Sri U.Ram Mohan

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-CUM-ADDL.

MAHILA MAGISTRATE AT VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI U.RAM MOHAN

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA.

Thursday the 22 nd day of January, 2026

Calendar Case No.3406/2022

Between :

THE STATE: Sub-Inspector of Police, Patamata P.S., Vijayawada City. … Complainant

And

1.Naradasu Ram Prakash, S/o.Sudhakara Rao, 39 years, Kapu, D.No.5-92-30/4, 4th Lane, Devarapuram, Guntur. 2.Gummala Venkata Kalyan Suhas, S/o.Chiranjeevarao, 44 years, D.No.48-11/7- 1A, Road No.5, Currency Nagar, Vijayawada. … A1 and A2.

This case is coming for hearing before me on the day of 21.01.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned APP for state and Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for accused Nos.1 and 2 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The sub-inspector of police, Patamata police station laid charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 in Cr. No.334/2022 for the offences U/sec.324, 506 r/w.34 of IPC.

2

2. The brief allegations against the accused 1 and 2 in the charge sheet are that-

The A1 is a resident of Guntur. A2 is a resident of Vijayawada. The scene of offence is situated at Currency Nagar, Vijayawada. The defacto complainant is also a resident of Guntur. It is further alleged that about 2 years back A1 borrowed Rs.48 lakhs from the defacto complainant and committed default in repayment of the same. Thereafter A1 moved to Vijayawada and staying in Currency Nagar,

Vijayawada without the knowledge of PW1. After making prolonged enquiries the defacto complainant came to know that A1 was staying in Vijayawada. On 16.04.2022 the defacto complainant contacted A1 on phone and requested him to pay the money as he is coming to his house. Then A1 requested the defacto complainant not to come to his house on that day. But promissed to discharge the debt on the next day i.e., on 17.04.2022. Accordingly on 17.04.2022 at 11.00 am the defacto complainant along with his friends i.e., LWs2 and 3 visited the house of A1 and called him through phone. But A1 did not respond. Therefore the defacto complainant and his friends were standing in front of the house of A1. Subsequently

A2, who is the brother-in-law of A1 came out and saw them and said that he would bring A1 and after some time he brought A1. Then the defacto complainant asked

A1 to discharge his debt and in that connection some conversation was taken place under a tree. Intially A1 requested the defacto complainant to give a couple of months time but the defacto complainant refused. Therefore A1 abused the defacto complainant and his friends and threatened them with dire consequences and went into his house. Then the defacto complainant and his friends waiting outside of his house, in the meanwhile A1 came out of his house with a knife, and attacked the defacto complainant. Then he caught hold of the hand of A1 protesting him from attack. In the scuffle the defacto complainant received moderate bleeding injuries to his both palms as the knife cut at 3 places on his both palms. A2 fisted the defacto complainant severely and kicked him. When LWs2 and 3, who are the friends of the defacto complainant tried to rescue him, A2 threatened them with dire 3 consequences that he would kill him. In the said quarrel the defacto complainant suffered injuries on his body and left that place and went to hospital for treatment .

On 17.04.2022 in the morning hours they rushed to the police station and gave complaint. Basing on the complaint, LW5/Sub-inspector of police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.334/2022 for the offences U/sec. 324, 506 r/w.34 of IPC.

During the course of further investigation, the LW5/Sub-inspector of police visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of independent witnesses and examined them and recorded their statements. The medical officer who treated the injured issued wound certificate. During further investigation, the police officials obtained the wound certificate of PW1. During further investigation he issued 41-A

Cr.P.C. notice on the accused 1 and 2. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2.

3.After going through the entire material on record, this court took cognizance of offence U/sec.324, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and on appearance of the accused 1 and 2, copies of documents have been furnished to them as contemplated U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

4. On further appearance the accused 1 and 2 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C.

and charges U/sec.324, 506 r/w.34 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish the guilt of the accused 1 and 2, the prosecution has examined the defacto-complainant as PW1, and his friend, who accompanied him to the house of A1 as PW2 and the doctor, who treated the injured as PW3 and the investigating officer as PW4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

6.After closure of the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, the accused 1 and 2 are examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses have been read over and explained to them in 4

Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence witnesses on their behalf.

7. While addressing arguments, the learned Asst. Public Public Prosecutor argued that A1 and A2 beat PW1 with hands and legs andalso attacked PW1 with a knife and in the said quarrel PW1 sustained bleeding injuries to his hands. He also suffered injuries to his other parts of the body. Therefore the accused are liable for punishment. She further argued that the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW2, who is also one of the injured in the said quarrel and he clearly deposed about the incident. The evidence of PWs1 and 2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW3, the doctor, who treated PW1 and issued wound certificate. From the evidence of PWs1 to 3, the prosecution successfully established the guilt against the accused for the offences with which they are charged. Though the evidence of investigating officer is formal in nature but crucial, he clearly narrated about the subsequent events of the incident and recording statements of the witnesses. Even though the material witnesses were cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the accused, nothing is elicited to disprove the case of prosecution and finally prayed this court to convict the accused 1 and 2.

8.In reply, the Counsel for the accused 1 and 2 vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned Asst. Public prosecutor and further argued that the accused never beat PW1 at any point of time. There are so many contradictions in the evidence of PWs1 and 2 with regard to time of giving complaint to the police. A close comparison of the evidence of PW1 with the evidence of investigating officer, there is a major contradiction in his evidence. Therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Merely deposing that the accused beat PW1 is not sufficient and it is the duty of the prosecution to establish the sequences of events happened in a particular time. But there is much variation in the time of offence, giving of complaint and taking of treatment by PW1 etc.. Therefore, the prosecution utterly failed to establish the guilt against the accused and finally prayed this court to acquit the accused Nos.1 and 2.

5

9.In view of the above said pleadings, the point that arises for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offences U/s.324, 506 r/w.34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10. Point:-

Basing on the allegations leveled against the accused 1 and 2 in the charge sheet, the accused 1 and 2 were examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C and contents of charges

U/s.324, 506 r/w.34 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, Therefore, the initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused 1 and

2. In that process, the defacto-complainant as PW1, and his friend, who accompanied him to the house of A1 as PW2 and the doctor, who treated the injured as PW3 and the investigating officer as PW4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

11.In this case PWs1 and 2 deposed intact that the accused No.1 indebted a sum of Rs.48 lakhs to PW1 and whenever he was demanding the accused, he was postponing on one pretext or the other. While so on 16.04.2022 they called A1 through phone and asked his amount. Then he requested him to come on the next day, so that he can arrange the money. On 17.04.2022 at about 11 am himself and

PW2 went to the house of A1 situated in Currency Nagar, Vijayawada and called him and then he came out of his house along with A2, who is the brother in law of

A1 and threatened them with dire consequences. He again went to the house and brought a knife and caused injuries near his right hand wrist and right hand palm and under the right underarm, for which A2 caught hold of him from his back to facilitate him to cause the said bleeding injuries. LWs2 and 3 tried to stop them.

Then they went to police station and LW1 gave complaint. Ex.P1 is complaint.

12.When coming to the evidenc eof PW2, who accompanied PW1 to the house of accused No.1 also deposed on the same lines as stated by PW1. He further 6 deposed that after some time A1 and A2 came out of the house and when Pw.1 asked the amount, a quarrel was taken place and in the said quarrel A1 abused

Pw.1 in filthy language and went into his house and brought a knife and attacked

Pw.1 and caused bleeding injuries to his both hands. He also threatened them with dire consequences. A2 fisted Pw.1 from his back. Then they ran away from the spot and went to police station and PW.1 gave complaint.

13.A careful reading of the evidence of PWs1 and 2, shows that on 17.04.2022 at 11 am a quarrel was taken place with regard to money transaction between A1 and PW1 and in the said quarrel A1 beat PW1 with hands and legs and also caused bleeding injuries on his hands with a knife. Therefore PW1 gave complaint.

14.At this juncture, the main contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that no incident was taken place on that day and PW1 never sustained any injuries to the hands of the accused and only to threaten A1 and A2 for recovery of debt amount, PW1 gave false complaint with the help of PW2. There is much variation in the evidence of PWs1 and 2. The police managed the doctor and obtained wound certificate to increase the gravity of the offence. Therefore much credibility cannot be given to the evidence of PWs1 and 2. The admissions in the cross-examination of PWs1 and 2 directly disconnects the accused from the offences, with which they are charged.

15.In view of the defence raised by the learned counsel for the accused 1 and 2, it is obvious to scrutinize the evidence of PWs1 and 2 carefully. As per the version of PWs1 and 2, the incident was taken place on 17.04.2022 at 11 am. PWs1 and 2 also deposed the same about the incident. I have also gone through the complaint.

The complaint also discloses that on 17.04.2022 the incident was taken place at 11 am. The complaint further discloses that in the said incident the defacto complainant sustained injuries on his ribs and cut bleeding injuries on his hands. The accused threatened them with dire consequences.

7

16.The main contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that there is much variation in the evidence of PWs1 and 2 with regard to giving of complaint. As per the version of PW1 he went to police station and gave complaint on the same day. But the investigating officer deposed that on 18.04.2022 at 12 noon PW1 and

PW2 came to police station and gave complaint. As per the wound certificate the doctor, who is examined as PW3, treated PW1 and found the following injuries.

Swelling in the ribs on the right side and laceration near the right wrist. As per the wound certificate the doctor treated the injured during after noon house i.e., at 12.38 noon on 17.04.2022. That means immediately after the incident PWs1 and 2 went to hospital and took treatment and on the next day they gave complaint to the police. It is natural that if any person suffers injuries, immediately he goes to hospital. Even if he goes to police station, the police refer him to hospital. Even in the cross- examination of PW1 , the learned counsel for the accused could not elicit any major contradictions to disprove the case of the prosecution. Merely giving complaint one day after the incident does not mean that no incident was taken place on that day.

As per the version of PWs1 to 3, PW1 sustained injuries under the ribs as well as cut bleeding injuries on his hands and the same was deposed by PW3 doctor.

PWs1 and 2 also clearly deposed about the specific overtacts caused by A1 and A2.

PW1 further admitted in the cross-examination that immediately after suffering injuries, he went to police station and then he was shifted to Government hospital,

Vijayawada by the police officials. That means on the same day he has not given any complaint, and after getting treatment only he gave complaint on the next day. It is not a major contradiction on the part of the prosecution. The sequences of offence coupled with the evidence of PWs1 to 3 clearly establishes that A1 and A2 beat

PW1 in an attack with a knife and caused injuries and also abused them in filthy language.

17.Even in the cross-examination of PWs2 and 3, the learned counsel for the accused could not elicit any major contradiction to disprove the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination of PW2, he admitted that at about 3.00 pm.

8 they reached the police station. At about 7.30 pm they reached the hospital. At about 4.30 pm the police examined them. He has not given his mobile data dt.16.04.2022 and 17.04.2022 to the police. He has not handed over the tolegate receipt to the police. But they cannot be treated as major contradictions and that can be treated as stray admissions on the part of PW2. Basing on a small contradictions, the entire case cannot be ruled out. Therefore the version of PWs1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of PW3, doctor and the investigating officer as

PW4 coupled with the wound certificate and other material on record clearly establishes that the accused attacked PW1 with a knife and caused injuries and also abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences and accordingly the accused are liable for punishment for the offences U/s.324, 506 r/w.34 of IPC.

18.In the result the accused 1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences U/s.324, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and accordingly they are convicted U/sec. 248 (2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of January, 2026.

IV ADDL., CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Now the accused A1 and A2 are questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on them for the offences U/s. 324, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC for which they pleaded mercy. They further submitted that they are the sole bread winners their families and entire family is depending on their sole earnings. A1 submitted that he is a heart patient. They further submitted that they have kids and if they are sentenced undergo imprisonment, their families would be thrown to streets and the entire family members, therefore requested this court to take lenient view. They further submitted that the said incident was taken place in a spur of emotion. On enquiry with the police in the open court, the police submitted that this is the only 9 case in which they ever involved. They further assured that they will not resort or indulge in such type of offences in future.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view of the family background of the accused and as the accused are attending court regularly for the last 4 years, it is a fit case to take lenient view in sentencing them with fine rather than imprisonment.

Accordingly the accused 1 and 2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence U/s. 324 of IPC. The accused 1 and 2 further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/s. 506 r/w.34 of IPC, in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each for each count. Total fine of Rs. 11,000+11,000=22,000/- is ordered to be given to PW1 towards compensation U/s 357 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated U/s. 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 are at liberty to appeal the conviction and sentence imposed by this court.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of January, 2026.

IV ADDL., CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1 : I.Harikiran Reddy, defacto complainant.NIL

PW2 : J.Vijaya Kumar, Friend of defacto complainant.

PW3 : P.Ramesh chandra, Doctor, who treated PW1 and issued Ex.P2 wound certificate.

10

PW4 : S.Valli Padma, Investigating officer.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

Ex.P1 : Report given by PW1. Ex.P2 : Wound certificate of PW1. Ex.P3 : FIR in Cr.No.334/2022.NIL Ex.P4 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-- Nil --

IV ADDL., CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-CUM-ADDITIONAL

MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

C.C No. 3406 of 2022

1Offence : Prior to on 18.04.2022 2Apprehension of Accused: -- 3Commencement of Trial :14.10.2025 4Closure of Trial :19.01.2026 5Judgment :22.01.2026 6Offence : U/s.324, 506 r/w.34 of IPC 7Name of Complainant:THE STATE: Sub-Inspector of Police, Patamata P.S., Vijayawada City.

8Name of Accused:1.Naradasu Ram Prakash, S/o.Sudhakara Rao, 39 years, Kapu, D.No.5-92-30/4, 4th Lane, Devarapuram, Guntur. 2.GummalaVenkataKalyanSuhas, S/o.Chiranjeevarao, 44 years, D.No.48-11/7-1A, Road No.5, Currency Nagar, Vijayawada. 9Plea of Accused :Not Guilty 10Finding :Guilty 11Result : In the result the accused 1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences U/s.324, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and accordingly they are convicted U/sec. 248 (2) Cr.P.C.

Accordingly the accused 1 and 2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence U/s. 324 of IPC. The accused 1 and 2 further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/s. 506 r/w.34 of IPC, in default of payment of fine the 12 accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each for each count. Total fine of

Rs. 11,000+11,000=22,000/- is ordered to be given to

PW1 towards compensation U/s 357 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated U/s. 437 (A) of

Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 are at liberty to appeal the conviction and sentence imposed by this court.

12Explanation for delay :This case was taken on file U/s.324, 506 r/w.34 of IPC.

On 06.02.2024 copies of documents furnished to the accused 1 and 2. On 24.01.2025 accused 1 and 2 are examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. On 14.10.2025 PW1 was examined. On 13.11.2025 PW2 was examined.

On 19.01.2026 PWs3 and 4 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. On 20.01.2026 Accused 1 and 2 are examined Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On 21.01.2026 Heard arguments and on 22.01.2026

Judgment has been pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- U.Ram Mohan

IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate,Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to:-

The Hon’ble II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.py //

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-CUM-

ADDL. MAHILA MAGISTRATE, AT VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI U. Ram Mohan

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

Wednesday, this the 21 st day of January, 2026.

Calendar Case No.4829/2022

Between :

Sub Inspector of police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada city. … Complainant.

And

Thorati Sivaiah, S/o.Sambaiah, 58 years, C/Rajaka, Yadavapalem, Pedakakani Village and Mandal, Guntur District. ... Accused.

This case is coming for hearing before me on the day of 20.01.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for state and of Sri.K.Stalin, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of police, Ibrahimpatnam police station laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in Cr. No.211/2022 for the offence under section 498-A of IPC.

2.The brief allegations against the accused in the charge sheet are that :-

The accused is a resident of Yadavapalem, Pedakakani Village and

Mandal, Guntur District. The scene of offence is situated at D.No.20-75, West 2

Ibrahimpatnam, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal. It is further alleged that the defacto complainant is a resident of D.No.20-75, West Ibrahimpatnam,

Ibrahimpatnam Village & Mandal, Krishna District. Her 1st marriage was performed with Konduri Ravi Kumar of Guntur and she was blessed with one son now aged about 4 years. Her 1st husband died at the age of 4 years of her son. Since then she has been residing in the house of her parents along with her son. In view of her future, her parents decided to perform her 2nd marriage with the accused. It is 2nd marriage to the accused also, and the accused having one son and one daughter through his 1st wife. The accused is working as Lorry driver.

Subsequently, she got pregnant with the accused and getting treatment in the hospital, and when she is carrying 5th month pregnancy doctors declared that she was infected with HIV, at that time her parents and relatives questioned the accused as to why he did not inform about his disease, for which the accused said his apology and promised that he will take her total responsibility. Later she delivered a male child, at that time her husband dropped her at her parent's house. Therdeafter now and then her husband used to visit the house of her parents to see her, after some months he did not come to see her. Her parents kept the matter before the elders at that time her husband promised that he will take her soon and he will look after the welfare of her son but he not do so. At that time he was living together with another woman at Pedakakani Village and staying with her. Her parents and relatives went there and asked her husband about his illegal contact at that time her husband promised that he will look after her and her son welfare well, and promised to provide education to her son, give property and also send money to her but he again failed to do the same. Her husband purchased properties and also constructed own house, purchased own auto and residing at Pedakakani Village. Her husband not sending money to her son for his studies and thereafter cheated her. Presently their son i.e., aged about 18 years He completely deserted her and her son. Therefore she approached the 3 police and gave complaint. LW6/Sub-inspector of police has received a report from LW1 and registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.211/2022 for the offence

U/s.498-A of IPC . During the course of investigation Lw6/Sub-inspector of police visited the house of the defacto complainant and secured the presence of the material witnesses and examined them and recorded their statements. On further investigation he issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notices to all the accused and after completion of investigation, LW6/Sub-inspector of police laid charge sheet against the Accused for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC. Hence the charge.

3.After going through the entire material on record, this court took cognizance of the offence U/s.498-A of IPC against accused and issued summons.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents have been supplied to him as contemplated u/s 207 Cr.P.C. On further appearance, the accused was examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C. and the contents of charges for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant as PW1, her sister as PW2, her son as PW3 and the investigating officer as PW4 and got marked Ex. P1 and P5.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses have been read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no defence witnesses on his behalf.

4

7. While addressing arguments, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that in this case the evidence of PWs1 to 3 clearly shows that the accused who is the husband of PW1 harassed PW1 and neglected to take care of her and her son and therefore PW1 suffered harassment both physically and mentally in the hands of the accused. She further argued that while she was carrying 5th month pregnancy she noticed that she was affected with HIV, then she questioned the accused, for which he replied that he can take care of them.

But he did not do so. Therefore she was forced to give complaint against the accused. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs2 and 3 and their evidence coupled with the evidence of investigating officer as PW4, the prosecution successfully established the guilt against the accused. Even though the material witnesses were cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for accused, nothing is elicited to disprove the case of the prosecution and finally prayed this court to convict the accused.

8.In reply the learned counsel for the accused vehemently opposed the

arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and further argued that

there is no specific evidence to establish that PW1 is the wife of the accused. The investigating officer has not placed any document that the accused is the husband of PW1, that itself shows the ill conduct of PW1. Except claiming that the accused is the husband of PW1, there is no document to that effect. The accused never harassed and never lived with PW1 at any point of time. Merely filing of medical bills to show that PW1 affected with HIV etc. there is no proof to that effect that she was affected with HIV through the accused. Since there is no evidence on the part of the prosecution to establish that the accused married PW1 and harassed her and her children and also she was affected HIV deceased through him, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Except making allegations against the accused, 5 there is no specific evidence to establish that how far she suffered harassment in the hands of the accused and finally prayed this court to acquit the accused.

9. In view of the above said pleadings the point that arises for

consideration is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt

against the accused for the offence U/s. 498(A) of IPC beyond reasonable

doubt ?.

Point:-

10. Basing on the allegations leveled against the accused in the charge sheet the accused were examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C and the contents of charge for the offence U/s. 498(A) of IPC has been read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore the initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused. In that process the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as PW1, her sister as PW2, her son as PW3 and the investigating officer as PW4 and got marked Ex. P1 and P5.

11.Now it is to be seen whether the prosecution established the guilt against the accused for the offence U/s. 498(A) of IPC through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4.

12. Before appreciating the evidence on behalf of Prosecution , it is obvious to refer Sec.498-A of IPC, and it reads as follows

Cruelty by Husband or relatives of Husband *498-A. 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:- for the purposes of this section “Cruelty” means- 6

(a) any willful 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 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.

13.Now it is to be seen how far the evidence of PWs1 to 3 is sufficient to decide whether the accused committed the offence, with which he is charged.

14.The defacto complainant as PW1 deposed that her marriage with the accused was solemnized in the year 2002 in Durga Temple, Vijayawada. After the marriage both of them lived happily for a period of 10 months. After conceiving pregnancy, the accused left her in her parentshouse for delivery and thereafter, did not take back. When she was tested medically, during 5th month of pregnancy, she noticed that she was affected with HIV. Then she questioned the accused, for which he replied that he can take care of them. Thereafter, he used to threaten her stating that he is not interested to take care of her and developed intimacy with another woman. The accused promised her to register house site in the name of her son but he did not do so and also left her to her fate. He did not provide education to her son. Subsequently he sold out the said house site.

Likewise he cheated her. Therefore, she gave complaint. Ex.P1 is her complaint.

15.When coming to the evidence of PW2 and 3, who are the sister and son of

PW1 deposed that the marriage between the accused and Pw.1 was solemnized about 23 years back and lived happily until filing of present complaint. Out of their wed lock they were blessed with a male child. Now he is 15 years old. Pw.1 is not doing well as she is suffering from HIV, attacked through the accused. When they 7 questioned the same with the accused, he gave evasive answers. He failed to take care of Pw.1 and her son. The accused harassed Pw.1, when she demanded for maintenance. The accused also failed to transfer the landed property on the name of his son and harassed her. Therefore Pw.1 gave complaint.

16.A careful reading of the evidence of PWs1 to 3 shows that the marriage between PW1 and the accused was taken place about 22 years back and when she conceived pregnancy of her son in the 5th month, she noticed that she was affected with HIV and when she questioned the same, the accused left her to her fate and went away without taking care of them. Therefore PW1 was forced to give complaint.

17.At this juncture the main contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused has nothing to do with PW1 and he never married PW1 at any point of time. There is much variation in the evidence of PWs1 and 2 with regard to the period of their happy marital life, that itself directly disconnects the accused from the offence with which he is charged. Merely stating that the accused is the husband is not sufficient and it is the duty of the court to establish the same. But in this case the accused denying the marriage with PW1 stating that he never married PW1 at any point of time.

18.In view of the defence raised by the learned counsel for the accused, it is obvious to scrutinize the evidence of PWs1 and 2 carefully. As per the version of

PW1 she lived with the accused for 10 months and when she was carrying pregnancy, the accused left her in her house for delivery and thereafter did not take back. But at the same time PW2, who is the younger sister of PW1 stated that both PW1 and A1 lived happily until filing of complaint. The one and only contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that there is no marital 8 relationship between PW1 and the accused. The accused is the distant relative of

PW1 and keeping in view of the same she wanted to harass him for the sake of money. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the accused promissed her to transfer a house site on her name but he refused to do so and therefore she gave complaint against the accused.

19.From the evidence of PWs1 and 2 there is no harassment allegedly meted out by PW1 in the hands of the accused. Admittedly there is no whisper in the complaint to show that the accused harassed her. No doubt she filed some medical bills that are Exs.P2 to P4. In the cross-examination she clearly and categorically admitted that she has not filed any document to show that she married the accused. She has also ot submitted the death certificate of her 1st husband to the police. She has not mentioned the exact date on which the accused ravished her in the presence of her relatives and therefore she was forced to marry him. She has no document to show the date of her marriage with the accused. She has stated before the police about the exact place, date and time of 10 months spent with the accused.

20.From the admissions made by PW1 in her cross-examination, it is clear that there is no document to show that PW1 married the accused at any point of time. In the cross-examination PW2, who is no other than the sister of PW1 admitted that PW1 married the accused in the year 2022 in Durga Temple,

Vijayawada.PW1 also deposed the same. If that is so, definitely the temple authorities would have maintained the marriage register in Durga temple and it is the duty of the prosecution to produce the same to establish the marriage between the accused and PW1. The main contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused never married PW1. Therefore, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish the marriage between PW1 and the accused.

9

21.No doubt the son of the PW1 is examined as PW3, deposed that the accused is his father. After the disposal of property by the accused, he did not take care of him and mother. Thereafter, Pw.1 gave complaint. PW3 also not filed any certificate to show that the accused is his father. It is fatal to the case of prosecution. From the evidence of PWs1 to 3, it is clear that merely not transferring the property, PW1 gave complaint against the accused. That does not mean that the accused harassed PW1 up to the extent of proof as contemplated

U/s.498-A of IPC.

22.Now the evidence surfaced to the prosecution is the evidence of investigating officer as PW4 deposed that on 20.03.2022 at about 1.00 pm while he was present in Police station, Pw 1 came to police station and presented complaint is typed, and he in turn registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.211/2022 for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC and issued FIR to all concerned officials Ex.PS is FIR. Then he examined her and recorded her statement. Then he visited the scene of offence situated in the house of Pw.1 in West

Ibrahimpatnam and secured the presence of Pw2. PW3 and Lw 3 and 4 and examined them and recorded their statements. issued 41 (A) Cr.P.C notice on the accused on 30.03.2022 and after completion of Investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

In the cross-examination he clearly and categorically admitted that he has not conducted counselling between both parties in this case. There is no whisper about the place and date of marriage of PW1 with the accused in the complaint.

He has not seized the death certificate of the 1st husband of PW1 nor the identity proof like Aadhar, ration card and bank card etc. to establish that the accused is the husband of PW1. He has not enquired about the educational qualification of

PW1. He has not seized the birth certificate of PW3. He has not examined the local independent witnesses near the house of PW1. He further admitted that all 10 the witnesses are close relatives of PW1. None of the witnesses stated about the date and time of marriage of PW1 and the accused. He denied other suggestions.

23.A over all reading of the evidence of PWs1 to 4, it is clear that there is no specific evidence to establish that the accused is the husband of PW1 and there is no document to show that PW1 married the accused at any point of time. Even though there is an opportunity for the investigating officer to seize the certificate of marriage of PW1 with the accused from the Durga temple, he did not do so, it is fatal the case of prosecution. Except making allegations against the accused, there is no specific evidence to convict the accused and accordingly, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

24.In the result the Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 498(A) of

IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds found of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated U/s.

437 (a) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, this the 21st day of January, 2026.

IV Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada

Appendix of evidence

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1: Padmavathi, Defacto complaint.

PW2: T.Satyavathi, Sister of defacto complainant.

PW3: T.Hemanth, son of defacto complainant.

PW4: S.Srinu, Investigating officer.

11

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 .. Complaint of PW1

Ex.P2 .. Bunch of medical bills.

Ex.P3 .. Xerox copy of treatment record.

Ex.P4 .. Study, TC and Caste certificates.

Ex.P5 .. FIR in Cr.No.211/2022.

Exhibits marked for defence

NIL

M.Os.Marked .. Nil..

IV Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Vijayawada

12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

C.C No.4829 of 2022

1Offence : Prior to 20.03.2022 2Apprehension of Accused: -- 3Commencement of Trial :26.09.2025 4Closure of Trial :09.01.2026 5Judgment :21.01.2026 6Offence : U/s.498-A of IPC 7Name of Complainant:THE STATE: Sub-Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam P.S. Vijayawada City. 8Name of Accused:Thorati Sivaiah, S/o.Sambaiah, 58 years, C/Rajaka, Yadavapalem, Pedakakani Village and Mandal, Guntur District. 9Plea of Accused :Not Guilty 10Finding :Not Guilty 11Result : In the result the Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 498(A) of IPC and accordingly he was acquitted U/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds found of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated U/s. 437 (a) Cr.P.C.

12Explanation for delay :This case was taken on file U/s. 498(A) of IPC.

Copies of documents furnished to him. On 29.02.2024 accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. On 26.09.2025 P.W.1 was examined. On 07.11.2025 PW2 was examined. On 27.11.2025 PW3 was examined.

On 09.01.2026 PW4 was examined and got marked 13

Exs.P1 and P5. On 19.01.2026 the accused was examined under 313 Cr.P.C. examination. Defence evidence is closed. Heard arguments on 20.01.2026 and on 2.01.2026 Judgment has been pronounced.

Hence the delay.

Sd/-

IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate,Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to:-

The Hon’ble II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. VIJAYAWADA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-

CUM-ADDL. MAHILA MAGISTRATE, AT VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI U. Ram Mohan

IV ADDL. CHIEF Judicial MAGISTRATE

Thursday the 19 th day of December, 2024

VIJAYAWADA

Calendar Case No.2624/2018

Between :

THE STATE: Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S., Vijayawada City. … Complainant

And

A-1. Kancharla Sushma, W/o G. Venkata Ramana Rao, 38 years,

Kamma, D.No. 54-19-22 C/3, 3rd line, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Vijayawada.

A-2. Kancharla Ramana @ Ganta Venkata Ramana Rao, s/o

Srimannarayana, 32 years, Kamma, D.No. 54-18-22, 3rd line, Jaya

Prakash Nagar, Vijayawada.…...Accused

This case is coming for hearing before me on the day of 19.12.2024. for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for state and Sri U.R.P.Srinivas, Advocate for accused upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The sub-inspector of police, Machavaram police station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.13/2018 for the of-fences U/sec.448, 509 r/w 34 of IPC, 2

2. The brief allegations against the accused in the charge sheet are that -

The accused No.1 and 2 are residents of D.No. 54-18-22, 3rd line, Jaya

Prakash Nagar, Vijayawada, both of them are wife and husband. The scene of offence is situated near the house of accused, i.e., at 3rd road, Jaya Prakash

Nagar, Vijayawada. The complainant in this case by name Thatha Subhashini, w/o A.E. Srinivas Rao, 33 years, Gowda, who is referred to as LW-1, hereinafter, is a resident of D.No. 20-69, Gandhi Nagar, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

Previously the father of the LW-1 i.e., Lw-3 by name Thatha Ramaiah, had purchased one vacant site of 220 yards on the name of the LW-1, by the side of the house of A-1 and A-2, at 3rd line, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Vijayawada. The LW- 1 was working as Asst. Professor at Gudlavalleru, in an Engineering college.

On 21-12-2018 In order to see her site , she came to Vijayawada and went to the said site along with her relative i.e., LW-5, and when she reached the said site, she observed that the accused in the margin, who are the neighbors at the said site, grabbed her site for an extent of 3 feet, and also constructed compound well. On observing the same, LW-1 asked the accused No.1 about the same, then A-1, replied that she will inform the matter after the arrival of her husband. Therefore, she left that place and went to their village. On 4-1-2018, again the LW-1 along with her father and brother i.e., Lws-3 & 4, reached her site, and fount the said compound wall was not removed. Therefore, she once again asked the A-1 about the same. In this connection, the husband of the A-1 i.e., A-2 came out of their house and said that the entire site is belonging to him, also will not remove the said wall, and threatened to do whatever she wants, and abused in filthy language, also threatened that he will see end if once again come to the said site. In the mean time, A-1, also scolded her. Thus the accused criminally trespassed into her site, then grabbed the same to an extent of 3 feet, also constructed compound wall, when asked about their attitude, the accused A-1 and A-2 abused her in filthy language, which caused insult her modesty, then also threatened. Therefore, L.W.1 came to the Police and given a report and requested to take necessary action on the said accused.

On receipt of the report from the victim, the then, Sub-Inspector of Police /LW-6 3 visited the scene of offence, observed the same, examined as many as 5 witnesses in all and recorded their detailed statements and also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence.During the course of investigation the LW-6, after receiving of the Letter from the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Urban, along with the report of Mandal Surveyor, he served Notice U/s 41(A) Cr.P.C. on the accused

A-1 & A-2 on 13-04-2018 under proper acknowledgment. After completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/s 448 and 509 R/w 34 of IPC.

3. This court took cognizance of offence U/s 449 and 509 of IPC. of IPC against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents have been furnished to them as contemplated U/s 207 Cr.P.c.

4.On further appearance, the accused were examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C and charges U/s 448 and 509 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish the case of prosecution the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1, her father as P.W.2, the paternal uncle of P.W.1 as P.W.3, the Investigating Officer as P.w,.4 and got marked

Ex.P-1 to P-5.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined

U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses have been read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

Ex.D-1 to D-4 are marked on behalf of accused.

7.While addressing arguments, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.s 2v and 3, eye witnesses to the incident and their evidence coupled with the evidence of

Investigating Officer and other documentary proof clearly establishes that the accused criminally trespassed into the house site of P.W.1 and when she questioned them, they threatened and abused her in filthy language and 4 degraded in the public view. In this case all the witnesses supported the case of prosecution. Even though the other witnesses are close relatives of P.W.1, their evidence cannot be discarded as their evidence is intact with regard to the offences committed by the accused. The prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused. Though the learned counsel for the accused cross examined the material witnesses at length, he could not elicit any contradiction to disprove the case of prosecution and finally prayed this court to convict the accused.

8.In reply, the learned counsel for the accused while filing written arguments vehemently opposed the arguments of the learnred Asst. Public Prosecutor and further argued that the exact time of the alleged incident is not mentioned in any of the document including complaint, 161 Cr.P.C statements of witnesses or in the evidence of all the witnesses, it is fatal to the case of prosecution. He further argued that only to over come the orders of civil court against P.W.1 and to harass the accused, P.W.1 hatched a plan with the help of her family members and gave false complaint. He further argued that there is a delay of 24 hours in giving the complaint. Ex.D-1 to D-4 coupled with the admissions made by P.Ws.1 to 4 in their cross examination, disconnects the accused from the offences with which he was charged and finally prayed this court to acquit thea accused.

In view of the above said pleadings, the point that arises for consideration is

9. Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the

accused for the offence U/s 448, 509 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable

doubt?

Point:- Basing on the allegations leveled against the accused in the charge sheet, the accused wwere examined U/s 239 cr.P.C and charges U/s 448, 509 r/w 34 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, therefore, initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused. In that process the prosecution has examined the complainant as P.W.1, her father as P.W.2, 5 the paternal uncle of P.W.1 as P.W.3, the Investigating Officer as P.w,.4 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-5.

10. The defacto complainant as P.W.1 deposed that L.W.2/Eswara Srinivasa

Rao her my husband. L.W.3/Ramanaiah is her father. She further deposed that

A.1 and A.2 are her neighbors. In the year 1995 her father got purchased an extent of 220sq. Yards at Jayaprakash Nagar, Road No.3, LIC Colony,

Vijayawada in my favour. While so, On 21-12-2017 she came to Vijayawada, and noticed that her southern side neighbors I.e, A.1 and A.2 constructed a wall by encroaching 3 feet of their site. When she questioned A.1, she informed that her husband was not in town, she also promised that after arriving her husband, they would remove the wall. On 04.01.2018 again she came down to

Vijayawada, and herself along with her father and brother had been to their site and found A.1 and A.2 did not remove the wall, hence they questioned A.1, for not removing the said wall, in the mean while A.2 came from the house, abused her stating that the said wall belongs to themn, none could do anything to him.

He also threatened her that he would see her end if she again visit the said site.

Thereafter due to fear she presented the report. Ex.P1 is my report.

11. PW 2, father of P.W.1 also deposed on the same lines as deposed by her and further deposed that he got purchased a house site in LIC colony,

Jayaprakash Nagar, 3rd road Vijayawada, in extente of 220 sq. yards in favor of

P.W.1 and after some time she came to know that A1 and A2 encroached 3 feet of land and got constructed a wall. Therefore, a conversation took place on 21- 12-2017. Again on 04-01-2018 himself, his son/LW 5 and PW1 went to the said spot and questioned A1, in the mean while A-2 came to this spot and abused them in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences and that he will not remove the wall and said do whatever you want. A1 also abused and threatened then PW1 gave complainant. I was examined by the police.

12. A close relative of P.Wes.1 and 3, as PW 3 Deposed on the same lines as deposed by P.Ws.1 and 2. He further deposed that On 21-12-2017 in the evening hours himself and Pw.1 went to the said spot and found a wall 6 constructed by the accused and when they asked A1, who is no other than wife of A2 ( the witness identified the photo of A1 shown in the cellphone of A2 in open court, since she is absent today) about construction of the said wall she asked them to come later as her husband/A2 was not available in the house.

Again on 04.01.2018 at about 7.00 P.M., PW.1 telephoned to him and said that

A1 and A2 abused her in filthy language and also threatened them. Therefore she gave complaint in the police.

13. A careful reading of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 shows that on 4-01-2018 when P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the scene of offence, found A-1 and A-2 encroached a piece of their house site and constructed a wall, therefore, they questioned the highhanded act of A-1 and A-2, then A-1 and A-2 abused them in filthy language and threatened them, therefore, P.W.1 gave complaint.

14. At this juncture, the main contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused never encroached the house site of P.W.1. There is a civil dispute between both parties in a civil court and the same is admitted by

P.Ws.1 and 2 in their cross examination. P.W.1 herself highhandedly came upon

A-1 and A-2 and in order to over come from her criminal attitude, she went to

Police station and gave false complaint to threat A-1 and A-2 to settle the civil dispute in her favour. The evidence of P.W1 to 3 cannot be believable as they are related to each other. The prosecution did not examine any local independent witness to establish that the accused abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and threatened them. Non examination of the local independent witness at the scene of offence is fatal to the case of prosecution. The admissions of P.Ws.1 to 3 directly disconnects the accused from the offences, with which they are charged and finally prayed this court to acquit the accused.

15. In view of the defence raised by the learned counsel for the accused, it is obvious to scrutinize the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 carefully. Admittedly, P.W.2 is the father and P.W.3 is the uncle of P.W.1. P.Ws.1 to 3 are family members.

Admittedly, the prosecution has not examined any local independent witness.

7

Admittedly the scene of offence is situated in a residential locality. As argued by the learned counsel for the accused, I have gone through the cross examination of P.W.1, who is the complainant cum victim in this case, clearly and categorically admitted that A-1 filed a suit in OS No.1259/2017 on the file of a Civil Court,

Vijayawada against her and the court granted exparte ad interim injunction restraining her and her men from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff(A-

1) till 9-01-2018. In the next line she clearly and categorically admitted that she presented present complaint on 5-01-2018. That means, as on the date of presentation of present complaint, A-1 and A-2 protected their possession by virtue of an order of a civil court. She further admitted that she filed written statement on 16-03-2018. She further admitted that a foundation was constructed in her site and by the date of laying the said foundation, the disputed wall was already constructed by A-1. That means P.Ws.1 to 3 suppressed the said fact before this court. She further admitted that the said Civil Court granted temporary injunction till disposal of main suit. She further admitted that the CMA on the said order also dismissed and she preferred Civil Revision. Though P.W.1 gave explanation in her cross examination, for the laches they need not be considered. As I discussed supra, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness to establish that the accused abused P.W.1 in filthy language and threatened her.

16. Now the evidence surfaced to the prosecution is the evidence of

Investigating Officer as PW 4 Deposed that on 05.01.2018 at about 10.30 a.m.

while he was present in Police station, Pw.1 and Lw.2 came to police station and Pw.1 submitted complaint in written, and he in turn registered the same as a case in Crime No. 13/2018 for the offence U/s.448, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and issued

FIR to all concerned officials. Ex.P2 is FIR. He examined them and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence situated in the house site of

Pw.1 and 2 in Jayaprakash Nagar, Vijayawada, where secured the presence of

Pw.2, 3 and Lw.4 and examined them and recorded their statements. He prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and the same is marked as Ex.P3.

He secured the plan of the disputed house site as well as the surveyor report 8 and the same aremarked as Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. During the course of further investigation he issued 41 (A) Cr.P.C. notice on the accused and after completion of investigation their sub Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused.

In the cross examination he clearly admitted that all the witnesses are family members of P.W.1. He further admitted that he does not know whether the accused obtained injunction against P.Ws.1.

17. A over all reading of the evidence of prosecution witnesses including the evidence of Investigating Officer, it is clear that the prosecution utterly failed to establish that the accused threatened P.W.1 and abused in filthy language. In view of the admissions made by P.W.1 in her cross examination including Ex.D-1 to D-4, it can be said that there is no trespass in to the land of P.W.1, under those circumstances, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

In the result the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offneces

U/s. 448, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/sec. 248(1)

Cr.P.C. the bail bonds found of the accused A1 and A2 remain in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated U/s. 437 (a) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 19th day of December, 2024.

IV Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada 9

Appendix of evidence

For Prosecution For Defence

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

PW1 :-Thatha Subhashini, (Defacto complainant)

P.W.2:-Ramanaiah, Father of P.W.1

P.W.3:-Sivaram Prasad, paternal uncle of P.W.1

P.W.4:-KSSN. Rao, Investigating Officer.

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex P1:- Report.

Ex.P-2:- F.I.R.

Ex.P-3:- Rough Sketch of scene of offence

Ex.P-4;- Plan of disputed house site

Ex.P-5: Surveyor report.

Exhibits marked for defence

Ex.D-1:-Certified copy of Written Statement in OS 1259/2017.

Ex.D-2:-Certified copy of Plaint in the OS 1259/2017

Ex.D-3:-Certified copy of orders in IA 1845/2017 in OS 1259.2017

Ex.D-4:-Orders in CMA 4/2019.

M.Os.Marked

Nill

IV Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada 10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

C.C No.2624 of 2018

1Offence : 05.01.2018

2Apprehensionof: --

Accused

3Commencement of Trial:25.07.2022

4Close of Trial :04.10.2024

5Judgment :19.12.2024

6Offence :U/s. 448, 509 r/w 34 of IPC

7Name of Complainant:THE STATE: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Machavaram P.S.,

Vijayawada City.

8Name of Accused:A-1. Kancharla Sushma, W/o G. Venkata

Ramana Rao, 38 years, Kamma, D.No. 54-19-

22 C/3, 3rdline, Jaya Prakash Nagar,

Vijayawada.

A-2. Kancharla Ramana @ Ganta Venkata

Ramana Rao, s/o.Srimannarayana, 32 years,

Kamma, D.No. 54-18-22, 3rd line, Jaya

Prakash Nagar, Vijayawada.

9Plea of Accused :Not Guilty

10Finding :ACQUITTAL

11Result :In the result the accused A1 and A2 are found

not guilty for the offneces U/s. 448, 509 r/w 34

of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted

U/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds found of

the accused A1 and A2 remain in force for a

period of 6 months as contemplated U/s. 437

11

(a) Cr.P.C.

12Explanation for delay :This case was taken on file against accused for

the charged offences punishable U/s. 448, 509

r/w 34 of IPC. On 29.11.2018 copies of

documents furnished to them. On 20.02.2019

accused were examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C.

On 25.07.2022 P.W.1 was examined and

Ex.P.1 was marked. On 02.02.2024 P.W.2

examined. On 27.08.2024 P.W.3 examined. On

04.10.2024 P.W.4 examined. and Exs.P2 to P5

marked. On 28.11.2024 Accused was

examined Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and

reported no defence evidence, hence, defence

was closed. Heard arguments on 03.12.2024.

On 19.12.2024 Judgment has been

pronounced. Hence the delay.

IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-

Addl. Mahila Magistrate,Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to:-

The Hon’ble II Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Vijayawada.

// True copy //

12

C.C.No. 8082/2019 ­ 1 ­ IV ACMM Court

Date: 25.06.2024 VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE-CUM-ADDL. MAHILA MAGISTRATE AT VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI U.RAM MOHAN

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA.

Tuesday this the 25 th day of June , 2024

Calendar Case No. 8082/2019

Between :

THE STATE: Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S., Vijayawada City. … Complainant

And

1. Chagantipati Upendra Kumar S/o Rajendra Prasad, 36 yrs, Rajaka FT-!, Sri Vana Durga Residency, Kaleswara Rao road, Surya Rao Pet, Vijayawada.

…...Accused

This case is coming for hearing before me on the day of 24.6.2024 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned APP for state and Sri Ch.Ajay kumar, Advocate for accused upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The sub-inspector of police, Machavaram police station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 493/2019 for the offences U/sec.

354,506 IPC.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are that - The accused is a resident of Kaleswara Rao Road, Surya Rao pet, Vijayawada.

C.C.No. 8082/2019 ­ 2 ­ IV ACMM Court

Date: 25.06.2024 VJA.

The offence took place at LIC Colony, Vijayawada. The defacto complainant is residing at Christ Raja Puram, Vijayawada. The other witnesses are her neighbours and her family members. The accused was working as driver with husband of the defacto complainant. At that time the accused requested the defacto-complainant to give Rs 2,00,000/- for his personal needs. For the last one year from the date of the complaint when the deface-complainant asking him to refund her money, the accused was postponing the same on one pretext or other. He was misbehaving with the deface-complainant and using obscene language.

While so, on 8.10.2019 at about 10.30 hours the accused visited the house of the defacto- complainant and misbehaved with her using obscene language and torn her dress stating that he will not give any amount and threatened to do anything and squeezed her neck . The said incident was witnessed by her son and others and they separated her. On 9.10.2019 at about 5.00 hours L.W.1 visited the police station and gave report.

Basing on the report of the complainant, the police registered a case in Cr. No 493/2019 U/s 354,506 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the police have visited the scene of offence and examined the material witnesses and prepared rough sketch. During further investigation, the police issued section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and after competition of investigation filed Charge sheet for the offence

U/s 354, 506 of IPC. . This court took cognizance of offences U/s 354, 506 of IPC. and on appearance of the accused, copies of documents have been furnished to him as contemplated U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

4. On further appearance the accused was examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C.

and a charges U/s 354, 506 of IPC. have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C.No. 8082/2019 ­ 3 ­ IV ACMM Court

Date: 25.06.2024 VJA.

5.In order to establish the guilt of the accused , the prosecution has examined the defacto-complainant as P.W.1, and got marked Ex.P1 .

6.After closure of the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses have been read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no defence witnesses on his behalf.

7. While addressing arguments, the learned Asst. Public Public

Prosecutor argued that, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that accused mis behaved with P.W.1 when she demanded the debt that indebted by the accused to her and abused her in filthy language. He further stated that he will not give any amount and threatened to do anything and squeezed her neck and torn her dress proclaiming that he was a rowdy sheeter and created flutter for twice or thrice. Again on 8.10.2019 he behaved the same manner in two or three occasions. Therefore, P.W.1 gave complaint.

Even though the other witnesses are not examined, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that, the accused has committed the said offence. Even though the material witness was cross-examined at length, nothing is elicited to disprove the case of the prosecution and finally prayed this court to convict the accused.

8.In reply the learned Counsel for the accused vehemently opposed the argument of the learned Asst. Public prosecutor and further argued that, only to recover the debt amount, P.W.1 gave false complaint against the accused and at the request of the police, she deposed against the accused. Therefore he requested this court to acquit the accused. Non examination of other witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Hence prayed this court to acquit the accused.

C.C.No. 8082/2019 ­ 4 ­ IV ACMM Court

Date: 25.06.2024 VJA.

9.In view of the above said pleadings, the point that arises for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt

of the accused for the offence U/sec. 354, 506 IPC,

beyond reasonable doubt?

10. Point:-

Basing on the allegations leveled against the accused in the charge sheet, the accused was examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C and charges U/s 354 506 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, Therefore, the initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused.

In that process the prosecution has examined the defacto- complainant as

P.W.1, and got marked Ex. P1.

11.P.W.1 deposed that the accused was working as a car driver for her husband. While so, in the year 2017 the accused asked her a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for his needs. P.W.1 gave the said amount for adjustment but not for interest. He did not repay the said amount. The defacto complainant waited for 6 or 7 months and he was postpone is on one pretext or other. Finally they removed him from his job. when she was demanding to repay the said amount, the accused used to come during night times in drunken state and abusing her in filthy language . He also proclaimed that he was a rowdy sheeter. Night times he created flutter for twice or trice. Again on 8.10.2019 at about 9.30 or 10.00 am., (Dasara

Festival) he came to the house of P.W.1 and abused her in filthy language.

At that time, she tried to close the main door. Then the accused forcibly trespassed into the house of P.W.1 and torn her wearing apparel and

C.C.No. 8082/2019 ­ 5 ­ IV ACMM Court

Date: 25.06.2024 VJA.

throttled and pushed PW1 on sofa and threatened her with dire consequences. On hearing her cries, the son of P.W.1 who was present in his room along with his two friends, came out and called police dialing

100. On seeing the same, the accused threatened that he would jump from 4th floor Balcony. On seeing the same the watchman and others who gathered came, to her house and rescued the accused. After some time husband of P.W.1 came. Then P.W.1 and the accused who was brought by the others, went to police station. The inspector was not available on that day. On the next day she gave complaint. Ex.P.1 is the complaint.

12.A careful reading of evidence of the P.W.1, when she demanded to return her debt amount, the accused misbehaved her and abused her in filthy language. Therefore P.W.1 gave complaint. At this juncture, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the accused is only to recover the debt amount, she gave false complaint. He further argued that, in the cross-examination PW1 clearly admitted that, at the request of police, she put her signature on a paper. She does not know anything about this case.

13.In view of the defence raised by the learned Counsel for the accused it is obvious to scrutinize the evidence of P.W.1 carefully. Before appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is obvious to go through the cross-examination of P.W.1. A careful reading of cross- examination of P.W.1, she deposed that, at about 3 years back, on one day at the request of police she put her signature on a paper. She does not know anything about the case. She further stated that the accused never degraded her at any point of time. In view of her admissions made in her cross-examination, it is clear that, P.W.1 gave false complaint, only to recover the debt amount. When she clearly stated that at the request of police she put her signature on the complaint, it is not fit case to convict

C.C.No. 8082/2019 ­ 6 ­ IV ACMM Court

Date: 25.06.2024 VJA.

the accused basing on the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1. In this case prosecution has not examined other witnesses. As admitted by P.W.1 that she does not know anything about the case. Under those circumstances, it is not fit case to convict the accused. Accordingly the accused is entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offenses

U/s. 354, 506 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated U/s. 437 (a) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 25th day of June , 2024.

Sd/- U.Ram Mohan

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

P.W.1 : D.Jyotsna ( defacto complainant) - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

Ex.P.1 : Report given by P.W.1. - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-- Nil --

Sd/-U.Ram Mohan

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA.

 IV A // True copy //

IV ACMM;VJA

C.C.No. 8082/2019 ­ 7 ­ IV ACMM Court

Date: 25.06.2024 VJA.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

C.C.No. 8082/2019

Appreh ReleaCommenc Date ofenSentence se e-Close of Offencecomplasion ofor onment ofTrial intAccuse Order BailTrial d 9.10.20199.10.201922.11.202-17.1.202424.6.2425.6.2024 1 Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S., Vijayawada City.

Name and description of accused:

1. Chagantipati Upendra Kumar S/o Rajendra Prasad, 36 yrs, Rajaka FT-1, Sri Vana Durga Residency, Kaleswara Rao road, Surya Rao Pet, Vijayawada.

Offence: U/Sec. 354 506 of IPC

Finding: Accused found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 354 & 506 of IPC Result: In the result the accused found not guilty for the offenses U/Sec. ,354, 506 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated U/s. 437 (a) Cr.P.C. Explanation for delay and remarks: This case was taken on file against accused for the charged offences punishable U/Sec. 354 & 506 of IPC. On 22.11.2021 Copies of the documents furnished to accused . On 11.1.2024 accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C for the charged offences punishable 354 & 506 of IPC against him . On 22.3.2024 P.W. 1 examined and Ex P1 marked On 24.6.2024 accused was examined Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and reported no defence evidence, hence, defence was closed. Heard arguments . On 25.6.2024 Judgment has been pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- U.Ram Mohan,

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. // True copy// // True copy //

IV ACMM;VJA Copy //

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

C.C.No. 8082/2019 ­ 8 ­ IV ACMM Court

Date: 25.06.2024 VJA.

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: U. RAM MOHAN

IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-CUM-ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024.

CALENDER CASE NO. 6710 of 2018

Between: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S.,

Vijayawada City ... Complainant

And

Chebattini Bheemarao S/o Nageswara Rao, 35 yrs, SC Mala, D.No 3-241, Nuzvid krishna district.

... Accused.

This case is coming on 2.07.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for state and after perusing the entire material on record, the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram Police station of Vijayawada

City laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 103/2018 for the offence under Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act .

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are that:

The offence took place at Jakraiah street, Badava Peta, Vijayawada.

The marriage of the accused and the defacto complainant/L.W.1

Chebattini Pragathi was performed on 9.9.2009 in the presence of elders.

After the marriage the defacto complainant joined the company of accused in her matrimonial house and lead happy marital for some period . Later, accused addicted to vices and demanding the defacto complainant to bring

additional dowry and used to harass her both physically and mentally.

Therefore the defacto complaint approacehd the police and gave complaint against the accused.

Basing on the complaint on 23.02.2018, the police have registered a case in Cr. No 103/2018 of Machavaram Police Station. During the course of investigation, L.W./4 Sub Inspector of Police served 41 (A) Cr.P.C. notice on 2 accused, investigated into and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused .

3.This Court took cognizance of the offence under sections 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act .agaisnt the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.On further appearance, the accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5 In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

6. After closure of the prosecution side evidence the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses have been read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.While addressing the arguments the learned Asst. Public prosecutor argued that the accused harassed P.W.1 for the sake of additional dowry. The accused addicted to vices like drinking alcohol, abusing her and harassed her both physically and mentally. Even though P.W.1 was cross-examined at length, nothing is elicited to disprove the case of the prosecution and finally prayed this court to convict the accused.

8.In reply the learned Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that

P.W.1 deposed in heir evidence that accused harassed her. In the cross- examination she clearly admitted that she compromised with the accused and lived happily and she has no objection to release the accused. Therefore she prayed this court to acquit the accused.

9.Heard.

3

Now the point that arises for consideration is: Whether t he

prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the

offence under Sec.498-A, IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT: Basing on the allegations levelled against the accused in the charge sheet, the accused was examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C and charges U/s 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused. In that process, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and 2.

11.In this case, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant as

P.W.1, deposed that hermarriage with accused was solmanized on 9.9.2009 at Nuzivid and it was love cum arranged marriage. Immediatly afther the marraige P.W1 joined the company of the accused at her matrimonial house in Nuzivid. Their marriage was consummated. Out of our wedlock they were blessed with two female children. They lived happily for a period of 4 years after the marriage and thereaftehr the accused started harassing her for the sake of dowry both mentally and physically. The accused was not doing any work and he used to demand money after selling their properties. For debts contracted by her husband, she received notices from creditors and in that connection, she went to police station. in the year 2018 she gave complaint to the police agaisnt her husband, in Vijayawada. Thereaftehr the matter was pacified by elders and on their advise, she again joined her husband and led marital life for 6 months. again he started harrassing her to bring money. He used to come to the house in drunken state and beating her to bring

additional amount. In the year 2021 her mother died. At that time he

harassed her to sell the property to discharge his debts .

4

12.She further deposed that the accused used to beat her and abusing her in unpariliamentary language. When she took the matter to the notice of her mother- in -law, she also threatned her and beat her and said that she will perform another marriage to her husband. The accused addicted to vices like Ganja and consuming with his friends. on one occasion he was arrested in the same crime. As she gave first birth to a female child, on that ground also the accused was harassing her. Even after the birth of 2nd child, there was no change in the attitude of the accsued. She informed the same to her parents and on their advise, the issue was placed before elders and on the advise of elders, again she joined the accused in her matrimonial house and even after that he demanded to bring Rs.2,00,000/- and at that time he used to beat her with belt. she suferred injury on her forehead. Then she came back to her parents house. After that the accused did not come to take her back as she failed to give Rs.2,00,000/-. She gave complaint finally. she also filed MC case and the court has granted maintenance. Ex.P1 is complaint and Ex.P2 is wedding Card.

13. In the cross-examination, PW1 clearly and categorically admitted that she is living with her husband i.e., the accused happily and there are no disputes between them and requested this court to acquit the accused.

14.As the offence is matrimonial offence and now the accused and

P.W.1 have compromised and living happily and the same is deposed by

PW1, it is a fit case to acquit the accused. Accoridngly the accused is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, shall remain in force for a period of 06 months, as contemplated under sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

5

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 2nd day of July, 2024.

Sd/- U.Ram Mohan Ram Mohan

IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1 Pragathu ...NIL...

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Exhibit No.Description of document

P1Signature of P.W.1 on the complaint.

P2161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

--Nil--

MATERIAL OBJECTS

...NIL... SSd/- U. Ram Mohan Sd/- U.Ram Mohan ohan IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

// True copy//

IV ACMM;VJA // True copy // 6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA

C.C.No. 6710 /2018

Commence ApprehenSentence Date ofRelease-Close of OffenceSion ofor complainton Bailment ofTrial Accused Order Trial 23.7.201827.7.201825.6.2019-21.3.20242.7.20242.7.2024

Complainant:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S., Vijayawada City.

Name and description of accused:

Chebattini Bheemarao S/o Nageswara Rao, 35 yrs, SC Mala, D.No 3-241, Nuzvid krishna district. Offence: U/Sec. 498-A of IPC. and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 498-A of IPC,.Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

Result In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offences 498-A of

IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec. 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds found of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated U/s. 437 (a) Cr.P.C.

Explanation for delay and remarks:

This case was taken on file against accused for the charged offences punishable .U/Sec. 498-A of IPC Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Copies of the documents furnished to accused 25.6.2019. On 30.8.2019. accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C for the charged offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A of

IPC, and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. against him. On 21.3.24.,P.W.1 was examined, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P2 were marked. Accused examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C and reported no defence evidence and heard arguments. On 2.7.24.

Judgment has been pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- U.Ram Mohan,

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. 10.2.// True copy//

IV ACMM;VJA