J U D G M E N T
The Inspector of Police, women U/G P.S., Kadapa filed a charge sheet
against the accused.
As the per the averments of the charge sheet the marriage of L.W.5
was perform with A.1 on 25.8.2011 and at the time of marriage L.W.1 gave
five tolas of gold to the accused as dowry. They lived happily for some
time. A.1 started to harass L.W.5 both physically and mentally and A.2 to
A.5 supported A.1. All the accused demanded L.W.5 for additional dowry
and also threatened with dire consequences, if she failed to oblize their
demand and the same was informed to L.W.1 and while talking to L.W.1
the conversation was hear by A.1, he grew wild and dragged the cell phone
from her and necked away L.W.5 from his house, this caused mentaly
agony. Hence on 11.7.2012 L.W.1 preferred a complaint as L.W.5 was mentally depressed and unable to speak. Basing on the complaint of
L.W.5, the L.W.9 registered a case in Crime No.58/2012 against the
accused and also examined L.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements.
L.W.10 verified the investigation done by L.W.9 and found it in correct line.
During the course of investigation L.W.10 arrested A.1 on 18.7.2012. A.3
to A.6 as per FIR obtained anticipatory bail and as per the deposition of
L.Ws.6 to 8 there is no participation of A.2 as per FIR, as no primafacie
case is made out, his name was deleted by L.W.10 after obtaining
permission from S.D.P.O., Kadapa. After completion of investigation, he
laid the charge sheet.
2. On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished as
mandates under sec.207 Cr.P.C.
3. The accused were examined under sec.239 Cr.P.C. and charges
were framed, read over and explained to them, for which they denied and
claimed to be tried.
4. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused,
sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed.
5. Basing on the above facts the point for determination is that:-
whether the prosecution has proved the offences charged under
sec.498-A, 506 IPC, and sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act., beyond all reasonable
doubt?
6. On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and
Exs.P.1 and 2 were marked.
7. It is the case of prosecution that as P.W.1 suffered mental
agony due to the physical and mental harassment of A.1 for an additional
dowry, she was depressed and forced to remain at the house of L.W.1.
The accused necked her out as she failed to oblize his demand of
additional dowry, as such L.W.1 lodged a report in the police station.
However, the victim i.e., P.W.1 came before the Court and stated that the
allegations made in Ex.P.1 i.e., complaint was not true and correct and she is residing with the accused happily and the contents of alleged in Ex.P.1
are not true and correct, and to support her contention P.W.2 the
neighbour of the accused house was also examined, he also deposded
against the prosecution and in favour of P.W.1. In the circumstances, as
there is no incriminating evidence against the accused they cannot be
convicted.
8. In the result, the accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 are found not guilty for the
offences under Sec.498-A, 506 IPC., and sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act, and are
acquitted under sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands
cancelled. The accused shall furnish a bond under sec.437(a) Cr.P.C. that
he shall appear before the Appellate Court in the event of he receives
summons within six months from today.
Dictated to the Personal-Asst., transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 13
th
day of June, 2013.
I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
K A D A P A.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE
PW.1: Nerugattu Jaya N I L
P.W.2: Lingala Pedda Narasimhulu
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION.
Ex.P.1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1
Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.w.2
Is this Judgement attract defamation(civil or criminal)?
