly evident through PW1 that she lead her happy marital life with A1 for a period of one month at her matrimonial home in the association of A2 to
A4 and thereafter A1 put up separate family at Madira on job purpose and therein resided as tenant in the house of PW5 for a period of seven months during which as per PW1 she was subjected to harassment in the hands of
A1 at the instigation of A2 to A4 in demand of additional dowry, as to that
A1 used to suspect her character and used to check her phone calls, messages etc., in accordance to that used to lock her inside the house while going to office and such that to subjected her to cruelty, in accordance to that A1 physically tortured her entire night confining her in a room and threatened her not to cry, surprisingly, PW1 conceived and
C.C.No.344/2017 10 Dt.17.03.2021 begotten child and more, surprisingly no such harassment of PW1 in the hands of A1 reported through PW5 i.e., house owner at Madira residing in ground floor of rented house of PW1 and A1 which is inconsistent to that of PW1 version is suspicious causing reasonable disbelief leaving lacunae upon the part of PW1, moreover although PW1 reiterated her earlier version it requires corroboration, in view of harassment of PW1 at Madira and at Vuyyuru i.e., her matrimonial house, as to that it clearly explicit that the version of PW1 is of doubtful leaving several lacunae because, as per PW1 herself lead happy married life for a period of one month together with accused No.1 during cross examination it was elicited that
PW1 lead her happy marital life at Madira as A1 put up separate family on job purpose therein PW1 conceived and her Seemantham function was celebrated at Madira in the presence of parents of PW1, without leading happy married life there is no point of giving birth to female child, as to that it is material suppression of PW1 and furthermore no such transactions of harassment was established by PW1 pertaining to her physical and mental harassment and dissociation of PW1 from the house of A1 is also inconsistent and contra to that of her earlier version leaving suspicion as such PW1 is unreliable and inconsistent for want of corroboration through material piece of evidence to support her case, to that extent PW1 supported the case of the prosecution.
12.Further the prosecution produced PW2 who is father of PW1 and examined before court, during that PW2 categorically reiterated PW1
C.C.No.344/2017 11 Dt.17.03.2021 in all material particulars of the prior transactions of marriage, at that time of marriage and subsequent to the marriage marginally, in that context PW2 as hearsay witness corroborated the harassment of PW1 in the hands of A1 family members herein other accused, in addition to that mentioned his sources of income as to the said dowry transaction that taken place at the time of the marriage and moreover there is inconsistency with regard to the version of PW2 to that of PW1 as it was elicited during cross examination that PW1 turned up to their house during the month of August at noon hours and also it is contra to that of
PW2 that he sent PW3, LW4 and 6 as mediators to the house of A1 to pacify the dispute, PW2 corroborated to that of PW1 that there is maid servant in the house of PW1 and A1 at Madira, in addition to that PW2 admitted that Pw1 is working in Nobel College at Machilipatnam as
Lecturer during separation period, in these circumstances on close perusal of the testimony of PW2 it clearly evident that PW2 failed to establish the dowry transactions that said to be taken place at the time of the marriage either directly or through other means, as far as the harassment of PW1 at Madira or Vuyyuru PW2 is not a direct witness and is a natural witness with whom PW1 presumed to have disclosed the affairs of her family, in that context PW1 version is unreasonable and unreliable as such, same was not established, similarly as to the transactions that taken place either at Madira or Vuyyuru the evidence of
PW2 taken into consideration as interested witness and to the series of
C.C.No.344/2017 12 Dt.17.03.2021 transactions that taken place subsequent to the post marriage disputes that arose in between PW1 and accused there is no such efforts made by
PW2 as father of PW1 for reunion of PW1 with A1, advertently the
additional dowry demands and harassment of PW1 through accused is
neither established nor proved through PW2, accordingly the evidence of
PW2 is hereby disregarded causing reasonable disbelief in the pursuit of interested witness. Further PW3 who is niece of PW1 by courtesy got examined before the court to corroborate about the harassment of PW1 in the hands of accused, although PW3 through contents of his chief examination corroborated to that of PW1, during cross examination there is inconsistency with regard to his presence at the time of dowry transaction that said to be taken place at the time of the marriage in between PW2 and accused, as to that PW3 got admitted about his contrary statement made by him before court and police, with that itself explicits that due to relationship and acquaintance with PW1 parents
PW3 adduced his evidence in faovur of PW1 and no other, as himself admitted as not direct witness to the harassment of PW1 and the same came to know by him through PW1, as such the evidence of PW3 is unreliable causing reasonable disbelief, accordingly, the evidence of PW3 is hereby disregarded and discarded in the pursuit of interested witness as niece of PW1.
13.Further the prosecution got examined PW4 who is neighbor of
A3 at Vuyyuru to speak about the harassment of PW1 in the hands of
C.C.No.344/2017 13 Dt.17.03.2021 accused, in that context PW4 resiled to his previous version and turned hostile with that Ex.P2 as such the evidence of PW4 as hostile witness unsupported and not helpful for the case of the prosecution. Further PW5 who is house owner of PW1 and A1 at Madira got produced and examined on behalf of prosecution to speak about the harassment of PW1 in the hands of the accused at Madira, in that context through contents of his chief examination underwent contra to that of his earlier version surprisingly he was not considered as hostile witness in the purview of prosecution, as to that, PW1 suffered no harassment in the hands of accused at Madira through PW5, during cross examination PW5 categorically admitted that on celebration of Seemantham function at
Madira the parents of PW1 taken away to their house and surprisingly admitted that during the period of residence at Madira parents of A1 never visited the house of PW1 and A1, in these circumstances it clearly confers that there is no such harassment of PW1 that taken place at
Madira which is the vital contention of PW1 and moreover PW5 produced to depose in favour of prosecution and on examination stood against the case of the prosecution and surprisingly the prosecution neither reexamined nor proposed as hostile witness is considered as material witness in this case stood as reasonable, reliable, trustworthy, credible and material piece of evidence for ascertainment of facts as to crux point of the case. Further, PW6 got produced and examined before court on behalf of prosecution as Investigating officer to speak about registration of
C.C.No.344/2017 14 Dt.17.03.2021
FIR, investigation, served notices against accused and filing charge sheet, in that context PW6 corroborated to that of PW1 case. However, the procedural lapses that taken place during the course of investigation does not form basis in order to determine the point against the accused and moreover through the evidence of PW6 it cannot be taken into consideration to determine the point against the accused as official witness.
14.In view of the prosecution evidence that laid down against the accused each witness categorically deposed before the court and the same is weighed in accordance to their testimonies, thence, this this court is of the considered opinion that PW1 is inconsistent to that of her earlier version and due to material discrepancies, suppressions, omissions, admissions, contradictions for want of credence and corroboration through material piece of evidence as there is no nexus to form the crux of the case of prosecution as to the series of transactions that taken place prior and at the time of marriage that is dowry transactions, the series of transactions that taken place subsequent to the marriage i.e., harassment of PW1in the hands of A1 at the instigation of other accused that is his family members and the series of transactions that taken place during the course of dissociation were neither established nor proved against accused through PW1 as material witness, thereinafter the father and niece of
PW1 got examined as PWs.2 and 3 to corroborate PW1, their evidence is disregarded and discarded in the pursuit of interested witnesses due to
C.C.No.344/2017 15 Dt.17.03.2021 inconsistency, discrepancy, suspicion leaving several lacunae as doubtful, thereinafter PW4 who is neighbor of A3 at Vuyyuru got examined and turned hostile through Ex.P2, as such the evidence of PW4 as hostile witness not helpful for the case of the prosecution, accordingly, PW5 who is house owner of PW1 and A1 at Madira got examined and categorically deposed against the case of the prosecution and surprisingly the learned prosecution neither proposed as hostile witness nor reexamined as such
PW5 remained as reliable, trustworthy and of credence, as such PW5 stood against the case of the prosecution. Further on examination of PW6 who is investigating officer although corroborated PW1 through Exs.P3 to
P5 his investigation underwent several procedural lapses such as non examination of said maid servant at Madira in the house of PW1 and A1 so as to ascertain the facts of the case is considered as material lapse on the part of the prosecution and moreover PW6 stood in favour of prosecution case even though on elaborated cross examination, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration as official witness to determine the point against the accused. Further the said car driver that is Satya Narayana Reddy non examination is also considered as material lapse on the part of the prosecution in order to ascertain the facts of the case as to PW1. Further on perusal of the entire record on examination
before court there is no such incriminating material that laid down and
found against other than A1 pertaining to their instigation of A1 and the thereinafter harassment of PW1. Further as far as the dowry transaction
C.C.No.344/2017 16 Dt.17.03.2021 that said to be taken place at the time of the marriage among parents of
PW1 and accused No.1, subsequently the said transactions of harassment of PW1 physically and mentally in demand of additional dowry at Madira and Vuyyuru in the hands of the accused and the consequences thereon were not established before court and is doubtful, in these circumstances with all the evidence that laid down by prosecution against the accused, as there is no incriminating material that found against the accused.
Therefore, it cannot be said with reasonable belief that the accused committed the said offences so as to constitute the ingredients under
Section 498A r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of D.P Act. The prosecution miserably and utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused, as such it can be said that the accused never committed the said offences against PW1 beyond all reasonable doubt.
15. Hence, the prosecution neither proved their case nor the defence disproved the same. Therefore, accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for benefit of doubt and hereby acquitted on the grounds of benefit of doubt.
Accordingly, point is answered against prosecution.
16. In the result, accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A, r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 and that of their sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per the provisions of sec.437A
C.C.No.344/2017 17 Dt.17.03.2021
Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced
by me in open Court, this the 17th day of March, 2021.
Sd/ S.Srinivasa Kalyan
Judl. I Class Magistrate,
Spl. Mobile Court,
FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of I Class-
cum -I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,
Machilipatnam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:
PW.1: A.Lakshmi Priyanka None – PW.2: A.Lakshmana Swamy PW.3: N.Kutumba Rao PW.4: P.Ramesh PW.5: V.Ravindar Reddy PW.6: M.Manikyamma
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P.1: Report by PW1 Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4/LW7 Ex.P.3: FIR Ex.P.4: Rough sketch of scene of offence at Vuyyuru Ex.P.5: Rough sketch of scene of offence at Madira
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE
NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS
Nil Sd/ S.Srinivasa Kalyan
Judl. I Class Magistrate,
Spl. Mobile Court,
FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of I Class-
cum -I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,
Machilipatnam.
C.C.No.344/2017 18 Dt.17.03.2021
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM –
I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACHILIPATNAM.
C.C.No.344 OF 2017
Date of
OffenceComplaintNotice servedCommenceClose ofSentence or to the accusedment oftrialorder u/s 41(A)trial Cr.P.C. 09.03.1709.03.1721.03.201730.11.201813.12.201917.03.2021
Name of the Complainant The State represented by The Station House Officer, Mahila Police Station, Machilipatnam. AND Names of the Accused:
1. Seelam Sunil, S/o. Vijaya Kumar, aged about 29 years, D.No.201, Sidareddy Nagar Colony, near Rural Police Station, Madhira, Khammam District.
2. Seelam Devamma, W/o.Vijay Kumar, aged about 48 years, D.No.7/5061, AGK Nagar Colony, Vuyyuru, Krishna District.
3. Seelam Vijay Kumar, S/o.Devadanam, aged about 53 years, D.No.7/5061, AGK Nagar Colony, Vuyyuru, Krishna District.
4. Seelam Naveen, S/o.Vijaya Kumar, aged about 27 years, Assistant Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Kothagudem, Khammam District.
Offence: Under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P Act
Finding:“FOUND NOT GUILTY”
SENTENCE: Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A, r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
C.C.No.344/2017 19 Dt.17.03.2021 and they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 and that of their sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per the provisions of sec.437A Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.
EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:
This case was taken on file on 19.07.2017. On appearance of accused
Nos.1 to 4, they were furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C on 25.09.2017. On 12.12.2017 accused
Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the offence under sec.498A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P Act. On behalf of prosecution from 30.11.2018 to 13.12.2019 P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Ex.P.1 to
P.5 were marked on their behalf. On 15.03.2021 accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating evidence deposed against them. On 17.03.2021 heard arguments on both sides. On 17.03.2021 Judgment pronounced in open Court. Hence, the delay.
Sd/ S.Srinivasa Kalyan
Judl. I Class Magistrate,
Spl. Mobile Court,
FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of I Class-
cum -I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,
Machilipatnam.
Copy submitted to:
The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.