Vacant1
IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge-FTC
Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Rangareddy · Telangana
Based on 15 recent ordersVacant1, IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge-FTC, is posted at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 15 court orders on record since 2010. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC, OS cases.
Featured Judgments
1
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SRI. V. BALA BHASKAR RAO,
FAC II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Dated on this the 6th Day of April, 2016.
SC No. 81 / 2010
Name of the complainant: The State through PS Saroornagar
Name of the accused: A1. Kadari Babu S/o. Bixapathi, Aged about 25yrs, Occ: Student, R/o. Isnoor Village of Palakurthy Mandal, Warangal District, presently R/o.huts near by municipal colony at Saroornagar.
A2. Kadari Bixapathi S/o. Mallaiah, (died)
A3. Kadari Laxmamma W/o. Bixapathy, Aged about 50yrs, presently at huts nearby Municipal Colony at Saroornagar.
A4. Cheripally Krishna S/o. Somaiah, Aged about 29yrs, Occ: Painting work, R/o. MCH Colony, N/o. Guduru of Palakurthy Mandal, Warangal District.
A5. Venkanna S/o. Istari, Aged about 20yrs, Occ: Autodriver, R/o. Housing Board, Moulali N/o. Gabbeta.
A6. Kondeti Babu S/o. Venkataiah, Aged about 33yrs, Occ: House painting R/o. MCH Colony, N/o. Vardannapet of Warangal District.
Crime Number: 1022/2009
Offence Under Section: 417, 313 of IPC
PRC No.: 01/2010 on the file of XI Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar
Case committed by: Sri.K.Venkateshwar Rao XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar
Prosecution conducted by: Kovkuntla Shiva Kumar, II Addl. P.P.
Defence conducted by: Sri.V.Somayajulu Advocate for Accused 2
Plea of the accused: Not guilty
Sentence of order : In the result, the Accused no.1, 3 to 6 are found not guilty for the charges punishable under section U/s 417, 313 of I.P.C framed against accused no.1, 3 to 6 and they acquitted U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
This case is coming before me for hearing in the
presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and
of Sri.V.Somayajulu, Advocate for the accused and
having stood over the matter for consideration till this
day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1) The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Saroornagar filed the charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under section 417, 313 of IPC in Cr. No. 1022/ 2009 of P.S Saroornagar.
During the pendency of this case, Accused no.2 died and on filing of death certificate of A2 the case against A2 was abated by this court on 16.02.2012.
2) The brief facts of the charge sheet are that defacto complainant Bandu Renuka is the younger sister of one Yaka Laxmi who was given in marriage to Kumar who is son of her own paternal
Aunt (I.e) A3 Kadari Laxmi wife of A2 and that the defacto complainant used to visit her sister's house and as such she got acquainted with A1 who is the younger brother of her own brother-in- law and that the said A1 Kadari Babu enticed her with a promise of marrying her as he fell in love with her and made her believe it and surrendered to his sexual lust The love between the defacto complainant and A1 was known to the parents of both of them and 3 she stayed in the house of A1 for a month. Thereupon, the defacto complainant became pregnant in the month of May 2009 but it was got medically terminated by A1 against her will and assured that he will marry her later and lookafter her studies. Even thereafter, when ever the defacto complainant insisted A1 to marry her, he dragged on one or other pretext and later a panchayath was held before the community people at the behest of her parents Bandu Muthaiah and
Bandu Salamma wherein Bandu Iylaiah, Kadari Maisaiah and Bandu
Ramulu acted as elders in whose presence A1 promised to marry her for dowry of Rs.75,000/- and took Rs.15,000/- towards advance but failed to contact marriage with her with the connivance and advise of
A2 to A6 who are his parents, brother, brother-in-laws. On 28.08.2008 at 7PM the defacto complainant Bandu Renuka lodged a report with the SI of Police, PS Saroornagar, P.Anthaiah, on the basis of which he registered a case in Cr.no. 1022/2009 and took up investigation in this case and during the course of investigation he examined the defacto complainant, her parents and the above said elders namely B.Iylaiah, Kadari Maisaiah, Bandu Ramulu and recorded their statements. Accused no.1 to 3 were arrested on 01.09.2009 and produced before the court for judicial custody,
Accused no. 4 to 6 obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble
Sessions Court and furnished sureties to the concerned court. After
completion of investigation, the SI of Police, PS Saroornagar,
P.Anthaiah filed charge sheet against A1 to A6 for the offences punishable u/sec. 417, 313 of IPC.
4
3) The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under sections 417, 313 of IPC against accused no.1 to 6 in PRC No.
01 / 2010 by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad,
L.B.Nagar and committed the case to the Hon'ble Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar as the learned magistrate
having perused the record found the case as exclusively triable by the court of sessions after furnishing the case copies to A1 to A6 as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4) The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No. 81 / 2010 and made over the case to this court for the purpose of disposal according to law.
5) This court having considered the record, framed charges under section 417, 313 of I.P.C against accused no.1 to 4, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the said charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6) During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex. P1 and P2.
7) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against them for which they denied the said evidence and examined DW1 to DW4 on their side and no documents are marked on the side of accused.
8) Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.
9)Now the point for determination is whether the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges
under sections 417, 313 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?
5
10) The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges u/sec.
417, 313 of IPC. In this regard, as stated above the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex. P1 and P2.
11)PW1 is the defacto complainant and the victim in this case, PW2 and PW3 are parents of PW1, PW4 to PW6 are the elders who participated in the panchayath and circumstantial witnesses in this case, PW7 is the SI of Police and investigation officer in this case.
12) PW1 the defacto complainant and the victim in this case deposed that she is a resident of Warangal and she studied upto degree and completed her graduation in the year 2013 and that in the year 2009 while she was studying her degree first year at Warangal, her elder sister. Y.Lakshmi was got married to Kadari Kumar the elder brother of A1 and due to that relationship she used to visit the house of Kumar and her sister Lakshmi and there she met A1 and they fell in love with eachother and as A1 used to follow her every time she used to visit the house of her sister stating that A1 is in love with her. PW1 stated, while she was studying intermediate in the year 2008 and during summer holidays, she went to the house of her sister Lakshmi who was residing at Municipal Colony, Dilsukhnagar and she resided at her house for a perod of twenty days and on that occasion A1 followed her and pestered her stating that he is in love with her. During that period, her sister Lakshmi and her mother-in-law
A3 went to Pallakurthi, Warangal District to attend Mahila Sangham
Meeting and her brother-in-law Kumar used to attend his duty and 6 was alone in the house and on one day A1 without having her permission forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and she could not escape from A1 on that day and she was crying till her brother-in-law came to house at 10PM. PW1 stated, on the date of her return, A1 stated that he is in love with her and that she should not have any fear and promised her that he would marry her and that for the said reason, accused had sexual intercourse with her and A1 also fell on her feet stating not to inform about the said incident to any other family members and also informed her that he will be in contact with her and from that day onwards, A1 used call her over phone and for one year A1 used to contact her everyday and visited her twice in a month on an average. PW1 further deposed that in the year 2009
A1 suddenly stopped calling her and totally had no contact with her for about one week and then on one day she called A1 and he informed her that his elder brother Kumar bet him and necked him out of his house and asked her not to call, then accused used to switch off his cell phone and in the month of July 2009 she came to
Hyderabad to visit her sister Yaka Lakshmi and went to her locality and met locality elders by name Shanker and Jeevakka and informed them about the above facts and the said Shanker and Jeevakka called A1 and enquired him as to what she has informed and A1 stated before elders that he does not have any acquiantance with her and does not know her and as to why they are questioning him and then those elders advised A1 to speak with her and settle the matter and A1 abused her as to why she came there as he already informed her that she should not call him and also stated that A1 would not 7 marry her and then she informed the above elders what A1 has stated to her and then she went to PS Saroornagar and gave a report to police. PW1 further deposed that after she lodged report with police, A2, A3, A4 and one Jyothi went to PS Saroornagar and questioned as to why she lodged a report with the police and asked her to come to their house and took her to their house at Municipal
Colony, Dilsukhnagar and informed her mother over phone and that her mother, father and elders Bandu Illaiah, Bikshapathi, Bandu
Ramulu went to Hyderabad and talks took place between both side elders and her parents aksed as to how much dowry is required for which A1 informed that he requires an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and her mother stated that they cannot afford that much of dowry and that she would give only Rs.1,00,000/- dowry that too on a later date and the elders Shanker and Jeevakka asked her parents to give marriage expenses and her parents went to Warangal to bring expenses for the marriage and she stayed at the house of A1 to A3 and she was pregnant by that date and A1 beat her during night hours at about 7:30PM and in the month of July 2009 A1 brought some tablets and made her to consume those tablets and on the next day morning A1 took her to Visnoor, Palakurthi Mandal, Warangal District and again a
Panchayath was held before the elders of both sides. The elders decided that they shall pay a dowry of Rs.75,000/- and made them to pay Rs.15,000/- as advance to A1 and A2 one week later A1 again stated that he is not ready to marry her and he does not like her and that they did not give any money to them. PW1 stated, then she went 8 to PS Palakurthy and on their advise she went to PS Saroornagar and gave report to police under Ex.P1.
13) PW2 Muthaiah father of PW1 has deposed that he performed the marriage of their elder daughter Yaka Lakshmi with
Kumar Swamy who is the elder brother of A1 and he used to visit her house at Thorrur Mandal and at that time PW1 was studying tenth class and A1 got acquianted with PW1 and about six years back, A1 kidnapped their daughter and brought her to Dilsukhnagar,
Hyderabad and kept her for six months with accused and made her pregnant and subsequently A1 got the said pregnancy terminated and then the said fact was informed to him and his wife and then they brought elders to Dilsukhnagar to the house of A1 and conducted a panchayath and in that panchayath it was decided that A1 shall marry
PW1 and it was also decided to pay Rs.75,000/- as dowry and after fifteen days he came to the house of A1 and gave a sum of
Rs.15,000/- to A1 and his father Bikshapathi (A2) and fifteen days after taking the said money A1 refused to marry PW1 and again he brought the elders who participated in the earlier panchayath to the house of A1 and then as A1 refused to marry PW1, PW1 lodged report with the police.
14)PW3 B.Salamma Mother of PW1 has deposed that they performed the marriage of their elder daughter Yaka Lakshmi with
Kumar Swamy who is the elder brother of A1 and A1 used to visit their house at Thorrur Mandal and at that time PW1 was studying tenth class and A1 got acquiantence with PW1 and about six years back PW1 went to Dislukhnagar to the house of Yaka Lakshmi to find 9 a job and that PW1 became pregnant and A1 got terminated the said pregnancy and then she was informed by Kumara Swamy that PW1 lodged a report with the police and the she brought the elders and her husband to Dilsukhnagar and held a panchayath and the elders settled the matter for performing the marriage of A1 with PW1 at
Yadagirigutta and advised to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- and PW1 informed her that she filed a case against A1 and others as A1 has cheated her and then she and her husband went to village to arrange money, three days later A2, A3 and her son-in-law brought PW1 to their village and after two days, she again came to Hyderabad along with elders and brought a sum of Rs.10,000/- and a panchayath was held before the elders. PW3 stated, the elders settled the matter stating that A1 shall marry PW1 and they shall pay a sum of
Rs.70,000/- to A1. Subsequently, A1 refused to marry PW1 and A1 lodged a complaint against two elder persons in their village at
Palakurthi PS and PW1 lodged a report at PS Saroornagar.
15) PW4 B.Aiyliah has deposed that about five or six years back, PW1 fell in love with A1 and the elder sister of PW1 was given in marriage to the elder brother of A1 and he promised to marry PW1 and subsequently A1 failed to fulfill his promise and refused to marry
PW1 and PW1 lodged a report against A1 at Dilsukhnagar PS and the concerned police brought A1 to Dilsukhnagar PS and at that time,
A1 stated before the police that he would marry PW1 and that accused would hold talks before the elders at Visunuru village,
Palakurthi Mandal, Warangal District and in the said panchayath he also participated along with the elders Ramulu, K.Maisaiah and 10 families of PW1 and A1. PW4 has deposed before the panchayath elders on the demand made by A1 the parents of PW1 agreed to pay dowry of Rs.75,000/- to A1 and subsequently the parents of PW1 paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- to A1 in his presence and on the receipt of the said advance amount, on the next day A1 filed a case against him and other elders that they have forcibly made him to agree for the marriage with PW1 at Palakurthi Police Station and he and other elders were taken to Palakurthi police station and A1 went back to
Hyderabad. PW4 stated, then PW1 and her parents and elders went to PS Dilsukhnagar and lodged a report against A1 and others and they kept PW1 at Visunuru village, Palakurthi Mandal as A1 agreed to marry PW1 and then they came to know that PW1 became pregnant.
16) PW5 K.Maisaiah has deposed that about six years back,
A1 promised to marry PW1 and subsequently as he refused to marry
PW1, a panchayath was held at Visunuru village, wherein he, PW4 and other elders of their village participated along with the families of
PW1 and A1 and settled the marriage between A1 and PW1 and it was also agreed that an amount of Rs.75,000/- shall be paid to A1 towards dowry and an amount of Rs.15,000/- was given to A1 during the Varapooja in his presence. Subsequently, A1 did not marry PW1 and on the report given by A1, he and other elders were called by
Palakurthi police and they were brought to Hyderabad.
17) PW6 B.Ramulu has deposed that the elder sister of PW1 was given in marriage to the elder brother of A1 and that PW1 came to Hyderabad to visit her sister and at that time, A1 promised that he 11 is in love with PW1 and that he would marry PW1 and made PW1 pregnant. Subsequently he was informed that the pregnancy of PW1 got terminated by A1 by giving some medicines and then a panchayath was held before the caste elders at Visunuru village and then he along with PW4 and PW5 and other elders participated in that panchayath and A1, PW1 and their faimily members demanded to give dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- for which he and other elders and parents of PW1 agreed to pay Rs.75,000/- to A1.
PW5 deposed that in the next five or six days an amount of
Rs.15,000/- was given to A1 on the date of vara pooja and then A1 went back on promise to marry PW1 and as such PW1 went to
Dilsukhnagar PS and gave report to police.
18) PW7 P.Anthaiah the then SI of Police, PS Saroornagar has deposed that on 28.08.2009 at 10PM he received Ex.P1 report from B.Renuka PW1 and on the basis of the same he registered a case in Cr.no.1022/2009 u/sec. 417, 313 of IPC and submitted the original FIR Ex.P2 to the court and took up further investigation in this case and on the same day he examined PW1 to PW3 at PS
Saroornagar and recorded their statements and then he proceeded to Municipal Colony, Chaitanyapuri and secured the presence of
PW4 to PW6 and examined them and recorded their statements and on that 01.09.2009 he arrested A1 to A3 at their residence and brought them to PS Saroornagar and after completion of arrest formalities produced A1 to A3 before the court for judicial custody.
A4 and A5 surrendered before the concerned court on obtaining anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble Sessions Court and they were 12 released on furnishing surities to the satisfaction of the court. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A6 for the offences punishable u/sec. 417, 313 of IPC.
19) The Accused no.1, 3 to 6 in support of thier defence examined DW1 to 4. DW1 K. Babu a resident of Visnoor village,
Palakurthi Mandal, Warangal District who is A1 in this case deposed that PW1 is the own sister of his elder sister-in-law by name Yaka
Lakshmi and earlier PW1 was residing at Nacharam and the marriage of PW1 took place in the year 2008 with one Venkatesh who is a resident of Gottiparthyi Village, Thorrur Mandal, Warangal
District and in the year 2009 he visited the house of his elder brother
Kumar at Vikas Nagar, Dilsukhnagar and one day later, PW1 came to the house of Kumar to visit her elder sister Lakshmi. He enquired with PW1 as to why she came to the house at of Kumar and Lakshmi and why she came alone, upon which PW1 gave a reply that she married Venkatesh who is very elder to her and on the same night he left to his village and two days later PW1 came to Visnoor village with the elders namely Bikshapathi, Ailaiah, Muthaiah, Salamma and called him before the village elders and before the elders Salamma
PW3 the mother of PW1 informed that he is refusing to marry PW1 after engaging her by stating that he is in love with her and the elders enquired him whether he is love with her for which he replied that he never loved her and that he never promised her that he would marry her and one hour later the elders prepared some document and by folding it and without allowing him to read the contents asked him to put his signature on it. DW1 stated, accordingly, he refused to sign 13 on the said paper and on the next day evening the elders on the side of PW1 came to his house and informed him that they want to perform Varapooja between him and PW1 on the same day at 7PM for which while he was arguing with them one Yakaiah came and took him away from that place.
20) DW2 K.Kumar the elder brother of A1 deposed that
PW1 is the own sister of his wife Yaka Lakshmi and that the marriage of PW1 tookplace with one Venkaesh and he attended the said marriage and in the year 2009 PW1 came to his house to visit him, his wife and children and during that period PW1 stayed at his house for one week and later he came to know about the facts of this case and PW1 filed a report at PS Saroornagar against A1 and his other family members.
21) DW3 Yakaiah resident of Visnoor village, Palakurthi
Mandal, Warangal District and working as labour and he knows PW1 and about six years back, PW1 came to his village and demanded A1 to marry her and A1 refused to marry PW1, then the relatives of PW1 came and made a big galata and they also stated that they will give dowry to A1 and since the said galata was taking place at 11PM and as it was late in the night he went and informed both the parties to discuss the matter on the next day and on the next day PW1 was not found in their village.
22) DW4 Kadala Yellamma has deposed that she is a resident of Visnoor village, Palakurthi Mandal, Warangal District and working as labour and he knows PW1. DW4 stated, about six years back, some elders and PW1 came to their village and the elders 14 stated that they are ready to perform Varapooja to A1 and at that time dispute took place between those persons and family members of A1 and the house of A1 is situated nearer to his house and he and other elders advised both the parties not to quarrel during the night time and the matter can be decided on the next day and that PW1 and elders did not stay back in the village till the next day morning and they did not pay any amount ot A1 towards Vara Pooja.
23) The charge against A1 to A6 is that in the month of May 2009 that A1 had physical relationship with PW1 B.Renuka promising her to marry her and that when Pw1 became pregnant and insisted A1 to marry her that A1 refused to marry her and that A1 with the help of A2 to A6 got terminated her pregnancy and thereby A1 to A6 are liable to be punished u/sec. 417 and 313 of IPC.
24) During the pendency of this case, A2 died and the case against A2 was abated by this court on 16.02.2012.
25) To prove the guilt of A1, A3 to A6 the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW7 and documents marked as Ex.P1 and
P2. PW1 is the defacto complainant and the victim in this case Pw2 and PW3 are the parents of PW1 and PW4 to PW6 are the elders who conducted a panchayath and PW7 is the investigation officer and the then SI of Police, PS Saroornagar. Admittedly, PW4 and PW5 did not depose that A1 had physical relationship with PW1 promising to marry her. PW4 deposed about five or six years back, PW1 fell in love with A1 and A2 promised to marry PW1 and subsequently A1 failed to fulfill his promise to marry PW1 and subsequently as he refused to marry PW1 and a panchayath was held at Visnoor village where he 15 along with four other elders of the village participated in the panchayath along with the family members of PW1 and A1. PW6 deposed that A1 promised that he is in love with PW1 when Pw1 came to the house of Kumar to visit her sister and the he will marry her and made PW1 pregnant and subsequently he was informed that the pregnancy of PW1 was got terminated by A1 by giving some medicine and that panchayath was held in the presence of caste elders at Visnoor village. The evidence of DW1 to DW4 also shows that a panchayath was held at Visnoor village Palakurthi Mandal,
Warangal District agreeing that A1 (DW1) did not agree to marry PW1 and that no Varapooja was performed in their presence whereas the evidence of PW4 to PW6 shows that after the panchayath at Visnoor village, A1 agreed to marry PW1 on payment of dowry of Rs.75,000/- and that PW1 was given Rs. 15,000/- on the date of Varapooja and that subsequently A1 went back on his promise to marry PW1 and as such PW1 lodged report at Dilsukhnagar PS. The report of PW1 was lodged at PS Saroornagar which is situated at Dilsuknagar. As stated above, the charge against A1 is not for refusing to marry PW1 after agreeing to marry her in the panchayath or for taking a sum of Rs.
15,000/- at the time of Varapooja and refusing to marry her later, but the charge against A1 is that he had physical relationship with PW1 on the promise of marrying her and subsequently failed to marry her and got terminated her pregnancy with the help of A2 to A6.
26) The admitted facts are that PW1 is the own sister of Yaka
Lakshmi wife of DW2 K.Kumar. A1 is the own brother of DW2. The other admitted fact is with regard to panchayath held at Visnoor 16 village in the presence of elders PW4 to PW6 and DW3 and DW4. It is an admitted fact that no medical report is filed before this court to prove that the pregnancy of PW1 was got terminated. The report
Ex.P1 was lodged by Pw1 with the SI of Police P.Anthaiah PW7 on 28.08.2009 on the basis of which PW7 registered FIR Ex.P2. In the report Ex.P1, PW1 stated she is studying B.Sc I Year. In the cross examination, PW1 deposed that her Date of Birth is in the year 1991.
In the chief examination, Pw1 deposed she studied up to degree and completed her science graduation in the year 2013. In the cross examination, PW1 deposed that she studied intermediate during the period 2007-09 and she completed her B.Sc Degree in the year 2012.
in such circumstances, there was every opportunity for the investigation officer PW7 to have collected the birth certificate of PW1 to prove her age. But in view of the fact that PW1 stated in the cross examination that her date of birth is in the year 1991 and since the report Ex.P1 was lodged in the year 2009, it is to be concluded that
PW1 was not a minor by the date of offence.
27) PW1 in the chief examination deposed that when she visited her elder sister's house at Municipal Colony, Dilsukhnagar while studying intermediate in the year 2008, she met A1 and fell in love with each other and at that time her sister Lakshmi and her mother-in-law A3 went to Palakurthi village and her brother-in-law attended his duty and she was alone in the house and that on one day
A1 without having any permission, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. Admittedly, the said fact was not stated by Pw1 in the report
Ex.P1 or in her earlier statement before the police. As stated above, 17
Pw1 stated before police and in Ex.P1 report that A1 followed her two years that he is in love with her and promised to marry her and by saying gullible words, had sexual intercourse with her and that she stayed with A1 for one month. The said facts were not stated by PW1 in her chief examination. In her chief examination, PW1 further deposed that on the date of her return, A1 stated that he is in love with her and that he will marry her and that for that reason, he had sexual intercourse with her and that subsequently the accused called her over her phone and used to contact her every day and he used to visit his village once in a week and he used to have sexual intercourse with her twice in a month on an average.
28) The learned counsel for the accused contended that PW1 foisted a false case against A1 as A1 refused to marry PW1 as she was already married to one Venkatesh and that A1 never had sexual intercourse with Pw1 and that A1 never made any promise that he will marry PW1 and that A1 and other accused did not terminate the pregnancy of PW1 and that PW1 and the prosecution failed to file any medical report before this court to show that pregnancy of PW1 was got terminated in the year 2009 and in support of his contentions, he relied on the reported decision at 2003 Lawsuit SC 211 Uday Vs.
State of Karnataka wherein it was held as follows:
23. Keeping in view the approach that the court must adopt in such cases, we shall now proceed to consider the evidence on record. In the instant case, the prosecutrix was a grown up girl studying in a college. She was deeply in love with the appellant. She was however, aware of the fact that since they belonged to different castes, marriage was not possible. In any event the proposal for their marriage was bound to be seriously opposed by their family members. She admits having told so to the appellant when he proposed to her the first time. She had sufficient intelligence to understand the significance and moral quality of the act she was consenting to. That is why she kept it a secret as long 18 as she could. Despite this, she did not resist the overtures of the appellant, and in fact succumbed to ti. She thus freely exercised a choice between resistance and assent. She must have known the consequences of the act, particularly when she was conscious of the fact that their marriage may not take place at all on account of caste considerations. All these circumstances lead us to the conclusion that she freely, voluntarily, and consciously consented to having sexual intercourse with the appellant, and her consent was not in consequence of any misconception of fact.
24. There is another difficulty in the way of the prosecution. There is no evidence to prove conclusively that the appellant never intended to marry her. Perhaps he wanted to, but was not able to gather enough courage to disclose his intention to his family members for fear of strong opposition from them. Even the prosecutrix stated that she had full faith in him. It appears that the matter got complicated on account of the prosecutrix becoming pregnant. Therefore, on account of the resultant pressure of the prosecutrix and her brother the appellant distanced himself from her.
25. There is yet another difficulty which faces the prosecution in this case. In a case of this nature, two conditions must be fulfilled for the application of Sec.90 of IPC. Firstly, it must be shown that the consent was given under a misconception of fact. Secondly, it must be proved that the person who obtained the consent knew, or had reason to believe that the consent was given in consequence of such misconception. We have serious doubts that the promise to marry induced the prosecutrix to consent to having sexual intercourse wit the appellant. She knew, as we have observed earlier, that her marriage with the appellant was difficult on account of caste considerations. The proposal was bound to meet with stiff opposition from members of both families. There was, therefore, a distinct possibility, of which she was clearly conscious, that the marriage may not take place at all despite the promise of the appellant. The question still remains whether even if it were so, the appellant knew, or had reason to believe, that the prosecutrix had consented to having sexual intercourse with him only as a consequence of her belief, based on his promise, that they will get married in due course. There is hardly any evidence to prove this fact. On the contrary the circumstances of the case tend to support the conclusion that the appellant had reason to believe that the consent given by the prosecutrix was the result of their deep love for each other. It is not disputed that they were deeply in love. It is also not without significance that the prosecutrix stealthily went out with the appellant to a lonely place at 12 O'Clock in the night. It usually happens in such cases, when two young persons are madly in love, that they promise to each other several times that come what may, they will get married. As stated by the prosecutrix the appellant also made such a promise on more than one occasion. In such circumstances, the promise loses all significance, particularly when they are overcome with emotions and passion and find themselves in situations and circumstances where they, in a weak moment, succumbed to the temptation of having sexual relationship. This is what appears to have happened in this case as well, and the prosecutrix willingly consented to having sexual intercourse with the appellant with whom she was deeply in love, not because he promised to marry her, but because she was deeply in love, not because he promised to marry her, but because she also desired it. In these circumstances it would be very difficult to impute to the appellant knowledge that the prosecutrix had consent in consequence of a misconception of fact 19 arising from his promise. IN any event, it was not possible for the appellant to know what was in the mind of the prosecutrix when she consented, because there were more reasons than one for her to consent.
29) In the cross examination PW1 admitted that she was in love with A1 and they were in love for two years and the same is stated in
Ex.P1 report. PW1 denied the suggestion that they forced A1 to marry her and that she foisted a false case against A1 to A6 and that
A1 is younger to her. PW3 mother of PW1 deposed about six years back PW1 came to dilsukhnagar to the hosue of her daughter Yaka
Lakshmi to find a job and that PW1 became pregnant and A1 got terminated the said pregnancy and that PW1 got pregnancy through
A1. Whereas, the evidene of PW3 is inconsistent with the evidence of
PW1 and PW2. PW2 the father of PW1 deposed about six years back
A1 kidnapped his daughter and brought her to Dilsukhnagar and kept her for six months with him and made her pregnant and subsequently
A1 got the said pregnancy terminated then the said fact was informed to him and his wife and then they brought the elders to the house at
Visnoor village and conducted a panchayath. It is not the case of the prosecution or the evidence of PW1 and PW3 that PW1 was kidnapped by A1 and made PW1 to live with him for six months and made her pregnant whereas, PW1 stated that she came to the house of her elder sister Yaka Lakshmi to visit her and then A1 had sexual intercourse against her will and subsequently promised to marry her and had sexual intercourse regularly with her by visiting her village.
Whereas, PW3 deposed that PW1 came to Yaka Lakshmi's house in search of his job and that A1 made her pregnant and got it terminated. Hence, there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW1 20 and PW3 on the material point whether A1 promised PW1 to marry her and had sexual intercourse with her. In view of the fact that PW1 was major by the date of alleged offence and inview of the evidence of PW1 that A1 used to visit their village once in a week and used to have sexual intercourse with her twice in a month after the above alleged incident at the house of her elder sister Yaka Lakshmi at
Dilsukhnagar and keeping in view of the ratio laid down in the above reported case at 2003 Lawsuit 211 it is to be concluded that PW1 was willingly consented to have sexual intercourse with A1 as she was in love and not because he promised to marry her and in these circumstances, it would be very difficult to impute to A1 that the prosecutrix PW1 had consented sexual intercourse with A1 under the misconception of fact arising from his promise. Except the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 that A1 had sexual intercourse with PW1 there is no medical evidence on record to prove the said fact and further in view of the fact that A1 is totally denying the said fact the burden is on the prosecution to prove the said fact beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, the prosecution also failed to produce any medical evidence before this court that the pregnancy of PW1 was terminated on a particular date and further failed to prove that it was terminated by A1, A3 to A6. Nothing wrong was elicited in thecross examination of DW1 (A1) by the prosecution to establish that he had sexual intercourse with PW1 promising to marry her. In view of the aforesaid discussion, since there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 on the material aspect and inview of the absence of medical evidence on record to show that A1 had sexual intercourse 21 with PW1 and that pregnancy of PW1 was got terminated and since the evidence of PW1 is improved from her earlier version before the police and in view of the fact that PW1 was a major by the date of alleged offence, it is to be concluded that the evidence on record is found not sufficient to find A1 guilty for the offences u/sec. 417 and 313 of IPC that he had sexual intercourse with PW1 on the misconception to marry her and further, there is no evidence on record to show that A3 to A6 got terminated pregnancy of PW1 and in such circumstances it is to be concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A1, A3 to A6 for the charges u/sec. 417, 313 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and A1, A3 to A6 are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt and are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.
30)In the result, the Accused no.1, 3 to 6 are found not guilty for the charges punishable under section U/s 417, 313 of I.P.C framed against accused no.1, 3 to 6 and they are acquitted U/s 235(1)
Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open
court on this the 6th day of April, 2016.
FAC II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:
PW.1: B.RenukaDW1: K.Babu PW.2: MuthaiahDW2: K.Kumar PW.3: B.SalammaDW3: Yakaiah PW.4: B.IlaiahDW4: K. Yellamma 22
PW.5: K.Maisaiah PW.6: B.Ramulu PW.7: P.Anthaiah
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: First Information Report
FOR DEFENCE: - Nil-
FAC II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
23 06.04.2016
Police present. Accused no.1, 3 to 6 are present. Judgment is pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.
In the result, the Accused no.1, 3 to 6 are found not guilty for the charges punishable under section U/s 417, 313 of I.P.C framed against accused no.1, 3 to 6 and they acquitted U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
FAC IIASJ
1
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAaGAR, HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SRI. V. BALA BHASKAR RAO,
FAC II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Dated on this the 28th Day of January, 2016.
SC No. 337 / 2010
Name of the complainant: The State through PS Rajendranagar
Name of the accused: Jaffar Khan S/o. Niyamath Khan, Aged about 35yrs, Occ: Real Estate Business, R/o. H.no. 4-104/2, Road No.9,JalalBabaNagar, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.
Crime Number: 338/2008
Offence Under Section: 376, 366, 307 of IPC,
PRC No.: 136/2009 on the file of VIII Metropolitan
Magistrate,Cyberabadat
Rajendranagar
Case Committed by: Sri.Ch.VenkateswaraRaoVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.
Prosecution conducted by: Kovkuntla Shiva Kumar, II Addl. P.P.
Defence conducted by: A.Ravikanth Reddy Advocate for Accused
Plea of the accused: Not guilty
Sentence of order : In the result the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section U/s 366, 376, 307 of I.P.C framed against the accused and he is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after lapse of six from the date of this judgment. The unmarked property shall be confiscated to state after lapse of appeal time.
This case coming before me for hearing in the
presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and
of Sri. G.Chandrasekhar, Advocate for the accused
and having stood over the matter for consideration till
this day, this court delivered the following:
2
J U D G M E N T
1)The Inspector of Police, PS Rajendranagar filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/sec. 376, 366, and 307 of IPC in Cr.no. 338/2008 of PS Rajendranagar.
2)The brief facts of the charge sheet are that on 28.03.2008 at 1PM while the defacto complainant and the victim Mateen Unnisa
Begum was going to Rabhar Tailoring Centre in Jalal Baba Nagar, the accused who is the brother-in-law of the victim came in an auto and forcibly pushed the victim in to the auto and took her with him. When the defacto complainant/victim tried to shout, the accused shown and kept a knife on her throat and told the defacto complainant not to shout or else he will kill her. The accused took the defacto complainant towards Imlibun Bus depot and from there to an area covered with bushes on the necklace road besides Meeralam Tank and committed rape on defacto complainant and forced her to marry him and insisted her to give consent before all the family members of the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant refused to give consent, the accused beat her indiscriminately and attempted to kill the defacto complainant by throttling her. On the next day (I.e) on 29.03.2008 the defacto complainant escaped from the clutches of the accused and reached him and informed her parents. On 30.03.2008 at 4PM the defacto complainant lodged report with the Inspector of
Police, PS Rajendranagar, Ch. Srinivas who registered a case in
Cr.no.338/2008 u/sec. 366, 376, 307 of IPC took up investigation in 3 this case examined the defacto complainant and her mother
Rahmunnisa Begum, Salma Begum, Shaik Hussain and Nizima
Tahseen and recorded their statements and referred the victim to
Maternity Hospital at Afzalganj, Hyderabad for examination about the sexual assault . The investigation officer visited the scene of offence at Meeralam Tank, observed the same in the presence of mediators
Mohd Idris and Shaik Meera Bai and conducted scene of offence observation panchanama on 22.04.2008 at 3PM, the investigation officer Ch.Srinivas the Inspector of Police PS Rajendranagar arrested the accused at his residence at Jalal Baba Nagar, Rajendranagar and pursuant to his confession he seized one cell phone at the instance of the accused under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators
Mohd Yousuf Jani and Syed Younus Ali and brought the accused to
PS Rajendranagar and effected his arrest and after completion of arrest formalities, produced accused before the court for judicial custody. After receipt of medical examination reports of the defacto complainant and the accused and on completion of investigation, the
Inspector of Police PS Rajendranagar filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/sec. 366, 376, 307 of IPC.
3) The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under section 366, 376, 307 of I.P.C against the accused in PRC No.
136 / 09 by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at
Rajendranagar and committed the case to the Hon'ble Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar as the learned magistrate
having perused the record found the case as exclusively triable by the 4 court of sessions after furnishing the case copies as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4) The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No. 337 / 2010 and made over the case to this court for the purpose of disposal according to law.
5) This court having considered the record, framed charges under section 366, 376, 506 of I.P.C against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the said charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6) During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution has examined PW 1 to PW 11 and marked Ex. P1 to P14.
7) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against him for which he denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.
8) Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.
9) Now the point for determination is whether the
prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the charges
under section 366, 376, 506 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable
doubt?
10)The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case, as stated above, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and marked Ex.P1 to P14. PW1 is the mother of the defacto complainant, PW2 is the circumstantial witness and the incharge of the Rabbar Tailoring 5
Centre where the defacto complainant was running tailoring by the date of incident, PW3 is the sister of the defacto complainant, PW4 is the independent witness, PW5 is the mediator for the scene of offence observation panchanama, PW6 and PW7 are the independent mediators who attested the panchanama for seizure of the cell phone from the possession of the accused. PW8 is medical officer who examined the defacto complainant and issued medical report Ex.P7, PW9 is the medical officer who treated the injuries of
PW1 at Osmania General Hospital and issued wound certificate
Ex.P8, PW10 is the medical officer who conducted the potency test on the accused at Osmania Medical College, PW11 is the inspector of police PS Rajendranagar who conducted investigation in this case.
11) The prosecution in this case could not examine the defacto complainant and the victim Ms.Mateen unnisa Begum as she is living in Saudi Arabia.
12) PW1 Rahamunnisa Begum the mother of the defacto complainant and victim has deposed that the accused is her son-in- law and husband of Salma Begum. PW1 deposed that about seven or eight years back on one day at about 1PM her daughter
Mateenunnissa Begum started from her residence to reach tailoring center in their locality and her daughter Mateenunnissa Begum did not return to the house till 4PM and they searched for her for the entire night and on the next day evening at 6PM Mateenunnissa
Begum returned to their house and informed that accused had 6 forcibly taken her away and committed rape on her and then she and her daughter went to Rajendranagar PS and gave a report to police.
PW1 stated, by the date of offence her daughter was aged about 22yrs and her daughter was referred to hospital by police for medical check up. PW1 deposed that about two years back, she perforrmed the marriage of Mateenunnissa Begum and at present she is working at Saudi Arabia. PW1 denied the suggestion that her daughter
Mateenunnisa Begum was after the accused to marry her and as the accused refused that she filed this false case against the accused and that the accused never abducted her daughter and that the accused never committed rape on her daughter and that she is deposing falsely.
13) PW2 Nizima has deposed that she is working as
Director, Rahbar Tailoring Center at HUDA Colony, Jalal Baba Nagar and that she is in the process of training women in tailoring work and that working hours of the center are 1PM to 4PM. PW2 stated
Mateenunnissa Begum was a student in her tailoring center in the year 2008 and she does not know the facts of this case. As PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution case, the learned APP has examined PW2 with the prior permission of this case but failed to elicit anything in support of the prosecution case. Statement of PW2
before police u/sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C is marked as Ex.P2.
14) PW3 Salma Begum has deposed that the accused is her husband and on 28.03.2008 on friday her husband abducted
Mateenunnisa Begum and her sister returned on the next day 7 evening and on enquiry she informed that accused by keeping a knife on her throat and threatening her, had abducted her and committed rape on her and she also shown injuries on her hands. PW3 stated, her sister Mateenunnia Begum gave report to police and she also accompanied her sister to PS Rajendranagar. In the cross examination, PW3 admitted that on 08.12.2006 she gave Khulanama divorce to her husband and executed document in her writing regarding the same and her husband did not accept the above said divorce and from the year 2006 till the date of offence, she lived with her husband (accused).
15) PW4 Shaik Hussain the independent witness in this case deposed that, he is a resident of Jalal Baba Nagar and neighbour of
PW1 and he does not know facts of this case and he does not the accused. As PW4 turned hostile to the prosecution case, the learned
APP has cross examined PW4 with the prior permission of this court but failed to elicit anything insupport of the prosecution case. The statement of PW4 u/sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C is marked as Ex.P3.
16) PW11 Ch.Srinivas the then Inspector of Police, PS
Rajendranagar has deposed that on 30.03.2008 at 4PM he received a complaint from Mathinunnisa Begum on the basis of which he registered a case in Cr.no. 338/2008 u/sec. 366, 376 and 307 of IPC and submitted the original FIR to the court and he took up further investigation in this case Ex.P10 is the report, Ex.P11 is the FIR and he examined Mathinunnisa Begum and PW1 at PS and recorded their statements and then, he visited the scene of offence which is 8 situated at Mir-Alam Tank and observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators PW5 and another and prepared the scene of offence observation panchanama and rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P12 is the scene of offence observation panchanama and
Ex.P13 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence, PW11 stated, he sent the victim Mathinnunisa Begum to Osmania General Hospital under police escort for her medical examination and then visited
Jalalbabanagar and secured the presence of PW2 to PW4 examined them and recorded their statements. PW11 stated, on 22.04.2008
Moulana ASI of Police, PS Rajendranagar apprehended the accused at his residence at 3PM and produced before him and then he secured the presence of mediators PW6 and PW7 and in their presence he interrogated the accused and pursuant to the confession of accused, he seized a cell phone with camera from the posession of accused which belongs to the victim under cover of panchanama,
Ex.P14 is the admissible portion of confession cums eizure panchanama, dt 22.04.2008. PW11 stated that then he arrested the accused and after completion of arrest formalities he produced the accused before the court for judicial custody. PW11 stated, subsequently, he forwarded the material objects which are received from Medical Officer who examined the victim to FSL, Hyderabad through the court for examination and his opinion. PW11 stated, on 19.09.2008 the accused was subjected to potency test through the process of court and on receipt of the medical examination reports and on completioin of the investigation his successor K. Ram Bhupal 9
Rao filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 366, 376 and 307 of IPC and that PW2, PW4 stated before him as in Ex.P2 and P3 respectively.
17) To corroborate the above evidence of PW1 regarding the seizure of the cell phone from the possession of the accused under cover of Ex.P14 confession cum seizure panchanama, the prosecution examined two independent mediators as PW6 and PW7.
PW6 and PW7 totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and deposed that about seven years back, when they went to PS
Rajendranagar on their personal work, police obtained their signature on some papers and they does not know the contents of the said documents.
18) The prosecution also examined the PW5 as independent mediator who attested the scene of offence observation panchanama, PW5 Mohd Idris Ali turned hostile to the prosecution case and deposed that he does not know the facts of this case and he never signed on any document at the instance of police and the signatures shown to him does not belong to him.
19) PW8 Dr.E.Vanaja Reddy Asst. Professor, Govt. Maternity
Hospital, Petlaburz, Hyderabad has deposed that on 30.03.2008 she examined the victim girl Mateenunnisa Begum aged about 22yrs, on the requisition of Inspector of Police, PS Rajendranagar and found bruises on both forearms, swelling of left arm, bruise on the lateral side of the left knee, bruise on the back of right thigh and on her vaginal examination found external genitalia was healthy, hymen was 10 not intact, admitting one finger easily. PW8 deposed that she collected two slides of vaginal smears and nail clippings and the specimen sent to APFSL, Hyderabad and in turn the Asst. Director,
APFSL, Hyderabad forwarded the report, dt. 14.07.2008 to her and it contained that semen and spermatozoa are not detected on items no.3 and foreign material was not detected on item no.3. Basing on the above said report she gave her final report dt. 16.12.2008 stating that sexual (assault) intercourse cannot be ruled out. Ex.P6 is the report dt. 14.07.2008 issued by Asst.Director APFSL Hyderabad,
Ex.P7 is the report dt. 16.12.2008 issued by her.
20) PW9 Dr.P.Loknath Civil Asst. Surgeon has deposed that on 30.03.2008 at 9:30PM he examined Mateenunnisa Begum aged about 26yrs, on the requisition of SHO PS Rajendranagar accompanied by PC 1843 and on her examination he found 1.Contusion over right forearm, 2. Contusion over left forearm, 3.Contusion over right thigh and after giving first aid to the patient he sent her for obtaining X ray over the above injuries and the X-ray revealed no bony fractures and he opined that the above injuries are simple in nature, Ex.P8 is the medical certificate issued by him in the name of Mateenunnisa Begum.
21) PW10 Dr.K.Jaya Raju Professor, Dept. Of Forensic
Medicine, Govt. Medical College has deposed that he worked as
Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Osmania
Medical College, Hyderabad and on 19.09.2008 he examined accused, aged about 35yrs on requisition of the Inspector of Police, 11
PS Rajendranagar at about 12noon and on his physical examination he gave the potency certificate stating that there is nothing to suggest that the individual examined is not capable of performing the act of sexual intercourse. Ex.P9 is the certificate of potency dt. 19.09.2008 issued by him.
22) In the instant case, as stated above the charge against the accused is that on 28.03.2008 at about 1PM the accused abducted Mateenunnisa Begum by threatening her by showing a knife and committed rape on her at Meeralum Tank bushes and threatened her with dire consequences and thereby the accused is liable for the punishment u/sec. 366, 376, 506 of IPC.
23) As stated above, the prosecution cound not examine the defacto complainant and the victim Mateenunnisa Begum as she is now living in Saudi Arabia and the police are unable serve summons on her. The evidence of the PW1 the mother of the defacto complainant and the evidence of PW3 sister of defacto complainant and who also happend to be the wife of the accused is only circumstantial in nature that they were informed by Mateenunnisa
Begum that she was abducted by the accused and that the accused committed rape on her. The prosecution has examined two independent witnesses PW2 and PW4 but both of them turned hostile to the prosecution case. The evidence of the mediators PW5 to PW7 panchas for scene of offence observation and the seizure panchanama turned hostile to the prosecution case and hence the evidence of PW5 to PW7 is of no help to the prosecution case. The 12 evidence of the medical officers PW8 and PW9 shows that
Mateenunnisa Begum suffered injuries on her body and that the evidence of PW8 further shows that Hymen of the victim was not intact and that the FSL Report Ex.P6 issued by Asst. Director,
APFSL, Hyderabad dt.14.07.2008 shows that semen and spermatozoa are not detected on items no. 2 and 3 and foreign material was not detected on item no.3 and basing on the said report, she gave final report dt. 16.12.2008 stating that sexual (assault) intercourse can not be ruled out. In such circumstances, it is to be concluded that on the basis of the above evidence of PW8, there is no material before this court that the accused had committed the rape on the victim girl. The evidence of the medical officer PW10 goes to show that he conducted physical examination of the accused and gave potency certificate E.xP9 stating that there is nothing to suggest that the individual examined is not capable of performing the act of sexual intercourse. The evidence of the investigation officer
PW11 goes to show regarding registration of case, investigation done by him and sending the victim girl to medical examination, arrest of the accused and filing of the charge sheet. In the cross examination,
PW11 stated as per the report Ex.P10 an auto was used for kidnapping the victim girl and during the course of investigation he could not trace the said Auto and no witnesses were examined to show that the accused and victim girl travelled in an auto from
Jalalbaba nagar to Meeralam Tank.
13
24)In the present case, the victim girl could not be examined
before this court as she is residing in Saudi Arabia and hence the
prosecution could not produce the material witness before this court and due to non examination of the said material witness, the prosecution is unable to prove its case that the accused committed rape on the defacto complainant by abducting her and the evidence adduced by the prosecution is found not sufficient to find the accused guilty for the charges framed against him and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the charges u/sec. 366, 376, 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt and is to be acquitted. The point is answered accordingly.
25)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section U/s 366, 376, 506 of I.P.C framed against the accused and they are acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment. Unmarked property shall be shall be confiscated to state after lapse of appeal time
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the
open court on this the 28th day of January, 2016.
FACII ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:
PW.1: Rahamunnissa Begum - Nil - PW.2: Nizima PW.3: Salma Begum 14
PW.4: Shaik Hussain PW.5: Mohd Idris Ali PW.6: Mohd Yousuf Janai PW.7: Syed Younus Ali PW.8: Dr.E.Vanaja Reddy PW.9: Dr.P.Loknath PW.10: Dr.K.Jaya Raju PW.11: Ch.Srinivas
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1: Nil Ex.P2: Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3: Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P4: Signature of PW6 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P5: Signature of PW7 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P6: Report dt. 14.07.2008 Ex.P7: Report dt.16.12.2008 Ex.P8: Medical Certificate of LW1 Ex.P9: Certificate of Potency dt. 19.09.2008 Ex.P10: Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW15 Ex.P11: First Information Report Ex.P12: Scene of offence observation panchanama Ex.P13: Rough Sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P14: Admissible portion of confession cum seizure panchanama
MATERIAL OBJECTS: -Nil-`
FAC II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
15 28.01.2016
Police present, Accused is present.
Judgment pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable under section U/s 366, 376, 506 of I.P.C framed against accused and he is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment. The unmarked property shall be confiscated to state after lapse of appeal time.
FAC IV ASJ
1
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SRI. V. BALA BHASKAR RAO,
FAC II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Dated on this the 1st Day of April, 2016
SC No. 103/ 2010
Name of the complainant: The State through PS Medipally
Name of the accused: A-1. Pisay Gopala Krishna S/o. Govinda Rao, Aged about 38yrs, Occ: General Insurance Agent, R/o. H.no.22- 3, V.V.Nagar, Saroornagar, N/o. Adoni of Kurnool District. A-2. Pisay Raghu S/o.Govinda Rao, Aged about 32yrs, Occ: Pvt. Trading Company, R/o. H.no.22-3, V.V.Nagar, Saroornagar, N/o. Adoni of Kurnool District. A-3. Pisay Govinda Rao S/o. Eshwarappa, Aged about 72yrs, R/o.NGO Colony, Adoni of Kurnool District, A-4. Pisay Rukmini W/o. Govinda Rao Aged about 58yrs, R/o. NGO Colony, Adoni of Kurnool District.
Crime Number: 34/2009
Offence Under Section: 498-A, 306 of IPC,
PRC No.: 23/2009 on the file of XI Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.nagar
Case committed by: Sri.K.VenkateshwarRaoXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar
Prosecution conducted by: Kovkuntla Shiva Kumar, II Addl. P.P.
Defence conducted by: M/s.J.Rajeshwar Advocate for Accused
Plea of the accused: Not guilty
Sentence of order : In the result, the accused no.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 498-A, 306 of I.P.C framed against accused and they are acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
2
This case coming before me for hearing in the
presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and
of M/s.J.Rajeshwar, Advocate for the accused and
having stood over the matter for consideration till this
day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1)The SI of Police, PS Saroornagar filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/sec. 498-A, 306 of IPC in
Cr.no. 34 of 2009 of PS Saroornagar.
2)The brief facts of the charge sheet are that Smt.Gowry is the fourth daughter of Sakarya Govinda Raj and that the marriage of
Gowry was performed with A1 about ten years back and both of them are living together in the first floor of the house of the defacto complainant G.Nagaraj at V.V.Nagar, Saroornagar as tenants and that A1 and Smt.Gowry are blessed with two sons and that A2 was also residing along with A1 and Gowry and their sons. At the time of marriage of Gowry her father presented 6 tulas of gold, other valuables as dowry as per the demand of A1 to A4 and celebrated the marriage in a grand manner. Subsequently, A1 to A4 subjected the deceased to cruelty both mentally and physically insisting her to get
additional amounts from her brothers who were working as software
engineers and humiliated her and beat her on many occasions.
Keeping in view of the future of her two children the deceased bore all harassment of A1 to A4 and that A1 to A4 did not send Gowry to her parent's house even on the occasion of marriage of her sisters and that in the recent past the father of Gowry, Sakarya Govinda Raj sold away his shop building and knowing the same A1 to A4 started insisting the deceased to get her share of Rs.2,00,000/- from the sale 3 consideration amount from her father and that on that account, harassed her on many occasions. Smt.Gowry expressed her sufferings at the hands of A1 to A4 to her parents over telephone many times and that her father convinced her to adjust to the situation. When the harassment of A1 to A4 reached beyond point of endurance, that on 12.01.2009 at about 4PM the deceased bolted the door from inside and committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with her saree in the hall and that her son Harshavardhan returned to the house and found no response on knocking the door, peeped inside through the window, noticed his mother Gowry hanging to the ceiling fan and he informed the same to the house owner G.Nagaraju along with the neighbours came over there and noticed deceased hanging to the ceiling fan and called 108 Ambulance Service and the said Ambulance personnel came to the spot, examined the deceased and declared her dead. That on 12.01.2009 at about 7PM the house owner G.Nagaraju lodged report with the Inspector of police PS
Saroornagar P.Srinivas Reddy who registered a case in Cr.no.
34/2009 u/sec. 174 Cr.P.C and entrusted investigation to ASI of police, PS Saroornagar G.Papa Rao. During the course of investigation, G.Papa Rao the investigation officer in this case recorded statements of G.Nagaraju, P.Harshavardham, S.Govinda
Raj, Sakarya Mamatharaj, Sakarya Pavan Kumar and visited the scene of offence and observed the same in the presence of mediators
S. Mallikarjun, and S. Youvaraj and prepared the scene ofoffence observation panchanama and rough sketch and seized Saree which was used for commission of offence and photographed the scene of 4 offence with the help of P.Praveen Kumar and shifted the dead body to Osmania General Hospital held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators S. Mallikarjun and Devara
Swaroopa and subjected the dead body for Postmortem examination and Dr. A.Yadagiri the Asst. Professor, Osmania Medical College,
Hyderabad conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the cause of death is due to hanging. Basing on the statements recorded, the section of law was altered from Sec. 174
Cr.P.C to Sec. 498-A, 306 of IPC. That on 15.01.2009, A1 and A2 were arrested and were sent to judicial custody. A3 and A4 surrendered before the court and obtained bail. After receipt of postmortem examination report and on completion of investigation, the SI of police PS Saroornagar filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the offences punishable u/sec. 498-A, 306 of IPC.
3) The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 306 I.P.C against the accused in PRC No. 23 / 09 by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar and committed the case to the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar as the learned magistrate having perused the record found the case as exclusively triable by the court of
sessions after furnishing the case copies as contemplated under
section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4) The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No. 103 / 2010 and made over the case to this court for the purpose of disposal according to law.
5
5) This court having considered the record, framed charges under section 498-A, 306 I.P.C against accused no.1 to 4, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the said charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6) During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Ex. P1 to P17
7) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against them for which they denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.
8) Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.
9)Now the point for determination is whether the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges
under section 498-A, 306 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?
10)The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In this regard, as stated above, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Ex.P1 to
P17.
11) PW1 the defacto complainant G.Nagaraju has deposed that he is a resident of V.V.Nagar, Dilsukhnagar and that his brother
G.Srinivas is the owner of the house property at V.V.Nagar,
Dilsukhnagar and their house consists of ground floor and two floors and in the first floor they have given the entire floor on rent to the family of A1 and in the said portion A1 along with his wife Gowry the deceased in this case, the father, mother, brother of A1 used to reside and he does not know their names. PW1 stated, they lived 6 happily in their house as tenants during the years 2007 to 2009 and
Harsha Vardhan is the son of A1 and Gowry and that on 12.01.2009 at about 4PM the two children of A1 and Gowry called him to the first floor of their house and informed him that their mother is hanging from the fan with a Saree tied around her neck in the hall of the said portion and they took him to the back door of the said portion into the house and found Gowry hanging to the fan by tying a saree around her neck and then he called his mother and his neighbours. PW1 stated, then he called A1 over his cell phone on the number being informed by Harsha Vardhan and informed him about the above said fact and also called 108 ambulance service. PW1 stated, he and other neighbours forcibly opened the main door of the house by pushing it forcibly and the 108 ambulance service people came and examined Gowry and declared that Gowry died and they gave information to the police regarding the death of Gowry and police came to their house from PS Saroornagar and he gave report to police under Ex.P1. PW1 stated, he does not know the reason why
Gowry committed suicide.
12)PW6 Dr.A.Yadagiri the then Tutor, Department of Forensic
Medicine Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad has deposed that on 13.01.2009 on the requisition of SHO PS Saroornagar, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of Smt. P.Gowry and found, Antemortem ligature mark present around the neck measuring 37cms with varying 2cms to 10cms (due to slippage ) on front of the neck over and above thyroid cartilage with depressed mark under the anterior part of right rammus of mandible going obliquely downward and backward on the 7 side of the neck and the ligature mark is abarded, reddish brown in colour and patchment like, Hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage are intact and subcutaneous neck structures are cogested. PW6 stated, approximate time of death is 24hrs prior to postmortem examination and the cause of death to the best of his knowledge is due to hanging and he issued Ex.P7 postmortem examination report dt.13.01.2009, and Ex.P8 Final postmortem examination report dt.23.3.2009. In the cross examination, PW6 deposed that no injuries were found on the other parts of the deceased and he cannot say whether the deceased committed suicide due to health problem.
13) PW7 T.Praveen Kumar has deposed that on 22.01.2009 on the requisition of ASI of Police Papa Rao, PS Saroornagar he has taken photographs of the scene of offence at Vivekananda Nagar
Colony, Chaitanyapuri at D.No.22-3, wherein he has obtained the photographs of the lady who committed suicide by hanging to the fan in the bed room of the house and on developing the said digital photographs he handed over the same to ASI of Police Papa Rao.
Ex.P9 to P13 are the five photographs of the scene of offence taken by him.
14) In view of the above evidence on record, it is to be concluded that P.Gowry, wife of A1 committed suicide by hanging with a Saree to the ceiling fan situated in hall of the house at first floor at door no. 22-3 V.V.Nagar, Chaitanyapuri belonging to G.Nagaraj the brother of PW1. Though PW7 deposed that he took photographs on 22.01.2009 the said photographs were obtained on 12.01.2009.
8
15) Now the point to be determined is whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that P.Gowry committed suicide unable to bare the harassment for the additional dowry at the hands of A1 to A4 and whether A1 to A4 abetted P.Gowry to commit suicide and whether the A1 to A4 are liable to be punished for the charges u/sec. 498-A, 306 of IPC. To prove the above said charges, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW2 to PW5.
16) The investigation officer PW9 G. Papa Rao the ASI of
Police PS Saroornagar deposed that on 12.01.2009 at 7PM on the basis of the report lodged by PW1 that the Inspector of police, PS
Saroornagar registered a case in Cr.no.34/2009 u/sec. 174 Cr.P.C and submitted the FIR Ex.P15 to the revenue authorities and entrusted investigation to him. PW9 deposed that he took up investigation in this case on the same day and recorded the statement of PW1 at PS and proceeded to scene of offence which is situated at D.no.22-3, Vivekananda Nagar, Chaitanyapuri and found a woman committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan at the bed room in the house. PW9 stated, he secured the presence of mediators PW4 and S.Mallikarjun and observed the scene of offence in their presence and prepared the scene of offence observation panchanama and obtained the signatures on it, Ex.P16 is the scene of offence observation panchanama and he got the scene of offence photographed through PW7 and sent the dead body of the woman by name Gowry to Osmania General Hospital for postmortem examination. PW9 stated, on 13.01.2009 at about 1PM he conducted inquest over the dead body of Gowry at Osmania General 9
Hospital in the presence of PW8 and S.Mallikarjun and the mediators opined that the deceased died by committing suicide by hanging.
Ex.P14 is the inquest panchanama and he gave requisition to
Medical Officer, Osmania General Hospital to conduct autopsy over the dead body of Gowry and after completion of autopsy he handed over the dead body of Gowry to her relatives for performing final rites.
PW9 stated, he secured the presence of PW5 on 12.01.2009 at PS
Saroornagar, examined him and recorded his statement and on 13.01.2009 he secured the presence of PW2, PW3 and S. Pavan
Kumar at PS Saroornagar, examined them and recorded their statements. On 15.01.2009 he arrested A1 and A2 at his residence and brought A1 and A2 to PS Saroornagar and after completion of arrest formalities he produced accused before the court for judicial custody. PW9 stated, on 13.01.2009 after recording statements of the above witnesses, he altered the section of law from Sec. 174 of
Cr.P.C to Sec. 498-A and 306 of IPC and submitted the section of law alteration memo Ex.P17 to the court. After receipt of postmortem examination report and on completion of his investgiation, the SI of police P.Anthaiah filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the offences punishable u/sec. 498-A and 306 of IPC. PW2, PW3 and PW5 stated
before him as in Ex.P2, P3 and P6 respectively. The photographer
submitted the photographs marked as Ex.P9 to P13.
17) To corroborate the above evidence of PW9, the prosecution examined PW4. PW4 corroborated the evidence of PW6 and PW9 and deposed that the SI of Police, PS Saroornagar observed the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence observation 10 panchanama at the house of A1 to A3 and found a female dead body who conducted suicide by hanging with a Saree and that the SI of police PS Saroornagar prepared the scene of offence observation panchanama Ex.P4 and rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P5.
The prosecution has also examined PW8 who deposed that the SI of police conducted inquest over the dead body of a woman who committed suicide at the flat at V.V.Nagar and that she was informed that the said woman committed suicide by hanging and that she signed on inquest panchanama Ex.P14.
18) As stated above, the material witnesses of the prosecution are examined as PW2, PW3 and PW5. PW2 and PW3 are the parents of the deceased and PW5 is the son of deceased.
PW2 S.Govind Raj the father of the deceased P.Gowry deposed that the marriage of his daughter Gowry was performed with A1 about fifteen years back as per their caste customs at Adhoni and after the marriage A1 and his daughter lead their marital life at Hyderabad and
A2 resided in the same house along with A1 and that in the year 2009 A1 informed him that his daughter Gowry committed suicide and as such he along with his wife and son came to Hyderabad and found the dead body of his daughter at Osmania General Hospital and his daughter committed suicide due to health problems and A1 to
A4 are noway responsible for the death of his daughter.
19) PW3 S.Mamatha Raj wife of PW2 and mother of deceased deposed corroborating the evidence of PW1 and deposed that the marriage of A1 and her daughter Gowry was performed about fifteen years back as per their caste customs at Adhoni and 11 after the marriage, A1 and his daughter lead their marital life at
Hyderabad and in the year 2009 A1 informed her that her daughter
Gowry committed suicide and as such she along with PW2 and her son came to Hyderabad and found the dead body of her daughter at
Osmania General Hospital PW3 stated A1 to A4 are noway responsible for the death of their daughter.
20) PW5 Harshavardhan son of deceased deposed that he is studying 10th class and that A1 is his father and A2 is his paternal uncle and A3 and A4 are his grand parents and that his mother died during his childhood and he does not know the facts of this case and he does not know how his mother died as she died during his childhood.
21) As PW2, PW3 and PW5 totally turned hostile to the prosecution case, the learned APP has cross examined them with the prior permission of this court but nothing material in support of prosecution case was elicited. The statements of PW2, PW3 and
PW5 u/sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C are marked as Ex.P2, P3 and P5 respectively.
22) The charges against A1 to A4 is that unable to bare the harassment at the hands of A1 to A4 that P.Gowry committed suicide by hanging with a saree to the ceiling fan of the rented premises at
D.no.22-3, V.V.Nagar and that thereby A1 to A4 are liable to be punished for the offences punishable u/sec. 498-A, 306 of IPC. As stated above, the material witnesses PW2, PW3 and PW5 did not support the case of the prosecution. Parents of the deceased are examined by the prosecution as PW2 and PW3. PW2 and PW3 12 deposed that their daughter committed suicide due to health problems. PW5 the son of the deceased deposed that he does ot know how his mother died as she died during his child hood. The house owner PW1 deposed that he does not know the reason why
Gowry committed suicide. In such circumstances, it is to be concluded that there is no evidence on record in support of the prosecution case that A1 to A4 harassed and abetted Gowry to commit suicide. As stated above, the evidence of the investigation officer PW9 is circumstantial in nature and the evidence of panch witnesses PW4 and PW8 does not prove the guilt of acused and hence the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution is found not sufficient to find A1 to A4 guilty for the charges u/sec. 498-A and 306 of IPC and thus the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A4 for the charges u/sec. 498-A and 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and A1 to A4 are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt and are to be acquitted. The point is answered accordingly.
23) In the result, the accused no.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 498-A, 306 of I.P.C framed against the accused no.1 to 4 and they are acquitted U/s 235 (1)
Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of April, 2016.
FAC II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
13
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:
PW.1: G.Nagaraju- None - PW.2: S.Govind Raj PW.3: S.Mamatha Raj PW.4: J.Yuv Raj PW.5: Harshavardhan PW.6: Dr.A.Yadagiri PW.7: T.Praveen Kumar PW.8: D.Swaroopa PW.9: G.Papa Rao
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 Ex.P3: Sec. 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P4: Scene of offence observation panchanama Ex.P5: Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P6: Sec 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW5 Ex.P7: Postmortem Examination report dt. 13.01.2009 Ex.P8: Final postmortem examination report dt. 23.03.2009 Ex.P9 to Ex.P13: 5nos of photographs Ex.P14: Inquest panchanama Ex.P15: First Information Report Ex.P16: Scene of offence observation panchanama Ex.P17: Section of law alteration memo
MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil -
FAC II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
14 15.12.2015
SC No. 103 of 2010
01.04.2016
Police present, Accused no.1 to 4 are present. Judgment pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.
In the result, the accused no.1 to 4 found not guilty for the charges punishable 15 under section 498-A, 306 of I.P.C framed against accused and they are acquitted
U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges.
The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
II ASJ
1
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SRI. V. BALA BHASKAR RAO,
FAC II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Dated on this the 12th Day of January, 2016.
SC No. 174 / 2010
Name of the complainant:The State through PS SanathNagar.
Name of the accused :Kotamarthy Nagaraju S/o.Arjaiah, Aged about 22yrs, Occ: Worker in LICHousingFinanceat Secunderbad,R/o.H.No.12-12-000 , Bharth Nagar N/o.Kandukur village, VemsoorMandal,Khammam District.
Crime Number: 26 / 2010
Offence Under Section:U/s 366 of I.P.C
PRC No.:13/ 2010 on the file of IX Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally.
Case committed by:Sri. C.V.S.Sai Bhupathi, VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatapally.
Prosecution conducted by:Kovkuntla Shiva Kumar, II Addl. P.P.
Defence conducted by:Sri. M/s. Sri.CV Narayana Rao Advocate for Accused.
Plea of the accused:Not guilty.
Sentence of order :In the result the accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable under section U/s 366 of I.P.C framed against accused and he is acquitted U/s. 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
2
This case is coming before me for hearing in the
presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State
and of M/s. Sri.CV Narayana Rao Advocate for the
accused and having stood over the matter for
consideration till this day, this court delivered the
following:
J U D G M E N T
1) The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Sanathnagar filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 366 A of I.P.C in Cr. No. 26/ 2010 of P.S Sanathnagar.
2) The brief facts of the charge sheet are that the victim girl
Kumari Jyothi is the daughter of S.Shankara Shailoo and
Smt.Anjamma and aged about 16 years residing at Bharath Nagar colony and that the accused is also residing in the same locality.
That on 14-01-2010 at 10.00 P.M while Kumari.Jyothi student of 10th class got down the bus at Srinivasa Stationary Shop at
Bharath Nagar colony, After Darshanam of Basera temple along with her classmates and while she was proceeding to her house the accused forcibly taken her to his sister's house at
Ramachandrapuram village Moosapet Mandal of Krishna District and demanded her to marry. On 15-01-2010 10A.M the defacto complainant S.Shankara Shailoo reached the police station and gave report about the missing of his daughter with Inspector of police, PS Sanathnagar who registered the case in Cr.No.26/2010 under the head girl missing and entrusted the investigation of the
SI of police R.Vidya Sagar Reddy. During the course of the investigation R.Vidya Sagar Reddy examined and recorded the 3 statements of witnesses and issued the look out notice and that on 17-01-2010 at 9AM the missing girl Kumari Jyothi came to PS
Sanathnagar colony with her father and gave statement that she escaped from the accused and came to her residence and basing on the said statement of Kumari Jyothi the invesiatio officer had altered the section of law from girl missing to section 366A of IPC and that on 18-1-2010 at 2-15 PM the SI of police, PS
Sanathnagar arrested the accused at Bharath Nagar Colony and produced before the court for Judicial Custody. After Completion of investigation the SI of police, PS Sanathnagar filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence Punishable U/s.366A of
IPC .
3) The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 366 A of IPC against accused in PRC.No. 13/10 by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally a
Miyapur and committed the case to the Hon'ble Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar as the learned
magistrate having perused the record found the case as
exclusively triable by the court of sessions after furnishing the case copies as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4) The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No. 174/ 2010 and made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.
5) This court having persued the record framed the charge
U/s.366 of IPC against accused read over and explained to the 4 accused in Telugu for which he denied the said charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6) During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution has examined PW 1 to PW4 and marked Ex. P1 to P6.
7) After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against him for which accused denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.
8) Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.
9) Now the point for determination is whether the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the
charge under section 366 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable
doubt?
10) The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge U/sec. 366 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. In this regard, as stated above the prosecution has examined PW 1 to 4 and marked Ex. P1 to P6. PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 is the wife or Pw1. PW3 is the independent witness. PW4 is the Investigation Officer and SI of police PS Sanathnagar. In this case the prosecution could not examine the victim girl before the court as the concerned police could not served the summons on the victim girl as her where about are not known and hence the evidence of the victim girl was closed by this court.
5
11) PW1 deposed that the victim girl Jyothi is his daughter and he does not know the accused present in the court and that about 5 years back due to the dispute between him and his daughter that his daughter left his house and went to relatives house and that he searched for his daughter and lodged the report Ex.P1 with the police and that his daughter returned to home and informed that she went to her relatives house.
12) PW2 the mother of the victim girl and wife of PW1 deposed that her daughter Jyothi left their house about 5 years back due to a small dispute and that they searched for their daughter and lodged the report with the police and three days later her daughter returned to home and informed that she went to her relatives house
13) As PW1 and PW2 totally turned hostile to the prosecution case, the learned APP has cross examined PW1,PW2 with the prior permission of this court but failed to elicit anything in support of the prosecution case . The statements of PW1 and PW2 before the police U/s.161(3) of Cr.Pc. are marked as Ex.P2 and P3 respectively.
14) PW3 Sri.Avula Sanjeeva deposed that about 4 years back his friend PW1 informed that his daughter is found missing for last two days and PW1 lodged the report with the police, later daughter of PW1 returned to home and informed that she went to her relatives house. As PW3 resiled from his earlier version before the police and turned hostile to the prosecution case, the learned APP 6 has cross examined PW3 with the prior permission of this court but failed to elicit anything in support of the prosecution case. The statements of PW3 before the police Us.161(3) of Cr.PC is marked as Ex.P4.
15) PW4 R.Vidya Sagar Reddy the investigation officer and the then SI of police PS Sanathnagar deposed that on 15-1-2010 at 10AM on the basis of the report submitted by PW1 the Inspector of police PS Santhanagar registered the case and entrusted the investigation to him Ex.P5 is the FIR. PW4 stated during the course of investigation he examined PW1 at PS Sanath Nagar and recorded his statement and that he sent information to all the concerned police for tracing the missing girl. PW4 stated on 17-01- 2010 at about 9:30 AM PW1 and missing girl came to police station and he examined Kumari Jyothi and recorded her statement and basing on the said statement of Kumari Jyothi he altered the section of law from the girl missing to Section 366A of
IPC and submitted the section of law Alteration Memo Ex.P6 to the court.
16) PW4 stated on 18-01-2010 he arrested the accused at
Moosapet and produce him before the court for judicial custody and on the same day he examined PW2 ,PW3 and recoded their statements. PW4 stated after completion of the investigation he filed the charge sheet against that the accused for the offence
U/s.366A of IPC. PW6 stated PW1,2,3 stated before him as an
Ex.P2 to P4 respectively.
7
17) The charge against the accused is that on 14-1-2010 at 10PM that the accused forcibly kidnapped the minor girl Jyothi daughter of PW1 and PW2 with out the consent of her parents from Bharath Nagar colony and kept her in sister's house at
Krishna district forcing her to marry with him and that the victim girl escaped and returned to her parents house that thereby the accused committed to punishable U/s,366 of IPC.
18) In the instant case as stated above the prosecution could not examine Kumari Jyothi as the concerned police could not serve the summons on her. PW1 stated about two years back he performed the marriage of his daughter at present she is residing at Gulbharga. PW1,PW2 the parents of the victim girl and PW3 the independent witness totally turned the hostile to the prosecution case and their evidence is of no help to the prosecution case. PW1 to PW3 did not depose that Kumari Jyothi was kidnapped by the accused . The evidence of PW4 the investigation officer in this case is on;y circumstantial in nature with regard to the registration of the case,investigation made by him, arrest of the accused and filing of the charge sheet.
19) On close perusal of the entire evidence placed on record I am of the considered opinion that the evidence PW1 to PW4 is found not sufficient evidence to find the accused guilty for the charge U/s. 366 of IPC and prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the said charge beyond all reasonable doubt 8 and the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.
20) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable under section U/s 366 of I.P.C framed against accused and he is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this Judgment.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the
open court on this the 12th day of January, 2016 .
FAC II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: - Nil - PW.1: S.Shankar Sailoo PW.2: Smt.Anjamma PW.3: A.Sanjeeva Rao PW.4: R.Vidya Sagar Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED
Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on report dt. 22.12.2008 Ex.P2: S.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW 1. Ex.P3: S.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW 2. Ex.P4: S.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW 3 Ex.P5: First Information Report Ex.P6: Section of Law alteration memo from girl missing section 366.
FAC II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
9
SC 174/2010
12.01.2016
Police present. Accused is present.
Judgment is pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 366 of I.P.C framed against accused and he is acquitted U/s 235 (1)
Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
II ASJ
1
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SRI. V. BALA BHASKAR RAO,
II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Dated on this the 13th Day of January, 2016.
SC No. 316 / 2010
Name of the complainant:The State through PS SanathNagar.
Name of the accused :Talluri Gopala Krishna@ Soni S/o.Talluri Narayana age 22 yrs, Caste: Vyshnav, Occ: Auto driver R/o.H.No. 12-7-76 Moosapet.
Crime Number: 695 / 2009
Offence Under Section: U/s 366 -A`of I.P.C
PRC No.:114/ 2009 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally at Miyapur.
Case committed by:Sri. C.V.S.Sai Bhupathi, IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatapally.
Prosecution conducted by:Kovkuntla Shiva Kumar, II Addl. P.P.
Defence conducted by:Sri. M/s. Sri. V.V.K.Vishwanadan and other Advocate for Accused.
Plea of the accused:Not guilty.
Sentence of order :In the result the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section U/s 366 and 342 of I.P.C framed against accused and he is acquitted U/s. 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of
Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s. Sri.
V.V.K.Vishwanadan Advocate for the accused and having
stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court
delivered the following:
2
J U D G M E N T
1) The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Sanath Nagar filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 366 A of I.P.C in
Cr. No. 695/ 2009 of P.S Sanath Nagar
2) The brief facts of the charge sheet are that the Kumari P.Swathi was residing at Moosapet with her parents Sri Pokala Laxman and Smt.Lalitha and that she was studying in 9th class at Sai Vidhya Nikethan at Moosapet. The accused was also residing at Moosapet and doing auto driving, as accused is well known to Kumari Swathi and her parents and he frequently visited the house of Kumari Swathi and her family members and was moving freely with him due to which the accused took advantage, hatched the plan to kidnapp
P.Swathi to marry her and as per the plan on 26/10/2009 at about 2 PM, the accused forcibly kidnapped Kumari Swathi from Pragathi Nagar Cross roads and confined her at his house while she was returning from school and later accused forced Kumari Swathi to marry him.
3) On 02/11/09 at about 9:30 PM Sri P.Laxman the defacto complainant and father of the victim girl lodged a report with theSI of police Sanathnagar PS who registered a case in Cr.No.695/2009 under the head girl missing and entrusted the investigation to R.Vidya Sagar Reddy.During the course of investigation the
SI of police examined and recorded the statements of Sri.Pokala Laxman and his wife, Sri.Sandapuram Jeet Rao and made enquiries about the missing girl
Later on 2/11/09 at about 11;30 PM the accused and victim girl were brought to
P.S Sanathnagar on being found at the house of accused, thereafter the statements of the victim girl was recorded by the investigation officer and produced before the court of judicial custody. After completion of investigation 3 the SI of police P.S Sanathnagar filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable U/s.366 A of IPC.
4) The case was taken and file for the offence punishable U/s.366 A of IPC in
PRC.No. 114/2009 by the learned IX th Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at
Kukatpally and comitted the case to the Hon'ble Metropolitain
Sessions judge, cyberabad at L.B.nagar as the learned Magistrate having
perused the record found the case as exclusively triable by the court of
sessions and after furnishing the case copies as contemplated U/S.207 of
Cr.PC.
5) The Honorable Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cyberabad took the case on filed in SC 316/2010 and made over the case to this court for the purpose of disposal according to law.
6) This court having perused the record framed the charges U/s.366, 342 of IPC against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7) During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution has examined
PW1 to PW3 and marked Ex.P1 to P5.
8) After closure of the prosecution evidence accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.Pc with the incriminating evidence that it is brought on record against him for which he denied the said evidence and reported in defence evidence.
9) Heard the Arguments on both sides. Perused the material placed on record.
10) Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has
proved the guilt of the accused for the charges under section 366 and 342
of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?
11) The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the 4 accused for the charges U/sec. 366 and 342 of IPC. beyond all reasonable doubt. In this regard, as stated above the prosecution has examined PW1 to
PW3 and marked Ex. P1 to P5 . PW1and PW2 are the parents of the victim girl Kumari P.Swathi. PW3 is the SI of police PS Sanath nagar and also the
Investigation Officer in this case. The prosecution could not serve the summons on the victim girl inspite of number of adjournments and PW1 the father of
Kumari. P.Swathi gave letter to the police stating that Kumari Swathi is married and they does not want to proceed further in this case.
12) PW1 P.Laxman the defacto complainant and father of the victim girl deposed that about six years back his daughter swathi who was studying 8th class at Sai Vidyanikethan at Moosapet did not return back from the school and searched for his daughter at the school premises and then traced her at his relatives house and brought her back to his house PW1 stated that he did not lodge any report with police.
13) PW2 P.Lalitha the wife of PW1 deposed that about six years back her daughter swathi who was studing 8th cllass at Sai Vidyanikethan at Moosapet did not return back from the school and they searched for her daughter at the school premises and they traced her at her relatives house and brought her back to her house
14) As PW1 and PW2 totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and resiled from their earlier version before the police, the learned APP has cross examined PW1,PW2 with the prior permission of this court but failed to elicit anything in support of the prosecution case . The statements of PW1 and PW2
before the police U/s.161(3) of Cr.Pc. are marked as exhibits P2 and P3
respectively. Ex P1 is the signature of PW1 on the report Dt. 21/11/2009 lodged with the police.
5
15) PW3 R.Vidya Sagar Reddy the SI of police PS SanathNagar and the investigation officer in this case deposed that on basis of Ex.P1 report lodged by PW1 on 2-11-09, the Inspector of police PS Santhnagar registered the case under the head girl missing and entrusted the further investigation to him.
During the course of investigation he recorded the statement of PW1 at PS
Sanathnagar and proceeded to the scene of th offence which is situated at
Bharath nagar Moosapet the house of a accused and arrested and also found
P.Swathi at the house of accused.
16) PW3 stated then examined and recorded the statement of Swathi and brought her to PS Santhnagar and since she was a minor he handed over the custody of P.Swathi to her parents after recording her statement. PW3 stated after completion of arrest formalities he produced the accused before the court for judicial custody. PW3 stated he recorded the statement of Sandapuram Jeet
Rao and father of the victim girl. PW3 stated the father of the victim girl PW1 submitted the copy of certificate of birth of the victim girl showing the date of birth as 16-6-95. PW3 stated after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.366 A of IPC.
PW3 stated PW1 and PW2 stated before him as in Ex.P2 and P3 respectively.
17) The charge against the accused is that on 26-10-2009 while Kumari
Swathi aged about fifteen years was returning to her home during after noon from the school that the accused forcibly kidnapped her and kept her in his room at Bharathnagar colony demanding her to marry him and thereby the accused as liable to be punished for the offences U/s. 366 ad 342 of IPC.
18) In this regard as stated above the prosecution examined the parents of the victim girl P.Swathi as PW1 and PW2. PW1 and PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not depose anything against the accused. The 6 evidence of the investigation of PW3 is only circumstantial in nature. As stated above the prosecution could not examine the victim girl during as her marriage took place and her father PW1 gave a letter to the police stating that his daughter does not want to proceed further in the case. since the police could not serve the summons on the victim girl inspite of number of adjournments the evidence of Kumari Swathi was closed by this court.
19) On close perusal of the entire evidence placed on record and I am of the considered the opinion the prosecution could not adduce sufficient evidence before this court to prove the charges U/s. 366 and 342 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.
20) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable
U/s 366 and 342 of I.P.C and he is acquitted U/s. 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the
13th day of January, 2016 .
II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW.1: Pokala Laxman - Nil - PW.2: Pokala Lalitha PW.3: R.Vidya Sagar Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the report Dt.02-11-2009 lodged by PW1 with the police. Ex.P2: The statement of PW1 before the police U/s.161(3) Cr.P.c Ex.P3: The statement of PW2 before the police U/s.161(3) Cr.P.c Ex.P4: Report Dt.02-11-09 lodged by PW1 with the Police. Ex.P5: First Information Report in Cr.No.695/2009 of PS Sanathnagar.
II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
7
SC 316/2010
13.01.2016
Police present. Accused is present.
Judgment is pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 366 and 342 of I.P.C framed against accused and he is acquitted U/s 8 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
II ASJ
Order Record 15 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC.MU/81/2010 | petnm vs Vsresnm | 06 Apr 2016 | Order On Exgibit | Acquitted |
| SC.MU/103/2010 | petnm vs Vsresnm | 01 Apr 2016 | Order On Exgibit | Acquitted |
| SC.MU/337/2010 | Rajendranagar P.S. vs Jaffar Khan | 28 Jan 2016 | Order On Exgibit | Acquitted |
| SC.MU/316/2010 | Sanathnagar P.S. vs Vsresnm | 13 Jan 2016 | Order On Exgibit | Acquitted |
| SC.MU/174/2010 | Sanathnagar P.S. vs K Nagaraju | 12 Jan 2016 | Order On Exgibit | Acquitted |
| SC.MU/185/2010 | Saroonagar P.S. vs Ramoju Sreedhara Chary | 07 Jan 2016 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| SC.MU/212/2010 | Miyapur P.S. vs Vst.kumar | 07 Jan 2016 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| SC.MU/317/2010 | Chaitanyapuri P.S vs Vsresnm | 30 Dec 2015 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/661/2003 | A. Laxman vs The Asst. Devisional Engineer (north) | 29 Dec 2015 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/110/2006 | Syed Wajid Ali,So. Syed Yakoob Ali vs Mohammed Asghar | 26 Oct 2015 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/397/2006 | Kavali (Adla) Srisailam vs Vskavali alias (Adla) Narsimha | 26 Oct 2015 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| SC.MU/149/2010 | Phadishariff P.S. vs Vsresnm | 26 Oct 2015 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/230/2005 | G.Pochi Reddi vs Kandakatla Laxma Reddy | 02 Sep 2015 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| SC.MU/137/2010 | Chandanagar P.S. vs Vsresnm | 27 Feb 2012 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| SC.MU/258/2010 | Uppal P.S. vs P. Bhanu prakash | 09 Jan 2012 | Order On Exgibit | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Vacant1 handled?
Vacant1 has handled 15 court orders since 2010 at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.
What types of cases does Vacant1 hear?
Based on available records, Vacant1 primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.
Where is Vacant1 currently posted?
Vacant1 is posted as IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge-FTC at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana.
Are judgments by Vacant1 available online?
Yes. 5 judgments by Vacant1 are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
Since when is Vacant1 serving?
Vacant1 has been serving at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex since 2010.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Apr 2010 — Apr 2016IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge-FTC · 15 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court