Page Nos.1 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT
MANUGURU
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2025.
Present: Sri K.Suri Reddi,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Manuguru.
C.C.No.97/2015
Between:
The State through Sub-Inspector of Police,
P.S.,Manuguru (Crime No.327/2014). …Complainant. A N D
A-1: SD Amjadh,S/o:Usman,Age: 31 years,Occ:Asst.Prfessor in Sri Datha
Engineering College, Ibraheempatnam.
A-2: SD Usman,S/o:Khaja (Late), Age: 70 years,Occ: Nill (A-2 Died)
A-3: SD Arshad,S/o;Usman,Age: 29 years,Occ:Private Employee
A-4: SD Asad,S/o:Usman,Age: 26 years,Occ: student,
A-5: SD Shaheen, S/o:Mahmad Yousaf, Age:40 years,Occ:Teacher
A-6: SD Thasfin, W/o: Shaheen, Age: 35 years,Occ: House Wife
All are R/o: Parsapur Village of Kodangal Mandal of Mahaboobnagar District.
…Accused persons
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 21.11.2025 in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for State and Sri Kandimalla Narsimha Rao, Learned Advocate for accused persons; upon perusal of material papers available on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. This case arises out of the charge-sheet filed by the Inspector, Police P.S.,
Manuguru in Cr.No.327/2014 for the offence under sections. 498-A of Indian Penal
Code and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act against the Accused No.1 to 6.
Page Nos.2 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015
2.Briefly stated to the charge sheet allegations is to the following effect:
On 28.11.2014 at 13:00 hours the defacto complainant (LW-1) came to
Manuguru PS and lodged a written complaint in Telugu stating that her marriage was solemnized with Sayyad Amzath on 25.05.2014 with gracious auspicious and blessing of caste elders and blood relatives by loving at about 7 years. At the time of marriage her parents gave net cash Rs.1 lack, gold, silver ornaments worth Rs.
1.90 lacks and other domestic goods worth Rs. 1 lack to the accused as dowry. The new couple led marital life happily for two months from the date of marriage at her in-laws house at Parsapur village. After that her husband and father in-law Usman, brother in-laws Asad, Asad, Sister in-law Thasfin and Thasin's husband Shaheen started harassment towards the complainant mentally and physically and demanding to bring additional dowry from her parents, as they are not willing to stay the complainant in their hours further they have demanding that if failed to bring the additional dowry from her parents would get second marriage to her husband. On that the complainant appealed to her in-laws that she unable to bring the additional dowry amount from her parents, since they are poor. On the pretext all together forcibly necked away from her house, then she reached to her parents house and waiting for recognition of not changed their attitudes. So, she requested her husband and in-laws, but they did not to take necessary action against her husband and in-laws.
2. On receipt of the petition from the complainant, the LW-15/SI of Police
Manuguru registered a case in Cr.No.327/2014 U/Sec. 498 (A) IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of
D.P Act, issued FIR and took up the investigation.
Page Nos.3 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015
3. During the course of investigation, examined the witnesses LWs-1 to 3 and.
recorded their statements in part-II CDs. Visited the 1st scene of offence i.e., house of LWs-2,3 at Vippalasingaram, Manuguru and secured the mediators LWs-11 & 12 and in their presence conducted the scene of offence panchanama under a cover of crime detail form, also examined and recorded the statements of LWs-4 to 8 who well acquaintance the case facts of this case in part II CDs. Subsequently on 05.12.2014 the LW-15 visited the 2nd scene of offence which is located at the house of accused at Parsapur village of Kodangal mandal, Mahaboobnagar dist, secured the mediators LWs-13, 14 in their presence conducted the scene of offence panchanama under a cover of crime detail, also examined the witnesses L,Ws-9, 10 and recorded their statements in part II CDs.
4. After examination the witnesses and recording their statements, the investigating Officer (LW-15) came to conclusion that the accused A-1 to A-6 committed a cognizable offence which is punishable Under Section 498(A) IPC &
Sec 3,4 of D.P Act and offence punishment below (7) years imprisonment. On that, notice was issued to A-1 under clause 1 of section 41(A) Cr. P. C to the accused A-1 on 17.12.2014. But the A-1 has not responded to the notice of IO (LW-16). After completion of entire investigation LW-15 filed charge-sheet.
5.Cognizance was taken by this court for the offence under Sections.
498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act against the accused persons.
6. Copies of case papers were furnished to accused persons as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.,
Page Nos.4 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015
7. The accused No.1 to 6 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and a charge under Sections. 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act were framed against the accused No.1 to 6, read over and explained to the accused persons in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the matter was posted for trial.
8. The prosecution in support of its case examined Pws.1 to PW-10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P5. Thereafter, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no further evidence to be adduced and accordingly the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidences of Lws.3,7,9,10 and 12.
9.Accused No.1,3 to 6 were examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure
Code, explaining the entire incriminating evidence on record in the evidence of prosecution, but the accused persons denied the evidence in toto, but he did not chose to adduce any evidence on their behalf. During the pendency of the trial,
Accused No. 2 (A-2) passed away. Hence, the case against A-2 is abated
10. The learned counsel for the accused persons filed written arguments heard and considered the same.
11.Heard. Learned APP and learned counsel for accused.
12.Now the point that falls for consideration is:-
“Whether the prosecution could prove the charge against the Accused
No.1,3 to 6 for the offence punishable under Sections. 498-A of IPC and Sec.3
and 4 of D.P Act against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt or not?”.
Page Nos.5 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015
13.In order to prove these facts prosecution adduced following evidences i.e.,
PW-1 is the complainant and victim, PW-2 to 6 are the eye witnesses, PW-7 is the 1st mediator for CDF, PW-8 and 9 are the Mediators for 2nd CDF and PW-10 is the
Investigating Officer. The evidences given up the evidences of Lws.3,7,9,10 and 12.
14. It is the contention of the learned APP that the prosecution has proved his case against the accused persons from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and as such accused persons are liable for conviction for charged offences against them.
15. The evidence of PW-1 who is the complainant and victim she deposed that
PW-1 deposed that she is a resident of Vippala Singaram Village, Manuguru, and that she is a housewife preparing for competitive examinations. She stated that
LWs.2 and 3 are her parents and that she is acquainted with LWs.4 to 10. She further deposed that while she was studying B.Ed. at Hyderabad, she became acquainted with A.1 Syed Amjad, and both of them were in love for about seven years. Later, with the consent of both families, their marriage was performed on 25.05.2014 at Hyderabad.
16 PW-1 further deposed that after the marriage she lived for some days in the house of her in-laws at Parsapur, Mahabubnagar, where her father-in-law, her two brothers-in-law (A.2 and A.3), her sister-in-law and her illatom son-in-law did not approve of the marriage and started harassing her. She stated that at the time of
Page Nos.6 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015 marriage, her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, gold and silver ornaments worth
Rs.1,90,000/- and furniture worth Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused persons, and that her father spent about Rs.2,00,000/- towards marriage expenses.
17. PW-1 deposed that after some days of marriage, A.2 to A.6 and her father- in-law demanded additional dowry and subjected her to mental and physical harassment, threatening that if she failed to bring additional dowry, they would perform a second marriage to A.1. She stated that she informed her parents about the harassment. PW-1 further deposed that on one occasion, while she was narrating the harassment to her mother in her parental house, her husband, who was present there, beat her and created a galata, and when her mother questioned him, he left her at her parents’ house stating that she should return only after bringing additional dowry. The neighbours gathered on hearing the commotion and tried to pacify him. She further deposed that her mother thereafter took her back to the matrimonial home, assuring the accused that she would try to arrange the
additional dowry after some days. PW-1 stated that for a short period things went
peacefully, but again A.1 to A.6 started harassing and beating her for additional dowry and again threatened to perform a second marriage for A.1. PW-1 deposed that on one occasion A.3 attacked her with an axe, and out of fear she ran into the house and telephoned her mother. Her mother then sent her brother and brother- in-law (Shafi) to the in-laws’ house at Parsapur to bring her back. They tried to settle the matter, but the accused persons did not agree and even attempted to beat them. PW-1 was then taken back to her parents’ house at Manuguru on 12.10.2014. PW-1 further deposed that she waited for about one month, but none
Page Nos.7 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015 of the accused came to take her back. Hence, on 28.11.2014, she lodged a report in
Manuguru Police Station. Ex.P-1 is her report
18. During the cross-examination of PW-1 PW-1 admitted that she had mentioned in Ex.P-1 that she and A.1 were in love for about seven years prior to their marriage. She further admitted that during the said period both she and A.1 were studying B.Ed., which is a nine-month course, and that even after completion of
B.Ed. they continued their love affair. She stated that at that time she was not doing any job, whereas A.1 was working in a D.Ed. college. She denied the suggestion that she was employed after completion of B.Ed. The Xerox copy of the
RTI reply dated 06.01.2018 shown to her was denied by her as being fabricated.
PW-1 admitted that she did not mention in her complaint that the marriage was performed at Hyderabad because the accused persons were unwilling to come to
Manuguru. She volunteered that the marriage was held at Hyderabad on the request of the accused. She also admitted that she had not mentioned in her complaint that A.3 attacked her with an axe, that she went inside the house in fear, or that she informed her mother who sent her brother and brother-in-law to her matrimonial house. She, however, volunteered that these incidents actually occurred. PW-1 stated that she could not specify how many days she stayed in her in-laws’ house, as she was being harassed every two to three days. She stated that during the four to five months after marriage she went back and forth between her parents’ house and her in-laws’ house three or four times. She stated that in her in- laws’ house, her mother-in-law, father-in-law, A.3, A.4, her elder sister-in-law and her illatom son-in-law were residing. She did not remember whether the grandparents or old aged parents of A.1 were residing there. She denied the
Page Nos.8 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015 suggestion that she refused to serve food to the old aged parents of A.1. PW-1 denied the suggestion that she insisted that A.1 shift the family to Hyderabad. She volunteered that she had no such intention. She also denied the suggestion that she was employed in Islamia College, Hyderabad, and explained that due to beatings by the accused, she was unable to do any job. She admitted that she did not lodge any complaint at Parsapur when A.3 allegedly attacked her with an axe.
She admitted that in their Muslim community, marriages are performed at the bride’s house and a Nikahnama is executed, and that the list of presentations, cash and gifts was not mentioned in the Nikahnama. She volunteered that they had no time to do so because the marriage was arranged at Hyderabad. PW-1 admitted that giving dowry was an affair between her parents and the accused, and she does not know the exact details. She admitted that her husband came to her house on the occasion of Bakrid. She denied the suggestion that on 18.07.2014, Shafi and
Shajid attacked her husband. PW-1 admitted that she did not go to her marital home on 02.10.2014 and that she came to her parents’ house on 12.10.2014. She also admitted that she lodged the complaint one month thereafter, in November.
She admitted that she and her husband never lived together as a married couple at
Manuguru. PW-1 denied the suggestions that A.2 to A.6 did not harass her for
additional dowry, that they did not threaten to perform a second marriage to A.1,
that they did not beat her parents, or that they never told her parents that she would be allowed back only if additional dowry was paid. She denied the suggestion that she filed a false case because she was not willing to take care of her aged in-laws. She denied the further suggestions that she wanted to set up a separate family at Hyderabad, that she fabricated allegations, or that she is deposing falsely.
Page Nos.9 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015
20. The evidence of PW-2 who is the eye witness and mother of PW-1 she deposed that in the year 2014 they performed her daughter/PW-1 marriage with
Accused No.1 on 25-05-2014. At the time of marriage they gave an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry and gold, Silver ornaments worth of Rs.1,90,000/- and also given household articles. As per her daughter in-laws wish they performed their marriage at Hyderabad. Thereafter, her son in law/A-1 and his brother and sister and A-1’s sister’s husband and his father harassed PW-1 to bring additional dowry and used to abused and beat her daughter for additional dowry. In the view of Bakrid festival her daughter and son-in-law came to their house then Accused
No.1 bet PW-1 for additional dowry. On hues and cries of her daughter PW-1 and neighbors came to there and asked her son-in-law why you are beating then he left from her house. After festival she called to his parents over phone on that they said that to bring her daughter to Hyderabad on that she send her daughter to
Hyderabad through herself and her son took her daughter(PW-1) to Kondagal which is her in-laws house and requested the parents of the accused No.1 not to tortured her daughter for additional dowry, She will arrange some amount which is possible to them. Thereafter, 4 to 5 days they again started harassment of her daughter (PW-1) for abusing and beating for additional dowry and her daughter informed the same to them. Thereafter, her daughter made phone call to them and stated that they are severely beating and harassing for additional dowry as such, she send her son and her elder son-in-law to bring her daughter, where in laws of her daughter also abused her son and elder-son-law and send her daughter since then her daughter is residing at her house. Accused persons did not returned to take back to her daughter even she made a phone calls many times. As such, she filed this case against the accused No.1 to 6. They give double cot,
Page Nos.10 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015 dressing table, almirah and Rs.1,00,000/- for household articles and accused No.1 is threatening by saying that he is performing second marriage since her daughter failed to bring additional dowry. Police examined and recorded her statement.
21. During the cross-examination of PW-2 admitted that PW1 and A1 were in love for about three years prior to the marriage, and after coming to know of their relationship, and subsequent to the marriage of his elder daughter, the family performed the marriage of PW1 with A1. She further admitted that both families were well acquainted due to the longstanding love affair. PW-2 further stated that after five Fridays of marriage, PW1 and Accused No.1 came to her house for the
Bakrid festival and that till that time the couple were living happily. He admitted that they stayed in his house for Bakrid, but also admitted that no report was lodged with the police in relation to any incident that allegedly occurred during the festival. PW-2 further admitted that in their Muslim community, it is customary to record gifts and cash in the Jodeka Rakham/Zihad articles, but conceded that the alleged amounts of Rs.1,00,000/- and household articles worth Rs.1,90,000/- along with gold and silver ornaments were not recorded therein. He admitted that in their community, marriage is generally performed at the bride’s house. PW-2 further admitted that after the Bakrid festival, he sent PW1 back to her in-laws’ house and that he and his son personally took her there and handed her over. He stated that PW1 lived there for about one week and thereafter informed him that she was being beaten by the accused. She also admitted that no police complaint was filed at Kodangal, where the in-laws reside. PW-2 further admitted that PW1 had completed her M.Ed. Qualification. The witness, however, denied the suggestion that during Bakrid A1 beat PW1 causing commotion and gathering of
Page Nos.11 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015 neighbours, or that A1 had to run away from their house. She also denied that they themselves beat A1 during the festival. She denied the defence suggestion that no dowry or ornaments were given and hence nothing was written in the Jodeka
Rakham, or that the marriage of PW1 and A1 was performed by A1’s parents at
Hyderabad due to lack of financial capacity on their part. He denied that there was no dowry as it was a love marriage, or that no question of additional dowry demand ever arose. PW-2 denied the suggestion that PW1 was unwilling to look after A1’s aged and bedridden grandparents or parents and therefore returned to her parents’ house. She also denied that PW1, being qualified and working as a lecturer in a Muslim Minority College, preferred her employment and therefore was unwilling to reside with the accused. The witness further denied the defence suggestion that the accused never harassed or beat PW1, and finally denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely merely because PW1 is his daughter.
22. The evidence of PW-3 who is the eye witness she deposed that In the year 2014 the marriage of PW-1 performed with Accused No.1 after marriage PW-1 and
A-1 lived happily for 2 to 3 months. Thereafter started disputes between them and accused No.1 beat PW-1 on that PW-1 came to her parent's house they also asked the Accused No.1 “ why you have beaten PW-1”. Since then PW-1 living at her parents house. Panchayaths were held in the police station, Manuguur, Police examined her and recorded her statement.
23. During the cross-examination of PW-3 she stated that after marriage PW-1 and
A-1 lived at Hyderabad for two months. She denied suggestion that she does not see whether accused beat PW-1. Witnesses volunteers she saw that the accused
Page Nos.12 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015 beating PW-1 at Manuguru when PW-1 came to her parents house. She admitted that she never go to Hyderabad. She denied the remaining suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused persons.
24. The evidence of PW-4 who is the eye witness he deposed that in the year 2014 the marriage of PW-1 performed with Accused No.1. After marriage PW-1 and A-1 lived happily for 02 years. Thereafter in third year started disputes between them about harassment for additional dowry. The sister-in-laws and brother-laws (Accused No.3 to 6) of PW-1 also harassed PW-1 for additional dowry.
On that panchayaths held between them in police station. Thereafter PW-1 lodged report with police, P.S Manuguru. Police examined him and recorded his statement.
25. During the cross-examination of PW-4 she stated that after PW-1 and A-1 marriage PW-1 lived with A-1 at her in-laws house Karimnagar. He never went to the in-laws house of PW-1. He denied the suggestion that he does not see the disputes between them directly and he came to know the disputes through others.
He came to know after marriage two to three months started disputes between them. He denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused persons. Witness volunteers he saw disputes occurred between them.
26. The evidence of PW-5 who is the eye witness and who is the sister of PW-1 he deposed that in the month of May 2014 PW-1’s marriage was performed at
Hyderabad with the consent of elders in function hall in the presence of elders with
Accused No.1 with the consent of both parents. After marriage PW-1 and A-1
Page Nos.13 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015 started their marital life at Parsapur, Kodangal. Mahaboobnagar dist. After 2 to 3 months PW-1 and A-1 lived happily in joint family. Thereafter the accused No.1 to 6 are started harassment to PW-1 as they gave less dowry if Accused persons performed A-1’s marriage with another lady they obtained much dowry and also they used to made quarrels with PW-1 daily and also used to beat PW-1
Indiscriminately and Accused persons harassed PW-1 physically and mentally for
additional dowry if not bring additional dowry they will perform another marriage.
During that time PW-1 made a phone call to her mother and father and informed the same to PW-5. Accused No.1 himself brought PW-1 to their house and left her in her house by stating that to bring additional dowry and also beat PW-1 at their house for which neighbors also came to thier house and admonished A-1 and questioned A-1 “why are you beating” A-1 replied that he wants additional dowry.
At the time of marriage we gave Rs.1,00,000/- and god and silver worth of
Rs.1,90,000/- and household articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry. Police examined her and recorded her statement.
27. During the cross-examination of PW-5 admitted that she admitted that in their Muslim community there is a custom Jodeke Rakham i.e. writing of any articles, cash, gold, silver, or household articles at the time giving or taking before marriage. She denied the suggestion that prior to the marriage PW-1 and A-1 never loved each other. She denied the suggestion that PW-1 never worked in B.Ed., college. She admitted that PW-1 studied M.A. B.Ed., she has no idea whether the
Jodekee Rakham recorded at the time of marriage since marriage done about 10 yrs ago. She admitted that PW-1 and A-1 are B.Ed., classmates and A-11 informed to his parents about his willing to marry PW-1 and thereafter he came to her house
Page Nos.14 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015 along with his parents and discussed about the marriage. She has no idea about whether A-1 came to her house in view of Bakrid festival on 18.07.2014. She denied the suggestion that she and my brother in law beat A-1 when he came to their house and A-1 escaped from her house. She does not know whether the PW1 and
A-1 lived at manuguru after their marriage since she was studying at Hyderabad at that time. She denied the suggestion that she does not know anything about this case facts since at the time of this case she was studying at Hyderabad. She admitted that her father was a private employee and his salary was Rs.10,000/- per month. they are five family members. She denied the suggestion that since we have no capacity to perform marriage as such A-1 bear the marriage expense and they performed the marriage at Hyderabad since PW1 and A-1 loved each other.
She admitted that in their Muslim community generally marriage are performed in the house of Bride. Witness volunteers but they demanded to perform the marriage at Hyderabad. She denied the suggestion that at the time of marriage they gave dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and god and silver worth of Rs.1,90,000/- and household articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry. She admitted that in their community at the time of marriage Nikhanama was writing but she do not remember whether they wrote the same or not. She denied the suggestion that the accused No.1 to 6 harassed PW-1 mentally and physically. She further admitted that she went to Parsapur along with her parents only one time. She denied the suggestion that she and LW8/Shafi went to the house of accused and quarreled with them and brought the PW-1 to their house by stating PW1 is not doing service to old aged grand parents of the A-1 in joint family and demanded to set up separate family at Hyderabad she is deposing false. She denied the suggestion that she beat the A-1 when he came to our house, now she is deposing false that A-1
Page Nos.15 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015 beat them. She denied the suggestion that they gave dowry and Accused demanded for additional dowry by stating to perform another marriage. She denied the suggestion that there is no giving of dowry as such there is no demand of additional dowry. She denied the suggestion that accused No.1 used to beat
PW-1 and harassed and physically and mentally as such PW-1 made phone call to her parents. She denied the suggestion that A-1 to A-6 never harassed PW-1 and with demand of set up separate family they foisted false case against them and she is deposing false to help the PW-1 as her sister.
28. The evidence of PW-6 who is the eye witness he deposed that In the 25th
May 2014, PW1's marriage was performed with A-1. At the time marriage they gave
Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1.90.000 valued gold and silver and furniture and household articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/-. After marriage two to three months PW-1 and A-1 lived happily. Thereafter A1 to A6 started harassment by way of physically and mentally PW1 to bring additional dowry. On that PW1 informed the same to her parents on that her parents admonished the A-1 thereafter 3 months they came to
Vippalasingarm to the house of the PW-1, and A-1 demanded for additional dowry if not provide additional dowry A-1 would not take back PW1 for which PW1 stated that her parents are not in a position to give additional dowry and they performed their love marriage. On that A-1 beat PW-1 as such neighbors also came to the house of PW1 and admonished A1. Thereafter the parents of the PW-1 took PW-1 to Pursapur village of Mahaboobnagar and left the PW1 at her in laws house and also informed to her Inlaws and requested her in laws and came back to their house. Thereafter within 2 to 3 days the sister in laws of PW-1 and their husbands and brother in laws of PW-1 started harassment and altogether beat PW-1
Page Nos.16 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015 indiscriminately due to which PW-1 got injuries on her body. On that PW-1 made phone call to them and he and PW-5 immediately went to Pursapur. When they reached the house of the accused persons A-1 to A-6 were present and when they entered into the house they closed the doors. On that they questioned A-1 to A-6 “why you are harassing PW1” for which A-2 A-3 and A-4 stated that they wants to perform the marriage of A-1 with another lady as she is ready to give much dowry.
They went to Accused person’s house at morning 09:00 am and they leave them at 5 pm. Accused persons never allow them to go outside. Accused persons threatened PW1 with deadly weapons i.e., sticks and weapons which are used for agricultural purpose by stating that you take away PW-1 and they need not PW1.
As such we brought PW-1 at 5 pm with the fear of, if they left PW1 in accused persons house accused persons will kill PW-1. Police examined him and recorded his statement.
29. During the cross examination of PW-6 he admitted that he and PW-1 went to the house of A-1 at pursapura. Police did not examine him and recorded his statement. He further admitted that he stated to the police at the time of recording 161 Cr.P.C statement that what he stated in his chief examination.
Further he admitted that he stated in his 161 Cr.P.C stated which is marked as
Ex.P.1 is not correct and he have not stated before the police. Further he admitted that in their Muslim community there is customs of Nikhanama to record the all things. Further he admitted that prior to marriage of PW-1 and A-1 loved each other. Further he admitted that they went to the house of Accused persons only one time. Further he admitted that on 09-11-2014 A-1 sent the the talak papers, through PW-1. He does not know the date of filing of this case i.e., 28-11-2014.
Page Nos.17 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015
PW-6 denied remaining all the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused persons.
30. The evidence of PW-7 who is the Mediator for 1st CDF she deposed that on 28-11-2014 in between 1:45 to 2:00 PM police vehicle came before the house of the accused near Boddurai. On hearing the vehicle horn they came out from house and went to the police vehicle which is stationed before the house of Vali which is situated third house to her house. Police conducted panchanma and drawn rough sketch in his presence and in the presence of LW-12 on the matrimonial dispute.
Boundaries to the scene of offence is East: House of the Rashid, West: House of
Sode Venkateswarlu, South: Palvancaha Ramanamma and North: Ramana house.
Ex.p.2 is CDF.
31. During the cross-examination of PW-7 denied the all the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the Accused persons.
32. The evidence of PW-8 who is the Mediator for 2nd CDF he deposed that police came to his village and obtained his thumb impression on some papers. Police did not drawn rough sketch in his presence and in the presence of LW-14/Ch.Chinna
Dasthagiri. Police did not conduct any panchanam and did not draw rough sketch in his presence and in the presence of LW-14. At this stage the learned APP sought with permission of the court cross-examined the Pw.8, but nothing was elicited from him. Thus the evidence of PW.8 not helpful to the prosecution case.
Page Nos.18 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015
33. The evidence of PW-9 who is the Mediator for 2nd CDF he deposed that police came to his village and obtained his thumb impression on some papers.
Police did not drawn rough sketch in his presence and in the presence of PW-8.
Police did not conduct any panchanam and did not draw rough sketch in his presence and in the presence of PW-9. At this stage the learned APP sought with permission of the court cross-examined the Pw.9, but nothing was elicited from him except marking of his signature on CDF. Thus the evidence of PW.9 not helpful to the prosecution case.
34. The evidence of PW-10 who is the investigating officer he deposed that On 28.11.2014 at 13:00 hrs PW1 came to police station and lodged ExP1 based on the same he registered a case in Crime No. 327/2014 U/Sec.498A of IPC and Sec 3 and 4
DP Act issued Ex.P.4 FIR and recorded the statement of PW1. Later he visited the scene of offence and recorded statements of Lws 2 and 3 and secured the presence of Pw-7 and Lw-12 and drawn rough sketch and also examined and recorded the statement of Lws 4 to 6. on 02.12.2014 he also recorded the statements of Lws-7 and 8. Later on 05.12.2014 went to the second scene of offence at the house of the accused at persapur village of Kondangal mandal, mahabubnagar district and secured the presence of PW-8 and LW-14 and drawn rough sketch at the scene of offence Ex.P5 CDF. On 17.12.2014. He issue 41A Crpc notice to A1. On 22.12.2014 he issued the 41A CrPC notice to A-2, A-3, A-5 and
A-6.on 03.01.2015 as A-1 not complied 41A CrPC he arrested him. On 04.02.2015 he issued 41A CrPC. Later after completion of entire investigation and he filed charge sheet.
Page Nos.19 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015
35. During the cross-examination of PW-10 he admitted that in the charge sheet is mentioned as Aswapuram PS witness adds that it is mentioned due to typographical mistake instead of manuguru PS. He further admitted that he did not collect any receipts with regard to the gold articles. He further admitted that PW1 did not state in the 161 of CrPC statement and Ex.P1 that A-3 attack her with an axe. He admitted that Pw1 did not state in the Ex.P1 that when she was present at her parents the accused bet her. He admitted that PW1 did not state in the Ex.P1 that Lws 4 to 6 were present, while the accused beating PW1. He admitted that mentioned in the GD whenever the officer go to out of station on official duty. He does not know whether a GD entry was made or not when he went to conduct second CD. He denied the suggestion that the signatures of Lw 13 and Lw14 was taken on blank papers. He further denied the suggestion that he has not visited the scene of offence and not conducted any CDF. He admitted that 161 CrPC statement was scribed by his writer in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he has not drafted the CDF. He denied the suggestion that he has not examined and recorded the statement of PW6. He admitted that Pw6 have not stated the police in his 161 CrPC statement that the accused threatened the Pw1 with deadly weapons l.e sticks and weapons used for agricultural purposes. He admitted that did not conduct counseling the accused and Pw1. He admitted that the PW-1 did not give any complaint prior to this case. PW-5 denied remaining all the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused persons.
36. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the defacto complainant (PW-1) lodged a report on 28.11.2014 alleging that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by her husband (A-1) and his family members A-2 to A-6 for additional
Page Nos.20 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015 dowry, after her marriage with A-1 on 25.05.2014. Basing on her report, Crime
No.327/2014 was registered under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. During trial, A-2 expired and the case against him stood abated. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-10 and marked Ex.P-1 to P-5.
37. The testimony of PW-1, the complainant, reveals that she and A-1 were in love for about seven years before marriage. She alleged that at the time of marriage her parents gave cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, gold and silver ornaments worth
Rs.1,90,000/- and household articles worth Rs.1,00,000/-. She further alleged that after two to three months of happy marital life, A-1 and his family members demanded additional dowry and subjected her to harassment. However, during her cross-examination, she admitted several material omissions. She admitted that her report Ex.P-1 does not contain the allegation that A-3 attacked her with an axe; it also does not contain that her relatives came to rescue her. She admitted that she did not lodge any report in the police station at Parsapur, the place where the alleged harassment and axe attack occurred. She further admitted that she returned to her parents’ house on 12.10.2014 and lodged the complaint only after one month. These omissions go to the root of the prosecution case and create serious doubt about the veracity of her allegations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207 held that in matrimonial cases,
improvements and exaggerations are common, and omnibus allegations
against several relatives without specific acts of cruelty cannot be the basis of conviction. The evidence of PW-1 suffers from such improvements and contradictions, making her version doubtful and uncorroborated.
Page Nos.21 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015
38. PW-2, the mother of PW-1, supported the allegations of harassment but admitted that the couple lived happily for five Fridays after marriage and also admitted that no complaint was lodged during the Bakrid incident, despite alleging that A-1 beat PW-1 in her presence. She further admitted that in their Muslim community, the dowry/gifts are required to be recorded in the customary Jodeka-
Rakham /Nikahnama, but no such document was prepared or produced. Her admissions create serious doubt about the alleged giving of dowry, especially in view of the fact that her husband’s salary was only Rs.10,000 per month. PW-3 admitted that she never went to Hyderabad or to the in-laws’ house but still claimed to have seen the harassment, which clearly indicates that her evidence is hearsay and unreliable. PW-4 contradicted the version of PW-1 and PW-2 by saying that the couple lived happily for two years after marriage, whereas PW-1 and PW-2 claimed harassment after two to three months. PW-5, the sister, admitted that she went to the in-laws’ house only once and has no personal knowledge of the alleged incidents. PW-6 made several material improvements in his testimony and admitted that his 161 Cr.P.C. statement did not contain the allegations he made in court. He also admitted that Talak papers were sent by A-1 on 09.11.2014, before the filing of the complaint on 28.11.2014, which suggests that the complaint arose out of marital discord rather than any dowry-related cruelty.
39. These inconsistencies and omissions are fatal to the prosecution case. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court inBaijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 1 SCC 101
held that to attract Section 498-A IPC, prosecution must prove specific,
consistent and proximate acts of cruelty committed by each accused; mere
general allegations are insufficient. In the present case, the prosecution failed to
Page Nos.22 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015 prove any specific overt act committed by A-3 to A-6. All allegations against them are vague, general and devoid of particulars. Even against A-1, there is no medical evidence of injuries, no independent witness from the locality at Parsapur was examined though PW-1 claimed that neighbours witnessed the quarrels, and no prior complaint was ever filed at the place where the alleged harassment occurred.
These circumstances create a strong doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
40. More importantly, the admitted fact of a love affair for seven years before marriage makes the allegation of dowry demand at the time of marriage highly doubtful. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 15 SCC 55 held that in cases of love marriage, the presumption of dowry
demand becomes weak and prosecution must produce strong, independent and
unimpeachable evidence, which is completely absent in the present case. Here, there is no documentary proof of giving dowry, no corroborative evidence, and no consistent testimony. The alleged dowry articles and cash are not proved as required under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
41. Further, the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9, the mediators for CDF, completely falsifies the prosecution version regarding the second scene of offence. Both clearly stated that the police merely obtained their thumb impressions on blank papers and did not conduct any panchanama in their presence. When the very mediators deny the CDF, the credibility of investigation suffers a serious blow. The
IO (PW-10) himself admitted that several important facts were not stated by PW-1 in her 161 Cr.P.C statement, and that no receipts or documentary proof were collected to verify the alleged dowry.
Page Nos.23 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015
42. Above foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under
Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against A-1 and A-3 to A-6. The evidence of PW-1 suffers from material omissions and improvements, and the testimonies of PW-2 to PW-6 are inconsistent, contradictory, and largely based on hearsay without any independent corroboration. As discussed earlier, the mediators PW-8 and PW-9 have expressly denied the conduct of the second scene of offence panchanama in their presence, rendering the investigation doubtful. Further, in light of the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207 that omnibus and exaggerated allegations in matrimonial disputes must be scrutinized with caution; in Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 1 SCC 101 that specific and proximate acts of cruelty with dowry demand must be proved by cogent evidence; and in Kailash v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 15 SCC 55 that in love marriages allegations of dowry demand require stronger and independent proof, the prosecution evidence falls far short of the standard required to bring home the guilt of the accused. The alleged dowry articles are not proved by any documentary or independent evidence, and the delay in lodging the complaint without explanation further weakens the prosecution case. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused A-1 and A-3 to A-6 beyond all reasonable doubt and they are entitled to benefit of doubt.
43.In the result: The accused No.1 and 3 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections. 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act.
Accordingly, the accused persons are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The
Page Nos.24 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015 bail bonds of the accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. There is no property as to order. There is no property as to order. Accused No.2 having expired during the pendency of the case, the proceedings against Accused No.2 stand abated in view of Section 394 Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of November, 2025.
Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
PW.1 /LW.1Md.ShakeraComplainant and Victim PW.2/LW.2Md.KarimunnisaEye witnesses PW.3/LW.5P.RamanaEye witnesses PW.4/LW.6P.RamuluEye witnesses PW.5/LW.7Md.SajeedEye witnesses Pw.6/LW8Md.ShafiEye witnesses PW.7/LW11M.Jhansi RaniMediator for 1st CDF PW.8/LW13M.BichappaMediator for 2nd CDF PW.9/LW.14Ch.Chinna DasthagiriMediator for 2nd CDF PW.10/LW.15K.Sreenu/SIInvestigating Officer
WITNESS EXAMINED OF BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
Ex.P1is the report Ex.P2is the Crime Detail form
Page Nos.25 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015
Ex.P3is the PW-9 signature on Crime Detail form
Ex.P4is the First Information Report
Ex.P5is the 2nd Crime Detail form
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
-NIL-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
--NIL--
Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru.
Corrections carried out by me:
Page Nos.26 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
Calendar case No.97/2015 tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Manuguru, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.
Date of offence 12.10.2014 Date of Report28.11.2014 Taken on file 16.04.2015 Released on BailSec. 41-A Cr.,P.C. Notice Date of Commencement of trial 17.08.2023 Date of close of Trial 16.09.2025 Date of Judgment 28.11.2025 Explanation for delay Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution Name of the complainant State through Manuguru A-1: SD Amjadh,S/o:Usman,Age: 31 years,Occ:Asst.Prfessor in Sri Datha
Engineering College, Ibraheempatnam.
A-2: SD Usman,S/o:Khaja (Late), Age: 70 years,Occ: Nill
A-3: SD Arshad,S/o;Usman,Age: 29 years,Occ:Private Employee
A-4: SD Asad,S/o:Usman,Age: 26 years,Occ: Details of the accused student,
A-5: SD Shaheen, S/o:Mahmad Yousaf,
Age:40 years,Occ:Teacher
A-6: SD Thasfin, W/o: Shaheen, Age: 35 years,Occ: House Wife
All are R/o: Parsapur Village of Kodangal
Mandal of Mahaboobnagar District.
Offence498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act FindingNot Guilty Sentence of order Not guilty
In the Result: The accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections. 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act. Accordingly,
Page Nos.27 of 27 C.C.No.97/2015 the accused persons are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. There is no property as to order.
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Manuguru.
Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. (through Compact Disk)