T Durga Rani Kalidindi

1CC 352 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT: UTNOOR

Present:- Smt. T Durga Rani Kalidindi Spl.JFCM,Mobile(PCR), Adilabad. FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class Utnoor (Dated this the 13 th day of October, 2023)

CC . No. 352 of 20 19

in Cr.No. 123 of 2018 of PS, Indravelly.

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Sub Inspector of Police, Indravelly ...Prosecution A n d

A-1: Naspuri Sudheer Kumar S/o Surya Rao, age: 32 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: Private Teacher, R/o. Ganeshnagar, street, Mavala village of Adilabad District.

A-3: Naspuri Sumithra W/o Surya Rao, age: 55 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: Pastor, R/o. Ganeshnagar, street, Mavala village of Adilabad District.

A-4: Naspuri Prashanth S/o Surya Rao, age: 30 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Ganeshnagar, street, Mavala village of Adilabad District.

...Accused A1, A3 & A4.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO Smt Mounika for the State and Sri B. Jagan, Advocate counsel for the A1, A3 & A4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following.

-:J U D G M E N T:-

01)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Utnoor filed a charge-sheet in

Cr.No.123/2018 of PS, Indravelly for the offence under Sections 498 (A) IPC and

Sec. 4 of DP Act against the A1, A3 & A4.

Date:13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

2CC 352 of 2019

Prosecution of the case

The Contents of Charge Sheet in brief is as follows 2. :

The facts of the case are that on 20-11-2018 at 19.30 hours, the

Complainant/Victim/LW1/Naspuri Kavitha was came to P.S and lodged a Telugu written complainant in which she stated that on 13-05-2016 her marriage was solemnized with Accused A1, as per their caste and customs. At the time of marriage her parents gave Rs. 1,00,000/- and household articles as a dowry. After the marriage they led happy marital life for a period of (03) months. Later, on instigation of Accused A3 & A4 and Naspuri Surya Rao(A2) started harassing the Lw1 physically & mentally for want of additional dowry and dragged her out of the house. Since then, Lw1 staying at her parent’s house at Keslaguda village of Indravelly Mandal. After (06) months, A1 came to Keslaguda village and picked up quarrel with Lw1, bet her and threatened her with dire consequences to bring more additional dowry from her parent’s house, otherwise no need of coming to her in-laws house. Hence, she requested to take necessary action.

Basing on the contents of above report, Lw8/A.Gangaram/SI of police registered a case in Cr.No. 123 of 2018 for the offence U/sec.498-A IPC and

Sec. 4 of DP Act and issued FIR and took up further investigation.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Lw1/Naspuri Kavitha, LW2/K.Rajeshwar, LW3/K.Pallavi visited the scene of offence situated at Keslaguda village of Indravelly Mandal. Later, he examined and recorded the statements of Lws 4/Yemala Ushanna, LW5/Kodi

Swamy, secured two mediators i.e., Lw6/Malkapu Rajanna, LW7/Yelma Rajubai, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch in their presence.

On 02-03-2019 Accused A1 came to the police station and surrendered

before him and confessed his guilt voluntarily and commission of this offence

along with A2 to A4. Later, he served Sec 41-A Cr.P.C notice to Accused A1 and directed him to appeared before this Hon’ble court on receipt of summons. Later,

Date:13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

3CC 352 of 2019 he obtained the memo in Cr.No. 36/C-2DCRB/19, Dated 07-09-2019 to

Superintendent of Police, Adilabad in which the permission has been accorded to arrest the alleged accused persons i.e., A2 to A4. Later, he served the summons to

A3 & A4 and arrested them and served Sec 41-A Cr.P.C notice to A3 & A4 and directed them to appeared before this Hon’ble court on receipt of summons. Later, he obtained the death certificate of A2 from Muncipality, Adilabad through the

Accused. After completion of investigation, LW8/A.Gangaram have filed the charge sheet against A1, A3 & A4.

Cognizance

3. Cognizance of offence punishable U/sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 4 of DP Act have been taken against Accused No.1, 3 & 4.

4. On appearance of the Accused No.1, 3 & 4 before this court copies of the case record were furnished to them U/Sec 207 Cr.P.C.

Examination of the Accused before Trial

5. Accused No.1, 3 & 4 were examined under 239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sec. 4 of DP Act for which Accused

No.1, 3 & 4 denied the charge sheet allegations levelled against Accused No.1, 3 & 4 have been explained to them in their vernacular language (Telugu) for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The Prosecution Evidence

6. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined Pws 1 to 8.

Lw1- Naspuri Kavitha/Complainant/Victim examined as Pw1, Lw2-Karam

Rajeshwar/Brother of Lw1 examined as Pw2, Lw3-Karam Pallavi/Sister of Lw1 examined as Pw3, Lw6-Malkapur Rajanna/Panch for CDF examined as Pw4,

Lw4-Yemala Ushanna/Eye witness examined as Pw5, Lw5-Kodi Swamy/Eye witness examined as Pw6, Lw7-Yelma Rajubai/Panch for CDF examined as PW7

Lw8-A.Gangaram/SI of police examined as Pw8. On behalf of prosecution,

Ex.P1-Complaint, Ex.P2-Crime Detail Form, Ex.P3-Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of

Date:13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

4CC 352 of 2019

Pw5, Ex.P4- Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw6 and Ex.P5-FIR were marked. On behalf of defence, Ex.D1 marked by PW1 Ex.D2 marked by Pw3.

Examination of Accused after Trial

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused A1, A3 & A4 were given an opportunity of being heard by putting before them all the accusations alleged by the prosecution witnesses in the form of questions which have been recorded in the prescribed format in the manner as envisaged under section 313 of Cr.P.C.

Accused A1, A3 & A4 denied prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Arguments:

Heard the arguments of Learned APP and counsel for Accused A1, A3 & A4.

9.Now the point s for determination in this case are:

1. Whether prosecution able to prove the guilt of Accused A1, A3 & A4 for the offence Sec. 498A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. Whether prosecution able to prove the guilt of Accused A1, A3 & A4 for the offence Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 beyond all reasonable doubt?

P oint I and II :-

Both points are addressed together for clarity, brevity, and to avoid repetition.

10. Sec 498- A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act.

Sec. 498-A IPC:

Husband or Relative of Husband of a woman subjecting her to Cruelty:

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects

such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which

may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation — “Cruelty” means—

(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a 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 physical) of the woman; or

Date:13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

5CC 352 of 2019

(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 or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand the explanation given in Sec. 498-A IPC to the meaning cruelty shows the physical and mental harassment to meet any unlawful demand either for dowry or additional dowry or any valuable security.

Section 4 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

11. Penalty for demanding dowry.

If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: " Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.]

i). Pw1/Complainant/Victim in chief deposed that, she got married to

Accused A1 on 13-05-2016 as per their caste and customs. At the time of marriage, she has given Rs.1,00,000/- net cash and other household articles as dowry and she led happy married life of 3 month. Later, Accused A2(deceased) who is not charge sheeted along with Accused A3 & A4 instigated Accused A1 that, the bed which is given at the time of the marriage is old one and on that context quarrels started. Accused A3 informed her that, they have given their son in marriage by considering her education but not her and they also foregone a match which is offering them Rs. 3,00,000/- dowry. Accused A3 instigated A1, A4 and she was the reason for separation of her and her husband. They also kept her in a separate room isolated for 3 months and also they did not allowed her family members to meet her. As accused A1, A3 & A4 are making her to live in separate room, her parents took her to their home. Hence, they filed a HMOP divorce petition in Adilabad court. Later, she lodged police complaint/Ex.P1 in

Indravelly police station.

Date:13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

6CC 352 of 2019

In the cross-examination of Pw1, she admitted that, she is a converted christian and omissions and contradiction were marked. She stated that, both of her parents were died prior to her marriage.

ii). Pw2/Brother of Pw1 in chief deposed that, Accused A1 is the husband of

Pw1. A3 & A4 are in-laws of his sister/Pw1. Pw1 got married to Accused A1 on 13-05-2016 as per their caste and customs. At the time of marriage, they have given Rs.1,00,000/- net cash and other household articles as dowry and they led happy married life of 3 month. Later, Accused A2(deceased) who is not charge sheeted along with Accused A1, A3 & A4 harassed the Pw1 physically & mentally for additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. PW2 deposed that when he is not at home,

Accused A1 brought his sister/Pw1 and dropped her at his house and left. Later,

Pw1 lodged police complaint in Indravelly police station.

In the cross-examination of Pw2, he admitted that, at the time of his sister’s marriage, he is a student and his parents died before the marriage of his sister/Pw1. He came to know that, Accused A1 dropped his sister/Pw1 at their house through his sister/Pw1 and he came to know about demand of additional dowry by Accused A1, A3 & A4 through his sister/Pw1.

iii). Pw3/Sister of Pw1 in chief deposed that, Accused A1 is the husband of

Pw1. A3 & A4 are in-laws of her sister/Pw1. Pw1 got married to Accused A1 on 13-05-2016 as per their caste and customs. At the time of marriage, they have given Rs.1,00,000/- net cash and other household articles as dowry and they led happy married life of 3 months. Later, Accused A2(deceased) who is not charge sheeted along with Accused A1, A3 & A4 harassed the Pw1 physically & mentally for additional dowry. Accused A1 brought her sister/Pw1 and dropped her at her house and left saying only after additional dowry paid Pw1 will be taken into matrimonial society. Later, Pw1 lodged police complaint in Indravelly police station.

In the cross-examination of Pw2, she admitted that, at the time of his sister’s marriage, she is a student and studying Degree and her parents died before the marriage of her sister/Pw1. She came to know that, Accused A1 dropped her

Date:13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

7CC 352 of 2019 sister/Pw1 at their house through her sister/Pw1 and she came to know about demand of additional dowry by Accused A1, A3 & A4 through her sister/Pw1. In her cross examination, omission and contradiction marked.

iv). Pws 4 & 7/Panch witnesses for CDF Panchanama admitted their presence at Scene of offence panchanama. Pw4 in cross admitted that, contents of

Ex.P2 are not read over to him. Pw7 in cross admitted that, she do not know the contents of Ex.P2 and she endorsed her signature.

v). Pws 5 & 6/who are eye witnesses to the incident turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case.

vi). Pw8/Investigation Officer is official witness and his evidence is formal in nature.

With all evidence on record, PW1 in chief has not deposed that Accused

A1, A3, A4 harassed her mentally & physically for additional dowry in PW1 chief so many omission recorded as there are embellishment, and improvements of PW1 version as compared to her chief. PW2 in chief deposed that A1, A3, A4 harassed PW1 mentally and physically for additional dowry Rs.50,000/- Ex.D2 contradiction marked as he has not specified amount of additional dowry in statement before police PW3 reiterated PW2 version. PW1 deposed that her parents taken her to their home PW2 and PW3 deposed that Accused A1 dropped PW1 at their house PW1 version is inconsistent with version of PW2 and

PW3 . In evidence of PW1 to PW3 they have not deposed regarding specific overt acts of A1, A3, A4 whether it was mental or physical and when the said harassment was caused. As there is absence of specific instances of alleged harassment against the victim, hence reasonable doubt arose upon prosecution regarding cruelty committed by A1, A3, A4 Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad in between Alluri Ravindra and Anr V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh

reported in 2006(2) ALD (Cri) 285 (AP) their Lordships rule that“When there are no specific overt acts as to whether alleged harassment was mental or physical, what kind of harassment it was and when that harassment was caused

Date:13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

8CC 352 of 2019 coupled with the absence of specific instances of alleged harassment against the victim, reasonable doubt arose upon the case of the prosecution which leads to acquittal”. Their Lordships further in between Rajesh Gupta V/s State of

Andhra Pradesh and another reported in 2011(1) ALD (Cri) 885 (AP) ruled that

Mere demand for money does not amount to cruelty unless the demand for money coupled with essential ingredients U/s. 498A IPC.

vii). From the evidence of PW1 to 3, it is apparent that they have given evidence in a very vague manner of torture so as to reflect what sort of torture was made upon her. Their evidence is silent as regards the manner of torture or as to what sort of dowry demand was made by the accused. Hence the allegation are cryptic without any elaboration as to what sort of torture was made upon her. Therefore, mental harassment is not cruelty and mere demand for property by it self is not cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of concurring a woman to meet the demands that is cruelty and this is made punishable under the section. As has been discussed above, the prosecution has not been able to prove the cruelty as embodied vide section 498A IPC.

Therefore point answered in favour of Accused A1, A3, A4 and prosecution.

Section 4 of DP Act:

PW1 has not deposed in chief regarding A1, A3, A4 harassing her for

additional dowry. PW2 and PW3 deposed that A1, A3, A4 harassed PW1 mentally

and physically for additional dowry. But where as PW2/Brother of PW1 and

PW3/Sister of Pw1 are interested witnesses and the same is not supported by any independent witness regarding demand of additional dowry, it is not safe to base their evidence to convict accused. In Sharad Brishad Sarada Vs. State of

Maharasthra, Supreme Court held that “ relatives naturally may exaggregate facts and may be done even unconsciously to see the offender punishe, it is human psychology and on one can help it”. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Tejasingh 2001

Lawsuit (SC) 231 “ Prosecution failed to produce independent corroborative evidence tu support evidence of interested witness. It was not safe to rely upon the evidence of these interested witnesses without any further corroboration”.

Hon’ble High Court of AP in re Pareddi Venkat Reddy 1959 Lawsuit (AP) 237”

Date:13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

9CC 352 of 2019

In the absence of independent evidence. It should be unsafe to act on the interested and highly partisan evidence”. Hence demanding additional dowry by Accused A1, A3, A4 was not prove beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the offence section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against

Accused A1, A3, A4. Therefore point answered in favour accused and against

Prosecution. Hence Accused A1, A3, A4 acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for offence section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

11. Result/Finding:

In the result, Accused A1, A3 & A4 are not found guilty for offences U/sec.

498-A IPC and Sec. 4 of DP Act as the charges not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore Accused A1, A3 & A4 are acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 4 of DP Act. Bail bonds if any shall be in force for six months from date of judgment. No case property has been seized or deposited in this case.

(Typed to my dictation, on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 13 th day of October,2023)

FAC: Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Utnoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 Smt Naspuri Kavitha/Complainant/Victim Nil

PW2 Sri Karam Rajeshwar/Brother of Lw1

PW3 Sri Karam Pallavi/Sister of Lw1

PW4 Sri Malkapur Rajanna/Panch for CDF

PW5 Sri Yemala Ushanna/Eye witness

PW6 Sri Kodi Swamy/Eye witness

PW7 Smt Yelma Rajubai/Panch for CDF

PW8 Sri A.Gangaram/Investigation Officer

Date:13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

10CC 352 of 2019

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1-Complaint.

Ex.P2-Crime Detail Form

Ex.P3- Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw5

Ex.P4- Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw6

Ex.P5-FIR

For Defence:

Ex.D1-Some portion of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1.

Ex.D2-Some portion of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3.

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor.

Date:13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

11CC 352 of 2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: UTNOOR

C.C.NO 352 of 20 19

1. Name of the Police station Indravelly.

2. Description of the accused A-1: Naspuri Sudheer Kumar S/o Surya Rao, age: 32 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: Private Teacher, R/o. Ganeshnagar, street, Mavala village of Adilabad District.

A-3: Naspuri Sumithra W/o Surya Rao, age: 55 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: Pastor, R/o. Ganeshnagar, street, Mavala village of Adilabad District.

A-4: Naspuri Prashanth S/o Surya Rao, age: 30 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Ganeshnagar, street, Mavala village of Adilabad District.

4. a) Date of Occurrence (06) months back of lodging complaint

b) Date of Complaint 20-11-2018

c) Date of Apprehension 02-03-2019 A1 14-09-2019 A3 & A4

d) Date of Release on bail -

e) Date of Commencement of 14-07-2023 trial

f) Date of Close of trial 06-10-2023

g) Date of Judgment 15-09-2022

5. Offence Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 4 of DP Act

6. Finding Not guilty

Date:13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

12CC 352 of 2019

7. In the result, Accused A1, A3 & A4 are not found guilty for offences U/sec.

498-A IPC and Sec. 4 of DP Act as the charges not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore Accused A1, A3 & A4 are acquitted

U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 4 of DP

Act. Bail bonds if any shall be in force for six months from date of judgment. No case property has been seized or deposited in this case.

8. Explanation for delay: No delay

FAC:JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, UTNOOR.

Date:13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

1CC 46 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT: UTNOOR

Present:- Smt T. Durga Rani Kalidindi Spl.JFCM,Mobile(PCR), Adilabad. FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class Utnoor (Dated this the 15 h day of September, 2023)

CC . No. 46 of 20 22

in Cr.No.22 of 2022 of PS, Utnoor

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Sub Inspector of Police, Utnoor ...Prosecution A n d

A-1: Jadhav Charan Singh S/o Vashantharao, age: 27 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: FBO, Utnoor, R/o. Nagalkonda village of Narnoor Mandal.

A-2: Jadhav Amrutha Bai W/o Vashantharao, age: 47 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: House wife, R/o. Nagalkonda village of Narnoor Mandal.

A-3: Jadhav Vashantharao S/o Balaji, age: 51 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Nagalkonda village of Narnoor Mandal.

A-4: Jadhav Kalyan Singh S/o Vashantharao, age: 22 years, Caste:ST Lambada, R/o. Nagalkonda village of Narnoor Mandal.

...Accused A1 to A4.

Date:15-09-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

2CC 46 of 2022

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO Smt Mounika for the State and Sri B. Jagan, Advocate counsel for the A1 to A4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following.

-:J U D G M E N T:-

01)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Utnoor filed a charge-sheet in

Cr.No.22/2022 of PS, Utnoor for the offence under sections 498 (A) IPC and

Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act against the A1 to A4.

Prosecution of the case

The Contents of Charge Sheet in brief is as follows 2. :

The facts of the case are that on 06-02-2022 at about 16.00 hours, the

Complainant/Victim/LW1/Rathod Pushpalatha has came to P.S and lodged a

Telugu written complainant in which she stated that her marriage was solemnized with Accused A1, as per their caste and customs. At the time of marriage her parents gave Rs. 8,25,000/-, 5 tula gold and one motorcycle worth of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Accused A1 as a dowry. After the marriage they led happy marital life for a period of one year and blessed with a girl child. Later,

Accused A1 harassed the Lw1 physically & mentally for want of additional dowry on instigation of A2 to A4 and also threatened that, if she did not bring

additional dowry then, A2 to A4 threatening to kill her with pesticide poison

and will hang with chunni and so many types of harrassment will take place on her. In this regard, a panchayath was held before village elders then,

Accused persons were promised to take care Lw1 but, after 4 days they were repeating the same harassment to her. On 27-12-2021, Accused A1 to A3 attacked the Lw1 with stick and necked out her from their house and also threatening to kill h er with dire consequences. They harassed her like slave.

Date:15-09-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

3CC 46 of 2022

Later, Lw1 waited for change of Accused A1 attitude but it all went in vain.

Hence, she requested to take necessary action.

Basing on the contents of above report Lw10/Bharath Suman, SI of police registered a case in Cr.No.22/2022, U/sec. 498(A) IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP

Act, issued FIR copies to all the concerned officers and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation Lw10/SI of police examined and recorded the statements of Lw1 in part-II, collected the marriage photos and wedding card from Lw1, visited the scene of offence situated at Hasnapur village of Utnoor and observed the scene of offence carefully and secured two mediators Lw8/Rathod Indal and Lw9/Jadhav Raghuveer and drafted CDF along with rough sketch of crime scene in their presence. Later, he examined and recorded the statements of Lw2-Rathod Yamuna Bai, Lw5-Rathod Ravinder and later visited the Accused’s village, examined and recorded the statements of

Lw6-Rathod Jithender and Lw7-Rathod Shivram.

Later On 19-12-2021 the Accused No.1 to 4 came to PS and surrendered

before Lw10. During the course of interrogation they confessed their guilty of

commission of offence and Lw10 issued notice u/sec. 41(A) of Cr.PC notice to the Accused No.A1 to A4 and their acknowledgment was duly obtained. Later, after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

Cognizance

Date:15-09-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

4CC 46 of 2022

3. Cognizance of offence punishable U/sec. 498-A IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP

Act have been taken against Accused No.1 to 4.

4. On appearance of the Accused A1 to A4 before this court copies of the case record were furnished to them U/Sec 207 Cr.P.C.

Examination of the Accused before Trial

5. A1 to A4 were examined under 239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sec. 4 of DP Act for which Accused No.1 to 4 denied the charge sheet allegations levelled against Accused No.1 to 4 have been explained to them in their vernacular language (Telugu) for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The Prosecution Evidence

6. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined Pws 1 to

7. Lw7-Rathod Shivram/Village elder examined as Pw1, Lw8-Rathod

Indal/Panch for CDF examined as Pw2, Lw6-Rathod Jithender/Village elder of

Pw1 examined as Pw3, Lw9-Jadhav Raghuveer/Panch for CDF examined as

Pw4, Lw1-Rathod Pushpalatha/Complainant/Victim examined as Pw5, Lw2-

Rathod Yamuna Bai/Mother of Complainant examined as Pw6 and Lw3-Rathod

Surendar/Elder brother of Complainant examined as Pw7. As the material witnesses has turned hostile, the learned APP given up the evidence of Lw4-

Rathod Maheder/Younger brother of Complainant, Lw5-Rathod

Ravinder/Father-in-law of Complainant and Lw10-Bharath Suman/SI of police/Investigation Officer. On behalf of prosecution, Ex.P1.-Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1, Ex.P2- Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3, Ex.P3-Signature of

Date:15-09-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

5CC 46 of 2022

Pw5 on Complaint, Ex.P4-Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw5, Ex.P5-Sec. 161

Cr.P.C statement of Pw6, Ex.P6-Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw7.

Examination of Accused after Trial

7. As, no incriminating evidence appearing from the prosecution witnesses against the accused, section 313 Cr.P.C examination of Accused A1 to A4 is dispensed with.

8. Arguments:

Heard the arguments of Learned APP and counsel for Accused.

9.Now the point s for determination in this case are:

1. Whether prosecution able to prove the guilt of accused A1 to A4 for the offence Sec. 498A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. Whether prosecution able to prove the guilt of Accused A1 to A4 for

the offence Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 beyond all reasonable

doubt?

P oint I and II :-

Both points are addressed together for clarity, brevity, and to avoid

repetition.

10. Sec 498- A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act.

Sec. 498-A IPC:

Husband or Relative of Husband of a woman subjecting her to Cruelty:

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,

subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a

term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Date:15-09-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

6CC 46 of 2022

Explanation — “Cruelty” means—

(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a 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 physical) of the woman; or

(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 or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand the explanation given in Sec. 498-A IPC to the meaning cruelty shows the physical and mental harassment to meet any unlawful demand either for dowry or additional dowry or any valuable security.

Sec. 3 of DP Act: Penalty for giving or taking dowry

If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable 2[with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3[five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]: —1[(1)] If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable 2[with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3[five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]\:" Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 4[five years].] 5[(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,— 1[(2) Nothing in sub- section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,—"

Date:15-09-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

7CC 46 of 2022

(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.]

Section 4 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

4. Penalty for demanding dowry.

If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: " Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.]

i). Pws 1 & 3/village elders of Pw1 turned hostile.

Date:15-09-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

8CC 46 of 2022 ii). Pws 2 & 4/Panchas of Scene of Offence and Rough Sketch turned hostile.

iii). Pw5/Complainant/Victim testified that she had never lodged a report to the police. She failed to support the prosecution case and completely turned hostile.

i v). Pws 6 & 7, who are the mother and brother of Pw5 testified that they do not know anything about this case, failed to support the prosecution case and completely turned hostile.

As can be seen from the above evidence, there is no single piece of incriminating evidence deposed by Pws 1 to 7 against the Accused A1 to A4.

Pws 1 to 7 failed to support the prosecution's case and completely turned hostile. There is no evidence to connect the accused to the alleged incident.

None of the witnesses testified that the accused harassed Pw5 by demanding

additional dowry and also that Accused A1 took dowry from Pw1, hence

Section 3 of DP Act against A1 to A4 not proved. In the absence of any evidence against the accused A1 to A4, they cannot be said to be found guilty. There are no single eye witnesses to prove the allegations against the Accused A1 to A4, that AccusedA1 to A4 subjected Pw1 to cruelty. Pw1, the victim, turned hostile and deposed no incriminating evidence against the accused and denied the lodging of the report, which sets the investigation into motion. The learned APP given up the evidence of Lw4-Rathod Maheder/Younger brother of

Complainant, Lw5-Rathod Ravinder/Father-in-law of Complainant and Lw10-

Bharath Suman/SI of police/Investigation Officer, as the material witnesses

Date:15-09-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

9CC 46 of 2022 turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case. In view of any angle, the prosecution miserably failed to prove their case against the Accused A1 to

A4 for the offence U/S 498-A IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of the DP Act beyond reasonable doubt. The points are answered in favour of the Accused A1 to A4 and against the prosecution. Hence, Accused A1 to A4 acquitted for offence

Sec 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498-A IPC as per U/Sec 248(1) Cr.P.C.

11. Result/Finding:

In the result, Accused A1 to A4 are not found guilty for offences U/sec.

498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act as the charges not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore Accused A1 to A4 are acquitted U/sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C for the offences U/sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act. Bail bonds if any shall be in force for six months from date of judgment. No case property has been seized or deposited in this case.

(Typed to my dictation, on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 15 th day of September,2023)

FAC: Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Utnoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 Sri Rathod Shivram/Village elder of Pw1 Nil

PW2 Sri Rathod Indal/Panch for CDF

PW3 Sri Rathod Jithender/Village elder of Pw1

PW4 Sri Jadhav Raghuveer/Panch for CDF

Date:15-09-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

10CC 46 of 2022

PW5 Smt Rathod Pushpalatha/Complainant/Victim

PW6 Smt Rathod Yamuna Bai/Mother of Complainant

PW7 Sri Rathod Surendar/Elder brother of Complainant

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1-Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1, Nil

Ex.P2-Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3

Ex.P3-Signature of Pw5 on Complaint

Ex.P4-Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw5

Ex.P5-Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw6

Ex.P6-Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw7.

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor.

Date:15-09-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

11CC 46 of 2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: UTNOOR

C.C.NO 46 of 20 22

1. Name of the Police station Utnoor.

2. Description of the accused A-1: Jadhav Charan Singh S/o Vashantharao, age: 27 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: FBO, Utnoor, R/o. Nagalkonda village of Narnoor Mandal.

A-2: Jadhav Amrutha Bai W/o Vashantharao, age: 47 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: House wife, R/o. Nagalkonda village of Narnoor Mandal.

A-3: Jadhav Vashantharao S/o Balaji, age: 51 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Nagalkonda village of Narnoor Mandal.

A-4: Jadhav Kalyan Singh S/o Vashantharao, age: 22 years, Caste:ST Lambada, R/o. Nagalkonda village of Narnoor Mandal.

4. a) Date of Occurrence 06-02-2022

b) Date of Complaint 06-02-2022

c) Date of Apprehension 07-02-2022

d) Date of Release on bail -

e) Date of Commencement of 09-03-2023 trial

Date:15-09-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

12CC 46 of 2022

f) Date of Close of trial 01-09-2023

g) Date of Judgment 15-09-2022

5. Offence Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act

6. Finding Not guilty

7. Sentence or order : In the result, Accused A1 to A4 are not found guilty for offences U/sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act as the charges not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore Accused A1 to A4 are acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act. Bail bonds if any shall be in force for six months from date of judgment. No case property has been seized or deposited in this case.

8. Explanation for delay: No delay

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

UTNOOR.

Date:15-09-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

1CC 342 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT: UTNOOR

Present:- Smt T Durga Rani Kalidindi Spl.JFCM,Mobile(PCR), Adilabad. FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class Utnoor (Dated this the 13 th day of October, 2023)

CC . No. 342 of 20 22

in Cr.No. 146 of 2022 of PS, Utnoor

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Sub Inspector of Police, Utnoor ...Prosecution A n d

A-1: Rathod Eshwar S/o Shankar R/o. Tadihatnoor of Narnoor.

A-2: Chouhan Parameshwar S/o Fakeera, R/o. Tadihatnoor of Narnoor.

A-3: Chole Srinivas S/o Maruthi, R/o. Tadihatnoor of Narnoor.

...Accused A1 to A3.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO Smt Mounika for the State and Sri B. Jagan, Advocate counsel for the A1 to A3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following.

-:J U D G M E N T:-

01)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Utnoor filed a charge-sheet in Cr.No. 146 of 2022 of PS, Utnoor for the offence under sections 324 r/w 34 IPC against the A1 to A3.

Prosecution of the case

The Contents of Charge Sheet in brief is as follows 2. :

The facts of the case are that on 05-08-2022 at about 21.00 hours, the

Complainant/Syed Feroz has came to P.S and lodged a Telugu written complaint in which he stated that, on 05-08-2022 at 21.00 hrs, his brother Lw2/Syed Yusuf was sitting at his Bakery shop at IB Chouk, Utnoor meantime, three members i.e.,

Date: 13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

2CC 342 of 2022

Accused A1 to A3 were came and created nuisance in drunken condition with his brother/Lw2 and Lw2 asked them to speak respectfully, as the said persons had taken an iron rod and bet his brother on his head with an intention to kill him, as a result, he was fell down and received bleeding injury. Hence, he requested to take necessary action.

Basing on the contents of above report Lw9/Bharath Suman, SI of police registered a case in Cr.No. 146 of 2022, U/sec. 307 r/w 34 IPC, issued FIR copies to all the concerned officers and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation Lw9/SI of police examined and recorded the statements of Lw1 in part-II, referred Lw2 to CHC, Utnoor for treatment and wound certificate, visited the scene of offence situated at IB Chowk, Utnoor and examined and recorded the statements of Lws 2 to 5 i.e., Ayyub Khan, Syed Yousuf & Mohd. Mujaheed, secured two mediators i.e., Lw6-Rajarapur Rajender and

Lw7-Akram Rehaman and conducted Scene of offence panchanama in their presence and searched the crime weapon i.e., Iron rod but in vain.

The Complainant/Lw1 has mentioned in his petition that, Accused persons bet Lw2 with iron rod with an intention to kill him, but as per Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Lws 1 to 5 there is a quarrel was took place between Lw2 and accused in sudden provocation and both attacking each other with sticks only and there is no intention to kill each other.

With the above facts and circumstances, the section of law Sec. 307 IPC has been altered to Sec. 324 IPC and issued section alteration memo. Sub Divisional

Police Officer, Utnoor Dist. Adilabad has accorded permission for deletion of section 307 IPC as section 307 IPC has not been estalished vide Proceeding O.

C.NO. 204/SDPO-U/2022

On 08-08-2022 the Accused No.1 to 3 came to PS and surrendered before him. During the course of interrogation they confessed their guilty and Lw9 issued

Date: 13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

3CC 342 of 2022 notice u/sec. 41(A) of Cr.PC notice to the Accused No. A1 to A3. The Medical

Officer/Lw8, who treated Lw2 has issued Medical certificate in which he stated that, the injuries received by Lw2 are simple in nature. Later, after completion of investigation, Lw8 filed charge sheet.

Cognizance

3. Cognizance of offence punishable U/sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC have been taken against Accused No.1 to 3.

4. On appearance of the Accused persons before this court copies of the case record were furnished to them U/Sec 207 Cr.P.C.

Examination of the Accused before Trial

5. A1 to A3 were examined under 239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under

Sections 324 r/w 34 IPC for which Accused No.1 to 3 denied the charge sheet allegations levelled against Accused No.1 to 3 have been explained to them in their vernacular language (Telugu) for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The Prosecution Evidence

6. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined Pws 1 to 6.

Lw1-Syed Feroz/Complainant examined as Pw1, Lw2-Syed Yousuf/Injured examined as Pw2, Lw4-Mohd. Mujaheed/Eye witness examined as Pw3,

Lw8/Dr.Mahendar/Medical Officer examined as Pw4, Lw7-Akram

Rehaman/Panch for CDF examined as Pw5 and Lw2-Ayyub Khan/Eye witness examined as Pw6. The learned APP give up the evidences of Lw5-Mohd. Hafeez khan, Lw6-Rajarapur Rajender and Lw9-B.Suman/Investigation officer as material witnesses turned hostile. On behalf of prosecution, Ex.P1-Complaint,

Ex.P2- Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1, Ex.P3- Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of

Pw2, Ex.P4-Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3, Ex.P5- Medial Certificate of Pw2,

Ex.P6-Signature of Pw5 on Crime Detail Form, Ex.P7-Signature of Pw5 on

Rough Sketch and Ex.P8-Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw6 were marked.

Date: 13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

4CC 342 of 2022

Examination of Accused after Trial

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 to 3 were given an opportunity of being heard by putting before him all the accusations alleged by the prosecution witnesses in the form of questions which have been recorded in the prescribed format in the manner as envisaged under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.

1 to 3 denied prosecution evidence reported no defence evidence.

8. Arguments:

Heard the arguments of Learned APP and counsel for Accused.

9.Now the point s for determination in this case are:

Whether prosecution able to prove the guilt of accused A1 to A3 for the

offence Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

P oint :-

Point is addressed together for clarity, brevity, and to avoid repetition.

10. Sec 324 r/w 34 IPC.

Sec. 324 IPC:

Section 319 IPC deals with Hurt

Section 321 IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt.

Section 324 IPC defines, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

The essential ingredients of Sec 321 IPC are:

a) Causing hurt and such hurt may be caused voluntarily and

b) Causing hurt to any person or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to anyone and does thereby to cause hurt to any person.

c) If the hurt which he causes is “hurt”.

The essential ingredients of Sec 324 IPC are:

Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334 IPC:

a) Voluntarily causing hurt

b) Such hurt must be caused 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

Date: 13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

5CC 342 of 2022 * by means of fire or any heated substance, or *by means of any poison or any corrosive substance or *by means of any explosive substance or *by means of substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale to swallow, or 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 three years, or with fine, or with both.

Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code :

Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

i). Pw1 testified that he had never lodged a report to the police. He failed to support the prosecution case and completely turned hostile.

ii). Pw2/Injured, Pws 3 & 6/Eye witnesses failed to support the prosecution case and completely turned hostile.

iii) Pw4/Medical Officer, who treated Pw2 deposed that, he received requisition from Police, Utnoor on 05-08-2022 to treat Pw2. He further deposed that, he treated Pw2 and Pw2 sustained injuries on head by any blunt object i.e., 0.5 X 0.2 Cm, head injury simple in nature. Later, he issued Medical certificate/Ex.P5.

iv) Pw5/Panch for CDF denied his presence at Scene of offence and turned hostile.

As can be seen from the above evidence, there is no single piece of incriminating evidence deposed by Pws 1 to 6 against the Accused A1 to A3. Pws 1 to 3, 5 & 6 failed to support the prosecution's case and completely turned hostile. There is no evidence to connect the accused to the alleged incident. None

Date: 13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

6CC 342 of 2022 of the witnesses testified that on 05.08.2023 A1 to A3 in furtherance of common intention created nuisance and bet PW2/i.e. brother of PW1 on head with sticks

PW2 fell down & received bleeding injury. Does common intention exist between A1 to A3 to beat PW1 and causing voluntary hurt. It was alleged that

A1 to A3 caught hold of collar of PW1 and A1 bet PW1 shows common intention exist and moreover it was alleged that A1 to A3 got into quarrel with

PW2 and both attacked each other with sticks and as such PW2 sustained simple injury. It shows that common intention exist between A1 to A3 and in furtherance of common intention only A1 to A3 bet PW2 and caused hurt. But as such only PW4/Medcial Officer evidence through Ex.P5 established that PW2 sustained simple injury on day of incident on his head, but whether Accused A1 to A3 caused such injury to PW2 or not? has not been established by the evidence of prosecution witnesses as all prosecution witnesses turned hostile & none supported prosecution evidence that A1 to A3 bet Pw2 with sticks. In the absence of any evidence against the accused A1 to A3, they cannot be said to be found guilty. There are no single eye witnesses to prove the allegations against the

Accused A1 to A3, that Accused persons bet Pw2, the victim/Injured and PW1 denied the lodging of the report, which sets the investigation into motion. The learned APP given up the evidence of Lw5-Mohd. Hafeez khan, Lw6-Rajarapur

Rajender and Lw9-B.Suman/Investigation officer, as the material witnesses turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case. In view of any angle, the prosecution miserably failed to prove their case against the Accused A1 to A3 for the offence U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The point is answered in favour of the Accused A1 to A3 and against the prosecution. Hence,

Accused A1 to A3 acquitted for offence U/sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC, as per Sec 248(1)

Cr.P.C.

11. Result/Finding:

In the result, Accused A1 to A3 are not found guilty for offences U/sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC, as the charges not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore

Accused A1 to A3 are acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/sec. 324

Date: 13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

7CC 342 of 2022 r/w 34 IPC. Bail bonds if any shall be in force for six months from date of judgment. No case property has been seized or deposited in this case.

(Typed to my dictation, on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 13 th day of October,2023)

Sd/-

FAC: Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Utnoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 Sri Syed Feroz/Complainant Nil

PW2 Sri Syed Yousuf/Injured

PW3 Sri Mohd. Mujaheed/Eye witness

PW4 Sri Dr.Mahendar/Medical Officer

PW5 Smt Akram Rehaman/Panch for CDF

PW6 Smt Ayyub Khan/Eye witness

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1-Complaint

Ex.P2- Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1 Nil

Ex.P3- Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2

Ex.P4-Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3

Ex.P5- Medial Certificate of Pw2

Ex.P6-Signature of Pw5 on Crime Detail Form

Ex.P7-Signature of Pw5 on Rough Sketch

Ex.P8-Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw6

Sd/-

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor.

//True Copy//

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor.

Date: 13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

8CC 342 of 2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: UTNOOR

C.C.NO 342 of 20 22

1. Name of the Police station Utnoor.

2. Description of the accused A-1: Rathod Eshwar S/o Shankar R/o. Tadihatnoor of Narnoor.

A-2: Chouhan Parameshwar S/o Fakeera, R/o. Tadihatnoor of Narnoor.

A-3: Chole Srinivas S/o Maruthi, R/o. Tadihatnoor of Narnoor.

4. a) Date of Occurrence 05-08-2022

b) Date of Complaint 05-08-2022

c) Date of Apprehension 08-08-2022

d) Date of Release on bail 08-08-2022

e) Date of Commencement of 29-09-2023 trial

f) Date of Close of trial 06-10-2023

g) Date of Judgment 13-10-2023

5. Offence 324 r/w 34 IPC

6. Finding Not guilty

7. Sentence or order : In the result, Accused A1 to A3 are not found guilty for offences U/sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC, as the charges not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore Accused A1 to A3 are acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC. Bail bonds if any shall be in force for six months from date of judgment. No case property has been seized or deposited in this case.

8. Explanation for delay: No delay

FAC:JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, UTNOOR.

Date: 13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

9CC 342 of 2022

Date: 13-10-2023 JFCM,UTNOOR.

Page No. 1 E.P.No.50 of 2024

in

ARB. No.295 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADILABAD

Present :- Smt. T Durga Rani Kalidindi

I Addl. Junior Civil judge,

ADILABAD.

Dated this the 24th day of April, 2025

E.P.No.50 of 2024

in

ARB.No.295 of 2022

Between:- M/s. Kapil Chits (Kakatiya) Pvt.Ltd, Represented by its Legal Officer, Syed Jafar Ali, S/o Syed Qursheed Ali, age: 47 years, Kapil, Chits (Kakatiya) Pvt Ltd. Zonal Legal Cell, Nirmal.

… Decree holder

// A n d //

JDRNo.1. VENKATESH NAGULA, S/o USHANNA, aged about: 6 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H.No.3-3-191, Chinchara wada, Adilabad, Dist: Adilabad. TELANGANA

JDRNo2. SHYAM SUNDER BITLA, S/o KOMMALU, aged about: 52 years, Occ: AE

DE/DEP TS NPDCL Adilabad. R/o. H.No.1-1-48/32/5, PHC Colony, Adilabad, Dist: Adilabad, TELANGANA

JDRNo3. NAVEEN KONDOA, S/o NARSAIAH, aged about: 32 years, Occ: Police

Constable-222 AR Adilabad R/o H.No.11-47/32/1, Ganesh Nagar, Adilabad, Dist: Adilabad, TELANGANA.

... Judgment Debtors No.2 and 3.

This E.P. is coming on 24.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mekala Narender, Advocate for Decree holder and Judgment Debtor No.3 remained exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the Court delivered the following :

:: O R D E R ::

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

01. This is an execution petition filed by petitioner/decree holder under Section 71(a) of the Chit Fund Act 1982 on behalf of Decree holder/disputant seeking the court

Dated: 24-04-2025 I Addl.JCJ, ADILABAD.

Page No. 2 E.P.No.50 of 2024

in

ARB. No.295 of 2022

against JDR No.2 and 3 U/order 21, Rule 48 of C.P.C for recovery of E.P claim amount for Rs.75,188/-. The DHR has also filed calculation memo of the total amount for which he is entitled for the recovery of amount from the Judgment Debtor No.2 and 3.

02. On receipt of notice, the Judgment Debtor No.3 failed to appear and he was set exparte on 12.08.2024 by following due procedure. DHR not pressed his claim against JDR2. Hence claim against JDR No.2 closed.

03. Heard, arguments of Decree Holder.

04. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Decree holder is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs.

75,188/- from JDR No.2 and 3 by way of attachment of salary ?

05.POINT:

It is the claim of the DHR that the Deputy Registrar Adilabad of chits has passed award against JDR No.1 to 3 in ARB No.295 of 2022 for an amount of

Rs.59,411/- along with interest @ 18% per annum on principal amount of Rs.39,144/- from the date of dispute to till date of realization and costs Rs.4,413/- were also awarded. Where as DHR counsel filed present EP petition against JDR No.2 and 3.

The present E.P is filed against JDR No.2 and 3 for recovery of Rs.75,188/-.

As per the contention of the DHR, JDR No.1 to 3 are liable to pay the E.P amount in view of the arbitration award that was passed by the Deputy Registrar of

Chits, Adilabad vide ARB No.295/2022. The DHR has also filed relevant document such as certified copy of recovery certificate in ARB No.295/2022. As per the document filed by the DHR an award was passed against JDR No.1 to 3 jointly and severally for an amount of Rs.59,411/- along with interest @ 18% per annum on the principal

Dated: 24-04-2025 I Addl.JCJ, ADILABAD.

Page No. 3 E.P.No.50 of 2024

in

ARB. No.295 of 2022

amount of Rs.39,144/- from the date of dispute i.e. 27.08.2022 till date of its realization and costs of Rs.4,413/- also awarded.

06. However, the Decree holder filed calculation memo along with execution petition in which he has mentioned total award amount as Rs.59,411/- and also costs of

Rs.4,413/- and calculated the interest from 27.08.2022 to 20.01.2024. i.e. 9,864/- and total amount is Rs.73,688/- and same is being unpaid. Therefore, the remaining total amount he has calculated Rs.73,688/- including Advocate fee Rs.1,000/- and EP cost

Rs. 500/-.

07. So far as, award passed by the concerned authority vide award dated 19.03.2023 in ARB No.295 of 2022 and as per the calculation memo filed by the

Decree holder, the court observed that the JDR No.1 to 3 due for an amount of

Rs.75,188/- and the present EP is filed against JDR No.2 and 3 as JDR No.3 set exparte version of DHR remain unrebutted.

08. As per the calculation memo filed by the decree holder, the JDR No.1 to 3 are liable to pay the amount that is claimed under this EP against them. In view of the documents filed by the decree holder i.e. Arbitration Award and recovery certificate, this court is considered view that the decree holder is entitled for the EP amount

Rs.75,188/- against JDR No.3 is liable.

09. In the result, this E.P is allowed against the JDR No.3 and issue salary attachment warrant against JDR No.3 for recovery of an amount of Rs.75,188/- as per section 60 C.P.C on payment of process. Call on 09.06.2025.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court today the 24 th day of April, 2025)

Dated: 24-04-2025 I Addl.JCJ, ADILABAD.

Page No. 4 E.P.No.50 of 2024

in

ARB. No.295 of 2022

Digitally signed by KALIDINDI TULASI

DURGA RANI

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE DECREE HOLDER: FOR THE JUDGMENT DEBTORS: - Nil - - Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE DECREE HOLDER: FOR THE JUDGMENT DEBTORS:

- Nil - - Nil - Digitally signed by KALIDINDI

TULASI DURGA RANI

Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

Dated: 24-04-2025 I Addl.JCJ, ADILABAD.

Page No. 5 E.P.No.50 of 2024

in

ARB. No.295 of 2022

Dated: 24-04-2025 I Addl.JCJ, ADILABAD.

Dt: 25-10-2024

CC/215/20241 / 1

TSAD030004272024

IN THE COURT OF THE Prl. Junior Civil Court-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class:

Present: Prl. Junior Civil Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

CC/215/2024

Between:

STATE OF TELANGANA through PS Adilabad-II Address: Adilabad II TN - Igp, Warangal Region Adilabad … Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

Vishwanath Gedam Address: 01Gandhi Nagar ,Gandhi Nagar,Gandhi Nagar ,Adilabad,ADILABAD,TELANGANA 2:Ravi Bhalishankar Age: 45 Occupation : 01Gandhinagar Gandhi Nagar Gandhinagar Adilabad

ADILABAD

TELANGANA

3:Kapthan Singh Kapthan Age: 40 Occupation : 01Gandhi Nagar Gandhi Nagar

Dt: 25-10-2024

CC/215/20241 / 1

Gandhi Nagar Adilabad

ADILABAD

TELANGANA

4:Sipatwar Yogesh Sipatwar Age: 30 Occupation : 01Gandhi Nagar Gandhi Nagar Gandhinagar Adilabad Adilabad

ADILABAD

TELANGANA

5:Chavan Laxman Chavan Age: 52 Occupation : 01Gandhi Nagar Gandhi Nagar Gandhi Nagar Adilabad

ADILABAD

TELANGANA

6:Dikonda Santosh Dikonda Age: 60 Occupation : 00Gandhi Nagar Gandhi Nagar Gandhinagar Adilabad Adilabad

ADILABAD

TELANGANA

7:Syed Mahmood Syed Age: 52 Occupation :

Dt: 25-10-2024

CC/215/20241 / 1 00Gandhi Nagar Gandhi Nagar Gandhi Nagar Adilabad

ADILABAD

TELANGAN

… Defendent/Respondent Counsel for Petitioner : ,Advocate Counsel for Respondent : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Accused No. 1 to 7 is/are present. Copies furnished to them and are examined U/Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. and the accusation against him/them for the offences U/Sec. 9(1) of T.S. Gaming Act is read over and explained to them, for which he/they voluntarily pleaded guilty. Perused the record and this court accepted the plea of the accused as it is free from coercion. Hence, the accused are found guilty and are convicted U/Sec. 252 Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

Accordingly accused are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 (Rupees One

Thousand only) each for the offence under sec. 9(1) of T.S. Gaming Act. In default of payment of fine he/they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence U/Sec. 9(1) of T.S. Gaming Act. The total fine amount is Rs.7000.00 (Rupees Seven Thousand only). The unmarked case property i.e., item no. net cash of Rs.7,660.00 deposited vide C.P. No. 75 of

Dt: 25-10-2024

CC/215/20241 / 1 2024 shall be confiscated to state and item No.2, (52) playing cards deposited vide. C.P. No. 75 of 2024 shall be destroyed forthwith.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 25-10-2024 Prl. Junior Civil Court-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)