T.Suhasini

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT:- Smt T.Suhasini,

XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, At L.B. Nagar.

DATED ON THIS THE 26 th DAY OF APRIL, 2018

C.C.No. 136/2015

State through WPS Saroornagar… Complainant

A ND

A1. Shaik Jahangir Ahmed A2. Bibi Sara @ Bibi Jaan A3. Mrs.Noor Jahan A4. Mrs.Shakeela A6. Mrs.Farheen Fathima … Accused

a) Serial No. of the Case : 136/2015

b) Date of commission of offence :

c) Name of the complainant : State through WPS Saroornagar

d) Name of the accused person : A1.Shaik Jahangir Ahmed, W/o.Late his parentage and residence Md.mahaboob Hasan,Aged:35 years,Occ:Employee at Kuwait Country A2.Bibi Sara @ Bibi Jaan, W/o.Late Md.Mahaboob Hasan, Aged about 60 years,Occ:House hold A1 and A2 are R/o.Seven Tombs road, Tolichowki, Hyderabad A3.Mrs.Noor Jahan, W/o.Late Sk.Shukoor Ahmed, Aged about 38 years,Occ:House hold A4.Mrs.Shakeela W/o.nabiuddin, Aged about 45 years, Occ:House hold R/o.Tolichowkii, Hyderabad A6.Mrs.Farheen Fathime W/o.Mohd Jahangir Hasan, Aged 37 years, Occ:House hold A3 and A6 are R/o.H.No.9-4- 135/A/37/1, Raghava Colony, Seven Tombs Road, Hyderabad.

e) Offence complained of : U/s.498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and Sec 4 & 6 of DP Act

f) Plea of the accused on their examination : Not guilty

g) Final Order : Accused are acquitted

h) Date of order : 26-04-2018

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s.D.Kishan Rao, 2

Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1. The SHO of WPS Saroornagar laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.159/14 seeking to punish them for the offences punishable 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and Sec 4 & 6 of DP Act.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 16.09.2014 at 1200 hours the SHO of WPS Saroornagar received a court referred complaint from the defacto complainant Smt.Lateefunnisa, where in she stated that her marriage was performed with A1 on 13.12.2007 at

Kohinoor function Hall, Hafeez Baba Nagar, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad asper Islamic customs. At the time of the marriage her parents gave

Rs.31,000/- and two dinner E.Sharai. At that time, her father was working abroad. As per the demand of A1 to A6, her parents gave an amount of Rs.2 lakhs in cash towards dowry apart from 10 thulas of gold ornaments and 25 thulas of silver, colour TV, Refrigerator, washing machine and other Jahez articles worth of Rs.4 lakhs and her parents spent Rs.12 lakhs towards marriage expenses. Out of the wedlock they were blessed with two children. Subsequently all the accused started harassing her saying her parents did not give the sufficient dowry amount and used to harass her for additional dowry. Thereafter A1 went to Kuwait and the other accused used to harass her and used to abuse her in most filthy language. A2 to A4 and A6 used to telephone to A1 and used to chide against her. With the instigation of other accused A1 started harassing over phone for additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs as they wanted to purchase a flat at Tolichowki. When she refused her inlaws necked her out of the house. Her parents with the help of her brother, who used to reside in UK gave the amount to the accused. Then they allowed her into the house. A2 to A6 intentionally disturbing the mind of 3

A1 and A1 started harassing her by suspecting her character. Again on 23.06.2014 all the accused necked her out of the house. All of sudden on 23.06.2014 A1 came to her house along with the other accused and started abusing her in most filthy langauge and A1 slapped upon her and father upon her faces and A6 caught hold of her tuft and the other accused abused her parents and A1 told he is not interested to lead marital life with her and wanted to give divorce. Her father approached

Islamic clerics who summoned at the accused and they have tried to pacify the matter, but the accused did not change their attitude and continued their harassment of Rs.5 lakhs. A2 to A6 planned for second marriage of A1 for the purpose of additional dowry. Then she lodged the complaint. Thereby the accused have committed offences punishable

U/s. 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and Sec 4 & 6 of DP Act. On the basis of above complaint police registered a case against accused in

Cr.No.159/2015.

3. This court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and Sec 4 & 6 of DP Act.

4. After the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as court contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to them.

5. The accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C.with regard to the charges leveled against them, which they denied. Charge 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and Sec 4 & 6 of DP Act was framed and the contents were read over and explained to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and preferred a trial.

6. In order to establish its case the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2. PW1 is the defacto complainant,

PW2 is the mother of PW1, PW3 is the cousin brother of PW1, PW4 is the maternal uncle of PW1, PW5 is the investigating officer. Ex.P1 is the 4 complaint, Ex.P2 is the FIR.

7. After the closure of the prosecution's side evidence, the accused were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material was put to them.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Point 1: Now the point for determination is whether the

prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable Charge U/s. 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and Sec 4 & 6 of

DP Act.?

10.POINT: - The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that the accused persons harassed PW1 physically and mentally for

additional dowry and threatened her with dire consequences to kill her.

On the basis of above complaint police registered a case against accused in Cr.No.159/2015.

11. The learned APP would contended that the prosecution has establish its case by examine PW1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2.

Pws 1 to 5 supported the case of prosecution and further contended that there is corroboration in the evidence of all witnesses and the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

12. The counsel for the accused would contended that though the prosecution examined PW1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, there is no corroboration and contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses and further contended that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt benefit doubt would be given to the accused and prayed this court to acquit the accused person.

13. As seen from the evidence of PW1 who is the defacto complainant deposed, her marriage was performed with A1 on 13.12.2007. At the time of the marriage her parents gave Rs.80,000/- 5 cash, 10 thulas of gold, 25 thulas of silver, all household articles and furniture to accused towards dowry. After the marriage she joined the company of the accused at Tolichowki for consummation of the marriage and lived happily for one month. Subsequently her husband went to

Kuwait on job purpose. She stayed at her inlaws house, within one month of the marriage she was conceived. A2 to A4 and A6 used to harass her petty issues and used abuse her in most filthy language and used to complain against her to her husband. A1 returned after six months and used to harass her physically and mentally. Her husband used to stay 20 days in India and left to Kuwait and returned after six months only. In his absence the other accused used to harass her. Out of the wedlock she was blessed with two children. In the year 2013, as they are intending to purchase the property, her husband demanded

Rs.5 lakhs. She informed the same to her parents, her brother gave Rs.5 lakhs to A1. After buying the flat they again started harassing her for

additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. When her parents expressed their

inability, the accused beat her and necked her out of the house along with his children. After 1 ½ month A1 told he will give divorce to her, they told accused to come to her parents house. All of them without having any discussion started quarreling with her. Nikhat Parveen caught hold her father collar and her father abused them in filthy language. They told A1 will give divorce to her and left the house. After 10 or 15 days accused called them to Women Welfare Society at

Mehidhipatnam and demanded for divorce. She did not agree for the same. Twice or thrice she went to her inlaws house, but the doors of the house locks were closed. Then they approached Golconda PS. They held counselling and accused demanded for divorce. Then she went to her parents house. After 3 or 4 days accused send divorce notice. Then she lodged the complaint. Ex.P1 is the complaint.

6

14.In her cross-examination she admitted A1 gave divorce on 11.08.2014 and after 10 days she received Talak notice on 28.08.2014.

She also admitted on 8.5.2016 she married with one Syed Suleman

Ghory. She also admitted after that case she filed DVC case and same is pending. She denied of stating before the police as per Ex.D1. She also admitted during her chief examination she stated Rs.5 lakhs was transferred from his brother’s account to A1’s account. But the said amount was transferred into her mother’s account. She also admitted she has taken all the Dahez articles.

15.As seen from the evidence of PW2 who is the mother of PW1 deposed about the marriage of PW1 to A1, which was performed on 13.12.2007 and about the giving of dowry of Rs.2 lakhs, 10 thulas of gold, 25 thulas of silver, household articles to the accused towards dowry. After the marriage PW1 and A1 lived happily till the birth of two children. Since then A1 started harassing PW1 for additional dowry of

Rs.5 lakhs for purchasing the house. PW1 informed the same to them, her son who was in London gave the amount to them, they inturn gave the amount to A1. A1 purchased the flat in Tolichowki. A2 to A6 instigate

A1 to harass PW1. In the year 2014, A1 necked PW1 out of the house and send divorce notice to PW1. Thereafter PW1 lodged the complaint.

16.As seen from the evidence of PW3 and 4, who are the relatives of PW1 deposed in the same lines as deposed by PW2 about the marriage and about the giving of dowry and about the harassment

Pw1 undergone in the hands of the accused.

PW3 in his cross admitted he doesn’t know the family affairs of PW1 and other accused at her inlaws house.

17.As seen from the evidence of PW5, who is the Investigating

Officer testified before the court the investigation done by him in chronological events and has deposed about registering of the case and 7 filing of the case in Cr.No.159/2014 for the offence punishable U/s.498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act and issued FIR. Ex.P2 is the FIR.

After the completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

Reasons:

18.There is no dispute with regard to the marriage between

PW1 and the accused no.1. As per the complaint which is marked as

Ex.P1 lodged by PW1 deposed that accused no.1 along with other accused has harassed her physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. But specific time, day, month and year of harassment was not mentioned.

19.As seen from the evidence of PW1, who testified before the court at the time of the marriage her parents gave cash of Rs.80,000/- cash towards dowry and 10 thulas of gold, 25 thulas of silver, all household articles and furniture to accused towards dowry. But these witnesses did not mention the descriptive particulars of the gold and silver articles or any receipts of the gold jewellery to support her claim and she did not also mention in whose presence they have given dowry to the accused. Admittedly PW1's father is a driver and PW1 did not mention from where her father got such huge amount and she did not file any proof whether on the date of the marriage her father had such huge amount in his bank account.

20.PW2 is the mother of PW1, PW3 and 4 are the relatives of

PW1 deposed at the time of the marriage PW1 parents had given dowry of Rs.2 lakhs, 10 thulas of gold, 25 thulas of silver, household articles to the accused towards dowry. Where as PW1 deposed her parents gave cash of Rs.80,000/- cash, 10 thulas of gold, 25 thulas of silver, all household articles and furniture to accused towards dowry. There is a variation and contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses with regard 8 to giving of dowry amount.

21.It is the other version of PW1, after some days of the marriage as the accused harassed her for additional dowry, her brother gave Rs.5 lakhs to A1 and the same was transferred to her husband’s account. In her cross-examination she stated the said amount was transferred to A1’s account and she again stated the said amount was transferred to her mother’s account. This creates doubt in the minds of the court whether they gave the said amount to A1 or not.

22.PW3 and 4 are the relatives of PW1 reiterated more or less what Pw1 and 2 deposed, but these witnesses deposed they do not know about the family affairs of PW1, through parents of PW1 only they came to know about the harassment. Hence their evidence is a hearsay evidence and can’t be taken into consideration.

23.As seen from the evidence of PW1 A2 is her mother-in-law and A3 and A4 are her sister-in-laws and A6 is her co-sister. PW1 stated these accused used to complain about her to A1 and used to harass her physically and mentally for additional dowry. They could not explain

before the court when they came to to her place and harassed her. She

didn't give any specific dates of the harassment to show the presence of the accused in her house nor furnish any definite dates that they harassed her on phone. No caller data was filed before the court. She did not have any phone numbers.

24.It is pertinent to mention PW1 in her cross-examination admitted during the pendency of the case she married to one Suleman

Ghori on 8.5.2016. she also stated she filed DVC case against A1 and the same is pending. She could not explain for filing DVC even after her second marriage.

25.It is the other version of Pw1 that A1 left to Kuwait for job 9 purpose and as per the evidence of other witnesses PWs 2 to 4 also it is elicited after one week of the marriage A1 left to Kuwait and he used to visit India only during the Ramzan festival and used to stay only one month in a year. From this it is clear out of 12 months A1 used to stay in

India only for a period of one month. Pw1 could not explain when A1 harassed her and demanded her for additional dowry.

26.It is the other version of PW1 that A1 used to suspect her fidelity and A2 to A4 did not provide adequate food and used to telephone to A1 and instigate him not to send money to Pw1. Due to the harassment her brother has sent Rs.5 lakhs to her mother’s account, who inturn gave the same to A1 for purchasing of the house. Pw1 did not file any document to support her claim, such as bank statement of her mother to show that her brother has send money to her mother’s account.

27.From the evidence of these witnesses it is not established that PW1 was subjected physical and mental harassment in the hands of the accused. Though PW1 filed certain photographs to show that her parents had given gold and house hold articles to the accused at the time of marriage. But there is no evidence to show that on the demand of the accused PW2 has given the said articles to the accused. As per the Muslim customs, which ever articles given by either sides to bride and bride groom will be entered in a Dahez list. In the instant case PW1 did not file copy of the said Dahez list to support her case.

28.On analyzing the evidence of prosecution PW1 has filed complaint stating their family has given dowry of Rs.80,000/- cash, 10 tulas gold, 10 thulas of gold, 25 thulas of silver, all household articles and furniture to accused towards dowry. But no documents are filed

before the court to prove the same.

10

29.From the evidence of witnesses nothing could be established with regard to dowry harassment. PW1 did not depose before the court the date, time,place when accused harassed her physically and mentally and demanded for additional dowry. From the evidence of witnesses the ingredients of the Sec. 498-A is not made out. There is no

Iota of evidence to connect the accused with the crime.

30. To prove the offence U/s.498-A of IPC the prosecution has to prove that the wife of a husband shall r ebe subjected to cruelty and harassment which would compel her to cause injury to her life, limb or health (either physical or mental) or the accused or his relatives should have subjected her to harassment with unlawful demand.

31.After careful scanning of evidence both documentary and oral the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt benefit of doubt will be given to the accused person.

32.In the result, accused A1 to A4 and A6 are found not guilty for the offences U/s.498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP

Act. Accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled after the appeal period is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of April, 2018.

XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

11

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: Latif unnisa NONE. PW2: Aktharunnisa PW3: Abdul Yayha PW4: Abdul Khadir PW5: P.Anthaiah , Retired Sub-Inspector of police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is the complaint Ex.P2 is the FIR.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NILL

XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT:- Smt T.Suhasini, B.Com., L.L.M., P.G.D.C.L., XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, At L.B. Nagar.

DATED ON THIS THE 25 th DAY OF APRIL, 2018

C.C.No. 909/2018

State through PS Pahadishareef …Complainant A N D

A1.D.Arun @ Vaddra Arun

A2.K.Santhosh ... Accused

a)Serial No. of the Case : 909/2018

b)Date of commission of offence: 18.01.2018

c)Name of the complainant: State through PS Pahadishareef

d)Name of the accused person, : A1.D.Arun @ Vaddra Arun S/o.Late his parentage and residence Yellaiah,Age;24 years,Occ:Labour R/o.H.no.6-144, waddera Basthi, Mamidipally road, Pahadishareef (Vil), Balapur(M), RR District A2.K.Santhosh Reddy @ Santhosh S/o.Krishna Reddy, Age:27 years, Occ:Pvt employee, R/o.H.no.5-15, Charminar Mask back side, Mamidipally road, Pahadishareef vil, Balapur mandal, RR District

e)Offence complained of: U/s.153-A of IPC

f)Plea of the accused on their examination: Not guilty

g)Final Order: Accused are acquitted

h)Date of order : 25-04-2018

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the

Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate

for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the

court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The SHO of PS Pahadishareef laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.14/2018 seeking to punish him for the offences punishable U/s.153-A of IPC.

2

2.The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 18.01.2018 at 16:00 hours the SHO of PS Pahadishareef, received a complaint from defacto complainant Sri Syed Azeem, in which he stated that, on 18.01.2018 at about 15.45 hours while he and his friend Syed Abdul Rauf were observed the Facebook account of his friend Shaik Salam cell phone number 8247686782, they observed that one picture of Asaduddin Owaisi(who is president of AIMIM political party and Hon’ble Member of Parliament of

India) was posted by one Arun Kumar(A1). The said picture is appearing that it is disrespecting and defaming the personality in the eyes of general public. It is also promoting enmity between two groups of religion and create a law & order issue in the locality. After posting the said picture by

A1 and A2 has made comment by saying was mera sher jio mera iaal jai sree ram. Then he lodged the complaint. On the basis of above complaint police registered a case against accused in Cr.No.14/2018 and thereby the accused have committed offences punishable U/s.153-A of IPC.

3.This court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.153-A of IPC.

4. After the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as court contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. was furnished to them.

5. The accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. with regard to the charges leveled against them, which they denied charge U/s.153-A of

IPC was framed and the contents were read over and explained to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and preferred a trial.

6.In order to establish its case the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7 and M.O.1. PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 and 3 are the eye witnesses, PW4 and 5 are the panch witnesses for confession cum seizure of accused, PW6 is the investigating officer. Ex.P1 is the Complaint by PW1, Ex.P2 is the Signature on the confessional panchanama of PW4, Ex.P3 is the Signature on the seizure 3 panchanama of PW4, Ex.P4 is the Signature on the confessional panchanama of

PW5, Ex.P5 is the Signature on the seizure panchanama of PW5, Ex.P6 is the First

Information Report, Ex.P7 is the Seizure report.

7.After the closure of the prosecution's side evidence, the accused were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. for explaining them and the incriminating material available against them in the prosecution side evidence. The contents read over and explained to them, which they denied and stated no defence.

8. Now the point for determination is whether the

prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable Charge U/s.153-A of IPC..?

9. POINT:- The case of the prosecution is that the accused person promoted enmity between two groups of religion and disturbed the peace of public order. Thereby the accused has committed offences punishable U/s.153-A of IPC.

11. The learned APP would contended that the prosecution has establish its case by examine Pws 1 to 6 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and there is a corroboration in the evidence of the witnesses and further contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

12. The counsel for the accused would contended that, the complainant clearly stated he doesn’t know the contents of the complaint.

He further contended that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt benefit doubt would be given to the accused and prayed this court to acquit the accused person.

13. As seen from the evidence of PW1 who deposed that, on 18.01.2018, after lunch, PW2 telephoned him and informed accused face book ID and told he has made cartoon of Asasuddin Owaisi and had put his head on the floor and kept one leg of Arun Kumar on the head of 4

Asasuddin Owaisi and they also written some comment saying Jio Mere lal wa kere share Jai Sree Ram. Then I went to PS and lodged the complaint.

Ex.P1 is the complaint.

In his cross-examination he admitted he did not receive any message to his face book account and when he was on field work Rawoof telephoned him and asked him to come Pahadishareef PS. He also admitted he did not shown anything on his phone about the cartoon. He also admitted he did not file any caller data before the court and they did not give their phone to Pahadishareef PS. He also admitted he doesn’t know the contents of the complaint and also his statement.

14.As seen from the evidence of PW2, who is the eye witness deposed on 18.01.2018, in the afternoon PW3 informed him through one of his face book friend he found accused face book ID and told he has made cartoon of Asasuddin Owaisi and had put his head on the floor and kept one leg of accused on the head of Asasuddin Owaisi. As there should not be communal problem, he along with PW1 and PW3 went to PS and lodged the complaint.

In his cross-examination he admitted he did not receive any message to his face book account and there is no name of Arunkumar to show he had send the message. He also admitted he and PW1 are the supporters of MIM. He also admitted he did not file any caller data before the court and he did not gave their phone to Pahadishareef PS.

15.As seen from the evidence of PW3, who is the other eye witness deposed accused is his face book friend. On 18.01.2018 in the afternoon he noticed in his face book accused kept the stilt head of

Asasuddin Owaisi on the ground and made the cartoon. He informed to

PW2 and shown them. Thereafter PW2 lodged the complaint. Witness identified accused.

In his cross-examination he admitted he did not give his 5 phone to police and the accused. He also admitted he did not file any proof

before the court to show accused has share the same to him. He also

admitted he received the same through sharing and sharing can be done by anyone. He also admitted sharing is different from posting.

16.As seen from the evidence of PW4 and 5 who are the panch for confession and seizure of the accused, deposed at about one year ago, they went to PS Pahadishareef on their personal work, at that time police obtained their signatures on white blank papers. The accused did not confess anything in their presence nor they recorded confessional statement. Ex.P2 and P3 are the signatures on the confessional and seizure panchanama of PW4. Ex.P4 and P5 are the signatures on the confessional panchanama and seizure panchanma of PW5.

Since the witnesses retracted from their earlier stand and not supported the case of the prosecution the learned APP declared them as hostile and sought permission to cross examine them. In their cross- examination they denied the suggestions put by the learned APP.

17.PW5 in his cross-examination by the counsel for the accused admitted police enquired from the accused and he did not ask anything to the accused. He also admitted accused confessed their guilt in the presence of the police.

18.PW6, who is the Investigating Officer testified before the court the investigation done by him in chronological events and has deposed about the filing of the case and registering of the case in

Cr.No.14/18 under section 153(A) of IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P6 is the FIR,

Ex.P7 is the seizure report. MO1 is the seized cellphone.

Reasons:

19. As seen from the testimony of PW1 on 18.01.2018, he came to know through PW2 stating in the face book account of accused he found one cartoon of Asasuddin Owaisi, in which the head of Asasuddin Owaisi 6 had put on the floor and accused kept his leg on the head of Asasuddin

Owaisi and also written some comment saying “Jio mere lal wa mere share

Jai Sree Ram” Then he lodged the complaint. Where as in his cross- examination he himself admitted he doesn’t know the contents of the complaint and statement. Since the witness makes two inconsistent statements his evidence can’t be taken into consideration.

20.PW2 and 3 are the eye witnesses though supported the case of the prosecution, these witnesses clearly stated they did not file any proof before the court stating the accused has shared the alleged posting in the face book.

21.It is the other version of PW3, accused is his face book friend and he shared the alleged posting in the face book. The reasons best known to the investigating officer he did not seize the phone from PW3 to ascertain the truth.

22.PW4 and 5 are the panch witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

23.PW6 is the investigating officer testified accused A1 and A2 confessed in the presence of PW4 and 5 and they also seized MO1 from A1 in their presence. But the said panch witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

24.From the evidence of all the witnesses PWs 1 to 6 and the documentary evidence Ex.P1 to P7 there is no evidence before the court to show A1 and A2 are the said persons who shared the alleged posting in the face book. Moreover none of the witnesses utter a single word against A1 and A2.

25.From the evidence of PW1 and 2 who deposed that through

Pw3 only they came to know that accused has shared the photograph of

Asaduddin Owaisi in the Face Book account.

26.PW3 deposed that A1 is his Face book friend and he shared the posting of Asaduddin Owaisi on his account.

7

27.From the evidence of PW1 to 3 it is clear that accused haraed the posting to their face book account. It is not the case of the PWs 1 to 3 that accused is created the same and posted the photo of Asaduddin

Owaisi and write Jio Mere lal wa kere share Jai Sree Ram in face book.

28.All the witnesses had stated that they are the workers and supporters of MIM party and through face book account of PW3 only they came to about the posting. They deposed the accused has shared the same, but he has not created the same and posted the same.

29.The investigating officer did not choose to put any efforts to ascertain initially who was shared and who was created and who was posted it.

30.After careful scanning of evidence both oral and documentary proof, the prosecution utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence benefit of doubt given to the accused.

31.In the result, accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.153(A) of IPC. Accordingly they are acquitted

U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled after the appeal period is over.

32.M.O.1. is in court custody shall be given to owner of the property on his application shall be made absolute after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th April, 2018.

XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1: Syed AzeemNIL PW2: Syed Abdul Rawoof PW3: Mohd Salam PW4: D.Narender PW5: Mirmajig Ali Khan PW6: G.Puriganannath, Sub-Inspector of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Complaint by PW1 NIL Ex.P2: Signature on the confessional panchanama of PW4 Ex.P3: Signature on the seizure panchanama of PW4 Ex.P4: Signature on the confessional panchanama of PW5 Ex.P5: Signature on the seizure panchanama of PW5 Ex.P6: First Information Report Ex.P7: Seizure report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1. seized cell phone

XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT:- Smt T.Suhasini, XIV Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, At L.B. Nagar.

DATED ON THIS THE 26t h day of APRIL, 2018

C.C.No. 11/2017

State through PS Pahadishareef …Complainant

A N D A1.D.Jangaiah A2.D.Arjun

A3.D.Rajinikanth ... Accused

a) Serial No. of the Case : 11/2017

b) Date of commission of offence 28.09.2016

c) Name of the complainant : State through PS Pahadishareef

d) Name of the accused person, : A1.D.Jangaiah,s/o.Chennaiah, his parentage and residence Age:30 years Occ:Worker in white clip tea in Pvt. Ltd R/o.H.no.2-19, Raichur(Vil),Kandukur(M), RR Dist A2.D.Arjun S/o.Shankaraiah, Age: 29 years, Occ:Worker in white clip tea in Pvt. Ltd R/o.H.no.2-111, Lemoor Village, Kandukur(M), RR District A3.D.Rajinikanth, S/o.Yadaiah, Age:22 years, Occ:Worker in white clip tea in Pvt. Ltd R/o. Lemoor Village, Kandukur(M), RR District

e) Offence complained of : U/s.448,342,323,504,506 of IPC

f) Plea of the accused on their examination : Not guilty

g) Final Order : Accused are acquitted

h) Date of order : 26-04-2018

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.Ashok,

A.Ashok Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following.

2

J U D G M E NT

1.The SHO of PS Pahadishareef laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.433/2016 seeking to punish them for the offences punishable U/s.448,342,323,504,206 of IPC.

2.The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 20.09.2016 at 01.00 hours, the SHO of PS Pahadishareef received a complaint from defacto complainant Sri K.Ranganath where in he stated that, he is working as a manager in white cliff tea (P) Ltd., situated at IDA Mankhal, Maheshwaram mandal. On 28.09.2016 at morning hours he discussed with the workers union and some of hte staff members regarding bonus payment, meanwhile small issue raised between him and some of the staff members and on the same day at about 20.30 hours the accused A1 to A3 were criminally entered into his house and abused him in filthy language and beat with hands, legs and plastic chairs. Then he lodged the complaint against the accused. Thereby the accused have committed offences punishable

U/s.448,342,323,504,506 of IPC. on the basis of above complaint police registered a case against accused in Cr.No.433/2016.

3.This court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.448,342,323,504,506 of IPC.

4. After the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as court contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to them.

5. The accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C.with regard to the charges leveled against them, which they denied. Charge

U/s.448,342,323,504,506 of IPC as framed and the contents were read over and explained to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and preferred a trial.

6. In order to establish its case the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 3 and 4 are the eye witnesses, PW3 and 5 are the panch witness for scene of offence pancha, PW6 is the doctor, PW7 is the investigating officer. Ex.P1:

Complaint by PW1,Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2, Ex.P3: Signature on scene of offence panchanama by PW3, Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3,

Ex.P5: Crime Detail form by PW5, Ex.P6: Medical Certificate issued by

PW6, Ex.P7: First Information Report by PW7, Ex.P8: Photographs. MO1 is the seized cellphone.

7. After the closure of the prosecution's side evidence, the accused were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and explaining them in vernacular language the incriminating material available against them. Contents read over and explained for which they denied and stated no defence.

8. Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

Charge U/s.448,342,323,504,506 of IPC.?.

10. POINT:- The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant and abused him in filthy langauge and beat him with hands and plastic chairs. On the basis of above complaint police registered a case against accused in Cr.No433/16.

11.The learned APP would contended that the prosecution has establish the case by examine Pws 1 to 7 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P8 and further contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

12. The counsel for the accused would contended that there is no contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt benefit doubt would be given to the accused and prayed this court to acquit the accused person.

4

13. As seen from the evidence of PW1 who is the defacto complainant deposed on 28.09.2016 he had discussion with workers union with regard to bonus in his cabin. A1 to A3 being the staff union forcibly entered into his cabin and asked them towait outside as discussion were going on for workers union and not for staff bonus. Though he told theo two or three times but they did not and told they want to stay there only. After some time they left the cabin. At about 8-8.30 PM after walking he returned home, A1 to A3 followed him to his house and p ulled his lungi and beat him with hands and lifted one plastic chair and bang on his head and A1 has recorded video on entire incident on his cell phone, when A2 and A3 beating him. Due to which he fell unconscious, after some time PW4 came there and took him to hospital from there he went to PS and lodged the complaint.

Ex.P1 is the complaint;

In his cross examination he admitted he informed about the incident to their MD on the same day and also admitted he is residing in

Mohan Reddy Apartments, he stay in Ground floor and in another portion one bachelor stay and on the first floor owners stay. He also admitted neither the bachelor nor the owner came to his house. He also admitted he did not disclose the names of the accused persons to Doctor. He also admitted A1 is a Union Leader.

14.As seen from the evidence of PW2 and 4 who are the eye witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

Ex.P2 and P4 are the 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW2 and

PW4 respectively.

15.As seen from the evidence of PW3 who is the panch witness for crime detail form deposed police did not conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence or drafted rough sketch of the scene.

Ex.P3 is the signature on thed scene of offence panchanama.

5

Since the witness retracted from his earlier stand and not supported the case of the prosecution, the leared APP declared his as hostile and sought permission to cross examine him. In his cross examination he denied the suggestions put by the learned APP.

16.As seen from the evidence of PW5, who is the other panch witness or scene of offence deposed on 29.09.2016, police conducted scene of offence panchanama at the house of PW1 in his presence in crime detail form. Ex.P5 is the crime detail form.

In his cross examination he admitted he doesn't know reading and writing Telugu and PW1 is his superior officer.

17.As seen from the evidence of PW6, who is the doctor deposed on 28.09.2016 he examined PW1 and found small cut injury over the right hand and superficial abrasion over right hand which were simple in nature. Ex.P6 is the MLC.

In his cross examination he admitted he did not examine the patient and he has issued only Medical Certificate. He also admitted he is the MD of Vijaya Sai Hospital, Thukkuguda and one Dr.Santhosh Kumar, who examined PW1 and presently he is not working in their hospital.

18.As seen from the evidence of PW-7 who is the investigating officer testified before the court the investigation done by him in chronological events and has deposed about the filing of the case and registering of the case in Cr.No.443/2016 offences U/s.448,342,323,504,506 od IPC and issued FIR. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. Ex.P7 is the First Information Report, Ex.P8 is the photographs. MO1 is the seized MI cellphone.

Reasons:

19.As seen from the testimony of PW-1 who is the complainant deposed on the alleged date of incident, at about 8.30 PM A1 to 6

A3 came to their house and pulled his lungi and beat him with hands and bang his head with the plastic chair. While A2 and A3 were beating him, A1 has recorded the video. Then he lodged the complaint Ex.P1.

20.On perusal of Ex.P1, he mentioned on the alleged date of incident, A1 to A3 came to his house and abused him in filthy langauge and beat him with hands. In his complaint he did not mention the specific overacts of each accused. where as in his evidence he deposed A2 and A3 beat him and A1 has recorded the video in his cellphone. This is a subsequent improvement of the case.

21.Moreover, PW1 in his cross examination he himself admitted on the alleged date of incident he had a meeting with his workers union regarding the bonus payment and A1 is the leader of the workers union. Then he could not explain the reasons for restricting the A1 into his chamber. PW1 clearly stated on the alleged date of incident, PW2 took him to hospital. But the said PW2 not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

22.PW3 is the panch witness and PW4 is the eye witness turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.Though the PW- 5, scene of offence supported the case of the prosecution about the police conducted scene of offence panchanama, it is not established the accused came to house of PW1 and assaulted them.

23.PW6 who is the doctor testified in his chief examination he examined the PW1 and issued Ex.P6, where as in his cross examination he admitted he did not examine PW1, he only issued MLC. Since the witness makes two inconsistent statements his evidence can't be taken into consideration.

24.PW7, who is the investigating officer did not choose to examine the owner of the house, where PW1 used to reside.

7

25.From the evidence of the witnesses it is not established that accused A1 to A3 beat PW1 on the alleged date of incident. There is no

Iota of evidence to connect the accused with the crime.

26. After careful scanning of evidence both documentary and oral the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt benefit of doubt will be given to the accused persons.

27. In the result, accused A1 to 3are found not guilty for the offences U/s.448,342, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, accordingly they are acquitted

U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled after the appeal period is over.

MO1 is the cellphone shall be given to owner of the property on his application shall be made absolute after the appeal time is over.

After careful scanning of evidence both documentary and oral the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt benefit of doubt will be given to the accused person.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of April, 2018.

XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: Kumar Ranganath NIL PW2: Ashok PW3: Nagaraju PW4: Prabhakar PW5: Sudheer Kumar Rana PW6: Dr.S.Prashanth PW7: K.Mahender Je, SI of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Complaint by PW1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3: Signature on scene of offence panchanama by PW3 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5: Crime Detail form by PW5 Ex.P6: Medical Certificate issued by PW6 Ex.P7: First Information Report by PW7 Ex.P8: Photographs FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: MI Cellphone.

XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT:- Smt T.Suhasini, XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, At L.B. Nagar.

DATED ON THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2018

C.C.70/2015

State through WPS Saroornagar… Complainant A N D

A1.P.Naveen A2. P.Rukkamma A3. P.Pullaiah A4.P.Sai … Accused

a) Serial No. of the Case : 70/2015

b) Date of commission of offence :

c) Name of the complainant : State through WPS Saroornagar

d) Name of the accused person, : A1.P.Naveen, S/o.P.Pullaiah, Aged 32 his parentage and residence years, Occ:Business A2.P.Rukkamma,W/o.Pullaiah, Aged 55 years, Occ:House wife A3.P.Pullaiah Aged 60 years, Occ:Business A4.P.Sai, S/o.Pullaiah Aged:25 years, Occ:Business A1 to A4 are R/o.H.No.3-5-208, Azmathpura, Karimnagar Town and District

e) Offence complained of : U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act

f) Plea of the accused on their examination : Not guilty

g) Final Order : Accused are acquitted

h) Date of order : 26.04.2018

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri D.Raji Reddy Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following.

2

J U D G M E N T

1.The SHO of WPS Saroornagar laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.100/2014 seeking to punish them for the offences punishable U/s.498-A IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 02.07.2014 at 13.00 hours the SHO of WPS Saroornagar received a court referred complaint from the defacto complainant Smt.P.Mamatha, in which she stated that her marriage was performed with A1 on 12.05.2013. At the time of the marriage her parnets gave Rs.5 lakhs cash including gold, silver and other household articles towards dowry. After the marriage she joined the company of her husband for consummation of the marraige at her inlaws house. Since the date of the marriage her husband and inlaws started hrassing her for additiional dowry. A1 used to beat her in drunken condition with the instigation of other accused. Her parents requested her inlaws not to harass her, but the accused did not change their attitude and demanded Rs.2 lakhs. Unable to bear the harassment on 14.04.2014 she dial 100 number, then the Police Vanasthalipuram came to their house and took away the accused to Police station, where A2 and gave undertaking stating they will look after her well. But they did not change their attitude and continued harassment and threatened her if she did not bring

additional dowry, they will perform second marriage to A1 and on

01.06.2014 A1 with the instigation of A2 and A3 beat her mercilessly and necked her out of the house. Then she lodged the complaint. On the basis of above complaint police registered a case against accused in

Cr.No.100/2014 and thereby the accused have committed offences punishable U/s.498-A IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act.

3.This court has taken case into cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.498-A IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP

Act.

3

4.After the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as court contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. was furnished to them.

5. The accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. with regard to the charges leveled against them, which they denied. Charge U/s.498-A

IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act was framed and the contents were read over and explained to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and preferred a trial.

6.In order to establish its case the prosecution examined

PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2. PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 is the independent witnessm PW3 is the mother of PW1.

Ex.P1 is the complaint by PW1, Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement by PW3.

7.Since PW1, the defacto complainant and victim did not depose anything against them and there is no incriminating material available against them. Hence, U/s.313 of Cr.PC is dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/s.498-A IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act.?

10. POINT:-The case of the prosecution is that the accused person harassed the complainant physically and mentally for additional dowry and necked her out of the house and threatened her with dire consequences.

Thereby the accused have committed offences punishable U/s.498-A IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act.

11.To prove the same the prosecution examined PW1

Smt.P.Mamatha, who is the defacto complainant, PW2-Ch.Suryanarayana, who is the independent witness, PW3 - K.Radha, who is the mother of PW1.

4

The learned A.P.P. has given up the evidence of LW4-E.Shankar, LW5-

Smt.A.Madhavi Latha - Inspector of Pollice, WPS, Saroornagar, LW6-Sri

J.Naga Chary, Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS Saroornagar, LW7-Sri A.Ravinder

Reddy - Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS Saroornagar, Cyberabad.

As seen from the evidence of PW1 who is the defacto complainant deposed her marriage was performed with A1 on 12.05.2013 at Hayathnagar. At the time of the marraige her parents gave Rs.2 lakhs cash, 7 thulas of gold, 3 thulas of silver, house hold articles to the accused towards dowry. After the marriage she joined the company of her husband at Karimnagar and lived hapily for 2 weeks. Thereafter accused started harassing her and demanded additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and used to come home in late nights in drunken condition and used to beat her. On 14.04.2014 accused beat her and she call 100 number and police

Vanasthalipuram came and took A1 to A3 to PS. A2 gave undertaking that they will look after her well. But they did not change their attitude and continued their harassment. On 01.06.2014 all the accused beat her and necked her out of the house. Then she lodged the complaint. Ex.P1 is the complaint.

In her cross examination she admitted after giving her evidence as per the advise of the elders she had compromised with the accused out of the court. She doesn't have any grievance against the accused and does not want to proceed with the accused and they both decided to live together.

As seen from the evidence of PW2, who is the uncle of

PW1 deposed about the marriage of PW1 to A1 and about giving of dowry of Rs.5 la khs cash, 5 thulas gold, house hold articles to the accused towards dowry. After the marraige PW1 and A1 lived happily for 1 1/2 months at Karimnagar. Thereafter accused started harassing PW1 for 5

additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs. Through PW1 they came to know about the

harassment. They held a panchayath and advised A1 to keep separate family, A1 and PW1 shifted their family to Vanasthalipuram and lived happily for a period of two months. A1 used to come to house in drunken condition and used to harass her physically and mentally and demanded amount of Rs.2 lakhs towards additional dowry. Unable to bear the harassment Pw1 lodged the complaint.

As seen from the evidence of PW3, who is the mother of

PW1 deposed PW1 marraige was performed wtih A1 at about 5 years ago at Hayathnagar. After the marraige PW1 and her husband lived happily for a period of two years. Thereafter small disputes arose between them. Then

PW1 intimated to their elders and one of their elders lodged the complaint.

After lodging of the complaint as per the advise of the well wishers and relatives they both compromised the matter and decided to live together.

Since the witness retracted from earlier statement and not supported the case of the prosecution the learned APP declared her as hostile and sought permission to cross examine her. In her cross-examination she denied of stating before the police as per her161 Cr.P.C statement., i.e.,

Ex.P2.

As seen from the evidence of PW1 who is the defacto complainant, though deposed against the accused in her chief examination, where as in her cross examination she clearly stated as per the advise of the elders she and A1 compromised the matter and decided to live together.

PW2 who is the independent witness though deposed against the accused, the complainant herself compromised the matter with the accused, hence his evidence can't be taken into consideration.

PW3 who is the mother of PW1 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

6

After careful scanning of evidence both oral and documentary proof, the prosecution utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence benefit of doubt given to the accused.

In the result, accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.498-A IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act. Accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after the appeal period is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed

and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of April, 2018.

XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1:P.Mamatha NIL PW2:Suryanarayana PW3:Radha

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: ComplaintNIL Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT:- Smt T.Suhasini, XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, At L.B. Nagar.

DATED ON THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2018

C.C.200/2017

State through WPS Saroornagar… Complainant

A N D

A1. B.Eswar A2. B.Jangaiah A3. B.Vasantha A4.V.Jyothi A5.B.Teja A6.P.Soni … Accused

a) Serial No. of the Case : 200/2017

b) Date of commission of offence :

c) Name of the complainant : State through WPS Saroornagar

d) Name of the accused person, : A1.B.Eswar S/o.Jangaiah, Aged:30 years his parentage and residence Occ:Milk vendor A2.B.Jangaiah, S/o.Yellaiah, Aged 66 years, Occ:Agriculture A3.B.Vasantha, W/o.Jangaiah, Aged 62 years, Occ:House wife A1 to A3 are R/o.H.No. 1-1-1/A14, Ward No.1, Urban colony, Bhongir, Yadadri District A4.V.Jyothi W/o.Krishnamraju, Aged:34 years Occ:Pvt Employee R/o.Urban Colony, Bhongiri, Yadadri District A5.B.Teja W/o.Narender Aged 25 years, Occ:House wife R/o.H.no.27-12,LB Nagar colony, Neredmet, Malkajigiri, RR district A6.P.Soni, W/o.Suman, Aged 22 years, Occ:House wi fe R/o.H.No.30-589, street No.30, Vinayaka nagar, Neredmet, Malkajigiri, RR District

e) Offence complained of : U/s.498-A, 506 IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act

f) Plea of the accused on their examination : Not guilty

g) Final Order : Accused are acquitted

h) Date of order : 26-04-2018 2

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri Kishan V.V., Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The SHO of WPS Saroornagar laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.48/2017 seeking to punish them for the offences punishable

U/s.498-A IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 22.02.2017 at 1300 hours the SHO of WPS Saroornagar received a complaint from the defacto complainant Smt.B.Sudha Rani, in which she stated that her marriage was performed with A1 on 02.12.2015. At the time of the marraige her parents gave 20 thulas of gold, Rs.12 lakhs net cash and one vehicle. Since her marraige her husband has been harassing her for additional dowry and attributing illegal affairs to her. Prior to her marriage her inlaws told them that A1 was studying job and doing a job in a hospital and her father-in-law was a shepherd. But after the marriage, they are telling that due to ill health, her husband is grazing sheep. She further alleged her husband harassed her mentally and physically and did not allow her to go to her parents house.

when her father came to her inlaws house, accused beat her father and sent.

In this regard a panchayath was held in the presence of elders, in the said panchayath accused abused her father, grand mother and aunt. After the panchayath accused increased their harassment and used to threaten her saying he will kill her. Her mother-in-law used to harass her saying she is having extra marital relationship. When she was speaking on phone, her husband suspected her that she was chatting with some person and beat her indiscriminately. Then she lodged the complaint. On the basis of above complaint police registered a case against accused in Cr.No.48/2017 and 3 thereby the accused have committed offences punishable U/s.498-A, 506 IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act.

3.This court has taken case into cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.498-A, 506 IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP

Act.

4.After the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as court contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. was furnished to them.

5. The accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. with regard to the charges leveled against them, which they denied. Charge U/s.498-A, 506

IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act was framed and the contents were read over and explained to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and preferred a trial.

6.In order to establish its case the prosecution examined PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. PW1 is the defacto complainant. Ex.P1 is the signature on the complaint by PW1, Ex.P2 is the complaint, Ex.P3 is the 161

Cr.P.C. statement by PW1.

7.Since PW1, the defacto complainant and victim did not depose anything against them and there is no incriminating material available against them. Hence, U/s.313 of Cr.PC is dispensed with.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.498-A, 506

IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act.?

POINT:-The case of the prosecution is that the accused person harassed the complainant physically and mentally for additional dowry and suspected her character and threatened her with dire consequences. Thereby the accused have committed offences punishable U/s.498-A, 506 IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP

Act.

4

To prove the same the prosecution examined PW1

Smt.B.Sudha Rani, who is the defacto complainant. The learned A.P.P. has given up the evidence of LW2-P.Venkatesh, LW3-P.Saritha, LW4 -P.Sugunamma,

LW5-P.Padma, LW6-Sri S.Buchaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS Saroornagar.

As seen from the evidence of PW1 who deposed her marriage was performed with accused no.1 on 02.12.2015. After the marriage she and her husband lived happily for a period of one year. Thereafter small disputes arose between them. Then she intimated to her elders and one of her elders lodged the complaint. After lodging of the complaint as per together.. Ex.P1 is the signature on the complaint.

Since the witness retracted from earlier statement and not supported the case of the prosecution the learned APP declared her as hostile and sought permission to cross examine her. In her cross-examination she denied of stating before the police as per her complaint, i.e., Ex.P2 and as per her 161 Cr.P.C statement., i.e., Ex.P3.

As seen from the evidence of PW1 who is the defacto complainant, is resiled from her earlier stand. Though she has lodged the complaint with the police against the accused, now she did not support the case of the prosecution and clearly stated that after lodging of the complaint as per the advise of the well wishers they both compromised and decided to live together.

After careful scanning of evidence both oral and documentary proof, the prosecution utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence benefit of doubt given to the accused.

In the result, accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.498-A, 506 IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act. Accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after the appeal period is over.

5

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of April, 2018.

XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1:Sudha Rani NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Signature on the complaintNIL Ex.P2: Complaint Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR