C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, SALUR.
Present : Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao,
Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Salur.
Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012
Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Salur Town Police Station. …Complainant. And:
1) Maturu Subba Rao, S/o Jagannadha Rao, Aged 35 years, Vysya by caste, R/o Plot No.112, Geethanjali Pride, 5th Main 3rd Cross, Mallespalay, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore-75, Karnataka State.
2) Maturu Jagannadha Rao, S/o late Latchanna, Aged 65 years, Vysya by caste, R/o Madhava Nagar Street, Near Hanuman Bazar, Berhampur, Ganjam District, Odisha State.
3) MaturuChittiraju, W/o Jagannadha Rao, Aged 60 years, Vysya by caste, R/o Madhava Nagar Street, Near Hanuman Bazar, Berhampur, Ganjam District, Odisha State. …Accused.
This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 24.04.2017 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This case arises out of Crime No.71 of 2012 of Salur Town Police Station registered against the accused for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of
Ex.P.1 Court endorsement complaint.
2.PW.8, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Salur Town Police Station, laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Court for the offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with the following averments:
3.PW.1 and A.1 are wife and husband and are residents of Bangalore in
Karnataka State, their marriage having been performed as per their caste customs and Hindu rights on 20.06.2010 at Aryavysya Kalyanamandapam, Salur. The marriage negotiations took place on 31.01.2010 in the presence of the elders, namely, PWs.3, 5, 6, 7 and another and Sri Chennuri Rama Rao (LW.5), and on the demand of the accused PW.4 agreed to pay dowry of Rs.3,20,000/-, 16 tulas gold, silver weighing 1¼ kg. worth Rs.40,000/-, 10 tulas silver glasses and other silver articles, Rs.1,00,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanam, Rs.1,00,000/- towards deposit in favour of the bride and bridegroom and Rs.15,000/- to the accused who
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 2 agreed to give 4 tulas gold ornaments to PW.1 and the same was reduced into writing and PW.4 and A.2 signed thereon and the said elders attested the same.
PWs.4 and 2 gave dowry and other presentations as per the agreement by selling their house property. After marriage PW.1 joined the society of A.1 to A.3 at
Berhampur and stayed there for about one week and during that period A.3 and sister of A.1 subjected PW.1 to harassment by uttering that her parents did not give proper presentations. One week after their marriage, A.1 and PW.1 went to
Bangalore and at that time A.3 instructed PW.1 to keep the gold ornaments at
Berhampur on the ground that there was no safety for the gold ornaments at
Bangalore. Accordingly PW.1 left the gold ornaments at Berhampur and A.2 and A.3 stayed at Bangalore till Ashadamasam and during that period A.2 and A.3 always used to abuse PW.1 and insult her parents by uttering that they did not give proper presentations to A.1. At the instigation of A.2 and A.3, A.1 also did not look after
PW.1 properly and did not provide the minimum necessities to her. That being so, in the first instance A.1 asked PW.1 not to apply for any job and asked her to be a housewife, but A.2 and A.3 used to harass PW.1 by uttering that she is not trying for any job. The accused did not allow PW.1 to use any household articles and treated as a stranger. Later, PW.1 became pregnant. A.3 did not give gold and silver ornaments to PW.1 even when PW.1 offered prayers in Sravanamasam and A.3 uttered that PW.2 should not come to Bangalore and PW.4 should bring the saresamanulu to Berhampur. A.2 and A.3 used to utter that PW.1 do not know proper English. Though the parents of PW.1 gave about Rs.6,00,000/- worth of dowry, gold ornaments and silver ornaments; A.2 and A.3 used to utter that they did not give bracelet, gold chain and valuable articles and the accused insisted PW.1 to go to the house of her parents and to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, valuable articles and gold ornaments for which PW.1 expressed her inability to do so on the ground that her parents are poor and cannot afford to pay additional dowry and articles. On that A.1 to A.3 harassed PW.1 physically and mentally and in
August, 2010 A.3 picked up a quarrel with PW.1 and caught hold of her tuft and pushed her aside without even considering that she is a pregnant woman. In
October, 2010 the accused took PW.1 to Mumbai and A.2 and A.3 and their daughters commented PW.1 as 'Goddudana' and insulted her by uttering that she is not a suitable choice to A.1. A.2 and A.3 also used to utter before the relatives stating that PW.1 did not become pregnant through A.1. In October, 2010 the
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 3 accused again picked up a quarrel with PW.1 and drove her out of their house. The request of PW.1 to allow her into the house became futile. Then PW.1 telephoned to her parents and stayed in a working Women's Hostel till PW.4 came to Bangalore.
Then PW.4 took PW.1 to the house of A.1 and requested him to live with her properly and came back to Salur. On that A.2 and A.3 uttered that PW.1 did not stay in working Women's Hostel and she went to some lodge and thus insulted her. In
December, 2010 the parents of PW.1 brought her back for delivery. A.1 did not properly treat the parents of PW.1 and did not give even single pie to PW.1 for her travelling expenses. Since then A.1 did not even telephone to PW.1 and did not provide money for minimum necessities. On 31.12.2010 A.1 sent a registered notice to PW.1 with all false and untenable allegations. On 13.03.2011 PW.1 gave birth to a premature female child. PW.1 and her parents attempted to inform about the birth of the female child to all the accused over telephone but the accused did not respond to the telephone call. On that PWs.1 and 4 wrote letters to A.1 and A.2 informing them about the birth of the female child but the accused did not care to see the child and did not make any attempt to fix the date of barasala (cradle) function. As there are no persons from the side of the accused, PW.1 along with
PWs.4, 2 and 6 went to the house of A.1 at Bangalore but A.1 abused and insulted them and closed the doors of his house and went away. A.1 did not see even the face of the female child and he also sent notice under registered post on 23.05.2011 to PW.1 threatening that he would not continue his life and take her back and he was constrained to institute appropriate legal proceedings.
4.On the basis of Ex.P.1 Court endorsement complaint, PW.8 registered a case, issued Ex.P.11-FIR and investigated into the same. During the course of investigation he examined PWs.1 to 7 and one Sri Chennuri Rama Rao (LW.5) and recorded their detailed statements. On 13.06.2012 A.2 and A.3 came to police station along with anticipatory bail and then they were released. On 08.08.2012 A.1 surrendered before this Court and he was enlarged on bail. After completion of further investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Court.
Thereby, the accused are liable for punishment under the above Sections of law.
5.Cognizance was taken by my learned predecessor for the offences under
Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused.
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 4
6.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under
Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused were examined under Section 239 of the
Cr.P.C. and they denied the offences. Charges under Section 498-A of the IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed and read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P.1 and P.11, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.
8.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied the same and reported no defence evidence but stated that they have documents to file in this case and later the same were accordingly filed.
9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, who was assisted by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record carefully including the written arguments filed on either side together with the case law relied upon.
10.It may be mentioned here that the de facto complainant engaged the service of a learned counsel in order to assist the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in this case and a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2591/2014 came to be filed seeking permission of the Court in that regard which was allowed on 18.12.2014. That is how, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant came on record and indeed assisted the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in this case.
11. Now the points that arise for determination are:
1) Whether the accused subjected PW.1 to cruelty which drove her to commit suicide or caused grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health either mentally or physically ?
2) Whether the accused caused harassment to PW.1 which coerced her or her relatives to meet their unlawful demand for any property or valuable security ?
3) Whether all the accused demanded and received from PW.1 or her parents or her other relatives any dowry ?
4) Whether all the accused demanded either PW.1 or her parents or her other relatives any dowry ?
5) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of all the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 5
6) Whether all the accused are liable for conviction and sentence for the said offences ?
POINT NOS.1 TO 5:
12.At the outset, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 498-A of the
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for better understanding of the same. Section 498-A of the IPC reads as under:
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband or 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 purpose of this section, “cruelty” means:-
(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 a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read as under:- "3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry:- (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to-
(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;
(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act:
Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 6 and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.
4. Penalty for demanding dowry:- If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:
Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months."
13.From a careful perusal of the above provisions, it is obvious that in order to make out a case for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the husband of a woman or his relative must have subjected her to cruelty which is of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, either physically or mentally; or harassment is caused to her with a view to coerce her or her relative to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. Similarly to make out a case for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the prosecution has to prove about giving or taking or abetting the giving or taking of dowry. So also, to make out a case for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused demanded directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry.
14. Coming to the evidence adduced before the Court, the evidence of PW.1, who set the criminal law into motion, reflects that on 20.06.2010 her marriage with A.1 was performed at Aryavysya Kalyanamandapam, Salur, and prior to her marriage, the marriage negotiations took place on 31.01.2010 in the presence of her father-
PW.4, A.2, PW.3-Sri Maturu Sankara Rao, Sri Chennuri Rama Rao (LW.5), and PW.7-Sri
Bojanapalli Venkata Surya Rao; and that her father-PW.4 agreed to give dowry and other presentations to A.1, namely, gold worth Rs.3.20 laksh (16 tulas), silver worth
Rs.40,000/- (1 ¼ Kgs. Silver) and plus 10 tulas of silver glasses and small silver bowl, cash of Rs.1,00,000/- adapaduchu lanchanam, cash of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deposit in the name of bride and bridegroom and cash of Rs.15,000/- while the accused agreed to give 4 tulas of gold ornaments to her and the same was reduced into writing; and that her father-PW.4, A.2, PW.3 and Sri Chennuri Rama Rao (LW.5) signed on the said written agreement while PW.7 Sri Bojanapalli Venkata Surya Rao
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 7 scribed the said agreement; and that her parents gave dowry and other presentations as per the agreement to the accused by selling house property which was standing in the name of Smt.Bojanapalli Ammajamma, who is her maternal grandmother; and that after the marriage she joined the conjugal society of A.1 along with A.2 and A.3 at Berhampur and stayed there about one week and during that period the parents of A.1 and sister of A.1 subjected her to harassment by stating that her parents did not give proper presentations and after that A.1 and
PW.1 went to Bangalore along with A.2 and A.3 and all the accused instructed her at that time to keep the gold ornaments at Berhampur on the ground that there is no safety for the gold ornaments at Bangalore; and that A.2 and A.3 stayed at
Bangalore till Ashadamasam and during that period A.2 and A.3 always used to abuse her and insulted her parents on the ground that they did not give proper presentations to A.1; and that on 17.08.2010 she came to Berhampur for
Shravanamasam for performing pooja and by that time she conceived and A.2 and
A.3 did not allow her mother (PW.2) to bring saresamanulu and asked her father (PW.4) to come alone with saresamanulu and after four days she went to the house of her parents at Salur and stayed there for three days and A.1 sent a message to her to catch Prasanthi Express at Vizianagaram and her father (PW.4) sent her to
Vizianagaram Railway Station and A.3 also accompanied upto Bangalore; and that after reaching Bangalore A.3 caught hold of her tuft and pushed her even though at that time she was pregnant and A.3 used to abuse her in filthy language but she adjusted for the same and A.1 and A.3 did not allow her to touch new articles on the ground that she is an unlucky person; and that on 01.10.2010 A.1 and A.3 started harassing her by demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and they necked out her from their house and she informed the same to her parents by standing outside the gate of her house and her parents informed the same to PW.3 who asked A.1 about the same and advised him to take back her but A.1 stated that he would not take back her without paying additional dowry; and that then she went to working Women's Hostel at J.P.Nagar in Bangalore, as prior to her marriage she took shelter in that hostel at the time when she was working in Bangalore; and that on 03.10.2010 her father (PW.4) came to Bangalore and took her to the house of the accused and requested him to allow her and her father to inside the house and the accused allowed her to come inside the house along with her father and her father stayed whole night on 03.10.2010 and he left in the early morning of 04.10.2010.
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 8
15.Her evidence further discloses that in the first week of November, 2010 all the accused took her to the house of her sister-in-law, namely, Sridevi at Mumbai and from there they went to Shirdi and they again they went back to Mumbai and at the house of her sister-in-law A.1 to A.3 and her sister-in-law abused her that she is a blind lady and she is not suitable to A.1 and they had not treated her as their family member and all the accused abused her that she did not conceive through
A.1 and they all stayed at Mumbai for about 10 days and later she along with A.1 returned to Bangalore; and that A.1 did not speak to her throughout their stay at
Mumbai and they slept in separate rooms as A.1 asked her to do so and A.2 and A.3 went to Berhampur from Mumbai and when she entered 7th month pregnancy her parents telephoned to A.2 and A.3 but they did not respond to the call of her parents and again her parents telephoned to A.1 and asked him stating that her parents would bring saresamanulu and to take back her to the house of her parents for which A.1 agreed and accordingly on 23.12.2010 her parents came to Bangalore and brought the saresamanulu and they stayed for about 2 days and her parents took her to them to their house; and that during the stay of her parents, A.1 did not speak to her parents and A.1 also advised her to take her belongings with her for which she questioned him but he did not give any reason and after one week she received a letter (Ex.P.4) through registered post from A.1 with allegations; and that
A.1 further asked her to bring the baby after delivery and on 13.03.2011 she gave birth to female child and they tried to inform the same through phone call to all the accused but they did not respond and then her junior paternal aunt, namely,
Smt.Raji informed to the elder brother of A.1, namely, Sri Ravi about the birth of the female child but the accused did not give any response upto one month and later her father (PW.4) wrote letters to A.1 and A.2 separately by informing that she gave birth to a female child and invited them to come to cradle ceremony; and that on 06.05.2011 she addressed a letter to A.1 by sending a photograph of her child but
A.1 did not respond and after 10 days i.e. on 16.05.2011 again she addressed another letter to A.1 by inviting him to come to the house of her parents to see the child but A.1 did not come to the house of her parents; and that again on 23.05.2011 she received another letter (Ex.P.5) by registered post from A.1 in which all the paragraphs of the letter except the last paragraph are similar to the previous letter which was received and the contents of the last paragraph of the second letter are that he would not accept her and would proceed further legally; and that
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 9 in the 6th month of her child she along with her parents and her child went to
Berhampur to the house of A.2 and A.3 but they were not present at that time and the elder brother of A.1 was there and her parents questioned the elder brother of
A.1 about the attitude of the accused but he stated that he has nothing to do with the matter and later she along with her parents and her child came back to Salur; and that on 03.12.2011 she along with her child and parents with one elder-PW.6 went to Bangalore and initially PW.6 went to the house of A.1 and at that time A.1 was present in the house by locking the door inside and he did not allow PW.6 to his house and PW.6 questioned about the attitude of A.1 from outside but A.1 did not give any response and then she went to the house of A.1 and on seeing her A.1 called the watchman and asked him to send her out and she warned the watchman not to touch her as she came to the house of her husband and then A.1 came out of the house and locked the house and at that time she held the hand of A.1 and requested him to allow her but he did not heed her words and pushed her aside; and that they waited upto afternoon but A.1 telephoned PW.6 and abused him as to why he brought them and then they came back to Salur; and that she filed a private complaint against A.1 to A.3 before this Court in April, 2012 and in June, 2012 she received summons in a divorce case from the Hon'ble Family Court, Bangalore, and she attended before the said Court and later she filed a transfer petition before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking transfer of the said case to the Hon'ble Family Court
at Vizianagaram, which is pending and till now the accused did not see and touch her child; and that Ex.P.1 is the private complaint filed by her; Ex.P.2 is the agreement dated 31.01.2010 between A.2 and PW.4; Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 18.05.2010 executed by her maternal grandmother;
Ex.P.4 is the registered letter dated 31.12.2010 received from A.1; Ex.P.5 is notice
dated 23.05.2011 received through registered post from A.1; Ex.P.6 is the photocopy
of letter dated 13.04.2011 written by PW.4 to A.2; Ex.P.7 is the photocopy of letter
dated 13.04.2011 written by PW.4 to A.1; Ex.P.8 is the photocopy of letter dated
06.06.2011 written by PW.1 to A.1 along with acknowledgement; Ex.P.9 is the photocopy of letter dated 16.06.2011 written by PW.1 to A.1 along with acknowledgement (Exs.P.6 to P.9 were marked subject to objection); and Ex.P.10 is the original birth certificate of the female child of PW.1 and A.1; and that police examined her and recorded her statement.
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 10
16.A lengthy cross-examination was made to PW.1 by the learned counsel for the accused. During the course of cross-examination, PW.1 categorically stated that there was no engagement ceremony took place between her and A.1 and the marriage negotiataions took place on 31.01.2010 at Nowpada in Srikakulam District and at that time she was in Bangalore and she did not personally know what transpired at the time of marriage negotiations and she did not personally see who signed on Ex.P.2 agreement; and that five months after marriage negotiations her marriage took place on 20.06.2010 and she has no brothers but has one sister who is younger to her and whose marriage was performed in February, 2011; and that her parents sold the house for the purpose of her marriage expenses for about
Rs.4.00 lakhs and at the time of her marriage her father (PW.4) worked as a Clerk and used to earn from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per month and her parents have two tiled houses and slabbed houses apart from having a vacant site and out of the said houses two tiled houses are side by side which were sold at the time of her marriage and after her marriage her father never earned about Rs.5,000/- or
Rs.10,000/- per month and the remaining immovable properties are still in the possession of her parents and her father sold the vacant site for the purpose of marriage expenses of her younger sister and one shop was given to her husband.
She however denied the suggestion that her parents never informed to the husband of her sister to register the shop in his name towards dowry. She also stated that immediately after her marriage she went to Berhampur along with A.1 on the very next day and her parents did not accompany to Berhampur and at the time of her marriage A.1 was working in Bangalore in Cognizant Technologies Solutions and for 7 days she was there in Berhampur along with A.1 and at Berhampur
Satyanarayanaswamy Vratam was also performed and that reception for her marriage was also held on that night; and that A.1 is having three sisters who were already married and out of them one sister's husband is working at Mumbai whereas the husbands of two sisters are businessmen and they are residing at
Visakhapatnam and Chetrapur in Odisha State and the sister of A.1 who is a resident of Mumbai left Berhampur on the day when they left to Bangalore or the previous day but the other sisters of A.1 were there in Berhampur even by the time they left to Bangalore; and that A.1 is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.1.50 lakhs at the time of marriage and presently A.1 is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.2.10 lakhs and she lived with A.1 in Bangalore till she came back to the house of her parents
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 11 for delivery and she along with A.1 and his parents (A.2 and A.3) went together to furniture shop and purchased the required furniture for about Rs.1.00 lakh in
Bangalore; and that she accompanied A.1 and his parents to Mumbai from
Bangalore and visited various places in Mumbai and A.1 used to take her to hospital for treatment in Bangalore when she was carrying pregnancy as per the dates suggested by the Doctor but not on time and used to purchase medicines; and that by the date of marriage A.1 and his family members are financially sound than her parents and even today they are financially sound and A.1 purchased bedroom set in Bangalore in her presence but according to his option only and during her stay in
Bangalore with A.1 he took her to Dharmashala temple but not to Manjunadha temple and A.1 engaged one servantmaid for one month only out of her stay along with him about 8 months in Bangalore and A.1 never used to talk to her during her stay in Bangalore. She however denied the suggestion that A.1 used to send SMS messages to her asking her to take dinner or tiffin during night times. She further stated that A.1 to A.3 and herself together stayed at Bangalore only for one month and A.1, A.3 and herself stayed together at Bangalore for about 5 months and A.1 never disclosed to her about the treatment being given to A.3 at Bangalore. She also denied the suggestion that A.1 used to disclose her that A.3 is being given treatment to her eyes at Manipal Hospital in Bangalore. She stated that A.1 used to insist her to do a job in private companies and asked her to go to various companies in that regard and as the accused necked out her from their house she had to go to hostel at J.P.Nagar, Bangalore, and at that time A.1 and A.3 were present who also necked out her from their house and she had not filed any document before the
Court to show that she had stayed for 3 days in the said hostel; and that either in
DVC case or in this case she had not chosen to cite the warden or the management of the said hostel as a witness and she performed poojas at the house of her in-laws on the eve of Fridays in Sravanamasam. She also denied the suggestion that A.1 purchased Titan wrist watch to her immediately she became pregnant; and that A.1 purchased Ganesh idol at her request. She further stated that she is ready to join the conjugal society of A.1 if he is willing to take her to his fold and while she was staying hostel, her father (PW.4) came to Bangalore took her to the house of A.1 and then A.1 allowed her to stay there. She also denied the suggestion that A.1 came to overbridge by car and kicked her there and took to his house. She also stated that her senior paternal uncle called A.1 over telephone and A.1 came in car to
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 12
Dambulur flyover in Bangalore and kicked her and her father and took them to his house and at that time her father had not paid any cash to A.1 and that on the next day her father left Bangalore and later for about 2½ months she stayed at
Bangalore with A.1 and she came back to the house of her parents for delivery on 25.12.2010 along with her parents who came to Bangalore to take her to their house; and that she along with her daughter and parents went to Berhampur when her child was 6 months old but at that time her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law asked her not to come to their house if she comes there they would break her leg.
She also denied the suggestion that the main reason for differences between her and A.1 was due to the attitude of her mother and due to the threatenings given by her mother to the accused; and that on the instigation of her mother she slapped
A.1 while she was staying in Bangalore.
17.The evidence of PW.1 further discloses that they did not take the elders to
Berhampur but they made attempts to take the elders to Berhampur but as the accused were scolding them in filthy language no elders dare to come to
Berhampur. She also denied the suggestion that the accused raised a dispute at
Visakhapatnam and called her and her parents to come there on three occasions and they refused to go there; and that the accused tried to come to Salur to raise a dispute against her before the elders of Aryavysya Sangam but they did not come as she and her parents threatened them with police report and police action. She also stated that she filed DVC case before this Court besides this case and she had no idea as to whether the accused herein appeared in DVC case one month after filing of the same and she had no idea as to whether the police registered the case after the appearance of the respondents in DVC No.4/2012. She denied the suggestion that she filed this case and DVC No.4/2012 after A.1 filed divorce proceedings; and that she filed the cases after receipt of notices in divorce proceedings; and that she intentionally only got the FIR registered in this case one month after the complaint was forwarded to the police with an intention to get the accused arrested after their appearance in DVC No.4/2012; and that she sent SMS message to A.1 stating that she filed criminal case with an intention to join his conjugal society. She further stated that she did not send any SMS messages after received notices from A.1 who sent two notices to her and in the first notice he wanted her to come back to Bangalore after the birth of the child and subsequently on 23.05.2011 A.1 sent another notice informing her that he is not willing to take
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 13 back her to his fold and wanted her to give divorce; and that she took elder-PW.6 to
Bangalore to the house of A.1 and she did not know as to whether PW.6 acted as elder in settling disputes but he came along with them as an elder on their behalf.
She further denied the suggestion that her father (PW.4) sent a letter to A.1 and A.2 in writing informing about the birth of her child and inviting them for cradle ceremony by sending the same by registered post with acknowledgement due with an intention to keep those documents anticipating the litigation; and that her mother (PW.2) is the brain behind the litigation and was preparing the necessary documents for the purpose of the litigation. She also stated that the terms of the agreement written at the time of marriage negotiations were implemented except the deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of herself and A.1 but her father gave a cash of Rs.1,00,000/-to A.1 with a request to deposit the same in her name and A.1 but A.1 deposited the said cash in his name alone and showed her as a nominee and she instructed her advocate at the time of drafting DVC No.4/2012 to the said effect. She further denied the suggestion that she was deposing false stating that the terms of agreement drafting at the time of marriage negotiations were implemented for the purpose of this case. She also stated that as per the terms of the said agreement her in-laws adorned her with 4 tulas of gold necklace and the same was taken by A.3. She further denied the suggestion that she was deposing false to the said effect. She also stated that A.1 saw for the first time at Bangalore at the house of her senior paternal uncle by which time she was working in Post
Office, Basavannagudi Branch at Bangalore on part-time basis and only one time
A.1 took her for sight-seeing in and around Bangalore during her stay at Bangalore and used to utter that she made her to spent for a sum of Rs.5,000/- and she had no idea as to how many SMS messages sent to A.1 after she came back to the house of her parents for delivery but she sent SMS messages only asking A.1 as to why he was not talking to her; and that A.1 took her from Bangalore to Mumbai by flight and also took her to Shirdi. She also denied the suggestion that at the instigation of her mother she made A.1 to send back his mother to Berhampur and did not allow
A.1 to look after the welfare of his parents. She further denied the suggestion that she scolded A.1 for having joined his mother in Manipal Hospital for her eye treatment; and that number of times she uttered that she had no liking for A.1 and her parents gave her in marriage to A.1 as he was receiving fat salary; and that the accused did not harass her and did not subject her to physical and mental
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 14 harassment at any time; and that the accused did not harass her and she used to send SMS messages to A.1 asking about his welfare; and that at the time when she came to Salur along with her father for delivery A.1 told her to take back her gold ornaments. She further stated that after the birth of her daughter she wrote letters (Exs.P.8 and P.9) to A.1 and PWs.5 and 6 are her relatives and PWs.4 and 2 are her parents and PW.3 is co-son-in-law of her father and is also the relative of the accused and PW.7 is her maternal uncle and one Sri Chennuri Rama Rao (LW.5) is common relative to them and the accused; and that for the harassment meted out to her at Bangalore within the four walls in the house there are no witnesses and she is an Engineering Graduate and she did not lodge any report before the
Bangalore police against the accused and she filed a private complaint before this
Court after the accused failed to attend the cradle ceremony of the child and that she got the transfer of the divorce petition filed by A.1 from Bangalore to
Vizianagaram Court by approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court and she is presently a housewife and is not working; and that in the year 2012 she worked in Ravindra
Bharathi School in Salur. She denied the suggestion that she is working in
Bhashayam School in Salur. She also stated that Hon'ble Family Court at
Vizianagaram, ordered maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to her and Rs.10,000/- to her daughter in divorce proceedings in August, 2014 and A.1 carried the matter to
Hon'ble High Court and obtained stay orders and later A.1 was directed to pay
interim maintenance as ordered by the Court; and that A.1 paid total arrears of maintenance. She denied the suggestion that she purchased the vehicle with the maintenance amount received by her and her father-PW.4 purchased vehicle in
April, 2015 on her name as her mother could not drive on her own; and that herself and her parents harassed A.1 for about 4 to 5 hours by scolding and beating him and put him to all sorts of harassment at Bangalore. She also stated that A.1 is duty bound to look after his parents. She denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged and with an intention to squeeze money from A.1 she filed this case; and that she uttered before A.1 stating that better matches came to her and she lost luxurious life by marrying A.1.
18.The evidence of PW.2, who is the mother of PW.1 reflects that the marriage of
PW.1 with A.1 was performed in the year 2010 and at the time of marriage a sum of
Rs.5,75,000/- was given as dowry to the accused, which included 16 tulas of gold worth about Rs.3,20,000/-, 1¼ Kgs. silver worth about Rs.40,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 15 towards adapaduchu katnam, Rs.1,00,000/- towards deposit in the name of both
PW.1 and A.1, and the remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- was given by way of cash to the accused; and that immediately after marriage PW.1 joined the conjugal society of A.1 at Berhampur and on the next day she called PW.1 over telephone and at that time the sister of A.1, namely, Meenakshi took the telephone and scolded her; and that one week thereafter PW.1 was taken to Bangalore by A.1 along with his parents and in Bangalore also the accused used to torture PW.1 on the ground that no proper reception was given at the time of marriage; and that the accused did not proper food to PW.1 and even the servantmaid was also removed after PW.1 joined
A.1 at Bangalore; and that on the eve of Shravanamasam PW.1 was taken to
Berhampur from Bangalore by the parents of A.1 and the parents of A.1 informed them that the father of PW.1 can come to Berhampur but she (PW.2) should not come to Berhampur. She also stated that two gold ornaments, namely, gold haram and one gold necklace, silver weighing about 1¼ Kgs. were kept at Berhampur. Her evidence further shows that later PW.1 was blessed with one female child in the year 2011 but the accused did not come to see the newly born child for about one year and they also made telephone calls to the accused through mediator PW.3 but the accused did not respond; and that she along with PW.4, PW.6, PW.1 and her child went to Bangalore when the newly born child was aged about 5 to 6 months and A.1 after seeing them locked his house and went away and they stayed there althrough the night and as A.1 did not come back to his house, they came back to Salur; and that as the accused used to demand them to pay additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and they failed to pay the same, the accused are harassing PW.1 and A.1 also demanded them to give bracelet and they did not give the same to A.1. She initially stated that police did not examine her and did not record her statement but with the permission of the Court the learned APP cross-examined PW.2 to that limited extent and then PW.2 stated that police examined her and recorded her statement.
19.During the course of cross-examination, PW.2 categorically stated that the native place of her in-laws is Kolkata and her husband has been residing at Salur for the last 26 years onwards and she is having two daughters and her father-in-law is having three sons and three daughters; and that as she was the only daughter to her parents, her parents brought her husband to Salur as an illatom son-in-law and her mother sold the property standing on her name after obtaining her (PW.2) signature and then they performed the marriage of PW.1 and the earnings of her
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 16 husband are sufficient enough for their livelihood; and that in the year 2010 A.1 told that he was earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as a salary and the accused stated at the time of marriage alliance that they are having lot of properties but she had not witnessed the same and A.1 stated that he was having a house at Bangalore but she had not seen the documents for that house; and that PW.1 and her child are residing with them under one roof and her husband is also living with them and her husband is not hale and healthy; and that A.1 is presently paying interim maintenance in a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month to PW.1 and her child on the basis of the order passed by the Hon'ble Family Court, Vizianagaram, and PW.1 studied
B.Tech Course and she along with her husband and PW.1 are engaged in conducting tuitions daily and along with those earnings they are eking out their livelihood; and that they are also looking after the welfare of the child of PW.1 and one day after the marriage the accused took away PW.1 to their house and thereafter the accused did not visit their house and as the accused did not allow them to accompany them, they did not accompany to their house immediately after the marriage; and that no one from her side was allowed to accompany the accused immediately after the marriage to their house and she did not remember as to whether she stated the said fact to the police or not; and that she visited the house of the accused at
Berhampur along with PW.1 and her child who was by then 6 months old and she along with her husband went to Bangalore when PW.1 was carrying 7th month pregnancy and at that time no disputes arose between them and the accused but the accused stated to them that A.1 was not responsible for the pregnancy of PW.1; and that she had not stated to the said fact to the police but the said fact was mentioned in the private complaint filed by PW.1 before the Court; and that A.1 sent a notice dated 31.12.2010 to PW.1 asking her to come over to Bangalore after delivery along with child and PW.1 was blessed with a female child on 13.03.2011; and that A.1 sent a notice dated 23.05.2011 asking PW.1 not to come to his house and he would settle the matter in a Court of law; and that they had not raised any dispute in that regard before the elders at Aryavysya Sangam, Salur, but they informed the same to one Sri Kota Eswra Rao of Salur with a request to speak to the accused in that regard and they had not raised any disputes before the elders at
Bangalore and that they have kept the copies of letters, postal booking receipts and acknowledgements with them carefully and there is no proof with them to show that they visited Berhampur along with PW.1 and her child when she was 6 months old
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 17 and she could not say the dates and time when the accused demanded additional dowry to PW.1 and also to them and PW.1 had not lodged any report before the police at Bangalore; and that they are ready to send PW.1 and her child to the house of the accused if security is given; and that A.1 took PW.1 in an aeroplane for sight- seeing and they had seen costly furniture at the house of A.1 at Bangalore but they had not purchased those furniture. She however denied the suggestion that the accused wanted to raise a dispute before the elders of Salur of their community but
PW.6 threatened them that if they visit Salur and raise a dispute he would file a police report and that due to that fearness the accused did not visit Salur; and that they managed the police for not registering an FIR upto one month and thereby tortured the accused. She also stated that she along with her husband (PW.4), PW.1 and her child and PW.6 visited the house of A.1 at Bangalore when the child of PW.1 was 6 months old. She further denied the suggestion that they created a galata at the house of A.1 and beat A.1; and that PW.1 also slapped at that time; and that she had not dictated A.1 that unless he listened the words of PW.1 she would see that their family members would be put at one place; and that because of her attitude,
PW.1 was dancing to her tunes and thereby the disputes arose between them and the accused; and that in order to swallow the money of A.1 they filed these false cases against the accused. She also stated that A.1 and PW.1 lived together alone at Bangalore for about one month during Ashadam and for about 6 months A.1, A.3 and PW.1 lived together under one roof at Bangalore and nearly about 20 days A.1 to A.3 and PW.1 lived under one roof at Bangalore. She also denied the suggestion that PW.1 stated to A.2 and A.3 that they are third parties to them and they should not interfere in their family affairs; and that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged; and that they filed these cases against the accused to create panic in the minds of the accused and also to separate A.1 from his parents; and that PW.1 took away the gold ornaments presented by them at the time of marriage; and that there is no need for the accused to take money from them as they are already financially sound.
20.The evidence of PW.3, who acted as an elder, discloses that the marriage of
PW.1 with A.1 was performed in the year 2010 and the marriage talks took place in his house and the dowry was fixed at Rs.5,75,000/- which included gold, silver, adapaduchu lanchanam and cash deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-; and that at that time it was decided that the said cash deposit was to be made in the name of PW.1 but it
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 18 was in fact deposited in the name of A.1 and the dowry details were reduced into writing in the form of an agreement and he along with Sri Bojanapalli Venkata
Surya Rao (PW.7) and Sri Chennuri Rama Rao (LW.5) also signed thereon; and that the family of the accused demanded PW.1 to bring additional dowry and other articles and the accused also harassed PW.1 during her pregnancy time and after delivery. He however stated that police never examined him and never recorded his statement. To that extent the learned APP sought permission to declare him as hostile and after permission was accorded, PW.3 was cross-examined by the learned
APP and PW.3 stated that he did not remember as to whether the police examined him on 15.05.2012 and record his statement.
21.During the course of cross-examination, by the learned counsel for the accused PW.3 stated that he deposed evidence before the Hon'ble Family Court at
Vizianagaram in FCOP No.103/2013 filed by A.1 herein and he had not filed any marriage negotiations agreement before the said Court in that case; and that he did not remember whether he deposed before the said Court that original agreement was with A.1 and photocopy thereof was with them; and that he did not know what happened between the family of PW.1 and the family of A.1 at Salur Town Police
Station and after the said agreement, no talks were held in his physical presence but whenever he contacted A.2 over telephone in this case he never responded to his calls and after marriage, PW.1 and A.1 put up their family at Bangalore; and that the parents of A.1 visited Bangalore to the house of PW.1 and A.1 and he did not know whether A.1 got treated his mother (A.3) at Bangalore for her ailment; and that as per the terms of the said agreement (Ex.P.2) no cash deposit was made in the name of PW.1 and he never visited Bangalore to the house of PW.1 and A.1 and he came to know that PW.1 and A.1 after their marriage visited Mumbai, Mysore and some holy places; and that when PW.1 was carrying 5th month pregnancy she was taken from Bangalore to Salur as per caste custom after offering saresamanulu. He however denied the suggestion that the said agreement was fabricated by them. He also stated that there is a practice in their community to draft an agreement at the time of marriage talks and at the time of marriage talks of his elder son, they got drafted an agreement; and that PW.1 is an Engineering Graduate by the time of marriage and she was aspiring to do job and he did not know whether A.1 tried to get employment for PW.1 after marriage at Bangalore and he also did not know whether PW.1 became upset as she did not get employment at Bangalore after
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 19 marriage. He also denied the suggestion that A.1 wrote letters to PW.1 requesting her to join his conjugal society; and that after the birth of the female child to PW.1, the parents of PW.1 did not inform the same to A.1 and his family members immediately. He also stated that the father of PW.1 is his co-brother-in-law and he had not personally witnessed the disputes between PW.1 and A.1 but he came to know through telephone. He further denied the suggestion that PW.1 never interested her mother-in-law (A.3) to stay at Bangalore. He further stated that he is related to both the parents of PW.1 and A.1 and he acted as an marriage elder in this case and in Ex.P.2 agreement pasupukunkuma was not mentioned and he is not having daughters; and that there is no recital in Ex.P.2 agreement as to who drafted it and his father and the father of A.2 are own brothers; and that the terms and conditions of Ex.P.2 agreement were complied with on the date of marriage and he attended the marriage of PW.1 and A.1 and immediately after marriage PW.1 was taken to Berhampur by the parents of A.1 but the parents of PW.1 did not accompany them; and that the parents of PW.1 raised a dispute before one Sri
Manda Srinivasa Rao (PW.6) and took him to Bangalore also in connection with the said dispute and the parents of PW.1 did not place the matter before the elders of
Aryavysya Sangam of Salur. He however denied the suggestion that he was deposing false as PW.1 and her parents are his close relations; and that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged.
22.The evidence of PW.4, who is the father of PW.1 and husband of PW.2, manifest that the marriage of PW.1 with A.1 was performed in June, 2010 at
Aryavysya Kalyanamandapam, Chinna Bazaar, Salur, and at the time of marriage a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- was given towards dowry to the accused and out of the said amount, 16 tulas of gold worth Rs.3,20,000/-; silver articles weighing about 1 ¼
Kgs. worth Rs.40,000/-; silver glass weighing about 10 tulas; a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanam and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deposit in the name of PW.1 and the remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- were given by way of cash to the accused; and that after the marriage PW.1 joined A.1 to lead conjugal life at the house of the accused at Berhampur and the accused did not allow him and his wife (PW.2) to accompany them to Berhampur at that time and A.1 and his family members did not look after PW.1 properly; and that the parents and sister of A.1 used to harass PW.1 demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and one gold bracelet from the house of her parents for which PW.1 expressed her
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 20 inability to meet their demand on the ground that her parents are poor and performed her marriage by selling house property; and that the accused used to demand PW.1 to bring additional dowry frequently and also used to harass her continuously and used to ill-treat her and one week after marriage A.1, PW.1 and the parents of A.1 went to Bangalore and the accused used to harass PW.1 and they also used to scold him (PW.4) and his wife (PW.2) in the presence of PW.1 and he came to know the same through PW.1 over phone; and that during the
Ashadamasam of the year 2010 the parents of A.1 returned back to Berhampur and at that time also A.1 alone used to harass PW.1 for one reason or the other and A.1 also used to state PW.1 that no proper respect was given at the time of marriage to them; and that during the Shravanamasam of the year 2010 PW.1 sent by A.1 to
Berhampur for pooja purposes and the parents of A.1 retained the gold and silver ornaments of PW.1 at Berhampur on the ground that there was no protection of the same at Bangalore and when PW.1 asked the parents of A.1 about her gold ornaments to wear they did not give the same to PW.1 and the parents of A.1 also harassed PW.1 at Berhampur, on the ground that she did not bring enough dowry and also did not bring gold bracelet and in October, 2010 PW.1 was necked out of the house of A.1 at Bangalore and the same was informed to him and to the marriage elders by PW.1 over telephone and the marriage elders advised PW.1 to stay at working Women's Hostel whereat she previously stayed before marriage; and that he went to Bangalore and PW.1 and A.1 came to Railway Station and took him to the house of A.1 and the marriage elders also advised A.1 to look after PW.1 properly and he returned back to Salur and at the end of October 2010 A.1, PW.1 and the parents and family members of A.1 went to Mumbai and stayed there about one week and the sisters of A.1 criticised PW.1 as she was wearing eye glasses and was not proficient in English and was not suitable alliance to A.1 and later they came back to Bangalore; and that then A.1 refrained from speaking with PW.1 and used to bring household articles and groceries if a list is prepared and given to him and in December, 2010 he along with his wife went to Bangalore to bring back PW.1 as she was carrying pregnancy and A.1 did not treat them properly; and that PW.1 was blessed with a female child on 13.03.2011 and then they informed the same to the accused but they did not come to Salur to see the child and then he along with his wife (PW.2), PW.1 and her child, PW.6 went to Bangalore but A.1 did not allow them into his house and at that time A.1 stated to PW.6 that the female child was
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 21 not born to PW.1 through him and they all came back to Salur; and that they waited for the arrival of A.1 and as A.1 did not come to their house, PW.1 filed a complaint
before the Court against the accused; and that police examined him and recorded
his statement.
23.During the course of cross-examination, PW.4 categorically stated that the parents of A.1 did not invite him and his wife for the reception arranged at their house on the eve of the marriage of A.1 with PW.1 and he did not know whether the family members of PW.3 and one Sri Chennuri Rama Rao (LW.5) boarded the same bus along with the accused immediately after marriage and got down at Tekkali and he also did not know whether the accused after reaching Berhampur performed
Satyanarayanaswamy Vratham or not; and that the sisters of A.1 are residing at
Visakhapatnam, Chatrapur, and Mumbai and he did not know whether the sisters of
A.1 left Berhampur immediately after Satyanarayanaswamy Vratham was completed; and that on 26.06.2010 A.1, PW.1 and the parents of A.1 went to
Bangalore from Berhampur as per the caste custom and he did not know whether
A.1 took his mother to Sankar Foundation Eye Hospital for treatment at Bangalore and he also did not know whether the mother of A.1 was referred to Manipal
Hospital for better treatment; and that he also did not know whether the mother of
A.1 stayed 3 days at the hospital and he did not know whether A.1 and PW.1 went to
Dharmashala temple on 02.07.2010 and in October he came to know that A.1 purchased bed room set as per the request of PW.1 on 06.07.2010 for a sum of
Rs.57,000/- and he did not know whether the mother of A.1 was again treated at
Manipal Hospital on 07.07.2010 and 08.07.2010; and that on 10.07.2010 the parents of A.1 returned from Bangalore from Berhampur owing to Ashadamasam and he knew that one servantmaid was working in the house of A.1 but he did not know when she was employed and as per the caste custom, PW.1 left Bangalore on 20.07.2010 and went to Berhampur for Shravanamasam poojas and she stayed for about 4 days at Berhampur and went back to Bangalore and he did not know whether A.1 proposed to visit Mysore along with PW.1 on 01.08.2010 but cancelled the trip as PW.1 was not feeling well and he did not know whether A.1 took PW.1 to
Srilaxmi Hospital for confirmation of pregnancy on 13.08.2010 and he did not know whether A.1 used to take PW.1 to different hospital and doctor on the eve of pregnancy; and that A.1 purchased one Titan wrist watch and presented the same to PW.1 out of affection on the eve of confirmation of pregnancy and he did not
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 22 know whether A.1 purchased a Ganesh idol and toy for the sake of PW.1 as per her wish and PW.1 desired to do job. He however denied the suggestion that immediately after engagement, A.1 collected 'resume' of PW.1 and forward the same to various companies by giving his reference; and that PW.1 gave the reference of A.1 in her resume. He also stated that prior to the marriage of PW.1, she worked in Bangalore in a post office on a casual basis and was searching for permanent employment and PW.1 was also used to request her roommates for search of permanent job to her and after marriage PW.1 expressed her intention to do job if she gets employment. He further denied the suggestion that A.1 arranged interviews for PW.1 in TCS, Wipro and other companies but PW.1 was not successful in the interviews; and that PW.1 visited the hostel in the end of September, 2010 for search of job for herself without intimation to A.1 and A.1 searched for PW.1 and at last he got a telephone call from PW.1 stating that she was at Dambulur flyover. He also stated that in October,2010 he went to Bangalore and A.1 came from his house and PW.1 came from working women's hostel to railway station and A.1 took him and PW.1 to his house and on the next day he left Bangalore and returned to Salur; and that A.1, PW.1 and the mother of A.1 went to Mumbai from Bangalore in
October, 2010 through flight but he did not know whether they travelled in flight as per the request of PW.1 by cancelling the train tickets and they went to the house of the sister of A.1 at Mumbai and he did not know whether A.1 purchased fancy dress material for PW.1 at Mumbai and he did not know whether the sister of A.1 gave saree to PW.1 as per caste custom and he did not know whether A.1 and PW.1 celebrated Diwali at the house of his sister at Mumbai and A.1 and PW.1 alone returned from Mumbai to Bangalore. He denied the suggestion that A.1 used to bring food from hotel for about 7 days to facilitate PW.1 to take rest. He also stated that they brought PW.1 back to Salur while she was carrying 7th month pregnancy in
December, 2010 and he did not know whether A.1 took PW.1 to hospital on 04.12.2010, 11.12.2010, 17.12.2010 and 22.12.2010 for treatment and he stayed 3 days at Bangalore before bringing back PW.1 to Salur and he along with his wife visited Mysore on 23.12.2010.
24.PW.4 also denied the suggestion that A.1 arranged car for their visit to
Mysore. He also stated that A.1 arranged medicines and handed over the same to
PW.1 and they left Bangalore on 25.12.2010 and thereafter in December, 2011 they visited Bangalore along with marriage elder to the house of A.1. He also denied the
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 23 suggestion that he had not visited Bangalore in the month of December, 2011; and that immediately after the birth of the female child to PW.1 they had not intimated the same to the accused; and that A.1 requested PW.1 to come back to Bangalore along with the child from May, 2011 onwards; and that in the end of April, 2011 A.1 came to Visakhapatnam and they asked him to come to Salur for seeing the child and he felt sad and went back to Bangalore; and that he had not stated to the police that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the accused by way of cash; and that he had not stated to the police that the accused did not allow him to come to
Berhampur immediately after marriage; and that he had not stated to the police that accused demanded PW.1 at Berhampur to bring additional dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/- and gold bracelet; and that he had not stated to the police that A.1 scolded him and his wife in the presence of PW.1 at Bangalore; and that he had not stated to the police that in the month of Ashadamasam A.1 questioned PW.1 on the ground that no proper respect was given to them at the time of marriage; and that he had not stated to the police that the accused harassed PW.1 at Berhampur during Shravanamasam to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, gold bracelet and pooja articles; and that he had not stated to the police that A.1 necked out PW.1 in the month of October, 2010 and PW.1 informed the same to him and to the marriage elders; and that he had not informed to the police that when they went to
Bangalore in October, 2010 A.1 did not allow them into his house; and that he had not stated to the police that in October, 2010 A.1 and his parents and sisters and their family members along with PW.1 went to Mumbai and stayed there for about one week and the sister of A.1 insulted PW.1 that she was wearing eye glasses and she has no proficiency in English and after returning from Mumbai to Bangalore A.1 was not in speaking terms with PW.1 and A.1 used to bring household articles and groceries on the basis of a list prepared by PW.1; and that in December, 2010 when he went to Bangalore A.1 did not speak with him properly and after the birth of the female child to PW.1 when he telephoned to the accused they did not answer their calls and they wrote letters to the accused in that connection; and that A.1 stated to them and to PW.6 that the female child was not born to PW.1 through him and after the birth of the female child to PW.1 they waited for the arrival of A.1 and at last
PW.1 filed complaint before the Court; and that the accused never harassed PW.1 and PW.1 filed a false complaint against the accused in order to harass them. He also stated that they did not give any reply to the letter sent by A.1 requesting PW.1
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 24 to come back to Bangalore along with child as they thought that A.1 may come and take back PW.1 and her child to Bangalore.
25.The evidence of PW.5, who also acted as an elder in this case, shows that the marriage of PW.1 was performed with A.1 in the year 2010 at Aryavysya
Dharmasatram, Salur, and he attended the said marriage; and that PW.4 informed to him that a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- was given as dowry to the accused and an agreement (Ex.P.2) was reduced into writing in the presence of elders; and that after marriage A.1 put up family at Bangalore and one year after their marriage they were blessed with a female child and the accused did not come to the house of
PW.4 to look the newly born child; and that PW.1 informed to him that the accused are harassing her and are demanding he to bring additional dowry; and that police examined him and recorded his statement.
26.During the course of cross-examination, PW.5 stated that PW.4-the father of
PW.1 is his cousin brother and prior to the marriage of PW.1 with A.1, he has no connection whatsoever with the family of the accused; and that after his marriage
PW.4 came down to Salur from Kolkata for his livelihood and PW.4 is residing in the parental house of PW.2 and after coming down to Salur, PW.4 used to work at various shops and used to earn a sum of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month and as on today PWs.1, 2 and 4 are residing under one roof; and that after he came to know about the demand of dowry by the accused to PW.1, he never asked the accused in that aspect and PW.4 orally complained before the Aryavysya Sangam against the accused but the accused did not appear before them and he knew the said fact personally but he could not say the date, month and year when PW.4 orally complained before the Aryavysya Sangam against the accused; and that he along with PW.4 went to police station and police recorded his statement. He however denied the suggestion that he did not know anything about this case and he was deposing false as PW.4 is his cousin brother. He also stated that he had not visited
Berhampur in connection with this case and he came to know that A.1 sent a notice to PW.1 but he did not know the contents thereof; and that the family of the accused is financially sound when compared to the family of PW.4 and PW.4 is not in a position to maintain PW.1 and her child; and that he did not know whether A.1 is paying interim maintenance to PW.1 or not and he also did not know whether a maintenance case is filed against A.1 or not. He however denied the suggestion that accused never demanded PW.1 to bring additional dowry and never caused any
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 25 harassment to PW.1; and that taking advantage of the financial position of the accused family a false case is filed against the accused in order to squeeze money from them by creating terror in their minds.
27.The evidence of PW.6, who also acted as a marriage elder, reflects that the marriage of PW.1 was performed with A.1 in the year, 2010 at Aryavysya
Dharmasala, Chinna Bazaar, Salur and at the time of marriage of PW.1, her parents gave dowry of Rs.5,75,000/- to the accused and about 10 month after the marriage of PW.1 she was blessed with a female child; and that after the birth of the said female child, the accused did not come to see the female child and 5 or 6 months after the birth of the said female child, he along with PWs.1, 2 and 4 with the female child went to Bangalore to the house of A.1 and knocked on the doors of the house of A.1 and then A.1 looked at them through iron grills and closed the doors and they waited there for about 1 or 2 hours but he did not open the doors and later they went to the side of the house for drinking water and in the meanwhile A.1 locked his house and went away; and that they requested him to open the doors but he stated that he did not know PW.1 and the said female child was not born through him and then they all came back to Salur; and that police examined him and recorded his statement.
28.During the course of cross-examination, PW.6 categorically stated that PW.5 is his own elder brother and PW.4 is his cousin brother; and that he did not know whether PW.4 handed over the train tickets for the journey made to Bangalore to the police or not and he stated to the police that he went to Bangalore along with
PWs.1, 2 and 4 including the female child of PW.1 but he had not given any document to the police in that regard; and that he had stated to the police that A.1 stated that the female child of PW.1 was not born through him and when they went for water A.1 locked the house and went away from his house at Bangalore; and that he did not remember the name of the apartment, street and location whereat
A.1 was residing at Bangalore. He denied the suggestion that he had not visited
Bangalore along with PWs.1, 2 and 4 including the female child of PW.1 and he was deposing false as PW.1 is his relative. He also stated that he saw A.1 at the time of marriage and he knew that A.1 is working at Bangalore but he did not know the further details of A.1 and he did not whether A.1 sent a lawyer's notice to PW.1
before filing this case and at the time of marriage he came to know that A.1 was
getting a salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month and now is getting a salary of
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 26
Rs.4,00,000/- per month; and that PWs.1, 2 and 4 are now residing under one roof and PW.4 is not having any business and is also not having any employment but he is having houses and shops and is living with their rents; and that he could not say the door numbers and assessment of the said houses and shops of PW.4 and PW.4 stated to him that A.1 is paying interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month and
PW.1 and her child are living with the said amount and PW.2 is not an employee and is housewife. He also denied the suggestion that to squeeze money from the accused he was deposing false to help PW.1 and her parents. He also stated that prior to marriage of PW.1 he has no relationship with the family of the accused and as PW.1 is presently residing at Salur they are not inviting the family of the accused for any functions at their side and except going to Bangalore, he never asked the accused about the alleged harassment to PW.1.
29.The evidence of PW.7, who also acted as an elder in this case, reveals that the marriage of PW.1 was performed with A.1 in the year 2010 and he along with
PW.3 and one Sri Chennuri Rama Rao (LW.5), acted as marriage elders in this case and the marriage was performed at Salur; and that at the time of marriage of PW.1, her parents gave dowry of Rs.5,75,000/- to the accused and after marriage A.1 took
PW.1 to Bangalore for their conjugal society; and that some time thereafter he came to know that differences arose between PW.1 and A.1 as the accused demanded
PW.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from the house of her parents and an agreement (Ex.P.2) was reduced into writing before marriage in connection with the said marriage; and that police examined him and recorded his statement.
30.During the course of cross-examination, PW.7 categorically stated that PW.1 is the daughter of his younger sister and he did not remember the contents of the agreement which was reduced into writing in the year 2010 in connection with the said marriage due to passage of time and he did not personally know the alleged demand of additional dowry made by the accused to PW.1 but he came to know the same through PW.2. He however denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged; and that he was deposing false as PW.1 is the daughter of his younger sister.
31.There remains the evidence of PW.8, who is the investigating officer in this case. His evidence demonstrates that on 14.05.2012 while he was present in the police station, he received Ex.P.1 Court endorsement petition and basing thereon he registered a case, issued Ex.P.11 FIR and investigated into the same. During the
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 27 course of investigation, immediately he secured the presence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 and examined them and recorded their detailed statements and on 15.05.2012 he secured the presence of PWs.3, 5 to 7 and one Sri Chennuri Rama Rao (LW.5) and examined them and recorded their detailed statements; and that on 13.06.2012 as per the orders dated 11.06.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.372/2012 by the Hon'ble
Judge, Special Court for the trial of cases under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act,
Vizianagaram, he enlarged A.2 and A.3 on bail after accepting the bail bonds executed by them and on 08.08.2012 as per the orders dated 31.07.2012 passed in
Criminal Petition No.5844/2012 by the Hon'ble High Court, A.1 surrendered himself
before this Court and he was enlarged on bail; and that after completion of further
investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Court.
32.During the course of cross-examination, PW.8 categorically stated that he had not conducted any counselling to the parties after receipt of the Court endorsement complaint and he had gone through the contents of Ex.P.2 agreement dated 31.01.2010 and he had not asked the witnesses as to whether the gold was given to the accused in the form of ornaments or by way of gold biscuits; and that all the witnesses stated before him that the parents of PW.1 deposited a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- in the form of FDR in the names of PW.1 and A.1 and the parents of
PW.1 gave 1¼ Kgs. of silver articles to the accused; and that he had not enquired to find out the signature of A.2 appearing on Ex.P.2 agreement but the other persons who signed on Ex.P.2 agreement stated before him that A.2 also signed thereon; and that he questioned A.2 about his signature appearing on Ex.P.2 agreement at the time when he surrendered before him for getting enlarged on bail for which he stated that the signature appearing on Ex.P.2 belonged to him. He denied the suggestion that A.2 did not agree before him about his signature appearing on
Ex.P.2 agreement. He also stated that he had visited Berhampur to the house of the accused and tried to examine them but nobody came forward to give statement
before him and he had not filed any passport or any document before the Court to
show that he visited Berhampur in this case; and that he had visited Bangalore in this case to the flat of A.1 and tried to examine neighbouring flat owners but again thereat also nobody came forward to give statement before him and he had not filed any document before the Court to shows that he visited Bangalore in this case; and that he did not remember the dates when he visited Berhampur and Bangalore in this case and he had not filed the copy of CD wherein he noted his visits to
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 28
Berhampur and Bangalore in this case; and that he had not examined one Sri Kota
Eswara Rao and PW.1 stated before him at the time of recording her statement that she received a notice with regard to restitution of conjugal rights and the same was produced before him; and that PW.1 did not state before him that divorce petition was filed by A.1 against her and he had not given notices to watchman of the apartment whereat A.1 was residing and to the warden of hostel whereat PW.1 took shelter on one occasion in Bangalore for refusing to give statement before him in this case; and that he had not secured the bus tickets or the train tickets from the parents of PW.1 for their visit to Bangalore and the witnesses did not state before him as to who drafted Ex.P.2 agreement and there was no recital therein as to that effect; and that PW.1 stated before him the month and year when the accused demanded her to bring additional dowry but she did not state the dates and his confidential enquiries at Bangalore during his visit revealed that there are lot of struggles between PW.1 and the accused and he visited Bangalore along with two of his staff members and he did not have any record claiming TA and DA for that visit.
He however denied the suggestion that he had not tried to examine any independent witness either at Berhampur or at Bangalore; and that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged; and that he registered a case against the accused for the purpose of statistics.
33.The learned APP submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 to 8 coupled with
Exs.P.1 to P.11 clearly proves the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they are charged; and that the so-called contradictions and omissions sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused in the evidence of PWs.1 to 8 are nothing but elaborations and explanations given by them but they are not certainly material and vital contradictions and omissions; and that, in fact, there are no contradictions and omissions in the entire evidence of the prosecution side; and that PW.1 is a young girl and an engineering graduate and there is nothing for her to foist a false case against the accused as she entered into wedlock with A.1 with great hopes and aspirations of her future and, in fact, she did not rope into this case the sisters of A.1 and if really PW.1 wanted to falsely implicate the accused, she would not have left the sisters of PW.1 also; and indeed that attitude on the part of
PW.1 itself clearly demonstrates that the entire case of the prosecution is true. The learned APP further submitted that the accused filed certain documents after their examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was concluded which cannot be looked
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 29 into this case and, if any reason those documents are taken into consideration, for the sake of argument, the recitals in those documents do not in any way affect the case of the prosecution and afterall what was done by the accused under the strength of those documents is only for the larger benefit of their family but not in the interest of PW.1 alone. In support of her contentions, she relied upon the following judgments:
1) STATE OF KARNATAKA v. BALAPPA [1991 CRI.L.J. 3064];
2) YADLAPATI KUTUMBA RAO v. STATE OF A.P. [2003 CRI.L.J. 4220];
3) PUSULOORI MANOHAR v. STATE OF A.P. [2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 266 (DB) (AP)];
4) GODDEGUDEM VADENNA v. STATE OF A.P. [2011 (1) ALT (Crl.) 291 (DB) (AP)]; and
5) BOLLA SIVANAGI REDDY v. STATE OF A.P [2009 (3) ALT (Crl.) 136 (AP)].
34.On the contrary, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently submitted that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged; and that a false case was foisted against them by PW.1 at the instance of her mother PW.2 in order to bring
A.1 as illatom son-in-law and also enjoy the earnings of A.1 and thereby to keep him away from his parents for which A.1 objected and, in fact, PW.2 brought her husband-PW.4 as illatom son-in-law; and that there are several contradictions and omissions in the entire evidence of the prosecution which would go to the root of the matter and which ultimately prove that the version of the prosecution is out and out false. In that process, the learned counsel sought to point out the so-called contradictions and omissions which he narrated in his written arguments which he culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel also submitted that the evidence brought on record clearly discloses that during the stay of PW.1 at Bangalore at the house of A.1, she along with the accused went to furniture shop and A.1 purchased furniture worth about 1,00,000/-; and that PW.1 accompanied A.1 and his parents to Mumbai from Bangalore and visited various places by flight; and that A.1 used to take PW.1 to hospital for treatment in
Bangalore when she was carrying pregnancy and A.1 used to purchase medicines; and that A.1 also purchased bedroom set and A.1 took PW.1 to Dharmasala temple and A.1 also engaged one maidservant; and that after engagement and before marriage, A.1 tried a job for PW.1 in various organizations; and that A.1 purchased a
Titan watch and gave it to PW.1 immediately after she became pregnant; and that
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 30 the said evidence clearly falsifies the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that all the witnesses-PWs.1 to 7 are related to each other and therefore they are interested witnesses; and that no independent witnesses were examined either from Bangalore or from Berhampur; and that PW.8 or PW.4 did not produce before the Court the train tickets in order to show that they visited either Bangalore or
Berhampur and if PW.4 kept the copies of letters (Exs.P.6 and P.7) addressed to A.1 and A.2 it is not known as to why he did not keep the train tickets if he really visited either Bangalore or Berhampur and on the other hand, the conduct of PW.4 would only reflect that he wanted to pick up quarrels from the accused in order to meet their hidden agenda. The learned counsel further submitted that in any view of the matter the evidence brought on record, which suffers from various material contradictions and vital omissions does not prove the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they are charged at any rate; and that the accused are liable to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in the interest of justice. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions:
1) STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KALKI [AIR 1981 SC 1390];
2) RAJ RANI v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) [AIR 2000 SC 3559];
3) KUPPILI SURYA RAO v. STATE OF A.P. [2004 (2) ALT (Crl.) 638 (AP)];
4) ELGATURI THIRUPATHI v. STATE [2005 (1) ALT (Crl.) 122 (AP)];
5) YALLA POTHANNA @ POTHAYYA v. STATE [2005 (1) ALT (Crl.) 392 (AP)];
6) G.K.DEVARAJULU NAIDU v. STATE [2005 (2) ALT (Crl.) 3 (AP)];
7) P.LAXMA REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. [2005 (2) ALT (Crl.) 316 (AP)];
8) M.MADHUSUDHAN RAO v. STATE [2006 (2) ALT (Crl.) 301 (AP)];
9) DHESHETTI RAJESHAM v. STATE OF A.P. [2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 148 (AP)];
10) VANUKURU VENKATESWERA RAO v. STATE [2008 (2) ALT (Crl.) 183 (AP)]; and
11) DR.SUNIL KUMAR SAMBHUDAYAL GUPTA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2011 (1) ALT (Crl.) 261 (SC)].
The learned counsel also submitted that his clients filed certain documents, namely,
1) Certificate dated 15.11.2010 issued by Telugu Brahmin Seva Sangham,
Berhampur, as token of payment of pooja fee to perform pooja in the names of A.1 and PW.1 paid by A.2; 2) Invitation for performance of pooja in pursuance of the above document on the occasion of marriage day of A.1 and PW.1 received by post
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 31 (post card from Gayatri Mandiram, Telugu Brahmin Seva Sangham, Berhampur); 3)
Inland letter sent by Gayatri Mandiram, Berhampur, inviting A.1 and PW.1 for pooja on the marriage day occasion on 20.06.2013; 4) Inland letter sent by Gayatri
Mandiram, Berhampur, inviting A.1 and PW.1 for pooja on the marriage day occasion on 20.06.2012; 5) Certified copy of deposition of RW.1 (de facto complainant herein) in FCOP No.103/2013; 6) Bill showing purchase of Titan watch to the de facto complainant (PW.1) on 26.09.2010; 7) Receipts, bills, prescriptions, reports relating to PW.1 in connection with her pregnancy; 8) Gmail letter sent by TCS to the gmail address of A.1 inviting PW.1 to attend the first stage selection process, which shows the efforts made by A.1 for employment of PW.1; and 9) Lab report and prescriptions, bills of Manipal Hospital regarding treatment of A.3 done by A.1; immediately after their examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prove that the allegations made against his clients are utterly false; and that they did not commit any offence as alleged.
35.In the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the accused narrated the contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and according to him the same are fatal to the case of the prosecution which are extracted hereunder in verbatim for better understanding of the matter:
“8. The contradictions and omissions in evidence of PW.1 is as follows: O. On 01.10.2010 A.1 and A.2 started harassing me by demanding bring
additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and they necked me out from their house.
O. A.1 stated that he would not take me back without paying additional dowry. O. All the accused also abused me that I did not conceive through A.1. O. A.1 did not speak with me during out stay at Mumbai and we slep in separate rooms as A.1 asked me to do so. O. During stay of my parents A.1 did not speak to my parents and A.1 also advised me to take my belongings with me for which I questioned him, but he did not give any reason. O. Then my junior paternal Aunt by name Smt.Raji informed to elder brother of A.1 by name Sri Ravi about the birth of female child. O. In the six month of my child I along with my parents and my child went to Berhampur to the house of A.2 and A.3 but they were not present at that time and the elder brother of A.1 was there. My parents questioned the elder brother of A.1 about the attitude of the accused, but he stated that he has nothing to do with the matter. Later I along with my parents and my child came back to Salur. O. First LW.7 went to house of A.1 and at that time A.1 was present in the house by locking door inside and he did not allow LW.7 to his house and LW.7
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 32 questioned about the attitude of A.1 from outside, but A.1 did not give any response. Then I went to house of A.1 and on seeing me, A.1 called the watchman asked him to send out. I warned watchman not to touch me as I came to my husband house. Then A.1 came out of the house and locked the house. Then I held the hand ofr A.1 and questioned him to allow, but he did not heed my word and pushed me aside. We waited upto afternoon, but A.1 telephone LW.7 and abused him as to why he brought us. O. Myself and my daughter and my parents went to Berhampur when my child was six months old, but that time my mother-in-law and sister-in-law asked me not to come to their house and if she comes there they would break her leg...... we did not take the elders to Berhampur. We made attempts to take the elders to Berhampur as the accused scolding us in filthy language, no elders date to come to Berhampur (the above two are contradictory to each other) O. As per the terms of said agreement, in in-laws adorned me with four tulas of gold necklace and the same was take by A.3.
9. Contradictions and omissions of evidence of PW.2 (mother of PW.1) O. On the next day, I called PW.1 over telephone and at that time the sister of A.1 viz., Meenakshi, too the telephone and scolded me. O. In Bangalore also, the accused sued to torture PW.1 on the ground tht no proper reception was given at the time of the marriage. O. Accused did not provide proper food to the PW.1. O. Even the servantmaid was also removed after PW.1 joined A.1 at Bangalore. O. The witness adds that two gold ornaments viz., Gold Haram and gold necklace, silver weighing 1¼ kgs. were kept at Berhampur. O. A.1 after seeing us locked his house and went away. We stayed there althrough the night and as A.1 did not come back to his house, we came back to Salur. O. A.1 also demanded us to given bracelet and we did not give the same to A.1. In Cross: - As the accused did not allow us to accompany them, we did not accompany them to their house immediately after marriage, no one from our side was allowed to accompany the accused immediately after the marriage to their house. - I visited the house of the accused at Berhampur along with PW.1 and her child who was by then six months old. - Accused stated to us that A.1 was not responsible for the pregnancy of PW.1. - The accused took money from us and deposited in Bank but I can say the particulars. In the evidence of PW.3: - It is true that there is no recital in Ex.P.2 agreement as to where at it was drafted, but it was drafted as my house at Nowpada.
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 33
In the evidence of PW.4: - A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the accused by way of cash. - Accused did not allow me to come to Berhampur immediately after the marriage. - Accused demanded PW.1 at Berhampur to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and gold bracelet. - The A.1 scolded me and my wife in the presence of PW.1 at Bangalore. - In the month of Ashadam, A.1 questioned PW.1 on the ground that no proper respect was given to them at the time of marriage. - Accused harassed PW.1 at Berhampur during Sravanamasam to bring
additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, gold bracelet and pooja articles.
- A.1 necked out PW.1 in the month of October, 2010 and PW.1 informed the same to me and to the marriage elders. - We went to Bangalore in October, 2010, A.1 did not allow us into his house. - In October, 2010, A.1 and his parents and his sisters and their family along with PW.1 went to Mumbai - …. the sister of A.1 insulted PW.1 that she wearing eye glasses and she has no fluent in English and that after returning from Mumbai to Bangalore, A.1 has no talking terms with PW.1. - In December, 2010 when I went to Bangalore, A.1 did not speak with me properly. - After the birth of female child to PW.1 when I telephoned to the accused did not answer to our calls and we wrote letter to the accused in that connection. - A.1 stated to us that LW.7 Manda Srinivasa Rao (PW.6) that female child was not born to PW.1 through him. - After the birth of female child, to PW.1, we waiter for the arrival of A.1 and at last PW.1 filed complaint before the Court. In the evidence of PW.5: - PW.4 orally complained before the Arya Vysya Sangham against the accused, but the accused did not appear before them. In the evidence of PW.6: - Later we went to the side house for drinking water and in the meanwhile, A.1 locked his house and went away we also requested him to open the doors, but he stated that he did not know PW.1 and the said female child was not born through him. In the evidence of PW.8: It is submitted that PW.8 is I.O and he over enthusiastically gave exaggerated version in his evidence as follows: - All the witness stated before me that the parents of PW.1 deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the form of F.D.R in the names of PW.1 and A.1. (But none stated). - A.2 when questioned about his signature appeared in Ex.A.2 agreement, at the time when he surrender before me for getting Bail, he stated that the signature appearing on Ex.P.2 agreement belong to him. I have not mentioned in the charge sheet that A.2 stated the said fact before me.
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 34 - I have visited Berhampur to the house of the accused.... not filed any pass port, or any document before any document to show that I visited Berhampur in this case. - I visited Bangalore to the Flat of A.1 and tried to examine neighbouring flat owners. Nobody came forward - …. I have not stated the said fact in the charge sheet. I have not filed any document before the Court to show that I visited Bangalore in this case. - I have not copy of any copy of G.D. wherein I noted my visit to Berhampur and Bangalore in this case. - My confidential enquiry at Bangalore during my visit revealed there are lot of struggles between PW.1 and the accused. - I have not stated the facts in the charge sheet. - I visited Bangalore along with two of staff members in the case. - I do not any record claiming T.A. and D.A. for that visit. - It is submitted that had the PW.8 visited Bangalore and Berhampur, he would have placed before the Court the proof in G.D. and filing of T.A. and D.A. bills. - It is further submitted that the I.O. is not expected to make enquiries confidentially and keep the same in his mind. It is to be placed on record, if really such enquiry is made.”
36.Turning to the case law relied upon by the learned APP, in STATE OF
KARNATAKA v. BALAPPA [1991 CRI.L.J. 3064] the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court while dealing with a case under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC held inter alia thus:
“21. We are now left in no doubt that the deceased committed suicide. We, however, on the basis of the cross-examination of P.W. 1 and P.W.5 and the materials placed before us are not satisfied that a case has been made out for an offence under Section 304-B, IPC. But certainly the conduct of the accused in not accepting the wife and the new born baby girl for a period of 9 months would clearly indicate that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The ill-treatment meted out to the deceased would clearly make out a case under Section 498-A, IPC. We feel that the presumption under Section 304-B, IPC has been sufficiently rebutted from the materials in the cross examination which we have referred to in the earlier part of the judgment.”
In the case on hand also, PW.1 came to the house of her parents for delivery in the last week of December, 2010 and she gave birth to a female child 13.03.2011 and since then the accused did not come to see either PW.1 or the newly born baby and the accused did not allow PW.1 along with her child to their house till now. Thus, the said case is squarely applicable to the facts of this case in all fours.
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 35
37.In YADLAPATI KUTUMBA RAO v. STATE OF A.P. [2003 CRI.L.J. 4220] our
Hon'ble High Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 498-A and 306 of the
IPC held inter alia thus:
“7. In her two dying declarations Exs.P.8 and P.13 in unambiguous words the deceased stated that the accused was suspecting her fidelity and ill- treating her saying that she did not become pregnant through him. She had also stated in her two dying declarations that the accused assaulted her physically also. After leading a married life with the deceased for about six years and after the deceased begot admittedly two children through him, if a husband starts ill-treating and harassing his wife on the suspicion that she became pregnant through somebody else and not through him, in my considered opinion, it amounts to cruelty. Explanation-A to Section 498-A makes it clear that any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman amounts to cruelty for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. …......”
Turning to the case on hand, the accused also stated to PW.1 that she did not become pregnant through A.1 and the accused started ill-treating and harassing
PW.1 right from the next day of her marriage. Thus, the law laid down in the said case is clearly applicable to this case.
38.In PUSULOORI MANOHAR v. STATE OF A.P. [2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 266 (DB) (AP)] our Hon'ble High Court while dealing with a case under Sections 302 and 498-A of the IPC held inter alia thus:
“34. However, insofar as the charge under section 498-A IPC is concerned, the testimony of P.W.1- father of the deceased, P.W.2-sister of the deceased and P.W.3-brother of the deceased would establish that at the time of the marriage Rs.70,000/- was given to the accused by way of dowry and five or six months after the marriage, the accused started harassment and ill- treating the deceased demanding additional dowry, he having got addicted to vices and he was beating the deceased. Their evidence also shows that on two or three occasions, the deceased was sent out by the accused to her parents' house and with the intervention of the elders, she was sent back to the house of the accused. No doubt, P.W.10 one of the elders, did not support the prosecution case, but P.W.11 the other mediator testified that the accused was subjecting the deceased to cruelty demanding her to bring the amount by selling lands and one year prior to the death of the deceased, a panchayat was held in the presence of himself and others and in the said panchayat, they admonished the accused and six months later, there was another panchayat, as the accused continued to harass the deceased and the accused was again admonished. It is also in his evidence that there was third panchayat three months later at Palvoncha. P.W.11 is an independent witness
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 36 and his testimony regarding the panchayats held by him and others and admonishing the accused for subjecting her to ill treatment and harassment, and demanding additional dowry, is not discredited in any manner. The evidence on record clearly established the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused recorded by the trial Court for the said offence and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial Court for the said offence, are confirmed.”
Coming back to the case on hand, the evidence on record clearly demonstrates that the accused abused, harassed, ill-treated and demanded PW.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from the house of her parents. The law laid down in the aforestated case is equally applicable to the case on hand.
39.In GODDEGUDEM VADENNA v. STATE OF A.P. [2011 (1) ALT (Crl.) 291 (DB) (AP)] our Hon'ble High Court while dealing with a case under Sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC held inter alia thus:
“22. So far as the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is concerned, P.Ws.1 to 3 have categorically deposed that for about four months, the accused No.1 and deceased lived happily and thereafter A.1 started demanding the deceased to bring additional dowry. There cannot be any dispute that harassment of wife by the husband coercing her to meet unlawful demand is a cruelty within the meaning of Clause (b) of the explanation to Section 498A I.P.C. In the earliest version, P.W.1 has categorically stated in Ex.P.1, that the accused No.1 started harassing the deceased to bring additional dowry since four months after the marriage.”
In the case on hand also, A.1 and PW.1 lived together for about six months and during the said period of six months the accused harassed and demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from the house of her parents. Thereafter,
PW.1 came to the house of her parents and gave birth to a female child and since then the accused did not take her back to their house. Hence, the said case is squarely applicable to the facts of this case.
40.In BOLLA SIVANAGI REDDY v. STATE OF A.P [2009 (3) ALT (Crl.) 136 (AP)] our Hon'ble High Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 498-A and 307 of the IPC held inter alia thus:
“13.The evidence of PW.1 appears to be corroborated by the evidence of PW.2 and contents of Ex.P1 with regard to harassment of the accused demanding her to secure money from her parents. Therefore, the evidence of PW. 1 proves that the accused has harassed her and forced her to secure money from her parents. It is settled law that a part of the evidence of a
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 37 witness can be accepted while rejecting other part of the evidence. Therefore, even if the version of PW.1 is disbelieved in respect of offence under Section 307 IPC, it does not come in the way of believing her version in respect of offence under Section 498A IPC. …......”
In the case on hand also, the evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of
PWs.2 to 8 coupled with the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.11 with regard to the harassment of the accused demanding her to bring additional dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/- from the house of her parents. Thus, the said case is also applicable to the case on hand.
41. That being so, reverting to the case law relied upon by the learned counsel
for the accused in STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KALKI [AIR 1981 SC 1390] (referred
to supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing about appreciation of evidence inter alia held thus:
“6.......... In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. As indicated above we have not found any material discrepancies in the evidence of the P.W.1.”
In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the effect of discrepancies forthcoming from the evidence of witnesses however honest and truthful they may be. In fact, the legal proposition laid down is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand and if the evidence brought on record in the present case is tested on the touchstone of the said legal proposition, the so-called contradictions and omissions sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel loses its significance.
42.In RAJ RANI v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) [AIR 2000 SC 3559] the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case under Section 498-A of the IPC held inter alia thus” “5.It is not enough that the deceased felt those words hurting, it must be subjected to judicial scrutiny and the Court must be in a position to hold that those words were sufficiently hurting enough as to amount to "cruelty" falling within the parameters fixed in S.498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The area remains grey and vague. Not a single word said to have been spoken to by the appellant as against the deceased had been put on record by the
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 38 deceased in the suicide note in spite of the fact that the said note is a very lengthy letter running into several paragraphs. .........”
The said case came to be disposed of having regard to the facts and circusmtances involved in that case whereas the facts in the present case are totally different and therefore the said case is applicable to the case on hand.
43.In KUPPILI SURYA RAO v. STATE OF A.P. [2004 (2) ALT (Crl.) 638 (AP)] our Hon'ble High Court dealing with a case under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC held inter alia thus:
“19.The deceased and also the accused are relatives even prior to their marriage. The accused is the maternal uncle of the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is just vague about harassment. The question of illicit intimacy and the accused eloping with a lady cannot be believed since even the name of the lady was not spoken to by any of the close relatives P.Ws.1 and 2. Whereas the father of the accused who is also incidentally father of P.W.2 and grandfather of Revati and great grandfather of Jyothi, specifically deposed that there were no such disputes. Except this evidence, there is no other evidence forthcoming on behalf of the prosecution. .........”
The said case also came to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances involved therein and thus the said case is not applicable to the case on hand.
44.In ELGATURI THIRUPATHI v. STATE OF A.P. [2005 (1) ALT (Crl.) 122 (AP)] our Hon'ble High Court again dealing with a case under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC held inter alia thus:
“30.As already referred to supra, P.W. 1 had not specified any details. P.W. 2 no doubt had given certain particulars and except this interested testimony of these witnesses, no other evidence is available on record. It is also pertinent to note that an acquittal was recorded as against the other accused in relation to the charge under Section 498-A IPC. These witnesses deposed about the harassment by all the accused. When the version of the prosecution had been disbelieved and findings had been recorded in relation to the other accused relating to this charge, this Court is of the considered opinion that some benefit may have to be extended to the present appellant- Al too. .........”
The said case was decided having regard to the facts and circumstances involved therein and thus the said case is not applicable to the case on hand.
45.In YALLA POTHANNA @ POTHAYYA v. STATE [2005 (1) ALT (Crl.) 392 (AP)] our Hon'ble High Court yet again while dealing with a case under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC held inter alia thus:
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 39 “22.......... It is admitted by P.W. 1 that in relation to the payment of Rs.10,000/- and payment of additional dowry of Rs. 5,000/- had not been specified in Ex. P-1. When that being so, on mere submissions made by the
Additional Public Prosecutor at the stage of appeal, unless there is clear
evidence on record to sustain the charge, conviction cannot be recorded under Section 498-A IPC also.”
The said case came to be disposed of in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances involved therein and thus the said case is not applicable to the case on hand.
46.In G.K.DEVARAJULU NAIDU v. STATE [2005 (2) ALT (Crl.) 3 (AP)] our
Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:
“10.......... The evidence of PW-7 is available, but in cross-examination there is a clear admission that Ex. P-1 was drafted by him and he is having grievance against the appellant/A-1 since he married the deceased belonging to his caste. In the light of this evidence on the simple statement made by this witness it cannot be said that the harassment had been proved. One of the alleged mediators who had approached in this regard, according to PW-1, had not been examined and the other mediator though examined was declared hostile. Even otherwise that is not direct evidence and what was stated is that they had approached to demand some amount from the family members of the deceased. Except this evidence, the other evidence is as vague as vagueness can be and on the strength of such vague evidence, the conviction under Section 498-A I.P.C. cannot be sustained even drawing into aid the presumption available under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.” The said case was decided having regard to the facts and circumstances involved therein and thus the said case is not applicable to the case on hand.
47.In P.LAXMA REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. [2005 (2) ALT (Crl.) 316 (AP)] our
Hon'ble High Court while dealing with a case under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the
IPC held inter alia thus:
“17......... There is no convincing evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to harassment soon before her death. Once the prosecution failed to prove harassment soon before her death, the appellant/A-1 is entitled to acquittal for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C.”
The said case came to be adjudicated in the light of the facts and circumstances involved therein whereas facts of the present case are totally different and thus the said case is not applicable to the case on hand.
48.In M.MADHUSUDHAN RAO v. STATE [2006 (2) ALT (Crl.) 301 (AP)] our
Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 40 “31.......... Therefore, unless there is positive evidence in respect of the alleged willful conduct on the part of the husband, which is of such a nature so as to drive the woman to commit suicide, it cannot be said that the prosecution succeeded to prove that Clause (a) of the explanation given under Section 498-A, IPC attracts. In the instant case, as there is no independent evidence and as the relations between PW. 1 and her husband are very much strained, I consider it not safe to place reliance on the interested and solitary testimony of PW. 1 and her father PW.3. Moreover, the fact that the appellant/A-1 purchased the lorry in the name of PW. 1, investing his own money and also paid installments, indicates that the appellant/A-1 had no ill-will or animosity against his wife-PW. 1. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I am of the considered view that the learned trial Judge ought to have given benefit of doubt to the appellant/ A-1 also while acquitting A-2 to A-4. Thus, this point is found in favour of the appellant/A-1.”
The said case came to be disposed of in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances involved therein and thus the said case is not applicable to the case on hand.
49.In DHESHETTI RAJESHAM v. STATE OF A.P. [2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 148 (AP)] our Hon'ble High Court while dealing with a case under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC held inter alia thus:
“20.In the present case also, none of the witnesses stated that they have any personal knowledge about the harassment of beatings caused by A. 1. No role has been attributed to a. 2, the mother of A. 1 except a general statement that the accused were harassing the deceased. The statements said to be made by the deceased to P.Ws.1 to 3 were long prior to the death of the deceased and that is not the information about the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased. Therefore, such statements do not come within the purview of Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence act. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on such statement.
The said case was decided having regard to the facts and circumstances involved therein and thus the said case is not applicable to the case on hand.
50.In VANUKURU VENKATESWERA RAO v. STATE [2008 (2) ALT (Crl.) 183 (AP)] our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:
“11.......... They have simply stated that the accused used harsh words. Therefore, even assuming for a moment that appellant beat PW.1 such beating would not come within the meaning of cruelty. .........”
The said case came to be disposed of in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances involved therein and thus the said case is not applicable to the case on hand.
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 41
51.InDR.SUNIL KUMAR SAMBHUDAYAL GUPTA v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [2011 (1) ALT (Crl.) 261 (SC)] the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with appreciation of evidence held inter alia thus:
“15.Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence. (Vide: State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh, (2009) 11 SCC 106.).”
The said case was adjudicated on the basis of the facts and circumstances involved therein and thus the said case is not applicable to the case on hand.
52.At this stage, it is also relevant to refer the following judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court which are useful for the purpose of adjudication of this case
effectively.In BHASKAR LAL SHARMA v. MONICA [2009 (10) SCC 604] the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while inter alia dealing with the provisions of Section 498-A
of the IPC held illuminatingly thus:
“Thus, the essential ingredients of the aforementioned provisions are:
1. A woman must be married.
2. She must be subjected to cruelty.
3. Cruelty must be of the nature of:
(i) any willful conduct as was likely to drive such woman: a. to commit suicide; b. cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, either mental or physical;
(ii) harassment of such woman, (1) with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security, (2) or on account of failure of such woman or by any of her relation to meet the unlawful demand,
(iii) woman was subjected to such cruelty by: (1) husband of that woman, or (2) any relative of the husband. For constitution an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, therefore, the ingredients thereof must be held to be existing.”
53.In STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. SANTOSH KUMAR [AIR 2009 SCW 6177] the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 among other things held thus:
“39.Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty for giving and taking of dowry. The scope and ambit of section 3 is different from the scope and ambit of section 304-B IPC.
40.Section 4 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty for demanding dowry, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be. The object of Section 4 is to discourage the very demand for property or valuable security as consideration for a
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 42 marriage between the parties thereto. Section 4 prohibits the demand for 'giving' property or valuable security which demand, if satisfied, would constitute an offence under Section 3 read with Section 2 of the Act.
Thus, the ambit and scope of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act is different from the ambit and scope of section 498- A IPC.”
54.Keeping the above precedential jurisprudence in mind and turning to the evidence brought on record in the case on hand, the evidence of PW.1, who is the legally wedded wife of PW.1, clearly demonstrates that her marriage with A.1 was performed on 20.06.2010 and prior to her marriage the marriage negotiations took place on 31.01.2010 in the presence of her father-PW.4, A.2 and PWs.3, 7 and one
Sri Chennuri Rama Rao (LW.5), and in that negotiations her father-PW.4 agreed to give dowry and other presentations which was reduced into writing vide Ex.P.2 agreement dated 31.01.2010 which was scribed by PW.7 while the said persons signed thereon; and that accordingly the dowry and other presentations as agreed were given to the accused at the time of marriage by her parents; and that immediately after marriage she joined the conjugal society of A.1 along with A.2 and
A.3 at Berhampur and stayed there for about one week and during that period the parents of A.1 and sister of A.1 subjected her to harassment on the ground that her parents did not give proper presentations and after that A.1 and PW.1 went to
Bangalore along with A.2 and A.3 who stayed there at Bangalore till Ashadamasam during that period A.2 and A.3 used to abuse her and insulted her parents on the premise that they did not give proper presentations to A.1; and that on 17.08.2010 she came to Berhampur for Shravanamasam for performing pooja and by that time she conceived and A.2 and A.3 did not allow her mother-PW.2 to bring saresamanulu and asked her father-PW.4 to come alone with saresamanulu; and that later she came to Salur and her father-PW.4 dropped at Vizianagaram railway station to catch
Prasanthi express to accompany A.3 upto Bangalore; and that after reaching
Bangalore A.3 caught hold of her tuft and pushed her without considering that she was pregnant and A.3 also abused her in filthy language but PW.1 adjusted for the same and A.1 and A.3 did not allow her to touch new articles on the ground that she is an unlucky person; and that on 01.10.2010 A.1 and A.3 started harassing her by demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and they necked out her from their house and thus she informed the same to her parents who informed the same to PW.3 who in turn advised A.1 to take back PW.1 but A.1 stated that he would not take back her without paying additional dowry and then PW.1 went to
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 43 working women's hostel at J.P.Nagar, Bangalore, as prior to her marriage she used to take shelter there; and that in the first week of November, 2010 all the accused took her to the house of her sister-in-law in Mumbai whereat A.1 to A.3 and her sister-in-law abused her stating that she is a blind lady and she is not suitable to A.1 and they had not treated her as their family member and all the accused abused her on the ground that she did not conceive through A.1; and that on 23.12.2010 her parents came to Bangalore and brought saresamanulu and at that time A.1 did not speak to her parents and A.1 also advised her to take her belongings with her and one week thereafter she received a letter (Ex.P.4) by registered post from A.1 allegations; and that A.1 further asked her to bring the baby after delivery and on 13.03.2011 she gave birth to a female child and they tried to inform the same through phone call to all the accused but they did not respond and then the junior paternal aunt of PW.1, namely, Smt.Raji informed to the elder brother of A.1, namely, Sri Ravi about the birth of the female child but the accused did not give any response upto one month and later her father-PW.4 wrote letters to A.1 and A.2 separately informing them about the birth of the said female child and invited them to come to cradle ceremony; and that on 06.05.2011 PW.1 addressed a letter (Ex.P.8) to A.1 by sending a photograph of her child but A.1 did not respond thereto and 10 days thereafter i.e. 16.05.2011 again PW.1 addressed another letter (Ex.P.9) to A.1 inviting him to come to see the child but A.1 did not come to see the child; and that on 23.05.2011 PW.1 received another letter (Ex.P.5) by registered post from A.1 wherein it was inter alia stated by A.1 that he could not continue with her in life and would not take her back accept her and would proceed against her legally; and that in the 6th month of her child she along with her parents and her child went to Berhampur to the house of A.2 and A.3 but they were not present at that time and the elder brother of A.1 was there and her parents questioned him about the attitude of A.1 for which he stated that he has nothing to do with the matter; and that on 03.12.2011 she along with her child, her parents and PW.6 together went to Bangalore and initially PW.6 went to the house of A.1 and at that time A.1 was present in the house and he did not allow PW.6 to his house for which
PW.6 questioned the attitude of A.1 but A.1 did not give any response and then PW.1 to the house of A.1 and on seeing her A.1 called the watchman and asked him to send her out and then A.1 came out of the house and she held the hand of A.1 and requested him to allow her but he did not heed her words and pushed her aside and
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 44 they waited upto afternoon but A.1 telephoned to PW.6 and abused him as to why he brought them and they came back to Salur; and that in April, 2012 she filed a private complaint (Ex.P.1) before this Court; and that in June, 2012 she received summons in a divorce case from the Hon'ble Family Court, Bangalore, and she attended before the said Court and later she filed a transfer petition before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking transfer of the said case to the family Court at
Vizianagaram; and that till now the accused did not see and touch her child.
55.During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, she categorically stated that her parents sold the house property (Ex.P.3) for the purpose of her marriage expenses for about Rs.4,00,000/- and her father used to earn a sum of Rs.1,000/- to
Rs.2,000/- per month and her parents are having two tiled houses and slabbed houses apart from having a vacant site and her father sold vacant site for the purpose of marriage expenses of her younger sister; and that A.1 engaged one servantmaid for one month only out of her stay along with him about 8 months in
Bangalore and A.1 used to insist her to do a job in private companies. She also denied the suggestion that A.1 purchased Titan wrist watch to her immediately after she became pregnant; and that A.1 purchased Ganesh idol at her request. She however stated that she is ready to join conjugal society of A.1 if he is willing to take her to his fold. She also denied various suggestions put to her.
56.The evidence of PW.2, who is the mother of PW.1 shows that at the time of marriage of PW.1 with A.1, the agreed dowry and presentations as reflected in Ex.P.2 were given; and that immediately after marriage PW.1 joined the conjugal society of
A.1 at Berhampur and on the next day she called to PW.1 over telephone and at that time the sister of A.1 took the telephone and scolded her; and that one week thereafter PW.1 was taken to Bangalore by A.1 along with his parents and in
Bangalore also the accused used to torture PW.1 on the ground that no proper reception was given at the time of marriage and the accused did not provide proper food to PW.1; and that on the eve of Shravanamasam PW.1 was taken to Berhampur from Bangalore by the parents of A.1 who informed them that PW.4 can come to
Berhampur but PW.2 should not come to Berhampur; and that PW.1 blessed with one female child in the year 2011 but the accused did not come to see the newly born child; and that the accused used to demand them to pay additional dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/- and they failed to pay the same, the accused are harassing PW.1 and
A.1 also demanded them to give bracelet but they could not give the same to A.1.
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 45
During the course of cross-examination of PW.2, she categorically stated that her mother sold the property standing on her name after obtaining her (PW.2) signature and then they performed the marriage of PW.1; and that they are ready to send
PW.1 and her child to the house of the accused. She also denied various suggestions put to her.
57.The evidence of PW.3, who acted as an elder at the time of marriage negotiations, shows that marriage talks took place in his house and Ex.P.2 agreement was reduced into writing and he along with A.2, PW.4, PW.7 and Sri
Chennuri Rama Rao (LW.5) signed thereon; and that the family of the accused demanded PW.1 to bring additional dowry and other articles and the accused used to harass PW.1 during her pregnancy time and after delivery. Though initially he deposed that police never examined and never recorded his statement after cross- examination to that extent by the learned APP with the permission of the Court he stated that he did not remember as to whether police examined him on 15.05.2012 and recorded his statement. It may be noticed here that he came into witness box on 28.07.2016 and at that time he was 64 years old and therefore it is quite possible for him to forget the same and at any rate it does not affect the evidence deposed by him. During the course of cross-examination, he categorically stated that he is related to both the parents of PW.1 and A.1 and therefore there is no need for him to speak falsehood before the Court. He also denied various suggestions put to him.
58.The evidence of PW.4, who is the father of PW.1, is almost similar to that of
PWs.1 and 2 as discussed hereinabove. He categorically stated about the harassment meted out to PW.1 by the accused and also demands made to PW.1 by the accused about additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and gold bracelet. He also deposed that after birth of female child to PW.1 the accused did not come to see the newly born child; and that he addressed Exs.P.6 and P.7 letter to A.2 and A.1 respectively. He also deposed about his visits to Berhampur and Bangalore along with PW.1, her child, PW.2 and PW.6. During the course of cross-examination of
PW.4, he categorically stated that the parents of A.1 did not invite him and his wife for reception arranged at their house immediately after the marriage; and that A.1 stated to him and PW6 that the female child was not born to PW.1 through him. He also denied various suggestions put to him.
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 46
59.The evidence of PW.5 who acted as an elder in this case, manifests that he attended the marriage and PW.4 informed to him that as per Ex.P.2 agreement he gave dowry and other presentations to the accused; and that one year after the marriage PW.1 was blessed with a female child and the accused did not come to the house of PW.4 to look the newly born child; and that PW.1 informed to him that accused are harassing and are demanding her to bring additional dowry. During the course of cross-examination of PW.5, he stated that PW.4 orally complained before the Aryavysya Sangam against the accused. He also denied various suggestions put to him.
60.The evidence of PW.6, who also acted as an elder in this case, reveals that
PW.1 was blessed with a female child and after birth of the said female child the accused did not come to see her and 5 or 6 months thereafter he along with PWs.1, 2 and 4 with the female child and went to Bangalore to the house of A.1 but A.1 did not allow them to his house and thereafter they came back. During the course of cross-examination of PW.6, he stated about his visit to Bangalore along with PWs.1, 2 and 4 including the female child of PW.1. He however denied various suggestions put to him.
61. The evidence of PW.7 who also acted as and elder at the time of marriage negotiations and who scribed Ex.P.2, shows that after marriage A.1 took PW.1 to
Bangalore for their conjugal society and after some time he came to know that differences arose between PW.1 and A.1 as the accused demanded PW.1 to bring
additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from the house of her parents. During the course
of cross-examination of PW.7, he denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged.
62.The evidence of PW.8, who is the investigating officer in this case, clearly demonstrates that he registered a case on the basis of Ex.P.1 forwarded private complaint received from the Court, issued Ex.P.11 FIR and investigated into the same; and that he examined and recorded the detailed statements of the witnesses, and after completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused
before the Court. During the course of cross-examination, he categorically stated
that he visisted Berhampur and Bangalore and tried to examine neighbouring owners but nobody came forward to give statement before him and therefore he came back; and that he had not filed train tickets or any record claiming TA and DA for those visits along with his staff. It may be mentioned here that non-filing of the
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 47 train tickets or the record pertaining to TA, DA by PW.8 is not a fatal to the case of the prosecution as PW.8 is an investigating officer and there is nothing for him to speak falsehood before the Court. Furthermore, no ill-will or motive or animosity is suggested to PW.8 during the course of cross-examination.
63.Although lengthy cross-examinations were made to PWs.1 to 8 by the learned counsel for the accused, as narrated hereinbefore, nothing worthwhile was elicited from them in order to disbelieve their testimony. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused stated that several contradictions and omissions were found in the evidence of PWs.1 to 8 and therefore their evidence cannot be trusted.
In the light of the so-called contradictions and omissions listed out in the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the accused, which are excerpted in verbatim supra, it is now imperative to refer briefly their statements recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., which cannot be treated as evidence in the trial but may be used for the limited purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness, vide RAM
SWAROOP v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [AIR 2004 SC 2943]. The statement of
PW.1 recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. reflects that at the time of marriage negotiations their parents agreed to dowry and presentations to the accused at the time of her marriage; and that the same was reduced into writing vide Ex.P.2 agreement; and that her sister-in-law, namely Meenakshi and the accused abused and harassed her as her parents did not give proper presentations to the accused; and that A.3 asked her to retain her gold ornaments at Berhampur before going to
Bangalore; and that in Bangalore the accused harassed her on the ground that her parents did not give proper presentations to them and the accused did not provide food and clothing to her; and that in August, 2010 A.3 caught hold of her tuft and pushed her without considering that she was pregnant by then; and that in October, 2010 A.1 took her to Mumbai along with A.2 and A.3 and in Mumbai the accused, her sister-in-law scolded her on the ground that she is blind woman and she is not suitable to A.1; and that she had not become pregnant to A.1; and that in October, 2010 the accused sent her out of their house and though she requested they did not allow her to come into the house and then she went to working women's hostel and inform the same to her parents who came there; and that the accused harassed her althrough; and that on 31.12.2010 A.1 with false allegations sent a registered notice to her and on 13.03.2011 she was blessed with a female child but the accused did not come to see the child; and that she along with her parents, PW.6 and her child
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 48 went to the house of A.1 but A.1 did not allow her and her child to his house and closed the doors; and that on 23.05.2011 A.1 sent another notice stating that he could not live with her.
64.Similarly, the statements of PW.2 recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
clearly reflects that she stated that at the time of marriage they gave the dowry and presentations as agreed in Ex.P.2 agreement; and that later the accused harassed and ill-treated PW.1 and demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from the house of her parents; and that the accused harassed PW.1 mentally and physically without considering that PW.1 was carrying pregnancy; and that on 13.03.2011 PW.1 gave birth to a female child and the accused did not come to see the child; and that she along with her husband-PW.4, PW.1, her child and PW.6 went to the house of A.1 in Bangalore who scolded them and did not allow them to his house and they came back; and that the accused harassed PW.1 mentally and physically as she did not bring the additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- as demanded by them.
65.The statement of PW.3 recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. reflects that the marriage negotiations took place in his house and Ex.P.2 agreement was drafted at his house and as per the said agreement PWs.2 and 4 gave the dowry and presentations to the accused at the time of marriage. The statement of PW.4 recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. reveals that it is similar to that of PW.2. He further stated that in October, 2010 the accused necked out PW.1 from their house and demanded her to bring additional dowry; and that he along with PW.2 went to the house of A.1 in December, 2010 to bring PW.1 to their house for delivery.
66.The statement of PW.5 recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. reflects that he attended the marriage of PW.1 with A.1 and at the time of marriage PW.4 gave dowry and presentations as agreed vide Ex.P.2 agreement; and that the accused demanded PW.1 to bring additional dowry and later PW.1 gave birth to a female child and thereafter the accused did not come to see PW.1 and her child and A.1 sent two notices to PW.1. The statement of PW.6 recorded under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. reveals that he attended the marriage of PW.1 and A.1 and at the time of marriage PW.4 gave the dowry and presentations to the accused as agreed vide
Ex.P.2 agreement and later PW.1 gave birth to a female child and the accused did not come to see PW.1 and her child though they were informed of the same; and that in the year 2011 he along with PWs.1, 2, 4 and the child of PW.1 went to
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 49
Bangalore to the house of A.1 who scolded them, did not allow them to his house and they came back. The statement of PW.7 recorded under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. discloses that he was present at the time of marriage negotiations and at the time of marriage and Ex.P.2 agreement was reduced into writing and as per the said agreement PW.4 gave dowry and presentations to the accused; and that later the accused demanded PW.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and gold ornaments.
67.If the entire evidence of PWs.1 to 7 brought on record before the Court is considered in the light of their previous versions, as succinctly narrated herein for better appreciation of the matter, it emerges that PWs.1 to 7 have stated before the
Court what they in fact stated in their previous statements. Thus, the so-called contradictions and omissions pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused are nothing but elaborations and explanations to their previous versions and at any rate they do not tantamount to material contradictions and vital omissions which would have a bearing on the factual matrix of the case. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 8, having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, inspires the credibility and confidence of the Court as their evidence clearly corroborates with each other.
68.It is well established principle of law that while appreciating the evidence, the
Court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial and minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety, vide STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF
POLICE v. SARAVANAN [AIR 2009 SC 152].
69. In K.PREMA S.RAO v. YADLA SRINIVASA RAO [AIR 2003 SC 11],the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case under Section 498-A of the IPC
along with other offences held inter alia thus:
“1."Frailty thy name is woman", that is how in one of his plays Shakespeare described one of the female characters in his play. This description is more and more in evidence particularly in rural Indian society where married women, who are unable to muster courage to fight against cruelty and harassment meted out to them by their spouses and family members, find no escape other than ending their own life. .........
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 50
27.The legislature has by amending the Penal Code and Evidence Act made Penal Law more strident for dealing with and punishing offences against married women. Such strident laws would have a deterrent effect on the offenders only if they are so stridently implemented by the law Courts to achieve the legislative intent. …...... In this case the husband is found to have harassed his wife to such an extent as to drive her to commit suicide. Sentence of five years would, in our opinion, be a proper sentence for the crime with the amount of fine increased to Rs.20,000/- to be paid as compensation to the parents of the deceased. On non-payment of fine the accused No.1 shall suffer further sentence of one year.”
70.In KAMESH PANJIYAR @ KAMLESH PANJIYAR v. STATE OF BIHAR [AIR 2005 SC 785] the Hon'ble Supreme Court while conisdering the provisions of
Sections 304 and 498-A of the IPC read with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act held inter alia thus:
“14.The word "dowry" in Section 304-B IPC has to be understood as it is defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Act. Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". Other payments which are customary payments e.g. given at the time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies are not covered by the expression "dowry". (See Saturr Singh v. State of Punjab (2001 (8) SCC 633) As was observed in said case "suicidal death" of a married woman within seven years of her marriage is covered by the expression "death of a woman is caused or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances" as expressed in Section 304-B IPC.”
71.In SHOBHARANI v. MADHUKAR REDDI [AIR 1988 SC 121] the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held inter alia thus:
“17. ......... The evidence as to harassment to the wife to meet any unlawful demand for money is necessary to constitute cruelty in criminal law. It is the requirement of the offence of 'cruelty' defined under S. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. .........”
72.In PAWAN KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA [AIR 1998 SC 958] the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while considerations the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC held inter alia thus:
17.......... Reverting to the present case, the evidence of the aforesaid Pws. are very clear. After few days of the marriage, there was demand of scooter and fridge, which when not being met lead to repetitive taunts and maltreatment. Such demands cannot be said to be not in connection with the marriage. Hence the evidence qualifies to be demand for dowry in connection
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 51 with the marriage and in the circumstances of the case constitutes to be a case falling within the definition of 'dowry' under Section 2 of 1961 Act and Section 304-B, IPC.
18.......... In our considered opinion, cruelty or harassment need not be physical. Even mental torture in a given case would be a case of cruelty and harassment within the meaning of Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC. Explanation
(a) to Section 498-A itself refers to both mental and physical cruelty. In view of Explanation (a) the argument is, before it constitutes to be a cruelty there has to be willful conduct. Again willful conduct means conduct wilfully done, this may be inferred by direct or indirect evidence which could be construed to be such. We find, in the present case, on account of not satisfying the demand of the aforesaid goods, right from the next day, she was repeatedly taunted, maltreated and mentally tortured by being called ugly etc. A girl dreams of great days ahead with hope and aspiration when entering into a marriage, and if from the very next day the husband starts taunting for not bringing dowry and calling her ugly, there cannot be greater mental torture, harassment or cruelty for any bride. There was a quarrel a day before her death. This by itself, in our considered opinion, would constitute to be a wilful act to be a cruelty both within the meaning of Section 498-A and Section 304-
B, IPC.
73.From the discussion made hereinbefore, it is crystal clear from the evidence of PW.1 that she deposed the evidence before the Court as per the contents of the complaint (Ex.P.1) and though a lengthy cross-examination was made to her by the learned counsel for the accused, nothing worthwhile was elicited from her to disbelieve her testimony. Her parents-PWs.2 and 4 also categorically deposed about the harassment and demand additional dowry and gold bracelet. PW.3 also deposed that he was present at the time of marriage negotiations and Ex.P.2 came to be drafted at the time and which was signed by him along with A.2, PWs.4, 7 and Sri
Chennuri Rama Rao (LW.5). The evidence of PW.5 also shows that after the birth of female child to PW.1, the accused did not come to look the newly born child; and that PW.1 informed to him that accused were harassing and demanding her to bring
additional dowry. The evidence of PW.6 reveals that he accompanied PW.1, her child
and her parents to the house of A.1 to Bangalore but A.1 did not heed his advice and take back PW.1 and her child. The evidence of PW.7 discloses that he was present at the time of marriage negotiations and he signed on Ex.P.2 agreement; and that after marriage he came to know that differences arose between PW.1 and
A.1 as the accused demanded PW.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from the house of her parents. The evidence of PW.8 demonstrates that he conducted
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 52 investigation in this case, he examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements, he visited Berhampur and Bangalore in this case and after completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the Court. It is also well settled principle of law that in a case of this nature it would be very difficult to get the independent witnesses as offences of this nature are mostly taken place within the four walls of a tenement and therefore non-examination of independent witnesses is not a fatal to the case of the prosecution.
74.In the light of the above discussion, the documents sought to be filed by the learned counsel for the accused immediately after the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. are not in any way useful to the case of the accused. Not only that, the learned APP also objected for filing of those documents at that stage. Be that as it may, as stated above, those documents at any rate, even if considered for the sake of argument, does not at all affect the case of the prosecution in any manner as what was done by the accused by way of the said documents is only for the larger benefit of their family only, as rightly pointed out by the learned APP.
75.After carefully scanning through the evidence brought on record, it is manifest that PW.1 was being harassed right from the next day of her marriage with
A.1 on the premise that proper reception was not arranged at the time of her marriage by her parents to the accused; and that proper presentations were not made to the accused by parents; and that gold bracelet was not given to A.1; and that what was given at the time of marriage was not sufficient enough to the accused having due regard to the financial status of the accused and in the backdrop of the monthly earnings of A.1 on the premise that had another marriage alliance been tried for, the accused would have got much more dowry and other presentations; and that the sisters of A.1 also taunted PW.1 stating that PW.1 was not a suitable match to A.1 and PW.1 was blind girl as she was wearing spectacles; and that PW.1 was not even allowed to touch new items at the house of A.1 by the accused in Bangalore stating that PW.1 was not a lucky girl; and that PW.1 became pregnant not through A.1 but through somebody else; and that A.3 also pushed
PW.1 aside without considering that PW.1 was carrying pregnancy; and that all the accused used to demand her to bring additional of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- as what was given at the time of marriage was not enought to the accused; and that after birth of female child to PW.1, the accused did not come to Salur to see the newly
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 53 born child which is commonly unheard of, although disputes arose between the spouses and their family members; and that there were correspondence between
PWs.1 and 4 on one hand and the accused on the other hand; and that the fact that
A.1 sent Ex.P.5 notice to PW.1 expressing his intention to divorce her would cause any amount of mental agony in the mind of young girl who is an Engineering graduate and who entered into the wedlock with A.1 with great dreams, hopes and aspirations in her future life with him. In the light of the above evidence brought on record, the cross-examination made to PW.1 that the moment she became pregnant
A.1 purchased a titan watch and gifted to her, he purchased Ganesh idol as per her wish, he purchased bedroom set, he purchased furniture, etc. would not come to the aid of the case of the accused for the simple reason that if really A.1 is interested to lead his conjugal life with PW.1, what prevented him to take back her to his fold, more particularly when PW.1 herself expressed her intention during the course of her evidence that she is still ready to join the conjugal society of A.1. Thus, the so- called omissions and contradictions sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel
for the accused are nothing but mere explanations and elaborations of their earlier
version but the same do not tantamount to material contradictions and vital omissions. It may be pertinent to mention here that the rules of appreciation of evidence requires that isolated sentence of a witness without adverting to the statement as a whole cannot be taken into consideration. At any rate, it cannot, under any stretch of the imagination, be said that there are material contradictions or vital omissions or improvements/embellishments in the evidence deposed before the Court when considered in the backdrop of their previous statements. Thus, the conduct and attitude on the part of the accused towards PW.1, as discussed hereinabove as a whole, would clearly fall well within the term 'cruelty' as defined under Section 498-A of the IPC. Equally, the persistent demands made by the accused to PW.1 right from the next day of her marriage till her visit to Bangalore in the month of December, 2011 after the birth of her child to the house of A.1 along with PWs.2, 4 and 6 along with her child, as discussed hereinbefore as a whole, would clearly attract the provisions of Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
76.However, in so far as the provisions of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, it is relevant to notice here that it is not uncommon that at the time of marriage the parents of the bride used to give dowry and presentations to the bridegroom and their family members on their own accord, and similarly the parents
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 54 of bridegroom also used to give some presentations to the bride and their family members on their own accord at the time of marriage. In the case on hand also, at the time of marriage negotiations, PW.4 on his own accord agreed to give dowry and presentations on the eve of marriage of PW.1 with A.1 in the presence of A.2, PW.3,
PW.7 and one Sri Chennuri Rama Rao (LW.5) and accordingly PW.4 gave those presentations and dowry as agreed and reflected in Ex.P.2 agreement at the time of marriage to the accused and so also the accused presented 4 tulas of gold ornaments to PW.1 at the time of marriage as agreed vide Ex.P.2 agreement and thus there was no specific demand on either side in that regard. Furthermore, it is well established practice in many families from the times immemorial as to giving and taking presentations at the time of marriage of bride and bridegroom on their own accord without any demand on either side for the benefit of both the bride and bridegroom and such presentations and dowry would normally be given having due regard to their financial status prevailing at the relevant point of time. In the light of the same and having due regard to Ex.P.2 agreement and in the backdrop of the evidence brought on record in that context, as discussed supra, I am of the considered view that the provisions of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act do not attract in this case.
77.Having due regard to the Judgments referred to hereinbefore and in backdrop of the evidence brought on record as discussed supra, I am of the considered view that there is overwhelming evidence on record to show that the acts, conduct and attitude on the part of the accused towards PW.1 clearly attracts the provisions of
Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but not the provisions of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is pertinent to mention here that PW.1 is a young girl who entered into wedlock with A.1 with great hopes and aspirations that she would lead her marital life with him for the rest of her life but the accused did not allow her to do so as discussed supra. In the light of the above,
I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt whereas the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. Accordingly, Point Nos.1, 2 and 4 are answered against the accused and in favour of the prosecution; Point No.3 is answered against the prosecution and
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 55 in favour of the accused; and Point No.5 is answered partly in favour of the prosecution and partly against the accused.
POINT NO.6:
78.In the result and for the discussion made hereinbefore, Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they are convicted under Section 248(2) of the Cr.P.C. However, Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2017.
Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,
SALUR.
79.On hearing Accused Nos.1 to 3 as to the quantum of sentence, A.1 stated that both his parents A.2 and A.3 are completely depending on him; and that he is the only earning member of the family; and that A.2 and A.3 are stated that they are aged about 72 and 66 years respectively; and that they are suffering from ill- health; and that they have to look after their family members and therefore they pleaded mercy of the Court to take lenient view of the matter. However, having due regard to the nature and gravity of the offences with which they are found guilty, I am not inclined to invoke the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. or Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Thus, Accused Nos.1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC; and Accused Nos.1 to 3 are also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which would meet the ends of justice. Both the aforestated sentences shall run concurrently. As
Accused Nos.1 to 3 were not in judicial custody at any time during the pendency of this case, they are not entitled to claim any set off as contemplated under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are hereby informed that they have got a right of appeal to assail this Judgment. The total fine amount of Rs.60,000/- as awarded
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 56 above in this case on Accused Nos.1 to 3 is hereby awarded to PW.1-victim towards compensation as contemplated under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C., subject to appeal.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2017.
Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,
SALUR.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution For Defence PW.1: Maturi Joshna. None PW.2: Grandhi Sitharatnam. PW.3: Maturu Sankara Rao. PW.4: Grandhi Ramkumar. PW.5: Manda Chandrasekhar. PW.6: Manda Srinivasa Rao. PW.7: Bojanapalli Venkata Surya Rao. PW.8: T.Srinivasa Rao, S.I of Police.
Documents Marked
For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P.1: Private complaint filed by PW.1.Nil Ex.P.2: Agreement dated 31.01.2010. Ex.P.3: Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 18.05.2010. Ex.P.4: Registered letter dated 31.12.2010 received by PW.1 from A.1. Ex.P.5: Notice dated 23.05.2011 received by PW.1 from A.1. Ex.P.6: Photocopy of letter dated 13.04.2011 written by PW.4 to A.2. Ex.P.7: Photocopy of letter dated 13.04.2011 written by PW.4 to A.1. Ex.P.8: Photocopy of letter dated 06.06.2011 written by PW.1 to A.1 along with acknowledgement. Ex.P.9: Photocopy of letter dated 16.06.2011 written by PW.1 to A.1 along with acknowledgement. Ex.P.10: Original birth certificate of the female child of PW.1 and A.1. Ex.P.11: FIR In Crime No.71/2012
Material Objects Marked
Nil
Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,
SALUR.
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 57
Calendar and Judgment
District : Vizianagaram
Calendar case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Salur
Date of offencePrior to 14.05.2012
Date of report or complaint29.09.2012
Date of apprehension of accused28.01.2014
Date of release on bail 06.08.2012
Date of commencement of trial12.05.2015
Date of closure of trial24.04.2017
Date of Judgment27.04.2017
Due to non-production of witnesses Explanation for delay and remarks from time to time by the prosecution.
Calendar and Judgment in 296 OF On the file of the Judicial 2012Magistrate of the first Class, Salur.
Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Salur Town Police Station.
Sl.Name of the AgFather’s ReligionCallingResidenceTaluk NoaccusedeName
Maturu Subba Jagannadha Thippasandra 135HinduBangalore RaoRaoPost
Maturu Late Madhava 2Jagannadha Rao 65HinduNagar Street Berhampur Latchanna
Maturu Jagannadha House Madhava 360HinduNagar Street Berhampur ChittirajuRaowife Offence: u nder Section 498-A of the IPC: Punishment for subjecting a married woman to cruelty.
Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act: Punishment for giving or taking dowry.
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act: Punishment for demanding dowry.
Finding: Guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Result: Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offences punishable under
Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they are convicted under Section 248(2) of the Cr.P.C. However, Accused
Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under Section 248(1)
C.C.NO.296 OF 2012 J.M.F.C. COURT, SALUR. 58 of the Cr.P.C. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC; and Accused Nos.1 to 3 are also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, which would meet the ends of justice. Both the aforestated sentences shall run concurrently. As Accused Nos.1 to 3 were not in judicial custody at any time during the pendency of this case, they are not entitled to claim any set off as contemplated under Section 428 of the
Cr.P.C. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are hereby informed that they have got a right of appeal to assail this Judgment. The total fine amount of Rs.60,000/- as awarded above in this case on Accused Nos.1 to 3 is hereby awarded to
PW.1-victim towards compensation as contemplated under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C., subject to appeal.
Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,
SALUR.