1
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
AT:GADWAL.
PRESENT: SRI.V.ESHWARAIAH,
ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GADWAL.
TUESDAY THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016.
C.C.No. 339 of 2009.
Between:
The State of A.P. Rep. by P.S.Aiza. …Complainant. AND 1.Thimmappa S/o. Late Lokanna, age: 42years,
2. Maremma W/o. Late Lokanna, age: 57years,
3. Sheshanna S/o. Late Lokanna,age:36 years, 4.Renukamma @ Renumma W/o. Thimmappa, age:Major, (A4 is added vide Crl.M.P.No.995/2015, dt.08.07.2015) All are Occ: Coolie, R/o. Medikonda village of Aiza Mandal. … Accused.
This case came before me on 21-03-2016 for final hearing in the presence of the learned APPO for the complainant and of Sri. K.Krishna Mohan Reddy counsel for all the Accused and 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, P.S.Aiza has filed charge sheet in Crime
No.80/2009 for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A, 494 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 DP
Act against the accused No.1 to 3.
2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:
That on 14.07.2009 at 19:00 hours the de-facto complainant came to
PS and gave oral statement and it was reduced in writing and that she stated that on 27.04.2002 she got married with accused No.1 in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage her parents gave ½ tula gold, 50 tula silver Kalla kadiyalu and net cash Rs.10,000/- towards dowry to her husband. Thereafter they lived happily for one year and they blessed with one daughter. Thereafter she was harassed physically and mentally for additional dowry. About 3 ½ years back after the birth of their daughter her husband poured hot oil on her right hand and caused injury by 2 alleging illicit intimacy on her. At last about 2 months back i.e., on 02.02.2009 in
Medikonda village all the accused No.1 to 3 beat her with sticks and necked out from their house and also threatened and caused injury to her left hand and sent her parents house and threatened her not to come to the house until she brings the
additional dowry. But about one month back her husband Thimmappa got married
with another women by name Renamma who is the resident of Aluru village of
Gattu Mandal. During the course of investigation the Lw6 examined and recorded the statements of Lw1, the Lw6 along with his staff proceeded to Medikonda village and there he examined and recorded the statements of Lws2 & 3 and he also visited Alluru village and examined Lw4 and recorded the statement. On 29- 07-2009 the accused A1 to A3 were arrested and sent them to judicial custody.
After completion of investigation Lw6 filed the charge sheet against the accused.
3. This court took cognizance for the offences U/s. 498-A, 324 of IPC and Sec.
3 & 4 DP Act against the accused No.1 to 3 and for the offence U/s. 494 of IPC against the accused No.1 on 11.08.2009. After appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, the copies of the documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C and when they were examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offences U/s. 498-A,324 of IPC and Sec.3 &4 DP
Act and Sec. 494 of IPC. Hence charges for aforesaid offences were framed and the contents were read over and explained to the accused in telugu. During the course of the trial the Asst. Public Prosecutor filed a petition U/s. 319 of Cr.P.C. to add the Accused No.4 as she was married by the accused No.1 vide
Crl.M.P.No.995 of 2015, dated 08.07.2015. After appearing the accused No.4 and
she was also examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 494 R/w 109 of IPC along with A1 to A3, where again all the accused denied and claimed to be tried, for the offence U/s.494 of IPC & charge is framed for the offence U/s.494 of IPC 3 against the accused No.1 & accused No4 R/w 109 against the accused No.2 &
Accused No.4.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined
PWs1toPw5 and Ex.P.1 to P.3 were marked. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined
U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the prosecution evidence appeared against the accused persons, for which all the accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defense evidence, on their behalf.
6. Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.
7. Now the point for determination is:-
1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offences punishable U/s. 498-A, 324 and Sec. 3 & 4 DP Act against the accused No.1 to 3.
2. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence punishable U/s. 494 R/w 109 of IPC against accused No.1 & 4 and accused No.2 & 3 alleged to have been abetted the accused to get second marriage.?
3.To what relief?
8. POINT No.1:-It is the simple case of the prosecution that the Pw1 was subjected mental and physical harassment by the accused No.1 to 3. The accused also demanded additional dowry from the Pw1 and her parents. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined and relied upon the oral evidence of Pws1 to
Pw5. The Pw1 Mariyamma is the de-facto complainant and victim of this case. The
Pw2 Yesanna & Pw3 Jayamma are the parents of Pw1. The Pw4 Dr.T.Ramalinga
Reddy is the medical officer who gave treatment to the Pw1. The Pw5 Chandra
Mohan is the investigation officer in this case.
4
9. In order to prove the case of the prosecution the prosecution must establish the essential ingredients of Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act i.e., the
Pw1 must be the married women and she must be subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative of her husband and the accused must demand dowry and
additional dowry from the Pw1 or her parents. The accused should voluntarily
cause hurt to Pw1 by dangerous weapons including pouring hot oil on her.
10. Coming to the evidence of Pw1 he deposed that the Accused No.1 is her husband, the Accused No.2 is her mother-in-law, and the Accused No.3 is the younger brother of accused No.1. Her marriage was performed with accused No.1 at about 12 years back at the Medikonda village. At the time of her marriage her parents have presented 50 tulas silver, ½ tula gold, and net cash of Rs.10,000/- to the accused No.1 towards dowry. After marriage one year they lead marital life without any disturbances. During the wed lock the Pw1 and the accused No.1 were blessed with a female child by name Geethamma. Her husband used to harass her by demanding additional dowry from her parents. In this regard she informed to her parents, for which her parents expressed their inability and advised her to adjust and lead marital life with Accused No.1 only and thereby she has been subjecting the harassment in the hands of Accused No.1 to 3. She specifically deposed that about 7 years back the Accused No.2 and 3 beat her with a stick on her hand due to which her hand was fractured. Thereafter she was underwent treatment for her hand for two months period and thereby she was necked out by the accused from their house. The accused No.1 also stated with her that he would get second marriage if she left the society with him. She further deposed that the accused No.1 got married with one Renukamma and was leading marital life with her. The said fact is known to her as she was staying in the same village and also her parents village is one and the same. Coming to the evidence of the parents of
Pw1 who deposed consistently by supporting the case of the Pw1 in all respects 5 without much variations. Coming to the evidence of Pw4 who gave medical treatment to the Pw1 he deposed that on 13.07.2009, he examined Pw1 on the same day and found contusion injury over the left forearm measures 3 x 2 x 1cm the said injury caused by blunt object and simple in nature. The Ex.P2 is wound certificate of Pw1.
11. It is case of the accused that soon after the marriage the Accused No.1 &
Pw1 stayed separately and there was no occasion to live the accused No.1 to 3 along with Pw1 under roof. It is further case of the accused that the Pw1 did not specify the date of the alleged injuries caused by the accused to the Pw1. When the
Pw1 was subjected physical harassment by pouring hot oil but she did not file any police report against the accused persons for such incident. It is further contention of the accused that the accused No1 has unmarried brother, when the Pw1 demanded partition of agricultural land the accused asked the Pw1 to wait till the marriage of the brother of the accused No.1 without heeding the words of the accused the Pw1 filed this false case against all the accused. It is further contended that the Pw2 & 3 deposed that the accused No1 sprinkled hot oil on the Pw1 and but the Pw1 was silent about this aspect. There was no oral or document evidence to prove the wounds inflicted by the A1 to A3 to Pw1.
12. It is further contention of the accused that there is delay of 4 months from the date of the causing injury to the Pw1 by the accused. On 02.04.2009 the alleged injury was caused and on 14.07.2009 the Pw1 reported to the police. There is delay of 3 ½ months which is unexplained by satisfactory explanation by the Pw1. It is further contended that there is no specific over tacts against the accused No.2 & 3 and also there is no evidence against the accused No.4 who is alleged to have been married as second wife by the Accused No.1.
6
13. On combined perusal of the oral evidence of Pws1 to 3 and the Ex.P1 it is clear that the Accused No.1 is the husband of the Pw1 and the Accused No.2 & 3 are the in-laws of Pw1. However the evidence of Pw1 is totally corroborating with the contents of her report in Ex.P.1 except the accused No.1 to 3 beat the Pw1 with sticks and caused fracture injury on her left hand. It is specifically deposed by the
Pw1 that the Accused No.1 always used to threaten the Pw1 stating that he wants to get second marriage for more dowry. The evidence of Pw1 with regard to the causing of hurt by the Accused No2 & 3 with a stick was specifically deposed, but interestingly she did not depose against the Accused No.1 about causing of injury neither by stick nor pouring hot oil on her. On the other hand the evidence of PW2 & 3 though specifically deposed that the accused sprinkled hot oil on the Pw1 due to which she sustained burnt injuries, which lacking the corroboration of the Pw1.
In as much as the prosecution also relied upon the evidence of medical officer to show that the Pw1 was sustained injuries. On perusal of the Ex.P2 there was no mention of name of the injured person and there was no time and date of examination. Therefore, the oral evidence of Pw1 and the medical evidence is not corroborating in any manner including the date on which the Pw1 was alleged to have been beaten by the accused. Therefore, by considering the contention of
Accused No.1 & accused No.3 for the aforesaid reasons offence the prosecution failed to establish the injuries on the Pw1 by the Accused No.1 to 3.
14. It is further noticed by this court while scrutinizing the evidence on record that the Accused No.1 never denied that at the time of marriage the parents of the
Pw1 presented 50 tulas silver, ½ gold and net cash of Rs.10,000/-and including by way of formal suggestion was put to the Pws1 to 3. This aspect itself shows the
Accused No.1 admitted he has accepted the dowry from the parents of the Pw1 and also after marriage of one year and birth of child he started demanding additional dowry and when the Pw1 informed the same to her parents her parents in turn they 7 expressed their inability. Even after the Pw1 was necked out from the house of the accused she did not approach the police immediately with a hope that there is every possibility of reunion with her in-laws house. It is specifically deposed by the Pw1 that after knowing a fact that the Accused No.1 got married the Accused
No.4 second time then only the Pw1 lost faith in the in-laws house and she knocked the doors of the justice. Under this circumstances the delay in lodging police report in matrimonial cases is quite normal, which is insignificant aspects in such cases which is acceptable. On the other hand it is not the case of the Pw1 that after reunion in the panchayat elders she filed this case at the instance of the panchayat elders and others. Therefore, the contention of the accused has no force in it and it does not fatal to the core case of the prosecution case. Just because of this technical aspect the accused cannot take advantage and cannot be a ground for acquittal. On the other hand the offence U/s.498-A of IPC is a continuing offence.
15.POINT No.2 Coming to the aspect of the second marriage between the
Accused No.1 & 4. In order to prove this aspect the prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of Pw1 to 3. The Pw1 specifically deposed that she came to know through her villagers Mekalanna, Thimmullamma about the second marriage of accused No.1 & Accused No.4. The counsel for the accused has rightly pointed out that the evidence of Pw1 to 3 is not adequate to prove the second marriage of
Accused No.1 with Accused No.4. No doubt the evidence of Pw1 to 3 is hearsay evidence with regard to the second marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.4.
According to Sec.50 of Indian Evidence Act, the opinion of the Pw1 with that
Accused No.1 and Accused No.4 are wife and husband where, the questions is
before, this court, whether accused No.1 and accused No.4 are wife and husband,
under such circumstances the relationship is not proved U/s.494 of IPC. Hence the version of Pw1 is not legally tenable. It is well settled principle of law that the hearsay evidence is not the real evidence which cannot be considered in the eye of 8 law. Therefore, this court holds that though the prosecution seriously contended that the accused No.1 & 4 married each other during the substance of first marriage with the Pw1, the prosecution failed to prove second marriage of the accused No.1 with the Accused No.4. Therefore, this court holds without any hesitation that the prosecution failed to prove the allegation of second marriage against the Accused
No.1 & 4. Hence the point is answered in favour of the accused No.1 and Accused
No.4 against the prosecution.
16. Coming to the Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act, the prosecution heavily relied upon the oral evidence of Pws1 to 3. Already this court discussed the oral evidence of Pw1 to 3 about marriage, giving dowry at the time of marriage and the learned counsel
for the accused did not deny the additional dowry the dowry received by the
Accused No.1 in the marriage. On the other hand during the cross examination the
Pw1 to 3 there was no denial about dowry and additional dowry by the accused.
According to Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act which clearly provides mere demand of additional dowry is also an offence, though not the specific quantum of amount demanded by the accused. It is pertinent to note that every demand of dowry or
additional constitute mental cruelty towards the Pw1 which clearly amounts
harassments by the accused No.1. Therefore, the demand of additional dowry by the accused No.1 to the Pw1 and her parents was successfully established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. According to Sec 8-A of Dowry Prohibition
Act, it is the burden of the accused that he has not committed any offence U/s. 3 or 4 of the Dowry probation act. On careful perusal of the evidence of the Pw1 to 3 there was no efforts put forth by the accused to disbelieve the version of the Pws1 to 3 in demand of additional dowry. Therefore, for the reasons stated above this court holds that the Pw1 was subjected mental cruelty during stay at her in-laws house so also at the parents house. It is observed by the Honble High Court of A.P, that where a married women staying with her parents to meet unlawful demand of 9 her husband during her stay at parents house is amounts to cruelty. Therefore, the evidence of Pw1 to 3 amply proved that the Pw1 was subjected cruelty by demanding additional dowry, after one year of marriage and birth of female child.
17. In order to support the contention of the accused he relied upon two judgments rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh reported in 2006 (2)Acquittal 81 wherein his lordship held that Sec 498-A R/w 34 of IPC conviction of appellants husband, his brother and wife and mother for offence under-
Complainant Pw1 got married to accused on 05.05.2001 lodged FIR on 18.10.2001 that soon after marriage accused started harassing her on account of demand for money, gold chain, and vehicle and finally in August she left the matrimonial home- Courts below convicted accused on testimony of complainant, her mother, brother and friend of brother-Revision- Omnibus allegations were made regarding demand of eary gold chain and money as dowry as not date, time and place was disclosed when such demands were made-it did not appear plausible that husband’s brother and his wife who did not live in same house would harass a plainant on account of demand of dowry- Courts below failed to notice glaring discrepancies in evidence-Investigating Officer was not examined and no independent witness in vicinity was examined - No cogent or reliable evidence to hold accused guilty for offence and conviction was liable to be set aside.
18. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkand in a case of V.P.Dhanesh Vs. State of
Jharkand reported in 2004 Crl.L.J.1036, held that ”Complaint by wife, allegation of mental and physical cruelty by husband as well as demand of dowry for him, however the said allegation of demand for dowry was made after long lapse of time viz., after a period of four years from the marriage, due to said long lapse of time, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act does not apply as at time of alleged demand husband was not bridegroom nor complainant wife is bride”. In the 10 circumstances, and established rule position and in view of the fact that marriage of Pw1 was performed with accused No.1 prior to four years from the date of complaint the ingredients of Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 also will not attract to the present case. With great respects towards, their lordships, the case on hand and facts in both case of High Court of Jharkand are totally different.
Hence this court has not considered the dictums laid down.
19. It is specifically submitted by the learned APP that according to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court rendered in, ISSA VENKATESHWARLU VS
STATE OF AP, reported in 2008(3) (Crl.) 63, AP, wherein his lordship held that the demand of dowry by her husband or his parents amounts to cruelty. It was also referred in the above stated judgment by his lordship that AIR 1988 SC 121. It was observed by his lordship that if a married women appears to stay at her parents in order to meet the illegal demand of her husband or relative of husband even stay at her parents’ house amounts to cruelty, hence it is a continuing offence.
20. In this backdrop, it is expedient to notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in RAKESH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH {(2012(2)ALT(CRL)201(SC)} while analyzing the expressions “interested witness” and related witness: has categorically held at para 12 and 13 as under:-
12. This court in Kurthik Madhar V.State of Bihar (6) (1996) I SCC 614, defined ‘interested witness’ as:
A close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animus or for some other reason.
13. Evidence of related witness can be relied upon, provided it is trustworthy. Mere relationship does not disqualify a witness, Witnesses who are related to the victim are as competent to depose the facts as any other witness. Such evidence is required to be carefully scrutinized and 11 appreciated before reaching to a conclusion on the conviction of the accused in a given case.
21. In the present case the incident took place in the year 2009, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is recorded in the year 2015. Though the memory of human being cannot be that of a mechanical process but the witnesses could depose the facts which they have remembered. The same fact was observed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in Bhawada Bhoginbhai Hirjbhai Vs. State of Gujarath, reported in AIR 1983 SC 753. It is also pertinent to note that number of witnesses examined is not the criteria. But the weight of the witnesses is looked into.
According to 134 of Indian evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. The said fact is also reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1957 SC 614. It is pertinent to note that the oral evidence of Pw1 is treated as best evidence and her parents’ evidence is second best evidence in the cases of Sec.498-A & Sec.3&4 of DP Act, because any mental harassment would be caused within four walls of the house of the accused and Pw1 only. If any unpleasant occasions or situations, took place, the Pw1 would share with close relatives and family members, not with any other persons. It is also pertinent to note that no Indian married women would depose evidence against her husband unless she was subjected harassment either mentally or physically by her husband.
Not only the husband but also relatives of husband would subject cruelty to the wife, just because of wedlock with her husband only.
22. It is the case of the prosecution that at the instigation of the accused No.2 & 3 the accused No.1 demanded additional dowry and also caused cruelty against the
Pw1. In order prove this aspect the prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of
Pw1 to 3, even the evidence of the Pw2 and 3 did reveal any specific over-tacts against the Accused No.2 and 3 for their direct or indirect involvement in causing 12 cruelty towards Pw1. But in Ex.P1 she stated all the accused beat. Therefore, if any such incidents took place, the Pw1 could have deposed the date, time and occasions, when the accused No. 2 & 3 instigated the accused No1 in respect of what issue or aspect is not deposed by none of the prosecution witnesses including the Pw1. Under those facts and circumstances, this court holds that the involvement of the Accused No. 2 & 3 neither proved nor established by the prosecution with regard to the harassment and cruelty, against the Pw1.
23. For the reasons stated above and also on careful scrutinizing the oral and documentary available on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients Section 498–A of IPC have been proved by the prosecution against the
Accused No.1 only. The allegations leveled against A2 to A4 for harassment and second marriage have not been proved by the prosecution. Hence, they are entailed for acquittal.
24. In the result, this court found the Accused No.2 & 3 are not guilty for the offences U/s, 498-A, 324 of IPC, & Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, and they are acquitted
U/s, 248(1) of Cr.P.C. This court also found the Accused No.4 is not guilty for the offence U/s. 494 of IPC and she is acquitted U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Accused
No.1 is also not guilty for the offences U/s.324, 494 of IPC, and he is acquitted
U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. But this court found the Accused No.1 is guilty for the offence U/s, 498-A of IPC, and Sec.4 of D.P.Act, Hence he is convicted U/s, 248(2) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subjected to 437- of Cr.P.C.
ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
GADWAL.
25. The Accused No.1 is heard about quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him, he prayed mercy of court stating he is having old aged mother and family 13 members and they are depending upon his income and he is coolie in bricks making and if he sent to jail, there is nobody to look after welfare of their family members. This court is not inclined to apply the provisions of P.O.Act, as the offence U/s. 498-A of IPC is a special legislation in order to protect the women from in all respect. If any lenient view is taken against the Accused No.1, the purpose of beneficiary legislation U/s.498-A of IPC punishment will be defeated.
Under the facts and circumstances, and also to meet the ends of justice the Accused
No.1 is sentenced to suffer Two Years Simple Imprisonment and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC. The Accused No.1 is also sentenced to suffer one year Simple Imprisonment and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-for the offence U/s. 4 of D.P.Act. In default of the payment said fine amount the Accused No.1 shall suffer S.I. for two months for each offence. The both sentences shall run concurrently for the offences U/s.498-A and Sec. 4 of
D.P.Act. The offence against women is proved, and when victim set the law into motion and not only the culprits be punished, but also, the victim’s rights also recognized and protected by law. Therefore this is a fit case to award compensation to the Pw1 as she was suffered by the act, attitude and the behavior of the accused.
Hence the Pw1 is awarded sum of Rs.4,000/-towards compensation U/s.357 (1) of
Cr.P.C if the fine amount paid by the Accused No.1. The accused No.1 was sent to judicial remand 27.07.2009 and released on 01.08.2009 and the total 5 days period undergone by the Accused No.1 is set off as per section 428 of Cr.P.C. The certified copy of this judgment is given to the accused on free of cost and he is apprised of his right of appeal against this judgment within limitation to the
Hon’ble District & Sessions Court, Mahabubnagar and also he are appraised about
taking legal aid counsel in preferring the appeal also.
14
Typed to the steno typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of March, 2016.
ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
GADWAL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)
FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED
PW1:Maremma. –Nil- PW2 :Yesanna. PW3 :Jayamma. PW4 :Dr.M.Ramalinga Reddy. PW5 :Chandra Mohan I.O
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED
Ex.P1: Complaint by Pw1. -Nil- Ex.P2: Wound certificate of Pw1. Ex.P3: FIR.
MATERIAL OBJECTS
FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED
-Nil- -Nil-
ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
GADWAL.
15
CALANDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT GADWAL.
C.C.NO.339 OF 2009
1. Complainant : State, SI of Police, P.S.Aiza.
2. Cr.No. & Nature of Offence : Cr.No. 80/2009 U/Sec.498-A, 494 IPC & SEC.3 & 4 DP Act.
3. Name of the accused :
1.Thimmappa S/o. Late Lokanna, age: 42years,
2. Maremma W/o. Late Lokanna, age: 57years,
3. Sheshanna S/o. Late Lokanna,age:36 years, 4.Renukamma @ Renumma W/o. Thimmappa, age:Major, (A4 is added vide Crl.M.P.No.995/2015, dt.08.07.2015) All are Occ: Coolie, R/o. Medikonda village of Aiza Mandal.
D A T E S
4. OFFENCE : U/s. 498-A, 494 IPC & SEC.3 & 4 DP Act.
5. COMPLAINT : 14.07.2009
6. APPREHSNION OF ACCUSED : 29.07.2009
7. COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL :
8. CLOSE OF TRIAL : 21.03.2016
9. JUDGMENT : 29.03.2014
10. PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty
11. SENTENCE OR ORDER : In the result, this court found the Accused No.2 & 3 are not guilty for the offences U/s, 498-A, 324 of IPC, & Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, and they are acquitted U/s, 248(1) of Cr.P.C. This court also found the Accused No.4 is not guilty for the offence U/s. 494 of IPC and she is acquitted U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Accused No.1 is also not guilty for the offences U/s.324, 494 of IPC, and he is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. But this court found the Accused No.1 is guilty for the offence U/s, 498-A of IPC, and Sec.4 of D.P.Act, Hence he is convicted U/s, 248(2) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subjected to 437- of Cr.P.C.
12. REMARKS : -Nil-
13. EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY : The case was taken on file . Accused is examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C on 04.11-2013 and prosecution evidence commenced on .2014 and closed on 21.03.2016. The prosecution did not produce the witnesses in time. On 29.03.2016 Judgment was
pronounced.
Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Gadwal Submitted to: The Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.