C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 1
APVS0B0002872020
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR
DIVISION)-cum- ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE :
GAJUWAKA.
PRESENT: Smt. Sri Lakshmi Yarlagadda, B.Com., LL.M.,
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum- Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gajuwaka .
Wednesday the 15th day of April, 2026
CALENDAR CASE No. 120/2020
Between: State: Sub Inspector of Police, New Port Police Station. Visakhapatnam City. …. Complainant.
And
Jayaram Naik Munavath, S/o. Late Laxmi Roy, age: 25 years, ST Lambadi, R/o. D.No. 9-585, Opposite Police Stadium, Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam. … Accused
This case is coming on 13.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and of
Sri. A. Someswara Rao, Advocate, for Accused and after having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
Originally this case is filed before I Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam and numbered as CC.1597/2014.
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 2 In the year 2020, the case is transferred to this Court as per the Orders of the Hon’ble High Court in ROC No.476/E-1/2019 dated 15.02.2020 and proceedings of the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam
dated 23.03.2020 communicated in Dis.No.1931/ 19.05.2020 and re-
numbered as C.C. 120/2020.
2. The Sub Inspector of Police, New Port Police Station filed charge sheet against Accused in Cr.No.166/2014 under section. 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and Sections. 3 & 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act (for short D.P.Act).
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:
3.1) Accused is resident of Visalakshi Nagar and he is husband of defacto complainant/L.W.1 – Munavath Sri Usha. L.W.2-Bhookya
Latchee Ram is father of LW.1. L.W.3 – Bhookya Sri Lakshmi is mother of L.W.1. L.W.4 – Bonela Gurrayya, L.W.5 – Gudla Lxmi,
L.W.6 – Sabbi Usha, L.W.7 – Vaddadi Ramana, L.W.8 – Majji
Kanaka Durga, L.W.9 – Kimudu Ammanna are the witnesses.
L.W.10 – G. Srinivasu and L.W.11 - K. Rama Rao are the investigating officers.
3.2) L.W.1 is presently residing at LIG 359, Vinayaka Nagar, VUDA colony, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. The marriage between
L.W.1 and accused has taken place on 27.11.2009. Rs. 1.5 lakhs towards dowry and 10 Tulas of gold were given for solemnization
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 3 of marriage. L.W.1 lead matrimonial life at Visalakshi Nagar and due to unbearable dowry harassment of accused and his mother, she look shelter in her parents house and gave report in New port
P.S.., and it is registered in Cr. No. 142 of 2010 U/Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act of New Port P.S. In that case the accused and his mother were arrested and sent for remand.
3.3) Later on the assurance given by the accused and his mother,
L.W.1 attended before Lok Adalat on 16.6.2012 and compromised with them. Prior to that, on 19.03.2012, the accused took her to their house at Visalakshi Nagar and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- from
L.W.2 as he spent for legal expenses. L.W.2 agreed to pay the amount, but in two installments. The accused started demanding for immediate payment of Rs.2,00,000/-. While so, L.W.1 became pregnant. The accused demanded L.W.1 to contact L.W.2 for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- immediately. During the stay of L.W.1 at
Visalakshi Nagar after rejoining, her mother treated her well and adviced her son not to involve in the court cases again. Later
L.W.1 returned to home due to unbearable harassment. The case in Cr. No. 142 of 2010 was posted to September 2012 for final hearing. In the month of September, 2012, the accused and L.W.1 attended before the court and when the judge asked her about the harassment of the accused, L.W.1 said they are looking after her
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 4 well. On that the case is closed. L.W.1 went to her parents house and the attitude of her husband is not changed. The accused has not attended their house though the child is born. L.W.1 has given report in New Port P.S. The police called the accused for counseling, but he did not attend for counseling. The child is aged about 4 months and the accused did not come to New Port P.S.
3.4) Basing on the report of LW.1, L.W-10, Inspector of Police, New
Port P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.166/2014 U/Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and endorsed the investigation to
L.W.11. During the course of investigation, Lw.11 examined Lw.1 to Lw.9, recorded their statements. Prima facie case is made out against Jayaram naik for the offence under sections. 498-A IPC and 3 & 4 of DP Act. The case against mother-in-law – Laxmi Naik is not made out as she realized her mistake in Cr.No.142 of 2010.
On 20.08.2014 Lw.11 arrested the accused and produced him
before the court and the accused was sent to judicial remand. On
completion of the investigation, Lw.11 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence under section. 498-A IPC and Section. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act. Thus the accused is liable for punishment under the above section of law for harassing L.W.1 and making demand for dowry.
4. Originally FIR is registered against two persons as A1 & A2
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 5 (Husband and Mother-in-law of Defacto complainant). After investigation charge sheet is filed only against present accused and A2 is not charged. Upon perusing FIR, charge sheet and other material on record, the then I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Visakhapatnam took cognizance of offence under section. 498-A of
I.P.C. and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and issued summons to accused.
The said order is not questioned by defacto complainant and she has not preferred revision against said order. As such the order of taking cognizance became final.
5. On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. On examination of accused under section 239 Cr.P.C. he denied the allegations levelled against him. Hence a charge under section. 498-A of I.P.C. and Secs.
3 and 4 of DP Act is framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence,
Accused has been tried for the said offence.
6. During the course of trial, prosecution examined Lws.1, 2, 7, 8, 6 10 and 11 as PWs.1 to 7 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P11.
The evidence of L.W. 3 is given up by learned A.P.P. The evidence of
L.W.5 is closed on 19.10.2023 since he is died and the prosecution filed his Death Certificate. The evidence of L.W.4 & L.W.9 is closed on
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 6 09.08.2024 since the prosecution filed memo along with the statements of L.W.4, L.W.9 that due to old they both are unable to walk and attend
before the court. Ex.D1 is marked on behalf of accused in the cross
examination of P.W.1. Ex.P.1 is the report of P.W.1 given to police.
Ex.P.2 is 4 marriage photos. Ex.P.3 is photo copy of wedding card.
Ex.P.4 is the receipt for cash of Rs.5,000/- deposited by father of P.W.1 in the account of accused dt. 28.05.2012. Ex.P.5 is certified copy of Lok
Adalat Award in C.C. 192 of 2011 dt. 16.06.2011. Ex.P.6 is certified copy of FIR in Cr.No. 142 of 2010 of New Port P.S. Ex.P.7 to P.9 are 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.3. to P.W.5 respectively. Ex.P.10 is
Original Printed FIR. Ex.P.11 is Rough Sketch at Visalakshi Nagar.
Ex.D.1 is the certified copy of Raji Parishkara Pathram dt. 25.06.2012.
7. When the matter is coming for serving of summons to L.w.10 and
L.W.11, the prosecution filed petition under sections. 311 and 242 (2)
Cr.P.C to recall P.W.1 and receive the documents and the petitions are numbered as Crl.M.P.8007 of 2024 and 8008 of 2024. On hearing both parties, this court dismissed both the petitions. Then the defacto complainant preferred revision before Hon’ble High Court in Criminal petition Nos. 4553 & 11911/2025. Both the Petitions are dismissed by
Hon’ble High Court confirming the order of this court on 08.12.2025. In
its order, Hon’ble High Court has given a direction to this court to dispose the matter as expeditiously as possible and inform the progress
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 7 of the case by 01.03.2026.
7.1) When the matter is coming for 313 Cr.P.C. examination of accused, the defacto complainant filed memo that she sent a letter to
Administrative officer, District Court, Visakhapatnam to transfer the case from this court. The memo is recorded and this court has given direction to defacto complainant to get orders from Hon’ble District court within 15 days since it is a direction matter and posted the matter to 18.02.2026. On 18.02.2026 defacto complainant filed memo that
Transfer petition is numbered as DDR 413 of 2026 and it is pending for consideration before Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam and in view of Transfer petition, she requested to adjourn the matter.
But the memo is returned since it is not filed through APP. While returning the memo, this court questioned defacto complainant, is she mentioned about direction of Hon’ble High Court in her transfer petition.
She replied that she has not mentioned about the direction of Hon’ble
High Court. Since no stay is granted by Hon’ble District Court, this court proceeded with the matter.
8. The accused is examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, for which he denied them false and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed and posted the matter for arguments. When
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 8 the matter is coming up for arguments, the defacto complainant filed another memo that Transfer petition is numbered, it is pending. This court orally intimated to Hon’ble Principal District Judge about Transfer
O.P and also direction of Hon’ble High Court. As per the instructions of
Hon’ble District Judge, this court addressed a letter to Hon’ble High
Court seeking another 2 months time and posted to 16.03.2026 and from 16.03.2026 to 08.04.2026.
8.1) On 31.03.2026, the administrative officer of Hon’ble District court made a phone call to Superintendent of this court and intimated that he received phone call from Hon’ble High court that two weeks time is given by Hon’ble High Court to dispose of the matter. On receiving said instructions from Hon’ble District court, this court prepared notices and the notices were served on Defacto complainant, accused, APP and counsel for accused with a direction to prepare for arguments on the next date i.e., 08.04.2026. On 08.04.2026 the regular presiding officer was on earned leave. So the matter is placed before Incharge officer.
On 08.4.2026 the defacto complainant filed a petition under section.
301(2) Cr.P.C to permit Sri. M. Manoj Kumar and Sri.K.K.Prasad, advocates to assist the prosecution and file written arguments. The said petition is numbered as 1212 of 2026 and it is allowed on the same day and posted the matter to 10.04.2026 for arguments. At request of both parties, the matter is posted to 13.04.2026 from 10.04.2026.
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 9
9.The counsel for defacto complainant filed written arguments through her counsel by given notice to learned APP and counsel for accused. The sum and substance of the written arguments is that the defacto complainant in her evidence-in-chief narrated very well and the defence failed to un-shake the evidence of P.W.1 and she categorically explained how she faced cruelty in the hands of accused and how the accused demanded dowry from her. In the cross examination of P.W.1, the accused admitted that he has taken dowry from P.W.1 and and the counsel for accused asked a question in the cross of P.W.1 that, “it is true that my elder sister marriage was performed six months prior to my marriage, my sisters marriage was also arranged marriage and what are the dowry & other lanchanams given to me, in the same manner given to my sister also”. With this question itself we can come to conclusion that the accused had taken dowry as stated by P.W.1 and we can presume that the accused demanded dowry as he is not doing any work by the time of marriage. The accused did not establish that he is doing any job for his livelihood and the court can presume the existence of facts under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act.
9.1) The accused failed to put a suggestion in the entire cross examination of P.W.1 that he never demanded dowry and he never harassed P.W.1 for dowry. That itself suggests that P.W.1 faced cruelty in the hands of accused. When the accused failed to give suggestions it
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 10 definitely form the evidence against accused. P.W.1 has relied on a judgment between Balu Sudden Khalde Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2023 live law (SC) 279. Father of P.W.1 i.e., P.W.2 supported the evidence of P.W.1 and the investigation also supported the evidence of P.W.1. Though the accused got marked Ex.D.1, nothing was elucidated against defacto complainant and Ex.D.1 is not part of this case and in Ex.D1 also no where it is mentioned that the accused did not demand for dowry. The victim/P.W.1 succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused under section. 498-A IPC and Sections. 3 & 4 of DP
Act and P.W.1 prays to convict the accused.
10. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the judgment relied on by defacto complainant has relevance to the facts of the case and that P.W.1 gave different versions and she has changed her version from time to time and the evidence of P.W.2 is also not supported the evidence of P.W.1 and none of the independent witnesses supported the case of prosecution and if really the case of defacto complainant is true, she must have mention the same facts in all proceedings and at all stages and there is no possibility to give different versions and since the accused filed Divorce OP she filed this false case with false allegations and E.D.1 clearly shows that from 25.06.2012 she has been residing at her parents house, so that harassment and beating by the accused during her pregnancy does not arise and P.W.1 intentionally suppressed
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 11 about Ex.D.1 and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. By contending so, he sought for acquittal of accused.
11.After having heard the rival contentions of the learnedA.P.P. for the prosecution and the learned counsel for accused and upon perusing the written arguments filed on behalf of defacto complainant, the point germane for determination is:
Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt
of Accused for the charge under section. 498-A of I.P.C.
and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubt?
POINT:
12.As per the evidence of PW.1 accused is her family friend and it is arranged marriage and the marriage between her and accused was taken place 27.11.2009 at Sriharipuram and at the time of marriage, her parents has given Rs.1,50,000/- towards dowry, 10 tulas of gold and 3
Acres of land situated at Dhammapeta, Khamam District and
Rs.10,000/- towards Adapadachu lanchanams and immediately, after marraige she joined with accused in a joint family at Vishalakshi Nagar,
Visakhapatnam.
13.PW.1 further deposed that she and accused lived happily for 3 months and the accused did not satisfy with the dowry amount provided by her parents and started harassing her by saying that Rs.1,50,000/- may be given to Auto Driver and he is studying Post Graduation and her
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 12 mother-in-law, brother of mother-in law namely, Sanker called her parents, demanded Rs.15,00,000/- for investment to establish the business. She further deposed that her father expressed his inability to provide Rs. 15,00,000/- , later the accused started beating her and harassed her for want of additional amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, hence she submitted report to the police in May, 2010.
14.She further deposed that the said case is registered and the police arrested the accused and his mother and later the accused had taken back her in the month of March, 2012 and on 16.06.2012 the matter is compromised before Lok Adalat and by that time she was carrying 2nd month pregnancy and the accused demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for legal expenses and her father agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- in 2 installments, but the accused and his family members did not agree for that proposal.
She further deposed that after compromise she and accused lived happily for 15 days and thereafter the accused beat her though she was carrying pregnancy by saying if, her father failed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- they intended to cause abortion and the accused beat her, harassed her, called her father and abused him and due to unbearable harassment of the accused, she left the house of the accused. She further deposed that in the meanwhile accused and his mother telephoned to her father and intimated to him she was found missing, but she did not go to her parents house, she went to Steel Plant PS., and intimated to police, not
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 13 to take action against the report of her father against accused and she also intimated to police that her marital life will be settled after the delivery and went to her parents house.
15.She further deposed that after delivery she made phone call to her in-laws, but they did not respond and they directed her to stay at her parents house along with her daughter and after six months she again reported the matter in New Port PS., though the police tried for
Counseling the accused did not turn-up and later the police resisted the case. The report of PW.1 is marked as Ex.P.1.
16.PW.2 who is no other than father of PW.1 deposed that the parents of accused are his family friends, he and father of accused are colleagues, they have 30 years of friendship, as such they have good relation and to his knowledge 3 years prior to the marriage of PW.1 with accused, father of accused was died and after some time mother of accused approached him and requested to give PW.1 in marriage to accused saying that during the life time of father of accused, he wanted to get her son married to a girl from their community i.e., schedule tribes and he asked her that since accused was not a job holder, how could he maintain the family but mother of accused convinced him that she can take care of them, as such he consented for the proposal.
17.PW.2 further deposed that at the time of marriage negotiations
before engagement, when he asked mother of accused as to what
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 14 could be the demand towards dowry, she refused by saying that she is not interested in taking dowry, as such he presented one and half lakh cash, a gold chain, a gold ring and bracelet and also presented
Rs.10,000/- Adapaduchu Katnam( dowry to sister in law/ sister of accused) and later on marriage was performed as per his financial capacity and PW.1 went to her in-laws house and the marriage was performed on 27.11.2009. He further deposed that PW.1 appeared to be not happy even after three months of her marriage and when he questioned her, PW.1 disclosed that accused and his mother are demanding dowry, on that he questioned the mother of accused and she stated that she was not satisfied with the amount given before marriage and that she needs Rs.10,00,000/- of dowry and he expressed his inability, but the accused and his mother did not choose to consider the same and sent PW1 to his house and the matter was placed before caste elders and every time accused and his mother used to bring more than 50 persons and it was he, PW.1 and LW.3 alone and could not feel secured, as such he wanted have a counseling
before police, so that they approached police for the first time for
counseling and after counseling, PW.1 was taken to the house of accused, but the harassment was continued for want of dowry, as such on 08.05.2010 case was filed against accused.
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 15
18.PW.2 further deposed that his intension was to change the way of thinking of accused not to go for demand of dowry and to lead happy life, but no such change was seen and in the month of March 2012,
PW.1 was sent to the house of accused as accused and his mother represented that accused is well educated and can get a good job and that pendency of criminal case is not proper and that accused is ready to take PW.1 and in the month of may 2012 , PW.1’s pregnancy was confirmed and the matter was settled before Lok Adalat on 16.06.2012.
He further deposed that soon after closure of the said case, accused started demanding Rs.2,00,000/- cash stating that he incurred 2 lakhs of expenditure due to pendency of criminal case and he even convinced accused that he will pay one lakh in one month and another one lakh in another month, but accused wanted the amount at a time and sent PW.1 back to his house and PW.1 has given birth to a baby girl and when the information was passed on to accused and his mother, they did not respond positively and left the house and they could not trace them and he still wanted the accused to lead happy marital life with PW.1 and it is not that he wanted accused to face criminal trail, but a change in his mind set.
19.PW.6 deposes about registration of the case on 28.07.2014 and endorsement of Investigation to LW.11. PW.7 deposes about receiving of FIR from PW.6, examination of witnesses, visiting to scene of
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 16 offence at Vuda Colony and Vishalakshinagar and preparation of rough sketches and addressing a letter to ACP seeking permission to delete the name of A.2 and after getting permission deletion of name of A.2 and arrest of this accused and filing of charge-sheet.
20.The contention of Learned Counsel for the Defacto Complainant is that the accused admitted he has taken dowry from PW.1 and in the cross examination of PW.1 it is suggested and she admitted that ‘it is true that her elder sisters’ marriage was performed six months prior to her marriage, it is an arranged marriage and what are the dowry and other lanchanams given to her in the same manner also given to her sister’. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW.1, this Court could not find the admission of the accused that he received dowry.
The Learned Counsel for Defacto Complainant wrongly interpreted the sentences in the cross examination of PW.1. For the suggestion given by Counsel for accused, PW.1 admitted it is true her sisters’ marriage was performed six months prior to her marriage. After conclusion of said sentence another question was posed to PW.1 for which she has given answer, but it is not a suggestion and the accused never admitted that he received dowry. Hence, the contention of counsel for
Defacto Complainant that since a suggestion was given to PW.1 that what are the dowry and other lanchanams given to her, the same were
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 17 given to her sister also, it is the admission of accused that he received dowry and the Court can come to conclusion about receiving of dowry by the accused as taken by Pw.1 is not correct and not tenable. It is also not correct that the court can also presume that the accused demanded dowry because by the time of marriage the accused is not doing any work. It may be true that the accused is not doing any work and he is studying by the time of marriage, but that itself not sufficient to presume that he demanded dowry.
21.The another contention of Learned Counsel for Defacto complainant is that the accused even failed to put a suggestion in the entire cross examination of PW.1 that he never demanded dowry and never harassed PW.1 for dowry, that itself suggests that PW.1 faced cruelty in the hands of the accused. When the accused failed to give suggestion, it definitely form the evidence against accused. Regarding this contention he relied on the judgment between Balu Sudam
Khalde and Another Versus The State of Maharashtra reported in
2023 Live Law(SC) 279 where in it was held ‘suggestions made to the witness by the defence counsel and the reply to such suggestions would definitely form part of the evidence and can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence on record to determine the guilt of the accused. Suggestion made by the defence counsel to a witness in
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 18 the cross examination if found to be incriminating in nature in any manner would definitely bind the accused and the accused cannot get away on the plea that his counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions in the nature of admissions against his client”.
22.In the cross examination of PW.1, it is clearly suggested to her that the dowry and other lanchanams given at the time of marriage is false and the accused demanded additional dowry of Rs. 15,00,000/- is false and that the accused never harassed her and she filed the report with false allegations after receiving summons in Divorce OP. It clearly shows that the accused denied of receiving dowry and demanding for additional dowry and also harassing PW.1. When there is clear suggestion to PW.1, the contention of Learned Counsel for
Defacto Complainant that no suggestion was given to PW.1 is not acceptable. The facts of the case relied on by Counsel for Defacto
Complainant are on different footing. In that case the suggestions given to Defacto Complainant are incriminating in nature. In such a case Honourable Supreme court held that once a suggestion is given to Defacto Complainant by the counsel for accused, the accused cannot get away on the plea that his Counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions. In the case on hand the suggestions given to
PW.1 are not incriminating in nature in any manner and that the
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 19 accused is not taking any plea that his Counsel had no right to give such suggestions. Hence, the facts of the above case are not applicable to the facts of this case.
23.It is an admitted fact that initially PW1 has given report against accused in May, 2012 and it is registered as a case in crime no. 142 of 2010 of New Port PS., The certified copy of said FIR along with report of Defacto Complainant is marked as Ex.P.6. In Ex.P.6 PW.1 mentioned that at the time of marriage dowry of Rs.1,60,000/- was given, but in Ex.P.1 she has mentioned that her father has given dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of marriage. There is no explanation either by prosecution or by the Defacto Complainant in her written arguments about the same. If, the version of Defacto Complainant under Ex.P.6 is true, she ought to have mention the same in Ex.P.1 also. There is no possibility to give different versions.
24.There is no mention in Ex.P.1 that mother-in-law and brother of her mother-in-law namely, Sankar called parents of PW.1, demanded
Rs.15,00,000/- for business investment, later the accused harassed her to bring additional amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- as deposed by PW.1 in her evidence. PW,.1 also did not mention in Ex.P.1 about giving of
Adapadachu lanchanams of Rs.10,000/- as deposed by her in her evidence. She also not mentioned about Adapadachu lanchanams in
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 20 Ex.P.6 which is her first report. If really the said amount of Rs.10,000/- is given towards Adapadachu Lanchanams it must be mentioned in
Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.6 and she must state before the police. There is no explanation by the prosecution and also Counsel for Defacto
Complainant in his written arguments as to why there was no mention both in Ex.P1 and Ex.P6 about giving of Rs.10,000/-. Pw.1 also did not state before the police in her earlier statement and also not mentioned in Ex.P.6 that her mother in law and mother in law’s brother Sankar called her parents and demanded Rs. 15,00,000/- for business investment. PW.2 also not deposed that he was called by mother in law and brother of mother in law of PW.1 and they demanded
additional dowry of Rs. 15,00,000/- as deposed by PW.1. If really the
version of PW.1 that her father was called by her mother in law and brother of mother in law, it must be supported by PW.2 because he is the right person to speak about the same and he is direct witness , but he did not support the version of PW.1.
25.PW.1 did not mention in Ex.P.1 that though her father requested to pay in two installments, the accused did not agree for the proposal and if her father failed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-, they intended to cause abortion to her and that the accused made a phone call to her father, abused him and due to unbearable harassment of the accused, she
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 21 came to her parents house and in the meanwhile the accused intimated to her father over phone that she was found missing, her father has given report in Steel Plant PS against Accused about missing of PW.1, but no action was taken by the police and she also not stated the said facts before the police as deposed in her evidence.
Without mentioning in Ex.P1 and stating before the police, PW.1 improved her version and deposed new facts before the court. So they are material contradictions.
26.PW.1 did not depose in her evidence that her sister in law namely Radha and grand father of accused namely Ragya also harassed her and said Ragya beat her as mentioned in Ex.P.6. She also not mentioned the same in Ex.P.1 and in her earlier statement. If really, the above allegations of PW.1 as deposed in her evidence are true, nothing prevented her to mention in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.6.
27.As per the evidence of PW.1 the accused, her mother demanded additional dowry of Rs.15,00,000/- and they called her father and demanded him to give Rs.15,00,000/-, but PW.2 did not support this version of PW.1 and he deposed that mother of the accused demanded dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. Further no where PW.1 deposed that they placed the matter before Caste elders and every time the accused and his mother used to bring more than 50 persons
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 22 and it was PW.2, PW.1, LW.3 alone and they could not feel secured, as such he wanted Counselling by the police, so that they reported the matter to the police, as deposed by PW.2. Had really, placing of matter
before caste elders prior Ex.P.6 is true, it ought to have mentioned in
Ex.P.6 and the said elders are to be examined by the police. There is no explanation either by prosecution or by Counsel by Defacto
Complainant for non mentioning about mediations before Caste elders in Ex.P.6 and also in Ex.P.1.
28.Further Pw.1 suppressed about execution of Ex.D.1. She has not mentioned in Ex.P.1 about Ex.D.1. In her cross examination Ex.D1 is confronted by Counsel for accused. Though she admitted about
Ex.D.1 she has not explained as to why the matter is placed before elders on 25.06.2012 i.e., immediately after one week of settlement of case before Lok Adalat under Ex.P.5. In the cross examination PW.1 admitted that she has not stated before DLSA, Visakhapatnam on 16.09.2012 about Ex.D.1. She also admitted that since the date of
Ex.D.1 she and accused have been residing separately. The evidence of PW.1 shows that though the accused taken back her in March, 2012, the accused has been harassing her, beating her and he also demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for legal expenses. If really, the accused has been harassing her and demanded legal expenses, she ought to have
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 23 state the same before DLSA, Visakhapatnam and she had no necessity to close the case. For this PW.1 stated that if the accused may sent to Jail and pending of criminal case is not proper. It is an admitted fact that after giving Ex.P6 accused was arrested by the police and he is in judicial custody and by the date of Ex.P.5 and even
before Ex.P.5 he was released from Jail. In such a case there is no
possibility to send the accused to Jail again. If really, the accused had been harassing PW.1 even after rejoining with him and he necked out her from his house, there is no necessity to PW.1 to state before Steel
Plant Police not to take action against accused and the matter will be settled after delivery. It really the accused continued to harass her, there is no necessity to P.W.1 to settle the matter before DLSA,
Visakhapatnam in September, 2012. Unless P.W.1 stated before DLSA that they are living together and the accused is not harassing her, there is no possibility to close the case. There is no explanation by
P.W.1 how she believed the accused though he has been harassing her. It is an ordinary prudence, that when there is no change in the attitude of a person even after registration of case and kept the case for observation, no one can believe the version of said person and made representation before lokadalat he is looking after her well. All these circumstances creates doubt about the case of prosecution and evidence of P.W.1.
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 24
29.PW.3 to PW.5, who are said to be direct witnesses and neighbours of PW.1 & accused at Visalakshinagar deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and alleged harassment. As such their evidence is no way helpful to prove the case against accused.
30.This Court is aware that evidence of PW.1 alone is sufficient to record conviction against accused in a cases under section.498-A of
IPC., because the harassment will take place within four walls and the
Court cannot expect direct evidence. But it is subject to a condition that the evidence of PW.1 must be consistent and corroborated with her report and earlier statement. There must not be material omissions and contradictions. The minor omissions and contradictions are normal since the witness will depose after lapse of several years.
The Court cannot expect photographic memory from the witness. If, the omissions and contradictions are trivial, then the Court need to consider the same, but when there are material omissions or contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 & she has improved her version, then the Court has to consider the same and must be taken in to consideration while appreciating the evidence of witness. On perusal of evidence of PW.1 and material on record it categorically and clearly shows that there are material omissions, improvements and
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 25 contradictions in the evidence of PW.1. The evidence of PW.1 is also not supported by the evidence of PW.2 in regard to quantum of alleged
additional dowry. The material omissions and contradictions in the
evidence of PW.1 made her evidence unbelievable. The uncorroborated testimonies of P.Ws. 1 & 2 made their evidence unbelievable. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of
PW.1 and P.W.2.
31.In view of the above discussion, it can be safely conclude that the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under sections 498-A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubt.
32.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under
Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of Six months.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 15th day of April, 2026.
Sd/- Y. Sri Lakshmi
Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division)-cum-
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gajuwaka .
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 26
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the prosecution: ProsecutionName of the witness Description witnesses No.
PW.1Ms.Munavath Sri UshaComplainant
PW.2Mr.B. Lachi RamDirect witness
PW.3Mr.Vaddadi RamanaDirect witness
PW.4Ms.Majji Kanaka DurgaDirect witness
PW.5Ms.Sabbi UshaDirect witness
PW.6Mr.G. SrinivasuInvestigating Officer
PW.7Mr.K. Rama RaoInvestigating Officer
For the defence: Nil
Exhibits marked
For the prosecution: Exhibit No.Description of the Exhibit Proved by /Attested by
Ex.P1Report of P.W.1PW-1
Ex.P24 marriage photos. PW-1
Ex.P3 Photo copy of wedding card.PW-1
Ex.P4Receipt for cash of Rs.5,000/- PW-1 deposited by father of P.W.1 in the account of accused dt. 28.05.2012.
Ex.P5Certified copy of Lok Adalat Award copy PW-1 about settlement between PW.1 and accused in C.C. 192 of 2011 on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Court, Visakahpatnam dt. 16.06.2011.
Ex.P6Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No. 142 of 2010 of New Port P.S. PW-1
Ex.P7161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. PW-3
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 27 Ex.P8 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 PW-4
Ex.P9 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 PW-5
Ex.P.10 Original Printed FIR. PW-6
Ex.P.11Rough Sketch at Visalakshi Nagar. PW-7
For the defence:
ExhibitDescription of the Exhibit Proved by/ No.Attested by
Ex.D1Certified copy of Raji Parishkara PathramPW-1
dated 25.06.2012
MOs. Marked
NIL
Sd/- Y. Sri Lakshmi
Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division)-cum-
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gajuwaka .
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 28
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(Senior Division)-
cum- ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE : GAJUWAKA.
C.C.No.120/2020
Date of offence Prior to 28.07.2014
Date of report or complaint27.08.2014
Date of apprehension of the18.09.2014 accused or appearance of the accused in the Court
Date of commencement of trial21.02.2019
Date of close of trial13.04.2026
Date of sentence on order 15.04.2026 Explanation of delay or remarks Originally this case is filed before I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam and numbered as CC.1597/2014. In the year 2020, the case is transferred to this Court as per the Orders of the Hon’ble High Court in ROCNo.476/E-1/2019dated 15.02.2020 and proceedings of the
Hon’ble Principal District Judge,
Visakhapatnam dated 23.03.2020 communicatedinDis.No.1931/ 19.05.2020 and re-numbered as C.C.120/2020. The delay is due to non production of witnesses in time by the prosecution
Name of the Complainant State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, New Port PS, Visakhapatnam City .
C.C.No.120/2020 Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-A.C.J.M.C, Gajuwaka D.O.J:15.04.2026 29 Name of the accusedJayaram Naik Munavath, S/o. Late Laxmi Roy, age: 25 years, ST Lambadi, R/o. D.No. 9- 585,Opposite Police Stadium, Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Offenceu/sec. 498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act
Finding Found not guilty
Sentence In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under Section 498-
A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and is acquitted under Section 248(1)
Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of Six months.
Sd/- Y. Sri Lakshmi
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Gajuwaka