IX-AD&SJ-cum-Spl.Court, MTM S.C.No.28 of 2026 Page No.1/14
APKR000002832026
Before the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for
trial of offences against Women, Krishna, Machilipatnam
Present: Sri T.Raja Venkatadri, IX Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against Women, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
Tuesday, this the Twelfth (12th) day of May, 2026.
Sessions Case No.28 of 2026
(Crime No.120 of 2024 of Kanchikacherla Police Station)
Prosecution :Sri M.Venkata Narasimha Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Defence Counsel : Sri K.N.Anjaneyulu
Name(s) of the Accused: 1.KasukurthiSatish,S/o. Narasimharao, 31 years, Konakanchi Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal.
2. Kasukurthi Satyavathi, W/o. Narasimharao, 51 years, Konakanchi Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal. (A3 as per FIR)
3. Kasukurthi Narasimharao, S/o. Subbarao(late),55years, Konakanchi Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal. (A2 as per FIR) … (Action abated)
Charges under section(s) : Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. 34 of IPC.
Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty
IX-AD&SJ-cum-Spl.Court, MTM S.C.No.28 of 2026 Page No.2/14
Finding of the Court: Found not guilty
Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused No.1 and 2 (A2 is A3 as per FIR) not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. 34 of IPC, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. They be set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Caseagainst accused No.3 (A2 as per FIR) abated.
Order relating to case property
The non-valuable case property MO.1-Yellow colour two pieces of silk saree shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. --o0o--
The above numbered Sessions Case presented before me on 11.05.2026 for final hearing, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :
// J U D G M E N T //
The State, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Nandigama has filed charge sheet against the accused in
Cr.No.120 of 2024 of Kanchikacherla Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the DP Act, 1961’).
2.The deceased Gondhi Srilakshmi is the daughter of defacto complainant-Gondhi Nagamalleswari and LW.2-Gondhi Purnachandra
Rao of Kothapeta Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal. The deceased studied
B-Tech and joined in TCS for doing job. The accused No.1 is the son of accused No.2 and 3 and they are residents of Konakanchi Village of
Penuganchiprolu Mandal. Accused No.1 is also software employee and
IX-AD&SJ-cum-Spl.Court, MTM S.C.No.28 of 2026 Page No.3/14 working in TCS. The marriage match of accused No.1 was brought by
LW.5-Neppalli Netha Prasad and during the marriage talks, accused demanded for dowry and as there is no other go, LWs.1 and 2 agreed to give 20 sovereigns of gold and Rs.15,00,000/- cash with a ray of hope that their daughter live happily. The marriage of deceased performed on 15.03.2023 at Kothapet Village with accused No.1 according to their customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of deceased gave 20 sovereigns of gold, Rs.15,00,000/- cash to accused No.2 and 3 towards dowry and spent Rs.10,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. Soon after the marriage, they started their conjugal life. LW.2 also gave
Rs.5,00,000/- to accused No.1 as demanded by him towards household articles. After two months, accused No.1 and deceased took a house on rent at Lingampalli, Hyderabad on rent and staying there doing their jobs and led happy marital life for some time. After three months of marriage, the deceased became pregnant and it was informed to LW.1 over phone by the deceased and that LW.1 went to Hyderabad and stayed with the deceased for some time and after the arrival of accused No.2 and 3, she returned to Kothapet and she used to talk with the deceased over phone daily about the health of deceased. But abortion took place around fourth month of her conception and the same was informed to LW.1 by accused
No.1. On that son of LW.1 i.e., LW.4-Gondhi Venkata Gopi bring the deceased to Kothapet to their house and the deceased stayed there for two months and got treatment at Vijayawada. After recovering, again the deceased was sent to Hyderabad accompanied by accused No.3 (father- in-law of deceased). After that also accused No.1 demanded
Rs.3,00,000/- from LW.2 as he became debt due to stay in Hyderabad, for which LW.1 gave the same to accused No.1. The salary of the deceased was used by her in-laws towards repayment of loans. After two
IX-AD&SJ-cum-Spl.Court, MTM S.C.No.28 of 2026 Page No.4/14 months, again the deceased got pregnancy. Then she again came to her parental house and took treatment at Vijayawada. On 19.03.2024, the deceased was suffered from light bleeding, she was taken to the Hospital at Vijayawada and she was kept under observation for four days, then she was taken to Americal Hospital on 25.03.2024, where she got abortion. The accused developed disinterest against the deceased and the accused uttered with the deceased that she will not conceive and because of her their inheritance will disappear and asked her to die and that they will perform 2nd marriage to accused No.1, for which the deceased felt dampen mentally for her fate and unable to bear their uneven comments. On 29.03.2024 at about 09.30 AM, accused No.1 demanded the deceased to bring Rs.5,00,000/- and also uttered with the deceased. The deceased got upset and lost hope in life. When LW.1 asked the deceased, she revealed the troubles being meted by her accused No.1 to 3 since her marriage by weeping and also said that they threatened to kill her if she revealed the same to them. On 29.03.2024 at about 11.30 AM, accused talked with the deceased and uttered her that she will not conceive, because of her only their inheritance will disappear and that asked her to die and they will perform another marriage to accused No.1 and also threatened her that even if the deceased will come to their house, they will kill her and also asked the deceased to die if she is a genuine person. Unable to bear the words and wept and deeply disappointed with the acts of accused, the deceased decided to end her life and that she described the worries caused by the accused in her three pages letter. At about 05.30 PM, in the temporary absence of LWs.1 and 2 the deceased committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan. After some time, LWs.1 and 2 returned to the house and on seeing the hanging state of deceased LW.2 raised cries, then LW.1 and some others rushed and
IX-AD&SJ-cum-Spl.Court, MTM S.C.No.28 of 2026 Page No.5/14
LWs.1 and 2 brought down the deceased and took her to Nirmala
Hospital in their car. LW.13-Dr.Md.Enamulhaque, Medical Officer examined the deceased and declared that she died.
On 30.03.2024 at 07.30 hours, basing on the report of LW.1,
LW.18-P.S.V.Subrahmanyam, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr. No.120/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act and sent original FIR to the
Judicial First Class Magistrate. LW.19-B.Ravi Kiran, the then Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Nandigama took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.19 visited the scene of offence and examined the same in the presence of mediators, she drafted an observation report
dated 30.03.2024, rough sketch, photographed the scene of offence,
seized the suicide note and saree under the cover of observation report.
LW.19 visited the mortuary room and photographed the dead body of the deceased. LW.15 conducted inquest over the cadaver of the deceased at
Government Hospital, Nandigama on 30.03.2024 in the presence of inquest panchayatdars and LWs.1 to 7. During inquest, the MEM got recorded the statements of witnesses. LW.19 also examined LWs.1 to 7-
G.Nagamalleswari, G.Purnachandra Rao, G.Rambabu, G.Venkata Gopi,
N.Netha Prasad, V.Padmaja and A.Srinivasa Rao and recorded their statements. He also secured marriage photos and wedding card from
LW.1 under cover of her Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement. He secured the
Medico legal record along with Hospital intimation of NIMS. LW.19 arrested the accused No.1 to 3 on 31.03.2024 at the house of one
Suryadevara Ramu at Munnaluru Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal and produced before the Court for judicial remand. LW.14-Dr.K.Roshini,
Government Hospital, Nandigama conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, preserved viscera and issued postmortem report.
IX-AD&SJ-cum-Spl.Court, MTM S.C.No.28 of 2026 Page No.6/14
LW.19 forwarded the viscera contents to the RFSL, Vijayawada. He secured the writings of deceased and forwarded the suicide note along with writings of the deceased to FSL., Mangalagiri for analysis. LW.17-
Y.Kanaka Lakshmi, Scientific Officer, FSL., Amaravathi analysed the material objects and issued report. On transfer of LW.19, after assuming charge, LW.20-A.G.P. Tilak, Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Nandigama received the RFSL and FSL report. In this case, Kasukurthi
Narasimharao who was arraigned as A2 in the FIR committed suicide by consuming poison which is subject matter to Cr.No.79/2025 of Nandigma
Police Station. Hence, action against Kasukurthi Narasimha Rao is abated and that after completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against remaining two accused. As such, Kasukurthi Satyavathi who was figured as A3 in FIR is shown as A2 in the charge sheet by filing a memo
before the Court to that effect. Thus, after completion of investigation,
LW.20 filed charge sheet against the accused.
Cognizance
3.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama has taken the case on file as PRC No.9/2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and committed the case under Section 209(a) of Cr.P.C., as the alleged offences under Sections 306 and 304-B are exclusively triable by the
Sessions Court, in turn, the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Krishna, Machilipatnam registered the case as SC.No.28/2026 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.
4. On the appearance of the accused No.1 and 2 before this
Court, they were examined U/s.228(1)(b)&(2) of Cr.P.C., whereby they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby having heard the Addl.
IX-AD&SJ-cum-Spl.Court, MTM S.C.No.28 of 2026 Page No.7/14
Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, charges under Sections 498-
A, 304-B, 306 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act r/w.34 of IPC have been framed and read over to the accused, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.
5.The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P17 so also MO.1. On behalf of the defence, no witnesses were examined, and no documents marked.
6.In view of the hostile evidence of PWs.1 to 5, the learned
Addl. P.P. given up the evidence of LW.5-Neppalli Netha Prasad, LW.7-
Arepalli Srinivasa Rao, LW.9-Anakapalli Sowbhagya Sunandha Rani,
LW.10-Muppalla Naveen Kumar, LW.11-Dr.M.Sasidhar, Principal Amrita
Sai Institute of Science and Technology, Partitala, LW.12-G.Gopi Krishna,
Manager, SBI, Kanchikacherla, LW.13-Dr.Md.Enamulhaque, Medical
Officer, NIMS, Nimra Nagar, Jupudi village, Ibrahimpatnam, LW.14-
Dr.K.Roshani, Medical Officer, GH, Nandigama, LW.16-B.Konda,
Scientific Officer, RFSL, Vijayawada, LW.20-ABG.Tilak, ACP, Nandigama
Sub Division as no useful purpose would be served even if they are examined.
7.On closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., they termed the evidence of prosecution as false, but not chosen to examine the witnesses on their behalf.
8.Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act r/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
IX-AD&SJ-cum-Spl.Court, MTM S.C.No.28 of 2026 Page No.8/14
POINT:
9.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued that, the Court may proceed as per the material available on record.
The learned counsel for the accused argued that, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and prayed for acquittal.
Marshalling of facts and analysis of evidence
10.This Court has carefully perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses examined, the exhibits and material object marked on behalf of the prosecution, and has given its anxious and thoughtful consideration to the matter.
11.In this case, to prove its case, the prosecution got examined
PWs.1 to 10 and exhibited total 17 documents and one material object.
Among them the PW.1 is the mother of the deceased. PW.2 is the father of deceased. PW.3 is brother of PW.1 by courtesy. PW.4 is the son of
PWs.1 & 2. PW.5 is distant relative. PW.6 is the then Village Revenue officer, Kothapeta, Kanchikacherla. PW.7 is Tahsildar, Kanchikacherla.
PW.8 is Scientific Assistant, APFSL, Mangalagiri. PW.9 is Sub Inspector of police, Kanchikacherla who registered the case. PW.10 is investigating officer in this case.
12.The defacto complainant, who is the mother of the deceased is examined as PW.1. She launched the prosecution by preferring
Ex.P10. The sum and substance of her evidence is that, the deceased/
Gondhi Srilakshmi is her daughter. On 15.3.2023 the marriage of her daughter is performed with accused No.1. She further deposed that during the wedlock of her daughter with accused No.1 there are no
IX-AD&SJ-cum-Spl.Court, MTM S.C.No.28 of 2026 Page No.9/14 disputes between her daughter and accused No.1. She clearly further deposed that while she was in sorrow mood at the hospital her signature obtained by somebody on the blank paper, but she does not know the contents thereof and that police did not examine her. She identified her signature on the written report marked as Ex.P1.
13.PW.1, who is the defacto complainant, who set the criminal law into motion, did not support her own case and turned hostile. As such, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor sought permission of the Court and cross-examined her at length, however, nothing incriminating or supportive of the prosecution case could be elicited. Therefore, the said evidence of PW.1 is no way helpful to prove the prosecution case.
14.The same is the case with the PW.2 who is husband of
PW.1. He deposed in his evidence that, during the wedlock of his daughter with accused No.1 there are no disputes between his daughter and accused No.1. PW.2 also did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. PW.3 who is no other than brother of PW.1 deposed in his evidence that he came to know about the death of deceased on that he went to the house of PW.1. PW.4 who is son of PW.1 deposed in his evidence that he came to know about the death of deceased through his parents i.e, Pws.1 and 2 that unable to bear the pain and bleed, the deceased committed suicide. PW.5 who is distant relative deposed in her evidence that she went to the house of PW.2 and found the dead body in the entrance of the house. She further deposed that when she asked PW.2 about the reason for the deceased committing suicide, he stated that in view of abortions and unable to bear the pain in the stomach, deceased committed suicide by hanging. Since PWs.2 to 5,
IX-AD&SJ-cum-Spl.Court, MTM S.C.No.28 of 2026 Page No.10/14 who are important witnesses, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution, as such, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor cross- examined them; however, nothing incriminating or supportive of the prosecution case could be elicited.
15.I have carefully scrutinized the evidence PWs.1 to 5.
Undoubtedly, they did not support the prosecution case. The important witnesses PWs.1 to 5 have not deposed anything against the accused.
As such, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor sought permission and cross-examined them and in their cross-examination, they denied to have stated before police as in Exs.P2 to P6/161 Cr.P.C. statements. The above evidence of important star witnesses, is not at all helpful to prove that, the accused subjected the deceased to harassment both mentally and physically for additional dowry and being unable to bear the harassment, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. None of the aforesaid witnesses have spoken that, they have witnessed the alleged incident and they had knowledge that the accused demanded the deceased for additional dowry and due to unbearable harassment, the deceased committed suicide. In other words their evidence is free from incriminating substance insofar as the alleged incident is concerned. In this view of the matter, the evidence of the PWs.1 to 5 is not at all helpful to prove the prosecution case.
16.The evidence that is left for consideration in this case, is the evidence of PW.6 and PW.7 who are Village Revenue officer and
Tahsildar respectively who acted as mediators stated about the observing the scene of offence and their presence at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased, PW.8 who is scientific assistant,
IX-AD&SJ-cum-Spl.Court, MTM S.C.No.28 of 2026 Page No.11/14
APFSL, Mangalagiri, PW.9 and PW.10 who registered FIR and investigated the case respectively are official witnesses.
17.PW.9-P.S.V.Subrahmanyam, the then Sub Inspector of
Police, Kanchikacherla deposed in his evidence that, on 30.03.2024 at about 7.30 Hours, P.W.1 came to Police Station and lodged a written report vide Ex.P10 to him and the same is registered by him as a case in
Cr. No.120/2024 u/S. 304-B, 498-A, 306 I.P.C., Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act., of Kanchikacherla P.S., and submitted original FIR-Ex.P11 to the Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Nandigama and copies to all the concerned
officials and informed about the registration of Ex.P.11 to L.W.19 who took up investigation and he also assisted L.W.19 in the investigation.
18.P.W.10-Dr.B.Ravi Kiran, Deputy Superintendent of police,
CID, Mangalagiri deposed that he received copy of FIR-Ex.P11 from
P.W.9/P.S.V. Subrahmanyam and took up further investigation in this case and during the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and drafted the scene of observation vide Ex.P7 and he observed the scene of offence and drawn the rough sketch and photographed the scene of offence vide Ex.P12, Ex.P13 and
Ex.P14 is suicide note and MO.1 is yellow colour two pieces of silk Saree seized at the time of observation of scene of offence. He further deposed that he visited the mortuary room and photographed the dead body of deceased and received inquest report vide Ex.P8 from
P.W.7/Suswagatham. P.W.7 sent the dead body for postmortem. He further deposed that he recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 5 and
L.Ws.5 and 7 and he secured the marriage photos and wedding card-vide
Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 from P.W.1. He further deposed that he arrested A1,
A3 and deceased A2 on 31.03.2024 at 1.00 PM at the house of
IX-AD&SJ-cum-Spl.Court, MTM S.C.No.28 of 2026 Page No.12/14
Suryadevara Ramu at Munnaluru Village. He further deposed that he received Post-mortem certificate vide Ex.P17 from L.W.14 at K.Roshani
Government Hospital, Nandiagama and he forwarded the Viscera to
RFSL Vijayawada and he received RFSL report vide Ex.P9 from P.W.8 and he secured the writing of deceased from LW.11-Dr. M.Sasidhar and
L.W.12-G.Gopi Krishna and forwarded suicide note along with writings of the deceased to FSL, A.P., Mangalagiri for analysis, Ex.P9 is the FSL report given by P.W.8 and on completion of investigation, his successor in office laid charge sheet against the accused.
19.Though the Pws.9 and 10 deposed about the registration of crime, visiting of scene of offence, observation of scene, holding of inquest over the dead body of deceased, securing the presence of witnesses and their examination and on completion of investigation filing of charge sheet by his successor, the said evidence requires corroboration from the evidence of eye witnesses/circumstantial witnesses. But the evidence of PW.9 and PW.10 is not corroborated by the evidence of material witnesses. Therefore, the testimony of PW.9 and PW.10 without there being any corroboration from the evidence of
PWs.1 to 5, is no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused. Though PW.9 and PW.10 spoke about the registration of the crime, investigation, seizure, and filing of the charge sheet, their testimony, in the absence of corroboration from material witnesses, cannot form the sole basis for conviction. It is well settled that conviction cannot be based solely on the evidence of the Investigating
Officer without substantive corroboration. In the present case, there is no reliable oral or circumstantial evidence linking the accused with the alleged offences.
IX-AD&SJ-cum-Spl.Court, MTM S.C.No.28 of 2026 Page No.13/14
20.Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of
DP Act r/w.34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused
No.1 and 2 are entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused.
21.In the result, this Court found the accused No.1 and 2 (A2 is
A3 as per FIR) not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-
A, 304-B, 306 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. 34 of
IPC, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C.
They be set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Case against accused No.3 (A2 as per FIR) abated.
Order relating to case property
The non-valuable case property MO.1-Yellow colour two pieces of silk saree shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 12th day of May, 2026.
Sd /-T.Raja Venkatadri, IX Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against Women, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the Prosecution For the Accused PW.1: Gondhi Nagamalleswari -None- PW.2: Gondhi Purnachandra Rao PW.3: Gude Rambabu PW.4: Gondhi Venkata Gopi
IX-AD&SJ-cum-Spl.Court, MTM S.C.No.28 of 2026 Page No.14/14
PW.5: Vallahaneni Padmaja PW.6: Pharahath Sulthana PW.7: V.Suswagatham PW.8: Y.Kanaka Lakshmi PW.9: P.S.V.Subrahmanyam PW.10: Dr.B.Ravi Kiran
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Prosecution : Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on the written report, Dt: Nil. Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1. Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P6: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.P7: Scene observation report. Ex.P8: Inquest report. Ex.P9: APFSL reportvide FSL file No.Doc/77/2024, dt.05.02.2025. Ex.P10: Written report. Ex.P11: FIR. Ex.P12: Rough sketch. Ex.P13: Photos of the scene. Ex.P14: Suicide note. Ex.P15: Marriage Photos. Ex.P16: Wedding card. Ex.P17: Postmortem certificate.
On behalf of the Defence: - NIL -
MATERIAL OBJECTS
MO.1: Yellow colour two pieces of silk saree.
Sd /-T.Raja Venkatadri, IX Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against Women, Krishna, Machilipatnam.