Smt. T. Anitha

- 1 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Friday, this the 28 th day of April, 2017.

Present: Smt.T. ANITHA I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

Calendar Case No.354 of 2014

(Old CC.No.277/2010)

Between:

The state of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police,

PS Subedari/ WPS. ……..Complainant.

AND

A1 - Devi Venkata Krishna Murthy, A2 – Devi Satyavathi,

A3 – Dr. Devi Dhanvantha Charyulu. …….. Accused.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, and of Sri.B. Srinivas, Counsel

for accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till

this date, and this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Subedari/ WPS, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.383/2009, for the offences punishable u/s.498-A

IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused.

2.Brief averments of the charge sheet are that PW1 Devi

Sharada marriage was performed with A1 Devi Venkata Krishnamurthy on 8.5.1999. At the time of marriage on demand of accused parents of - 2 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

PW1 gave Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry to accused. Until 2001 PW1 and A1 lived amicably and blessed with a son.

From the year 2001 the accused started harassment on PW1 with a demand of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. A1 harassed PW1 that he has no interest on PW1 and he want to marry another woman who will give more dowry and the woman who is beautiful than PW1.

In the year 2003 the accused A1 to A3 harassed PW1 mentally and physically and thrown her out by holding her neck from their house with a demand of additional dowry. For a period of 10 months PW1 stayed with her parents. In the month of December 2003 a panchayat was conducted in the presence of elders by name PW5 (Devi

Nagarjunacharyulu), PW7 (Bitla Venugopalakrishnamurthy), PW8 (Vemuri Satyananda Venkatarama). In that panchayat an amount of

Rs.50,000/- was given to accused as additional dowry. But the accused was not satisfied with the dowry amount and continued harassment on

PW1. The accused did not allow PW1 to go to her parents house and confined her in the house for a period of 6 years. On 21.8.2016 the marriage of elder brother of PW1 was celebrated. But the accused did not allow her to attend the marriage. The accused developed extra marital relationship with another woman and tried to kill PW1 for two times. The accused A1 used to put naked pictures of ladies and harassed

PW1. PW1 informed the harassment to her parents through telephone.

Her parents informed her that they are coming to the marriage of her cousin at Vuyyur on 12.8.2009. For that marriage A2 and A3 and PW1 - 3 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

and her son LW6. PW1 narrated the harassment to her parents. Then they brought PW1 and her son to Warangal and since then they both are residing at the house of parents of PW1. PW1 lodged complaint (Ex.P1)

before the Police immediately after returning from her matrimonial

home.

LW11, ASI/377 of PS Subedari received the complaint from PW1 and registered the case vide in Cr.No.383/2009 and issued

FIR (Ex.P2). Later the case file was transmitted to Women Police station and PW10, Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS took up investigation

During the course of investigation PW10, Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS

Subedari, examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW9 and

LW10 (Meduri Vijaya Saradhi). The accused A1 to A3 obtained anticipatory bail and were released after furnishing sureties. After completion of investigation LW14, Sub-Inspector of Police, Women

Police station filed charge sheet in this case.

3.On considering the material papers on record, this court taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable u/s.498-A IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4.After appearance of accused, the case copies furnished to accused as per section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined u/s.239

Cr.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges for the offences punishable u/s.498-A IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, framed and explained to accused in Telugu.

- 4 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

5.At the stage of trial this case vide old CC.No.277/2010 is transferred to this court from IV-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate's

Court, Warangal as per the orders of the Hon'ble District Court

Warangal in Dis.No.9361, dt:7.2.13 and re-numbered as

CC.No.354/2014. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW10

examined and Exs.P1 to P2 marked. Exs.D1 to D3 marked on behalf of defence.

6.After closing of prosecution evidence the accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances which are appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses explained to them.

They denied as false and reported as no evidence on their behalf. Then the case is posted for arguments.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9. Admittedly the accused A2 Devi Satyavathi is paternal aunt of PW1. The accused A1 is husband and A3 is father-in-law of

PW1. It is admitted fact that the marriage of PW1 and A1 was performed at the house of accused situated at Vanukuru village.

10.In the present case the prosecution levelled the following allegations against the accused:

i)that the accused demanded dowry and taken Rs.5,00,000/- dowry at the time of marriage.

ii)the accused demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- after marriage, - 5 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

iii)the accused harassed PW1 mentally and physically.

11.With regard to the first allegation concern, PW1 testified that at the time of marriage her parents had given an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-cash on demand of A1 to A3. Whereas

PW2 who is mother of PW1stated that at the time of marriage they had given Rs.1,20,000/- cash as a dowry. PW3 father of PW1 stated that at the time of marriage they had given dowry as demanded by accused. In the evidence, PW3 did not state the particulars of quantum of amount given by him to the accused at the time of marriage. PW1 and PW2 deposed about the quantum of dowry amount paid to the accused at the time of marriage. As per

PW1 it is Rs.5,00,000/- whereas as per PW2 it is Rs.1,25,000/-. As such their evidence is having material inconsistency as to the quantum of dowry amount.

In the cross-examination PW1 stated that her grand mother used to give amount to her. Whereas PW9 who is maternal uncle of PW1 stated that one D.S.Yogi who is relative of PW1 sent

Rs.5,00,000/- from America to meet the marriage expenses of PW1 and in installment basis they had given amount to accused prior to marriage. But neither PW1 nor her parents deposed such fact that one Yogi adjusted the amount to perform marriage. PW1 was cross-examined at length about her parents financial status, but nowhere she deposed that one Yogi adjusted the amount at the time of her marriage. From the said circumstances it appeared that - 6 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

somewhat PW9 exaggerated the evidence. The marriage of PW1 was performed in the year 1999. The present case was registered on 15.8.2009. PW1 not approached the Police within reasonable time by expressing her grievance about payment of dowry.

Admittedly the only source of income to the family of

PW1 is the salary of her father. It is admitted fact that father of

PW1 was retired in the year 1996 and he received Rs.1,96,000/- as a retirement benefits. It is also admitted fact that after retirement of

PW3 (father of PW1) he performed the marriage of his elder daughter. So, whatever the retirement benefits he has received might be spent for the marriage of his elder daughter. The source of income of parents of PW1 to give such huge amount as dowry is not established by prosecution. The prosecution came with a plea that the complainant gave dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused. It is the duty of prosecution to establish the factum of payment of dowry beyond all reasonable doubt. But no cogent either or documentary evidence adduced by prosecution to establish the payment of dowry to accused. From the above discussion it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the payment of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- to accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

12.With regard to the second allegation concerned, as per the prosecution the accused demanded additional dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/-. In the presence of elders at the time of panchayat - 7 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- were given to accused. The

panchayat elders were examined as PW5, PW7 and PW8.

PW5 stated that after marriage for some time PW1 and

A1 lived amicably. Later the accused started harassment on PW1 for additional dowry. Parents of PW1 brought her to their house.

Subsequently father of A1 came and convinced PW1 and took her with them. After some time again the accused started harassment on PW1.

PW7 deposed that PW1 is sister of his friend and he was informed that the accused used to beat PW1. He was called by his friend and he went to the house of accused and discussed the issue. Father of PW1 gave amount to accused but the accused demanded more amount. From the above evidence of PW7, it appears that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was given to accused at their residence. But in the cross-examination PW7 stated that while he was sitting in front of the house of Thandava krishna (brother of

PW1) the amount gave to accused in the house. Further he stated that he do not know who had given amount and who received the amount and he was informed by the family members of Thandava krishna that they had given amount to accused. He further said that he cannot say how much amount given, date and denomination of the amount. From the above admission of PW7, it is clear that no

additional dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- given to accused in the

presence of PW7.

- 8 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

PW8 testified that he came to know that accused A1 was having illegal contacts with others and demanding amount.

Parents of PW1 gave Rs.50,000/- to accused. In the cross- examination PW8 stated that he could come to know about the incidents through PW1 and he did not have any personal knowledge with the facts.

Even though prosecution cited PW5, PW7, PW8 as panchayat elders, they never deposed that they conducted panchayat with the accused. Even they never stated before the court, that they made any conversation with the accused on the issue of disputes in between the accused and PW1 and also on the issue of demand of

additional dowry. Even the prosecution did not furnish the

particulars of panchayat like place of panchayat, date of panchayat, etc. So, conducting panchayats by the elders with the accused is doubtful. Further the evidence of PW5, PW7, PW8 is not revealing any payment of Rs.50,000/- to the accused in their presence.

PW1 in the cross-examination admitted that she studied D-

Pharmacy in Sri.Venkateshwara Pharmacy college at Madhapur,

Hyderabad. The accused A2 sent an amount of Rs.1500/- per month to her through one Bharani who is her relative. Further it is admitted by

PW1 that she completed B-Pharmacy at Bapatla college and A1 paid donation for her education. From the above admissions of PW1 it is clear that due to the financial assistance of accused PW1 completed D-

Pharmacy and B-Pharmacy. PW3 who is father of PW1 stated that at - 9 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

the time of education of his son he had taken Rs.40,000/- from A2. PW4 who is maternal aunt of PW1 stated that she had taken Rs.15,000/- from

A3. There is no proof filed by these witnesses to show that they repaid the amount to accused. From the above statements of witnesses it appears that the accused have given financial assistance to the family of

PW1. It is admitted fact the marriage of PW1 and A1 was performed at the residence of A1. As discussed above the prosecution failed to prove the factum of payment of dowry at the time of marriage. So, it appears that with the expenses of accused the marriage of PW1 and A1 was performed. If the accused were very particular about the money they may not spend even single pie to PW1 at the time of her education and did not give amount to PW3 for his son's education. The evidence on record is not convincing to conclude that the accused demanded

additional dowry and on demand Rs.50,000/- was given to accused by

parents of PW1.

13.The third allegation levelled by prosecution is that the accused harassed PW1 mentally and physically concerned, PW1 evidence shows that after birth of son the accused started harassment on her physically and mentally. She informed the same to her parents and her parents came to her house. In their presence A1 beat PW1 and necked out her forcibly with a demand of additional dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/-. She came to her parents house and stayed for 10 months.

After panchayat she went to her in-laws house. At her in-laws house she stayed for six years. The accused A1 to A3 repeated the harassment - 10 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

and A1 tried to kill her and did not allow her to call to her parents.

Further A1 developed illegal intimacy with another woman and did not look after her. A1 used to beat her and during night hours he tortured her. As per PW1 A1 used to abuse her and was displaying blue films and comparing her with blue films. A1 used to beat her on her back side joints due to that she sustained unbearable pain. On 11.8.2009 she attended the marriage of her relative and along with her parents she came to their house.

PW6 is son of PW1. As per PW6 his father used to behave indecently with work maid. His father used to beat him and also beat his mother. As per PW6 his father did not allow his mother to sit in sofa and did not give any freedom to his mother. After filing the case on him, he and his mother went to the house of accused as matter compromised. During that period also grand parents told him that his mother is a mad person and requires treatment. Whereas A1 told him that if he stayed along with them his mother (PW1) also stayed there.

As per PW6 until 2009 he could not know about his maternal grand parents and in the year 2009 only through his mother he came to know about grand parents. In the cross-examination PW6 stated that when he was studying 4th class he came to Warangal and now he is studying

Intermediate. By that time he might be aged about 8 or 9 years. As

PW6 was in tender age during his stay at the house of his father, can be able to understand misbehaviour of his father with work maid?

- 11 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

It is admitted fact that the accused performed 'Upanayanam' to PW6 in the year 2007 or 2008 and for that function parents of PW1 also attended. Through PW6 the bunch of photographs were marked as

Ex.D3. The said photographs reflects that PW1 and A1 attended the functions of their relatives at different point of times. In the evidence of

PW2, Ex.D1 marked. As per Ex.D1, PW2 stated before the Police that

PW1 used to make phone calls to her secretly and informed the harassment. So, also in the evidence of PW4, Ex.D2 marked. As per

Ex.D2 also PW4 stated before the Police that PW1 used to make phone calls to her secretly. The Investigation Officer, PW10 deposed that the witnesses stated before her as recorded in Exs.D1 and D2. PW1 stated that one of her younger sister by name Vasavi died at Hanamkonda and her father-in-law (A3) brought her to Hanamkonda. As per PW1 her husband did not attend the funerals of her younger sister. As A1 and A3 were running hospital the presence of anyone of them were essential in the hospital. Due to that reason the accused A1 did not attend the funerals. Basing on that reason we cannot find fault with A1.

PW3 (Father of PW1) at the time of cross-examination admitted that for two months A2 and A3 went for Kaasi yatra and on their request he was at the house of accused for two months. If so PW1 can inform the harassment to her father and can take police assistance in such case. From the evidence on record it appears that PW1 occasionally met her parents and she has every opportunity to contact her parents. Admittedly the house of accused is consisting of ground - 12 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

and two floors. In the ground floors the accused are running Ayurvedic hospital. In the first floor the residential house of all the accused was situated and in the second floor the family of A1 having bedroom. It is admitted fact by PW6 that two workers were working in the house of accused. One worker is working in the house and another worker attached to the clinic. They will be present since from morning 8.00 am to 5.00 pm. Further in the cross-examination PW6 stated that her grand parents used to perform 'Dhanvanthari Jayanthi' every year by inviting all villagers and relatives. Further he stated that during his stay at the house of his father they visited Srisailam and other areas in the year 2007 and went to Amaravati. In one year they visited Bangalore and

North India. In the year 2006 they went to Vizag. Further PW6 stated that every year he went to exhibition and book exhibition along with his parents. From the above statements of PW6 it appears that the relationship in between PW1 and accused was good even upto the year 2007. If the accused is narrow minded they may not allow PW1 to visit the areas on their expenses. From the above circumstances it appears that the statement of PW1 that she was confined in a house by the accused is false. The accused gave freedom to her and she has many opportunities to contact parents.

As per PW1 the accused no.1 used to watch blue films and harassed her on that issue. PW1 no where stated the particulars where

A1 was watching blue films. From the evidence on record in the ground floor of the building of accused there is a hospital, in the first - 13 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

floor A2 and A3 were staying and in 2nd floor only A1 and PW1 were having bed room. So, the accused A1 were having only privacy to watch any obscene material when he was at second floor. PW6 evidence shows that they do not have any television in their bedroom at second floor. PW1 also in the cross-examination stated that they used to watch TV at first floor of the building. From the above statements of

PW1 coupled with the statement of PW6 it is clear that there was no television at second floor. As such there was no scope for accused no.1 to watch any obscene material. As there was a hospital the presence of patients since from morning to evening hours would be there and work maids also be present in the house. If the accused A1 were beating PW1 neither the patients nor the work maids would rescue her. Since it is a village immediately it will be communicated to the other villagers and the reputation of accused would be degraded in the villagers. But PW1,

PW2, and other witnesses stated that the accused have well reputation in the village and surrounding areas. No medical certificate is filed by prosecution to show that PW1 got joint pains even till today. The

Investigation Officer PW10 stated that she never visited the village of accused. The persons who are residing at the locality of accused are very competent persons to state the nature of accused and harassment on

PW1. When there is availability of independent witnesses from the locality, non-securing them as a witnesses is fatal to the case of prosecution.

- 14 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

PW1 stated that her parents came to attend marriage and then she along with her parents came to Warangal. Whereas in the cross-examination she stated that from the place of marriage she went to

Machilipatnam along with her parents to the house of one Shashi. From the house of Shashi she went to near by Police station at Machilipatnam and returned to Warangal. Whereas PW2 stated that her daughter said to them that she will commit suicide if they do not attend marriage. On that they went to Vuyyur in car and passed an information through some one to PW1 to come outside of the marriage function hall. Then PW1 came along with her son and while they are travelling the accused made several phone calls and said that they will file case against them on the ground that they committed theft of gold ornaments. Due to fear they approached the Police station at Machilipatnam. Admittedly

Machilipatnam is not situated in between Vuyyuru, Vijayawada and

Warangal. There were so many Police stations in between Vuyyur to

Warangal. This court failed to find out reason for the PW1 to travel the remote area of Machilipatnam from Vuyyur. The other witnesses PW4 stated that PW1 was brought up by relatives to Machilipatnam then she and her parents of PW1 went to Bandhar and brought her to Warangal.

PW1 denied in the cross-examination that she came to Warangal by wearing all the gold ornaments. As per PW1 by the date when she left

Vuyyur she was wearing pusthelathadu, black beeds chain and white stones necklace. Whereas PW6 stated that his mother came along with gold ornaments from the place of marriage to his grand mothers house.

- 15 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

Admittedly after arrival of Warangal PW1 approached the TV9 and gave an interview. As per PW4 the accused made propoganda that PW1 took away the gold ornaments and eloped with someone due to that they approached TV9. From the conduct of PW1 immediately after returning from her matrimonial home in giving television interview and approaching the Police it appears that anticipating something on the side of accused PW1 have taken those type of steps. As per PW1 she went to attend marriage and her parents came there. Where there was a marriage so many relatives would attend the function. There is no need for her to leave the function hall secretly without giving any information to any one of the relatives. If PW1 thought that the accused will obstruct her and will not allow her to go along with her parents she can take assistance of other relatives and can take assistance of the police to leave that place. From the evidence of PW1 it appears that she did not approach the court with clean hands. From the evidence on record it is clear that the accused provided education to PW1, with their expenses they performed marriage and even PW1 gave birth to the child by staying at the house of accused and the accused attended the delivery of

PW1. The evidence on record is not convincing to say that the accused harassed PW1 physically and mentally.

18.As per my aforesaid discussion it can be concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused took dowry of

Rs.5,00,000/- and demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and - 16 - CC.No.354 of 2014.

harassed PW1 physically and mentally. Hence, I hold the point as against to the prosecution.

19. In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.498-A IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled subject to provisions of sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of April, 2017). -sd/-

I- ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 – Devi Sharada,- NONE - PW2 – Narayanam Sham Rukmini, PW3 – Narayanam Seetha Ramanjaneyulu, PW4 – Meduri Rajyalaxmi, PW5 – Devi Nagarjuna Charyulu, PW6 – Devi Gananda Venkata Krishna, PW7 – Bitla Venugopala Krishna Murthy, PW8 – Vemoori Satyananda Venkata Ramana, PW9 – Devi Sridhar, PW10 – B. Vijayalaxmi.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 – complaint by PW1, Ex.P2 – First Information report.

FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D1 – relevant portion of S.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2, Ex.D2 – relevant portion of S.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4, Ex.D3 - bunch of photographs.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL.

-sd/-

I- ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Copy to the Prosecution and accused.

- 1 - CC.No.245 of 2012.

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Thursday, this the 27 th day of April, 2017.

Present: Smt.T. ANITHA I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

Calendar Case No.245 of 2012.

Between:

The state of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police,

WPS Warangal Urban. ……..Complainant.

AND

A1 – Singireddy Rajakrishna, A2 – Singireddy Annamma, A3 – Singireddy Kumarawamy, A4 – Singireddy Nagaraju,

A5 – Singireddy Nagarani. …….. Accused.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, and of Sri.R. Venkateshwar Rao, Counsel for accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this date, and this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS Warangal Urban, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.15/2012, for the offences punishable u/s.498-A, 406 IPC, secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against accused.

2.Brief averments of the charge sheet are that in the year 2005 the elders of the complainant (PW1 Singireddy Hyma @ Sudeepa) mediated for her marriage with the accused A1 (Singireddy - 2 - CC.No.245 of 2012.

Rajakrishna). A2 to A5 who are the parents, brother and sister-in-law of

A1 agreed to perform marriage after completion of education of A1 and demanded dowry. After consultations the dowry was settled at

Rs.6,00,000/-. On 8.5.2005 parents of PW1 conducted betrothal function in the presence of elders by name Erukula Lingamurty (PW3),

Chipparthi Samba Shiva Reddy (PW4), Mamidi Ramesh (PW5), Nalla

Janardhan Reddy (LW7) and given Rs.3,00,000/- dowry to A1 in the presence of other accused. After completion of study of A1 in the year 2007, parents of PW1 approached the accused and asked them to fix the date of marriage. But the accused were postponing the marriage by one or other pretext. Due to that elders and parents of PW1 went to the house of A1. But A1 to A4 informed that other parties were coming forward to give Rs.30 lakhs dowry and demanded the said amount.

After consultations the dowry amount was fixed for Rs.12,00,000/-.

On 16.2.2011, the marriage of PW1 was performed with

A1 and the remaining dowry of Rs.9 lakhs were given to accused. A1 and A4 were doing job as Software Engineer in Hyderabad. PW1 went and joined the society of A1 in Flat No.201, Mounika plaza apartment in

Madhapur. In that apartment A4 and A5 were also residing. A2 and A3 used to visit the house and with the support of A4 and A5 harassed PW1 physically and mentally that she brought less dowry. One day A1 abused PW1 in filthy language and beat her alleging that she was insulted him by saying at his friends as she discontinued B.Com., degree. Thereby A1 to A5 harassed PW1 physically and mentally for - 3 - CC.No.245 of 2012.

additional dowry of Rs.20 lakhs. Meanwhile PW1 got pregnancy. But

A1 used to force her to get abortion and tried to give some pills to PW1.

But she thrown them away. Since then A1 to A5 harassed PW1 to give divorce to A1. A1 said that he received obscene messages about PW1 and made slanders against PW1 and sent her to parents house. On 26.12.2011 PW1, blessed with a female child but nobody came to see the child. Then parents of PW1 and elders conducted panchayat with the accused on 12.4.2012 in Mondrai village. A1 to A5 informed that they were not willing to see PW1 and her child and paid dead ear to the words of panchayat elders and accused left place. Finally on 16.4.2012,

PW1 came to Police station and lodged complaint.

LW8, Sub-Inspector of Police received the complaint from

PW1 and registered the case vide in Cr.No.15/2012. Later the case file was entrusted to PW6, Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS Warangal. During the course of investigation, she examined and recorded the statements of

PW1 (Singireddy Hyma @ Sudeepa), LW2 (Giruka Venkat Reddy),

PW2 (Giruka Sarojana), PW3 (Erukala Linga Murthy), PW4 (Chipparthi Samba Shiva Reddy), PW5 (Mamidi Ramesh), LW7 (Nalla

Janardhan Reddy). A1 to A5 were surrendered before the Court and released on bail. After completion of investigation PW4 filed charge sheet.

3.On considering the material papers on record, this court taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable u/s.498-A, 406 IPC, secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

- 4 - CC.No.245 of 2012.

4.After appearance of accused, the case copies furnished to accused as per section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined u/s.239

Cr.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges for the offences punishable u/s.498-A, 406 IPC, secs.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, framed and explained to accused in Telugu.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 marked. Exs.D1 to D3 got marked on behalf of defence.

6.After closing of prosecution evidence the accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances which are appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses explained to them.

They denied as false and reported as no evidence on their behalf. Then the case is posted for arguments.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9.Admittedly the marriage of PW1 and A1 was performed on 16.2.2011 and PW1 gave birth to a child on 26.12.2011.

A1 is husband of PW1. A2 and A3 parents of A1. A4 is brother of A1. A5 is wife of A4.

PW1 S. Hymavathi evidence shows that on 8.5.2005 when

A1 was studying B.Tech., her marriage fixed with him. Initially the accused demanded Rs.6,00,000/- and they paid Rs.3,00,000/-. The accused told with them that they will perform marriage after completion - 5 - CC.No.245 of 2012.

of education of A1. After getting job by A1 they approached the accused but the accused demanded Rs.30 lakhs dowry to perform marriage. After consultations the dowry was re-fixed for an amount of

Rs.12 lakhs and her parents had given the balance dowry amount of

Rs.9 lakhs and gave house hold articles and gold to accused and performed marriage.

As per PW1 after marriage for 10 to 15 days she stayed at her mother-in-laws house. Later A1 took her to Hyderabad and put up family at Mounika plaza in Madhapur. In that house A4 and A5 were also resided. After 1 ½ months parents of A1 came there and started to criticize her stating that she brought less dowry. A1 A4, A5 also harassed her for additional dowry. A1 used to harass her that she was not beautiful and brought less dowry. In the month of May the accused took her to the hospital and Doctors confirmed that she was pregnant, then A1 asked her to get abortion. But PW1 refused. The accused not allowed her to take food. She questioned the accused about the dowry amount already given. On that A1 beat her and abused her. Later A1 said that he received bad messages about her character. When she was having six months pregnancy the accused brought her to her parents house on 2.9.2011. The accused A1 never attended her call and not listened the words of elders. After one month A1 issued notice for divorce to her. The accused not came even to see her child. The accused made propaganda that the child was not born to A1. As she has - 6 - CC.No.245 of 2012.

female child she waited for some time. Later she approached Police and filed complaint.

Through PW1 the certified copy of counter filed in

OP.No.17/2012 on the file of II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge marked as

Ex.D1. In Ex.D1 it was mentioned that on 9th October, 2010,

Rs.2,65,000/- were given to the accused by parents of PW1 in Jewellery shop and on 5.1.2011 at the time of lagnakoti Rs.4 lakhs were given and on 4.2.2011 on the occasion of betrothal ceremony Rs.70,000/- was paid to the Carpenter. On the date of marriage i.e., on 16.2.2011,

Rs.10,35,000/- and cash of Rs.32,000/- towards house hold articles were given to accused. But PW1 in her evidence nowhere stated about the payment of dowry in installments as mentioned in Ex.D1. If appears that PW1 had taken different stands at different point of times.

10.PW2 who is mother of PW1 evidence with regard to payment of dowry is that on the day of fixation of alliance Rs.3 lakhs were given to accused and to purchase gold Rs.2 lakhs were given. As per PW2 they sold away two acres agricultural land and one month prior to marriage they had given Rs.7 lakhs to accused. In the evidence of

PW2 part of 161 Cr.P.C. statement marked as Ex.P2. As per Ex.D2,

PW1 stated before the Investigation Officer that they had given Rs.9 lakhs cash at the time of marriage.

11.Whereas PW3 evidence shows that the balance amount of

Rs.9 lakhs were given to accused two months prior to marriage. The part of S.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 marked as Ex.D3. As per Ex.D3 the - 7 - CC.No.245 of 2012.

amount of Rs.9 lakhs gave to accused on the date of marriage. The

Investigation Officer, PW6 stated that the witness stated before her as recorded. As such the evidence of PW3 is also having self contradictions. Apart from that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is having material inconsistency with regard to the date and quantum of payment to accused. As per PW1 and PW2 they sold away two acres agricultural land to give dowry. In such a case there is availability of documentary evidence to show that the parents of PW1 sold away the land at relevant of point of time. It is a case where huge quantity of amount paid by parents of PW1. It is upto the prosecution to establish the said fact beyond all reasonable doubt. The oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 is not inspiring confidence to believe their version. In addition to that the prosecution failed to place any material on record to show that parents of PW1 purchased house hold articles at the time of marriage and secure

Rs.12 lakhs to give dowry to accused. From the above circumstances it can be said that the payment of dowry by parents of PW1 to the accused is not proved by prosecution.

12.With regard to the harassment on PW1 concerned PW2 is mother of PW1 and PW3 is maternal uncle of PW1. Their evidence is only hearsay in nature. The panchayat elders examined as PW4 and

PW5. PW4 deposed that after birth of child the accused never turned up to see the child. On that they went to the village of accused to conduct panchayat. But father of A1 came and told with them that they have no interest to take back PW1. On that they returned to the house. Whereas - 8 - CC.No.245 of 2012.

another panchayat elders PW5 said that after birth of child the accused never came. They went to the house of Kumaraswamy and called the accused. But the accused went away without listening their voice.

Admittedly PW4 and PW5 never stated before the Investigation Officer about the place, date of panchayats. When the elders decided to conduct panchayat all the issues would be placed before them. May be the accused not came to see the child but for that action on the part of accused there might be some root cause and certainly the parties will brought to the notice of elders. But the elders PW4 and PW5 evidence is not revealing what is the main grievance to the accused and grievance of PW1. PW4 and PW5 evidence is not revealing the particulars of harassment meted out by PW1 at the house of accused. From the evidence of elders it appears that PW1 and her parents placed the only issue before the elders is that the accused never turned up to see the child. If there was any harassment on PW1, certainly the said acts on the part of accused would place before the elders and it is not difficult for the elders to depose the same before the Court.

13.As per PW1 when she was at the house of accused at

Keerthi Apartments, Madhapur the accused harassed her. The

Investigation Officer PW6 stated that she never visited the Madhapur and not examined any of the residents of Keerthi Apartments. It is not an ideal place where there is availability of independent witnesses, non- examination of independent witnesses is fatal to the case of prosecution.

- 9 - CC.No.245 of 2012.

14.In the present case the prosecution cited A1 to A4 as accused. But the evidence of PW1 is not revealing any specific overt acts against the accused in the harassment. From the evidence of PW1 it appears that the main dispute in between her and A1 is that A1 received bad messages about her conduct. In this case except the statement of

PW1 there is no other evidence on record to show that the accused harassed PW1. Even in the evidence PW1 nowhere stated the date, time of harassment and also not stated the specific role played by each accused.

S.498-A IPC states that whoever being the husband or relative of husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished. For the purpose of the sec.498-A IPC cruelty defines in explanation (a) and (b) of the section. As per explanation (a) any willful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physically) of the woman. As per explanation (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. In this case even though

PW1 stated that the accused took her to the hospital and the accused tried to get abortion forcibly by giving medicine, she has not submitted any of the medical prescription to show that the accused took her to the hospital. Threatening to get abortion and making attempts to cause - 10 - CC.No.245 of 2012.

abortion to PW1 is certainly cause injury to the health of petitioner. But the said fact has to prove by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence by producing prescription, etc. When the accused were having such cruel mentality PW1 cannot wait until receiving the divorce notice from the accused. Within reasonable time she has to approach the concerned authority. The independent witnesses PW4, PW5 evidence is not revealing that they were informed by PW1 that the accused made attempt to get abortion to PW1 and not provided food to her. There is no corroborative evidence with the evidence of PW1. From the evidence on record it appears that such degree of harassment as defined u/s.498-A IPC is absent in this case.

15.Admittedly, the marriage of PW1 with A1 was took place on 16.2.2011. She was brought to her parents house on 2.9.2011. As per PW1 after 10 to 15 days of her marriage she went to Hyderabad. So hardly 6 months she was in Hyderabad. Short span of period she spent at the house of accused in Hyderabad. Admittedly parents of A1 has been residing in the village. No evidence adduced by prosecution to show that A4 and A5 stayed along with A1 and PW1 in the same flat.

The accused A1 is working as a Software Engineer. He used to attend the duties. There was no hurdle on PW1 to pass information to her parents and to inform neighbors about the harassment on her. If PW1 meted out such cruel treatment she cannot wait without giving information to her parents until the accused brought her to parents - 11 - CC.No.245 of 2012.

house. Due to short span of time there might be no possibility for the accused to harass her and treated her cruelly.

16.The counsel for accused argued that the entire alleged harassment took place at Madhapur, Hyderabad and this court has no jurisdiction. In the cross-examination PW1 said that on 2.9.2011, A1 to

A4 brought her to her parents house from Hyderabad. She and A1 went to Wardhannapet Police station and given complaint. Then the police brought one Changalla Shivakumar and he informed to the police that as per the instructions of one Raju he passed messages to A1. On that the accused left her in the police station and went away. Later the accused not attended the phone calls. Major part of the harassment took place at

Hyderabad. The evidence of PW1 is not revealing any overt act in

Warangal district. As such the courts in Hyderabad is having jurisdiction to decide the case. The counsel for accused relied a decision reported in 2014(2) ALD Crl.894 in between Sivangala Thandi Deepak and others V. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, where in it was held that - “All these decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners clearly show that when no part of the cause of action has arisen at a particular place, a claim cannot be made at that particular place ostensibly on the ground that the complainant was residing at that place at the time of the filing of the case”. The above said authority is applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.

17.As per my aforesaid discussion it can be conclude that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused taken dowry at the time of - 12 - CC.No.245 of 2012.

marriage, harassed PW1 physically and mentally by demanding

additional dowry. Hence, I hold the point as against to the prosecution.

18. In the result, the accused A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.498-A, 406 IPC, secs.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled subject to provisions of sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of April, 2017).

-sd/-

I- ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 – Singireddy Hyma @ Sudeepa,- NONE - PW2 – Giruka Sarojana, PW3 – Erukala Linga Murthy, PW4 – Chipparthi Samba Shiva Reddy, PW5 – Mamidi Ramesh, PW6 – K. Sujatha.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 – complaint by PW1, Ex.P2 – First Information report.

FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D1 – certified copy of counter in OP.No.17/2012 on the file of Hon'ble II- Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, Ex.D2 – relevant portion of S.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2, Ex.D3 – relevant portion of S.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL. -sd/-

I- ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Copy to the Prosecution and accused.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT :: WARANGAL.

Monday, this the 29 th day of February, 2016

Present :- Smt.T. Anitha,

FAC.Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

O.S. No. 969 of 2015

Between:- 1.Putta Venkata Krishna Redy 2.Putta Venkata Reddy 3.Putta Narender Reddy … Plaintiffs

And

1.Nara Boyana Venugopal 2.Nara Boina Lakshmi 3.Korra Malla Reddy 4.Koripelli Malla Reddy 5.Vadlakonda Yadagiri 6.Sadam Raghu 7.Sadam Raja Golla 8.Sadam Matcha Chandraiah … Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 20.1.2016 in the presence of Sri G. Hari Narayana, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Defendants No.1 to 8 remained ex parteand upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments, this Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

This suit is filed for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are:-

The plaintiff No.1 is the father of Plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the plaintiff No.1 is the son of one Putta Balreddy and grand son of Putta Venkata Reddy. The said

Putta Venkata Reddy is the land-old ever since from 1333 Fasli ie., since from Set

War record. The said Putta Venkat Reddy leftt with one son ie., Putta Bal Reddy.

The name of Putta Bal Reddy was entered in the revenue record after the death of his father and continued his name till 1992-93. The said Putta Bal Reddy had only one issue ie., Plaintiff No.1 and the name of Plaintiff No.1 was entered in the revenue record as Pattedar and Possessor of the lands as successor and legal heir to the suit schedule property. The plaintiff No.1 had two male issues ie., Plaintiffs 2 2 and 3. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are having agricultural lands to an extent of Ac. 24.00 situated at Krishnajigudem village in

Sy. Nos. 358 and 381 of Station Ghanpur Mandal, Warangal District and plaintiffs 1 to 3 being farmers cultivating their lands and eking their livelihood, from the time of their fore-fathers. The extent of the village land covered is Ac. 2802.00 and it is covered with Sadak, Cart roads, Walking roads, Patu, Mango trees with other trees, Agricultural wells like Mota Bavi and other wells, Houses, Temples,

Tanks, Boundary Stones, Hills etc., The village is shown in the map, which was drawn in the year 1333 Fasli. The map shows in which survey number the Ponds,

Tanks etc., It is further averred in the plaint that in the map it is clearly mentioned in which survey number the Public Water Ponds, Tanks etc., are situated. As per the Village map Kotha Cheruvu is located in Sy.No. 189 and whereas the Old Cheruvu is located in Sy. Nos. 148, 149 and in 89. Apart from this it is also mentioned that in Sy. No. 220 a water pond (known as Brahammal

Kunta) and in Sy. No. 377 Water Pond (known as Ippala Kunta) situate. On the western side of the village Sy. Nos. 282, 277, 276, 264, 263, 278, 279 and 280 are partly covered with Hills whereas the Sy. Nos. 290, 260, 259 and 262 are partly covered with boulders. The said hills and boulders are in the Patta land of villagers and they are partly covered. Whereas the lands of Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 are situate in Sy. Nos. 381 and 358 in the middle of the village. During the rainy season from the western side hills water will flow through cultivated lands of

Ippala Kunta and water remain in that kunta. The stored water will be utilised for agricultural purpose from long long time ago. The dispute between the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendants 1 to 8 is with regard to the suit schedule property.

The plaintiffs further averred in the plaint that they are possessors of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 358 and 381 admeasuring Ac. 18.22 gts. situate at Krishnajigudem village of Station Ghanpur mandal as described in the suit schedule. The plaintiffs grand father and great grandfather in the Seth War are the pattedars and possessors. As per Khasra Pahani the father of plaintiff No.1 and subsequently the names of plaintiffs 1 to 3 are shown in the Pahanis as 3

Pattedars and Possessors during the year 1333 Fasli to an extent of Ac. 9.15 and

Ac. 9=07 gts in Sy. Nos. 358 and 381. It is further averred in the plaint that the

Pahanis including Khasra shows in the Pattedar Column and Possession column the name of Putta Venkat Reddy is shown in the Set War whereas in Khasra

Pahani during the year 1954-55 the name of late Bal Reddy, who is the only son of late Venkat Reddy till his death ie., in the year 1992 was shown and thereafter the names of Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are mutated in the Pahanis by the revenue authorities as per R.O.R. Act and issued Pattedar Pass Book etc., to the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 herein separately as per the partition. The patta pass book and title deed book of first plaintiff were deposited with the DCC Bank, Ghanpur as security for the loan of Tractor. The patta pass book and title deed book of Plaintiff No.2 were also deposited with PACS Bank, Ghanpur towards crop loan security and whereas the pass book and title deed book of plaintiff No. 3 were deposited with HDFC bank towards security of Agricultural Over Draft loan. The said documents clearly indicate possession and title of over the lands in Sy. Nos. 358 and 381 by plaintiffs No.1 to 3.

The plaintiffs further averred that all of a sudden on 17.9.2015 after several years of Naxals movement, the defendants 1 to 8 started obstructing the plaintiffs from cultivating their lands in the village. The defendants 1 to 8 are trying to grab the suit schedule property from the possession of plaintiffs 1 to 3, when the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are engaged in clearing the bushes and making the land for cultivation. The defendants 1 to 8 on 19.9.2015 came to the suit land along with their hench men and Revenue authorities and asked the plaintiffs to stop the work. The plaintiffs honoured the orders of the Executive Magistrate, and stopped the entire field work. After verification of the record the revenue authorities have instructed the defendants to allow the plaintiffs 1 to 3 to work in the land in Sy.

No. 358 and 381.

The plaintiffs further averred in the plaint that on the western side of the village hills are located in Sy. Nos. 282, 277, 276, 264, 263, 278, 279 and 280.

The lands of plaintiffs situate on the middle of village and during rainy season 4 water flows towards eastern side of village. The lands of defendants locate under the tank. The Pipe line of Devadula flows from north to south of village boundaries. The defendants used to open the valves of Devadula pipe lines and draw water unauthorisedly and divert them to their lands. The plaintiffs belong to

Telugu Desam Party whereas the defendants belong to TRS Party. The plaintiffs complained the same to the Collector and in turn the Collector deputed the

Irrigation Authorities and the Revenue Authorities for enquiry and they found fault with the acts of defendants and they expressed their inability and advised the plaintiffs to approach the Court of law for redressal. In those circumstances, without the assistance of the court, the plaintiffs are not in a position to protect the suit schedule property and hence, the present suit was filed.

3.As per the process report the summons were served on the defendants 1 to 8 but they did not choose to appear before the court in order to prove their case and hence, the defendants were set ex parte and posted the suit for plaintiffs' evidence.

4.On behalf of plaintiffs P.W.1 examined and Exs.A1 and A5 marked.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiffs.

6.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief

of permanent injunction as prayed for?

7.The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 stating that they are owning Ac. 9.15 gts land in Sy. No. 358 and Ac. 9.07 gs land in Sy. No. 381 situated at Krishnajigudem village of Station Ghanpur Mandal. To prove the case of the plaintiffs the first plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1. He filed his evidence affidavit by reproducing all the facts mentioned in the plaint. According to PW.1 the defendants are interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. They had given complaint to the revenue officials. The Tahasildar as a team leader along with the relevant record came to the spot and conducted village survey. He declared that the land of the plaintiffs is a patta land and for the land in Sy. No. 358 to an extent of Ac. 9.15 5 gts and Ac. 9.07 gts in Sy. No. 381 the plaintiffs are pattedars and possessors.

Further the Tahasildar had advised the plaintiffs that the defendants belongs to

TRS Party and the plaintiffs belongs to Telugu Desam Party and has given advise to the plaintiffs to solve their problem with the defendants by joining in the TRS party.

8.In order to get the main relief of injunction the plaintiffs has to prove they are in the possession of the suit schedule property. To substantiate the facts of possession of the schedule property, the plaintiffs got marked Exs. A1 to A5.

Ex.A1 is Mee-seva Pahanies four in number for the years 2012 and 2015. The

Pahanies dt. 1.1.2013 and 16.9.2015 shows that the plaintiff No.1 Putta Venkata

Krishna Reddy and Bal Reddy are having land to an extent of Ac. 9.07 gts in Sy.

No. 381. The Pahani dt. 5.10.2015 shows that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are having

Ac. 3.03 gts land in Sy. No. 358/B. Whereas Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of Pahani

dt. 5.10.2015, 16.9.2015 and 6.9.2013. The said copies of Pahanis show that first

plaintiff and third plaintiff are having Ac. 2=12 gts. land in Sy. No. 358/D/1.

Ex.A3 is another copy of Pahani reflects that Putta Bal Reddy ie., father of plaintiff

No.1 is having Ac. 14.18 gts. of land in Sy. No. 358. Ex.A3 are the pahanis for the year 1985-86, 1992-93, 1995-96, 2000-2001, 2005-2006 and 2010-2011. In

Ex.A3 shows that the father of plaintiff No.1 Putta Bal Reddy was in possession of

Ac. 14.18 gts of land in Sy. No. 358. The pahani of the year 1995-96 shows that the first plaintiff is having Ac. 14.18 gts of agricultural land in Sy. No.358/1 and the second and third plaintiffs are having Ac. 4.20 gts each agricultural land in Sy.

No. 358/2 and 358/3. Further the pahanis for the year 2005-2006 reflects that the first and second plaintiffs are having Ac. 4.32 gts and 3.33 gt of land in Sy.

No. 358/A and 358/B. The Pahani copy of the year 2010-2011 show that the first plaintiff is having Ac. 4.32 gts of land in Sy. No.358/1 and the second plaintiff is having Ac. 3.03 gt of patta land in Sy. No. 358/B and the third plaintiff is having

Ac. 3.12 gts of patta land in Sy. No. 358/B. So, as seen from the above Pahanies (Ex.A3) it appears up to the year 1985-86, the father of first plaintiff was having

Ac. 14.18 gts of agricultural land in Sy. No.358. Subsequently, the land in Sy. No.

6 358 was subdivided and by numbers were assigned by the officials. Unless and until there was some transactions either by way of mortgage or sale of the property, the by numbers cannot be assigned to the survey No. 358. So, some transactions with regard to the land situated in Sy. No. 358 took place. Neither in the plaint nor in the evidence affidavit, the plaintiffs not furnished the particulars of the sub-division of the property situated in Sy. No. 358 and the reasons for sub-division of the property. Even it was not pleaded about any partition of the properties between the legal heirs of Putta Bal Reddy and the assignment of by numbers by the revenue officials after the partition. The documents marked on behalf of the plaintiffs are not reflecting that as on today the plaintiffs are in possession of Ac. 9.15 gts land in Sy. No. 358.

9.The plaintiffs got marked Ex.A4 ie., the Photographs of the schedule property and also filed Certificate issued by the Bank authorities which were marked as Ex.A5. In Ex.A5 it was mentioned that the first plaintiff in order to get long term loan repayable in nine years, mortgaged his land in favour of the bank.

Further it was mentioned in Ex.A5 that the Pass Books pertaining to the land situated in Sy. No. 381 to an extent of Ac. 9.07 gts are with the bank authorities.

In that document it was not mentioned that the plaintiffs also deposited their pass books pertains to the land situated in Sy. No. 358. Even though the plaintiffs got marked Ex. A5 there are some additions in writing to the typed proforma.

Unless and until the person who issued the Certificate is examined before the

Court, it cannot be said that the contents of Ex.A5 are proved by the plaintiffs. No title deed or any other document produced by the plaintiffs to establish title over the property situate in Sy. No. 381 and 358 and the extent of land owned by plaintiffs in Sy. No.358 is Ac. 9.15 gts. The Pahanies marked on behalf of by the plaintiffs i.e., Ex.A1 to A3, are also not reflecting that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are also in possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac. 9.15 gts in Sy.

No.358 of Krishnajigudem as on the date of filing of the suit. The evidence adduced by plaintiffs is not establishing that they are in possession of land to an extent of 9.15 gts. in Sy. No.358. For the above mentioned reasons, it appears 7 that by one or other reason the plaintiffs tried to hide certain facts before the court. The defendants in this case were set ex parte. The burden lies on the court to give just finding with regard to the claim of the plaintiffs and their entitlement.

To get the relief the plaintiffs have to place all the relevant facts before the court.

So, it appears that the plaintiffs not approached the court with clean hands. For the said reasons and as the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are in possession of the extent of the land situated in Sy. No. 358 they are not entitled for the relief as prayed for. Hence, the point is answered as against to the plaintiffs.

10.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of February, 2016).

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants

PW-1 :Putta Venkata Krishna Reddy -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff : Ex.A1 is the (4) Copies of Pahanis for the years 2012 and 2015. Ex.A2 is the CC of Mee seva Pahanis (3) for the years 2013 (123), 2015 (1425) (1425). Ex.A3 is the CC of Pahanis for the years 1968-69, 1985-86, 1992-93, 1995-96, 2000-2001, 2005-2006 and 2010-2011. Ex.A4 is the Photographs. Ex.A5 is the Certificate issued by Warangal District Co-operative Bank, Ghanpur Branch.

For Defendants: -NIL-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

- 1 - CC.No.224 of 2013.

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Friday, this the 28 th day of April, 2017.

Present: Smt.T. ANITHA I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

Calendar Case No.224 of 2013.

Between:

The state of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police,

PS Mills colony. ……..Complainant.

AND

Mirza Jaffar Ali Baig. …….. Accused.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, and of Sri.Mohammad Yasin, Counsel for accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this date, and this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mills colony, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.109/2013, for the offence punishable u/s.324

IPC, against accused.

2.Brief averments of the charge sheet are that PW2 (N.

Vikas) is son of PW1 (N. Srinivas). The accused is resident of

Rangasaipet and working as a Coordinator in Wisdom High school ad Rangasaipet, Warangal. PW2 is studying in 8th class in the said school. On 12.4.13 at morning hours PW2 went to the school.

- 2 - CC.No.224 of 2013.

Another student of Wisdom school by name Sairaj (PW5) was torning drawing pictures from name board. PW2 told with him not to do that thing. On that PW5 abused PW2 and they quarelled with each other. PW3 (J. Bhagya) who is working as a school attender saw the incident and immediately she informed the same to the

Correspondent (accused). On that accused came there and beat PW2 with stick indiscriminately on his buttocks and caused injury. The same was witnessed by PW3 (J. Bhagya) and PW5 (K. Sairaj). On 12.4.13 itself PW1 went to Police station and gave complaint (Ex.P1).

PW6, Sub-Inspector of Police received the complaint from PW1 and registered the case vide in Cr.No.109/2013 and issued First Information Report (Ex.P4 is First Information report).

PW6 examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW3 and

PW5 and referred the injured to MGM hospital for treatment. He visited scene of offence and prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of PW4 and LW6 (Chetti Raju). The accused surrendered

before the Court and released on bail. LW7 Medical Officer treated

the injured and issued medical certificate. After completion of investigation PW6 filed charge sheet.

3.On considering the material papers on record, this court taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable u/s.324 IPC.

- 3 - CC.No.224 of 2013.

4.After appearance of accused, the case copies furnished to accused as per section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Charges for the offence punishable u/s.324 IPC, framed and explained to accused in Telugu.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 examined and Exs.P1 to P4 marked.

6.After closing of prosecution evidence the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances which are appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses explained to him. He denied as false and reported as no evidence on his behalf.

Then the case is posted for arguments.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9. PW1 is de facto-complainant. According to him his son Vikas was studying at Wisdom School and one Baig was

Principal of the school. The accused is brother of Principal. When

his son was studying 9th class one day his son went to the school.

One of the student at the school was torning pictures from name board. On that Vikas told with him not to do such act. Then the said student abused Vikas in filthy language. On that his son went to the accused and complained the matter, but the accused beat his son with stick indiscriminately on his buttocks. His son received - 4 - CC.No.224 of 2013.

bleeding injury. One Aaya from the school called him and informed the matter. On that he went to the school and given complaint to the

Police.

10.Ex.P1 complaint reflects that when one of the student of the school abused Vikas, on that Aaya (Attender) of the school went to the Correspondent and informed the issue. Then the accused came there and beat Vikas indiscriminately. But PW1 evidence shows that Vikas himself went to the accused and informed about the incident. His evidence is not revealing the presence of attender at the time of incident. It is one of the inconsistency in between oral evidence of PW1 and Ex.P1. Admittedly PW1 was not present at the time of incident. Due to that there might be probability of some minor discrepancies in the evidence of PW1.

11.PW2 Vikas evidence shows that some quarrel took palce in between him and one Sairaj. It was happened in the hall situated in the ground floor. One Aaya (Attender) went to the accused and informed about the incident. Then the accused came and beat him and Sairaj. The accused beat him with wooden or rubber stick. Here the contention of the accused is that due to the disputes in between the two childen Vikas sustained injury and accused never beat him. The same was suggested to PW2 and he denied and said that the accused only beat him. Further PW2 evidence shows that on that day the accused also beat Sairaj.

- 5 - CC.No.224 of 2013.

12.PW5 Sairaj deposed that on that day the accused beat

Vikas as Vikas torned paper sticked to the notice board. Sairaj nowere stated that he was beaten by accused on that day. It is a material contradiction found in between the evidence of PW2 and

PW5. However PW5 nowhere stated that the accused used stick on the date of incident.

13.PW3 Bhagyalaxmi testified that she is working as Aaya in the Wisdom school and accused is brother of Principal and used to conduct some classes in that school. She said that she do not know the facts of the case. She turned hostile and her statement u/s.161

Cr.P.C., marked as Ex.P2. As PW3 turned hostile, there is no corroborative evidence with the evidence of PW2. Even though

PW3 turned hostile her evidence cannot be kept aside in toto. From the evidence of PW3, it is clear that the accused is brother of

Principal and he used to visit the school. From the evidence of PW3

the prosecution established the presence of accused at Wisdom school.

14.PW4 is panch witness to Crime Details Form. He stated that his house is situated near to the Wisdom School and the accused is second Head master of Wisdom school. As per PW4 in his presence Police prepared Crime Details form and also seized one stick. Ex.P3 (Crime Details Form) shows that scene of offence is located in the ground floor of building. Ex.P3 is corroborating with - 6 - CC.No.224 of 2013.

the evidence of PW2 to the extent that the incident was occurred in the ground floor of the school building.

15.PW6 is Sub-Inspector of Police. According to him after receiving the complaint from PW1 he registered the case. He examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2. He referred

PW2 to MGM hospital for treatment. Later he visited scene of offence and prepared Crime Details Form and also recorded statements of PW2 and PW5. Further he seized he stick. Even though PW6 deposed that he seized stick used by accused at the time of incident, the said stick was not marked in this case. PW2 gave two different statements with regard to the stick. On one occasion he said that it is a plastic stick on another occasion he said that it is a wooden stick. In the said back ground it can be said that non- producing the material object and not getting it marked is fatal to the case of prosecution.

16.The present case is filed against the accused u/s.324

IPC. Sec.324 IPC says that- “ Whoever , except in the case provided for by Sec. 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated, substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance or by means of any explosive substances, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years or fine or both”.

- 7 - CC.No.224 of 2013.

To establish the guilt u/s.324 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused used the instrument defined u/s.324 IPC and PW1 received simply injury on the date of incident. Even though PW1 and PW2 stated that the accused beat PW2 and he received injury. No Medical Officer was examined by Prosecution to prove the said fact. Unless and until the Medical Officer examined and Medical certificate marked on behalf of Prosecution, it cannot be said that the prosecution established the factum of injury sustained by PW2 on 12.4.2013. As already stated above material object was also not marked in this case. Apart from that the competent witnesses to state about the particulars of the incident are PW2, PW3 and PW5. PW3 turned hostile. Whereas PW2 and PW5 evidence is having material contradiction with regard to the particulars of the incident. As per PW2 the accused beat him and also beat PW5. As per PW5 on the said date the accused only beat PW2. As such the evidence of PW2 and PW5 is having material contradiction and it is not safe to place reliance on their evidence. As the material object is not marked and medical officer is not examined it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove that PW2 received simple injury on 12.4.2013 due to the attack of accused with a stick. Hence, I hold the point as against to the Prosecution.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.324 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under - 8 - CC.No.224 of 2013.

sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled subject to provisions of sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of April, 2017).

-sd/-

I- ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 – Nagapuri Srinivas,- NONE - PW2 – Nagapuri Vikas, PW3 – Jambarapu Bhagya, PW4 – Macherla Amrendra Kumar, PW5 – Kodati Sai Raj, PW6 – K. Ravi Kumar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 – complaint by PW1,- NIL - Ex.P2 – S.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3, Ex.P3 – Crime Details Form, Ex.P4 – First Information report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL.

-sd/-

I- ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Copy to the Prosecution and accused.

- 1 - CC.No.218 of 2014.

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Friday, this the 28 th day of April, 2017.

Present: Smt.T. ANITHA I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

Calendar Case No.218 of 2014.

Between: The state of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police,

PS Mills colony. ……..Complainant.

AND

A1 – Jatothu Srinivas, A2 – Jatothu Lalu, A3 – Malothu Shankar,

A4 – Malothu Srinu. …….. Accused.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, and of Sri.Chiluka Vijaya Rao, Counsel for accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this date, and this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mills colony, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.41/2013, for the offences punishable u/s.454, 380 IPC, against accused.

2.Brief averments of the charge sheet are that PW1 Md.

Saleema is resident of Shambunipet, Warangal. On 14.2.2013 at 1.30 hrs she went to attend the marriage of one Mahesh. At about 3.30 pm she returned to the house and found the doors of her house were in opened condition. The unknown offenders entered into the house and - 2 - CC.No.218 of 2014.

stolen away gold necklace weighing about 2 tulas, gold ear studs weighing about 1 ½ tula and 2 pairs silver anklets weighing about 16 tulas. All the above properties are worth of Rs.48,000/-. On the same day at 21.00 hrs PW1 went to Police station and lodged complaint (Ex.P1).

LW8, Head constable of PS Mills colony received the complaint from PW1 and registered the case vide in Cr.No.41/2013 (Ex.P8). Later PW7, Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Mills colony took up investigation. He examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2. He prepared CDF (Ex.P3) in the presence of PW4 (Md.

Javeed) and LW4 (Md. Shafi). The accused was arrested by PW6,

Inspector of Police, CCS Warangal in Cr.No.395/2013. PW8, Sub-

Inspector of Police of PS Mills colony produced the accused in this case on execution of PT warrant.

3.On considering the material papers on record, this court taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable u/s.454, 380 IPC.

4.After appearance of accused, the case copies furnished to accused as per section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Charges for the offences punishable u/s.454, 380 IPC, framed and explained to accused in Telugu.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 to MO3 were marked.

- 3 - CC.No.218 of 2014.

6.After closing of prosecution evidence the accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances which are appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses explained to them.

they denied as false and reported as no evidence on their behalf. Then the case is posted for arguments.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9. The contention of the prosecution is that the accused A1 to A4 entered into the house of PW1 and committed theft of gold ornaments. PW1 evidence shows that she went to attend marriage and after returning from the marriage she noticed the theft of gold necklace, one pair ear studs and one pair silver anklets. Through PW1 necklace, ear studs and silver anklets marked as MO1 to MO3. PW2, who is husband of PW1 also stated that on 14.2.13 some unknown offenders, committed theft at his residence. From the evidence of

PW1 and PW2 it is clear that the theft was occurred in their absence.

As such there is no evidence on record to show that the accused entered into the house of PW1 and committed theft of MO1 to MO3.

10.Another contention of the prosecution is that MO1 to

MO3 were recovered from the possession of accused. The

Investigation Officers PW7, stated that Head Constable registered the case and he took up investigation. As per PW7 he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2 and prepared crime Details - 4 - CC.No.218 of 2014.

Form. The panch witness to CDF examined as PW4. He also stated that in his presence Police prepared at the house of Mastan. Through him the CDF marked as Ex.P3.

11.In this case PW6 is very crucial witness. He is the person who apprehended the accused and seized the case property. According to him on 21.11.13 while he was conducting patrolling duty at RNT road, Warangal, he observed A1 to A4 under suspicious circumstances. Immediately he secured the mediators and recorded confessional and seizure panchanama. As per PW6 he seized one gold necklace weighting about 20 gms, ear studs weighing about 5 gms and silver anklets. Later the accused were remanded to judicial custody. Through PW6 the confessional and seizure panchanama marked as Ex.P5. As per Ex.P5 on that day the police seized gold necklace, ear studs, silver anklets, one pair kankanalu, one pearl chain with plain locket, one black beeds chain, gold buttalu and two rings from the possession of accused. But PW6 evidence is not revealing that he seized all the above items from the possession of accused. It is a material omission found in the evidence of PW6. Apart from that in this case four persons are cited as accused. PW6 evidence is not revealing from whose possession among the four accused he seized

MO1 to MO3. Further PW6 in his evidence not stated the particulars of confession statements given by each accused and the role played by them in the offence of theft.

- 5 - CC.No.218 of 2014.

The panch witnesses to confessional and seizure mahazarnama examined as PW3 and PW5. They both stated that they went to Police station and police obtained their signatures. They turned hostile. The signatures of PW3 and PW5 on the panchanama marked as Exs.P2 and P4.

12.PW8 who is the second Investigation Officer deposed that he received information about the arrest of accused. Immediately he filed requisition for issuance of PT warrant and on execution of PT warrant the accused were produced before this court. The evidence of

PW8 is not revealing that he conducted any Test Identification Parade of property. How the Investigation Officer come to the conclusion that the property seized by the Police are belongs to the property of PW1 and it is a stolen property?

13.As the evidence of PW6 is having material omission with regard to the properties seized from the possession of accused we cannot place complete reliance on his evidence. His evidence requires some sort of corroboration but the panch witnesses to confession and seizure panchanama turned hostile and not supporting the case of prosecution to any extent. As panch witnesses turned hostile it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the conducting the confessional and seizure panchanama in the presence of witnesses.

14.As per my aforesaid discussion the prosecution failed to prove that the accused A1 to A4 committed theft at the residence of

PW1 and the stolen property i.e., MO1 to MO3 were seized from the - 6 - CC.No.218 of 2014.

possession of accused. Hence, I hold the point as against to the prosecution.

15. In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.454, 380 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled subject to provisions of sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

MO1 to MO3 given to PW1 towards interim custody vide

Crl.Mp.No.1854 of 2013, dt:27.12.13. The said order shall be made

absolute after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of April, 2017).

-sd/-

I- ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1 – Md. Saleema,- NONE - PW2 – Md. Masthan, PW 3 – Md. Yakub Ali, PW4 – Md. Yaveed, PW5 – Kalakotla Giri, PW6 – Ramesh Kumar, PW 7 – R. Sanjeevaiah, PW 8 – Ranjith Kumar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 – complaint by PW1,- NIL - Ex.P2 – signature of PW3 on panchanama, Ex.P3 – crime Details Form, Ex.P4 – signature of PW5 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P5 – First Information report. MATERIAL OBJECTS: MO1 – gold necklace, MO2 – ear studs, MO3 – 2 pairs of silver anklets. -sd/-

I- ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Copy to the Prosecution and accused.