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 .
Monday this the 7th day of July, 2025
CALENDAR CASE No. 315/2020
Between:
State: Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Police Station. … Complainant.
And
A1- Matham Vijaya Rao, S/o Matham Ramulu, aged 28 years, caste by Rajaka, R/o D.No.23-7-28, Simhagiri Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City.
A3 – Matham Ramulu, S/o late Appanna, aged 57 years, caste by Rajaka, R/o D.No.23-7-28, Simhagiri Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City. … Accused 1 and 3
This case is coming on 26.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and Sri. P.Vamsidhaar and Ch.Ramesh Babu, Advocates for the Accused 1 and 3 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.1866/2017. 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.
1. The Inspector of police, Gajuwaka police station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.488 of 2017 for the offence punishable U.Secs. 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and sec 3&4 of DP Act
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:
2.1) LW1 – Matham Ramalakshmi alias Vijaya Lakshmi reported that she is the only daughter of LW’s 2 and 3. A1 is the husband of L.W.1. A3 is father of A1. Her marriage was taken place on 21.11.2007 in the presence of elders as per Hindu customs and traditions at Zinc club. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of A1 to A3, LWs 2 & 3 paid 3,00,000 dowry, Rs. 50,000 towards sisters dowry, Passion Pro Motorcycle & two tulas of gold fo A1 and 15 tulas of gold to LW1, 3 cents of land at Vedurlanarava and 1,00,000 towards saare saaman. After marriage LW1 lead her conjugal life in the house of A2 and A3 at Simhagiri Colony. A1 to A3 looked after her well for 6 months. Thereafter, A1 joined her in engineering college to study B.tech with scholarship. A1 to A3 are not interested to join L.W.1 in the college. They provoked A1, gave bad suggestions by saying if L.W.1 went to college who will do the household work. They asked L.W.1 to bring additional dowry for her studies from LWs 2 and 3 and if L.W.1 studied higher studies she will not listen to A1. By saying so, they all harassed her both physically and mentally to bring additional dowry from LWs 2 and 3.
On 15.08.2007, L.W.1 blessed with male child. At the time of Baarasaala function, as per the demand of A1 to A3, LWs 2 and 3 gave 6 tulas of gold to their grandson. A1 was suspended from his duty and harassed L.W.1 both physically and mentally to bring additional dowry from LWs 2 and 3. A2, A3 encouraged A1 to harass L.W.1. On 18.09.2012 one L.W.1 was carrying second pregnancy, A1 raised quarrel with her, bet her, abused her and pulled her chain, ear studs forcibly due to which L.W.1 sustained bleeding injuries. A1 pushed L.W.1 from the stairs. A2 and A3 did not stop A1. L.W.1 was afraid of A1 and went to her parents house. She approached the police and counselling was held in the presence of elders but there is no change in the attitude of A1 to A3 and they did not take her back. After the birth of the child LWs 6 to 8 told to A1 to take back L.W1 but A1 did not agree and A1 to A3 did not come to see the child. After 6 months, LWs 2,3,6 & 7 taken L.W.1 and her child to the house of A1 to A3 but they did not allow them and necked out them.
After 2 years L.W.1 came to know A1 is having illegal intimacy with one Santhoshi. Then L.W.1 approached Women P.S. There the said Santhoshi written a letter that she has no relation with A1. Afte that A1 filed a petition before Hon’ble Add. District Family Judge, VSKP vide FCOP No. 509/2017 for divorce. Then L.W.1 gave report in Gajuwaka P.S against her husband, parents-in-law, sister in laws & their husband, paternal aunt of A1 as A1 to A8. Infact, A2, A3 only encouraged A1 to harass L.W.1 and to bring additional dowry, but A4 to A8 never harassed L.W.1.
2.2) Basing on the report of L.W.1, L.W11 – T. Emmanual Raju, Inspector of police, Gajuwaka P.S., registered a case in Cr.No. 488/2017 U/Secs. 498-A r/w 34 of I.P.C and section 3 & 4 of DP Act, issued FIR and endorsed the investigation to L.W.10 – Shaik Sayyad Bee, S.I. of Police, Gajuwaka P.S. During the course of investigation, L.W.10 visited the scene of offence, examined LWs 1 to 9 and recorded their statements. As per the statements of witnesses prima facie case is made out against A1 to A3 only. Thereafter she served notice to the A1 and A3 U.Sec 41A Cr.P.C. A2 was demised on 19.08.2017 and A3 produced death certificate of A2. On verifying the investigation of L.W.10, L.W.11 filed chargesheet against A1, A3 and he filed memo before the Court to delete the names of A4 to A7 from the original FIR. Thus, A1 & A3 are liable for punishment for harassing L.W.1 to bring additional dowry.
3. On perusal of charge sheet and other material on record the court took cognizance of offence under sections. 498-A r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.
4. On appearance of A1 and A3 copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. (for short Cr.P.C).
5. On examination of A1 and A3 under section 239 Cr.P.C they denied the allegations leveled against them. Hence a charge under sections. 498-A r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act is framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, A1 and A3 have been tried for the said charges.
6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P3. The evidence of L.W.11 is given up by learned APP. The evidence of L.W.8 is closed since the prosecution filed death certificate of L.W.8.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A3 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied them as false. They reported they have evidence on their behalf.
8. When the matter is coming up for defence evidence the accused filed petition to issue summons to Registrar, JNTU, Kakinad to produce the certificate of L.W.1 and depose evidence. The said petition is allowed. On receiving summons, the Registrar, JNTU, Kakinada authorized Dr. M. Nageswara Rao, Professor & Controller of examinations to depose evidence and produce the documents as directed by this court. He is examined as D.W.1 and Ex.X.1 is marked through D.W.1. Ex.D1 to D.3 are marked on behalf of accused in the cross examination of P.W.9.
9. The accused filed their written statement in their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. stating that Pw.1 filed this case after receiving summons in FCOP 509/2017 filed by A1 and PW.1 demanded Rs.70lakhs for giving divorce, otherwise she will give false report against A1 and all his family members and by deleting the report dated 28.07.2017, she gave another report on 03.08.2017 with serious allegations against A1 to A8. He further contended that the parents of Pw.1 are poor than A1 and since Pw.1 studied Polytechnic, A1 agreed for the marriage and his parents performed the marriage in a grand manner and thereafter with the support of A1 and his parents, PW.1 joined in B.Tech computer Science Engineering and after the birth of the child, she used to go to college by leaving the child with his parents and after completion of B.Tech there is lot of change and Pw.1 started maintaining distance from A1. In September, 2012 she left the house of A1 and went to her parents house and Pw.1 stated before caste elders in the mediations she is not interested to lead conjugal life with A1 and she has to fulfill her dreams. The accused further contended that basing on income certificate issued by MRO , Gajuwaka in favour of father of Pw.1, she claimed fee reimbursement and A1 paid building fund, exam fee, supplementary exam fee and purchased books and uniform to Pw.1 besides paying college bus fee and other expenses and she completed the B.Tech with the financial support of A1.
10. The accused further contended that on perusing unregistered sale deed dated 31.05.2010 the Court can come to conclusion there is no truth in the allegations of Pw.1 that 3 cents of site is given by her parents. She mentioned in the report given to Protection Officer that 6 cents of site is given towards dowry and she also mentioned in the counter of FCOP 509/2017 her parents spent Rs.2,00,000/- for marriage expenses. If the Court perused the diary written by Pw.1 the Court can assess the financial status of PWs.1 parents and good conduct of accused.
11. The accused filed certified copy of counter filed by PW.1 in FCOP 509/2017, photocopy of receipt No.14 dated 28.07.2017, photocopy of unregistered sale deeds, dated 31.05.2010 & 27.06.2011, certified copy of pages of diary written by PW.1 which is marked in DVC 10/2018, certified copy of fee reimbursement receipt and scholarship history of PW.1, photocopies of fee receipts paid by A1 for Pw.1, certified copy of written and typed complaints given by Pw.1 to Protection Officer, certified copy of decree and order in FCOP 509/2017, photocopies of complaint dated 9.10.2024 given to Deputy Director of Prosecution, Visakhapatnam and Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam and certified copy of petition in DVC 10/2018.
12. After having heard the rival contentions of learned APP for the prosecution and upon perusing the written arguments filed by learned counsel for the accused, the point germane for determination is:
Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the A1 and A3 for the charge under section. 498-A r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubt?
POINT :
13. As per the evidence of P.W.1, her marriage with A1 was taken place on 21-11-2007 at Zinc Club, Gajuwaka and at the time of marriage her parents has given dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-, presented 3 cents of site, 15 Tulas of gold and Saare saman worth of Rs.1,00,000/- and also given Rs.30,000/- towards sisters dowry and seven tulas of gold and passion pro motor cycle to A1 and after the marriage she joined with A1 at her in-laws house, they both lived happily for 6 months and thereafter, the accused started beating her by demanding to bring money from her father and that the parents & sisters of A1 started harassing her by saying they might have got more dowry if A1’s marriage was performed with another girl.
14. P.W.1 further deposed that in the year 2009 she gave birth to male child on 15th August and after the birth of child, her parents presented 6 tulas of gold and 25 tulas of silver and even after the birth of child the accused continued their harassment, several times the accused beat her and send her to her parents house and her father several times gave money to A1 and requested to look after her well and in the year 2012 again she became pregnant and her father was retired in the year 2011 and though, A1 had knowledge that she became pregnant, A1 beat her by demanding to bring money from her father as no amount was given at the time of her father’s retirement and that A1 house arrested her and did not send even to her parents house and since, her father did not pay amount, A1 forced her to sell 3 cents of site, he obtained her signatures and sold away the site and taken the amount.
15. She further deposed that on 18-09-2012 upon receiving the sale proceeds of site A1 beat her and necked out her and he even did not give the child to her and on that she went to her parents’ house and they placed the matter before elders, A1 requested them not to give police report and he will take her back after the birth of child and on the advice of elders he handed over the elder son to her and the accused did not come to see her before delivery and on the date when she was joined in the hospital for delivery her brothers went to the house of accused and the accused told to her brothers that they have no relation with her and though, her brothers informed to accused that the signature of A1 is necessary for surgery, he did not come to the hospital and thereafter, they approached the elders and on the advice of elders, she and her parents along with the children went to the house of accused, but they did not allow her into the house and the younger son was born on 13-05-2013, again they placed the matter before elders, but of no use, as such, she gave report to police under EX.P1.
16. She further deposed that in the year 2013, A1 got married with another women and he gave birth to child in the year 2015 through his second wife and the police referred to counseling and for counseling also A1 came along with his second wife and in the year 2017 her mother in law was died and she went to the house of accused, A1 beat her and did not allow her into the house and at present A1 has been residing with his second wife and in the ceremony of his mother in law also the accused performed pooja along with his second wife and her name is santhoshi and their son’s name is Sairam.
17. As per the evidence of P.W.3, PW1 is her daughter, the marriage of PW1 with A1 was taken Place in the year, 2007 and at the time of marriage they have given dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-, Ac. 0.03 cents of site and saree saman worth of Rs.1,00,000/-, presented 15 tulas of gold to PW1 and A1 used to reside in the joint family, A1 looked after her well for some time and thereafter, A1 started harassing her to bring additional dowry and she came to know about the same through PW1 and her husband has given additional dowry and A1 looked after her well after giving additional dowry and they have given three tulas of gold and two wheeler to A1 and also sisters dowry of Rs.30,000/- besides presenting 6 tulas of gold and 25 tulas of silver to the grandson and after giving additional dowry the accused looked after P.W.1 well for some time and thereafter again they started harassing PW1 and her husband was retired and since we have not given the retirement amount, A1, A2 and sisters of A1 used to harass PW1 and beat her and they have not provided food to her and when PW1 informed them over phone, her husband went to the house of A1 and there A1, his father and sisters beat her husband by demanding additional dowry and when the matter is placed before elders, A1 only attended for mediation and he promised to look after PW1 well, but A1 did not take back PW1 and while PW.1 was carrying pregnancy also they used to beat her and did not provide food to her and they paid fees for the studies of PW1 and by torturing PW1 they made PW1 to sell the site given at the time of the marriage and taken away the amount and after two years of deserting PW1, A1 married another women and gave birth to child, they placed the matter before elders, but A1 did not turn up and thereafter they have given report to police.
18. As per the evidence of P.W.4, PW.1 is his younger brother’s daughter and the marriage between PW.1 & A1 was taken place on 21-11-2007 and at the time of marriage they have given dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and 30,000/- towards sisters dowry and presented 15 tulas of gold to PW.1 and two tulas of gold to A1 and also a site in an extent of 3 cents and two wheeler. He further deposed that after the marriage PW.1 joined A1 in the joint family at Simhagiri colony, A1 looked after her well for six months and thereafter A1 started beating PW.1 and the parents & sisters of A1 used to abuse her for want of additional dowry and he came to know the same through PW.1 and his younger brother was retired in the year 2011 and A1 demanded to give the retirement benefits of PW.1’s father and when the father of PW.1 expressed his inability to give retirement benefits A1 sold away 3 cents of site given to PW.1 and also her gold.
19. P.W.4 further deposed that they placed the matter before the elders and in the mediations as per the demand of A1, they have given Rs.1,00,000/- to him., even then A1 did not look after her well and thereafter when A1 continued his harassment they have given Rs.50,000/- and he was present in the mediations and at the time of giving amount and in the year 2012 A1 beat PW.1 and caused bleeding injuries and tried to kill her, on that PW.1 came to her parents house with bleeding injuries, they approached the police and the police advised to settle the matter before the elders, as such they placed the matter before elders and A1 requested two years time to take back PW.1 and by that time PW.1 was carrying pregnancy and two years thereafter they approached A1 through elders but again he requested time, but A1 did not take back and out of suspicion PW.1 enquired and came to know that A1 got married with another women and thereafter PW.1 reported the matter to police. Police examined me. On 06-08-2017 the police recorded my statement.
20. As per the evidence of PW5, PW.1 is his neighbor at Gajuwaka and he was present at the time of marriage looks and in November 2007 in the settlement of marriage , the father of PW.1 agreed to give 15 tulas of gold , one motor cycle, sisters dowry of Rs.30000/- and 3 cents of land and after marriage A1 got educated PW.1 and she joined in B-Tech and that he was informed by PW.1 that the parents in law and sister in law were harassing her by saying who will do house hold work if she goes to college and demanding to bring additional amount and that A1 was harassed her by demanding to bring the site, then he told to PW.1 to bring A1 and after talking with both of them he will inform to her parents, A1 & PW.1 came to his house and A1 told him he was suspended from the job and the site has to be sell and then he called the parents of PW.1 to his house and advised the parents of PW.1 to sell the land since, A1 was saying he had liabilities and to avoid un necessary harassment to PW.1 and the parents of PW.1 sold the site and given the amount to A1 and thereafter, A1 beat PW.1 and sent her to her parents house and PW.1 reported the matter to the police.
21. P.W.6 who is said to be eye witness and neighbor of P.W.1 is turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. According to the evidence of P.W.6 he do not know anything about the facts of the case. As such the evidence of P.W.6 is no way helpful to the prosecution case.
22. As per the evidence of PW7, the marriage between A1 and PW1 was taken place in 2007 and he came to know that cash of Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry, Rs.30,000/- towards sisters dowry and Ac 0.03 cents was given and after marriage PW1 went to her in-laws house where she lived together with A1, A2 and her mother-in-law and after 5 years of the marriage when PW1 came to her parents house he enquired her as to why she was often coming to her parents house, P.W.1 told to her that her father-in-law is demanding to bring additional dowry and the amount given by them is not sufficient and since her father retired, A2 is demanding additional dowry and her father-in-law and mother-in-law beat her, driven out her by demanding to bring additional dowry, as such she came to her parents house.
23. As per the evidence of PW8, the marriage between A1 and PW1 was taken place about 15 to 16 years back and at the time of marriage, parents of PW1 has given cash of Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry, Rs.30,000/- towards sisters dowry and Ac 0.03 cents and he was informed by PW1 after 10 years of marriage, while she was carrying second pregnancy, A1 beat her and necked out her by demanding to bring the retirement amount of her father. P.W.9,who is investigating officer deposes about registration of case by L.W.1 and her investigation in this case.
24. During the cross examination P.W.9 admitted that, as per the contents of unregistered sale document, the Ac 0.03 cents at Vedurla Narava is sold by LW2 to A1 and the Ac. 0.03 cents of site which is referred by LW1 in her report under Ex.P1 is the same site under the unregistered sale deeds dated 31.05.2010 and 27.06.2011 and she has given both the unregistered sale deeds to her.
25. P.W.9 also admitted that being a investigating officer basing on unregistered sale deeds given by LW1, she can decide that she is speaking false and she has not conducted any investigation on that documents. She also admitted that since giving of Ac.0.03 cents is appears to be false, giving of dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-, sisters dowry of Rs.30,000/- , passion pro bike, 2 tulas of gold to A1 , and 15 tulas of gold LW1 and Rs.1,00,000 /- worth of saree saman and also additional dowry, gold articles and silver articles may also be false.
26. The first and foremost contention of the accused and their counsel is that FIR No: 488/2017 is barred by limitation, as such the court shall dismiss the proceedings and as per exhibit P1, the alleged last act of cruelty has taken place on 18.09.2012, so the limitation period was expired on 17.09.2015, but the report was given on 03.08.2017, therefore the proceedings are time barred u/s 468 Cr.P.C. while section 473 Cr.P.C provides an exception to bar of limitation, but its application is not automatic and there must be an explanation by the prosecution for such inordinate delay. Since the case is barred by limitation, the court is required to dismiss the proceedings. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments:
A. Kamlesh Kalra v. Shilpa Kalra & Ors. Reported in 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 605 wherein it was held that “ As regards, the finding recorded by the High Court in respect of complaint/FIR filed under Section 498A IPC, we are of the firm opinion that the same does not call for interference. In the facts of this case, it is clear that the FIR filed in this regard in 2015 was time barred, having been filed much more than three years after the separation of Manish Kalra(husband) and Shilpika Kalra (wife) and the filing of the divorce petition by the husband, both in 2009. In the facts of the case, the reasons given by the High Court for quashing the proceedings under section 498A IPC are justified and do not call for interference by this Court”.
B. Gudipati Mallikarjun Rao v. Gudiapati Saranya 2023 0 Supreme (A.P) 582 wherein it was held that “ In the circumstances, it would have to be held that the complainant, filed by the defacto complainant, is beyond the period prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C”. C. Arun Vyas & Anr. V. Anitha Vyas 1999 0 Crl LJ 3479 wherein it was held that “ the court cannot take cognizance of an offence under Section 498-A of IPC, if the FIR is time barred, unless the delay is properly explained and condoned under Section 473 of the CrPC”.
D. Korimerla Videesha Vs. State of A.P. wherein it was held that “ According to Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, any offence under Section 3 and 4 or any dispute under Section 6 of the Act shall be filed before expiry of one year and finalized within two years from the date of filing”.
27. As per the contents of exhibit P1 report and the evidence of P.W.1, she came out of the house of accused on 18.09.2012. She admitted in the cross examination till 2017 she has not given any report to the police. The report in the women P.S is also given on 28.07.2017. The material on record shows no report is given prior to 2017. But P.W.1 deposed in her evidence that after birthe of second son in 2013 the matter is placed before the elders, but A1 did not take back her. As per section 468 Cr.P.C no court shall take cognizance of offence after expiry of period of limitation. The period of limitation shall be 3 years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding 3 years. The punishment for the offence u/s 498-A IPC is up to 3 years and fine, so the cognizance of offence u/s 498-A of IPC has to be taken if the report is within 3 years from the last act of cruelty or harassment. As per the judgment mentioned supra in Korimerla Videshaa case according rule 10 of AP dowry prohibition rules, any offence under section 3 & 4 of D.P.Act has to be filed within one year. So the limitation for the filing the complaint under section 3 & 4 D.P. act is within one year from the date of taking dowry or demand for additional dowry.
28. In the case on hand the alleged demand for additional dowry was finally made on 18.9.2012 and that is the last date of alleged harassment. Even if the evidence of P.W.1 that the matter is place before the elders in 2013 has taken into consideration, the report is given after 4 years of said incident. But the report was given on 03.08.2017 i.e after 4 years of alleged harassment. So it can be safely conclude that the report is barred by limitation and the court has no power to take cognizance.
29. As per evidence of P.W.1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, at the time of the marriage father of P.W.1 has given 3 cents of land besides dowry and sister’s dowry. In this regard the contention of the accused is that A1 has purchased the 3 cents of site from L.W.2 and it was not given as dowry and when he sold the land to some others, P.W.1 also signed in that document as witness and that all the witnesses intentionally deposing false as if the site was given toward dowry and as per the document dated 31.05.2010, the site is sold to A1 by L.W.2.
30. In this regard P.W.3, who is mother of P.W.1 deposed in her cross examination that they got transferred 0.03 cents of site in the name of P.W.1 and they have given the documents to her.
31. The prosecution filed photocopies of two documents dated 31.0.2010 and 27.06.2011. Since the documents are photo copies they were not marked on behalf of the prosecution but learned counsel for accused filed a petition for recall of P.W.1 to crossexamine her on those 2 documents and my learned predecessor in the office dismissed the petition. Then learned counsel for accused approached Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court permitted the counsel for accused to cross examine P.W.1 on those documents since those documents were supplied to accused after cross examination of P.W.1 vide criminal petition no. 374/2025.
32. In this regard, the evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that, since her father did not pay the amount, A1 forced her to sell 3 cents of site, he obtained her signatures, sold away the site and taken the amount and on 18.09.2012 upon receiving sale proceeds of site, A1 beat her and necked out her. In the cross examination P.W.1 admitted she handed over the copies of documents dated 31.05.2010 and 27.06.2011 to police and as per the document dated 31.05.2010, the property therein was shown to have sold by her father to A1. She also admitted that as per the document dated 27.06.2011, A1 has sold the property to Ch. Appala Raju and she signed as witness in that document. But P.W.1 explained that her father has given the said site to A1 towards dowry and A1 got executed the said document on demand. But P.W3, who is mother of P.W.1 deposed in her cross examination that they got transferred 0.03 cents of site in the name of P.W.1 and they have given the documents to her. If it is true that her father has given the site as a dowry, but on demand of A1 he executed agreement of sale, in such a case P.W.1 must depose the same and mention in exhibit P1 report. She maintained silence in regard to execution of agreement of sale by her father and also execution of document by A1 in favor of Appala Raju and that she signed as witness in the document executed by A1. She mentioned that A1 sold the property by obtaining her signature. There is no explanation by the prosecution as to why P.W.1 suppressed about execution of above referred two documents. As per the evidence of P.W.3 they executed the document in favour of P.W.1 and given to her. In such a case how P.W.2 can execute the agreement of sale in favour of A1 as alsredy he executed the document infavour of P.W.1. Further as per the evidence of P.W.1 on 18.09.2012 upon receiving sale consideration A1 beat her and necked out her. But as per her admission, the property was sold on 27.06.2011. When the document is executed on 27.06.2011 how can A1 get the amount on 18.09.2012 and it is not believable that A1 received the sale proceeds after one year of execution of document. No ordinary prudent man will execute the document without receiving the amount mentioned there under. It seems P.w.1 intentionally suppressed about execution of agreement of sale by her father in favour of A1. If she mentioned that A1 by force obtained the agreement of sale from her father and later sold to other person, then the consideration would be otherwise. But suppression of said fact makes her evidence doubtful.
33. The another contention of the accused is that if really there is harassment by the accused there is no necessity to P.W.1 to wait for such long time and she intentionally gave this false report after receiving summons in the divorce OP filed by A1. In support of his contention he relied in a judgment between Dudekula Khasim v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2020 0 Supreme (A.P) 281 wherein it was held that “ Apart from that, it is to be noted that, this FIR came to be lodged, after receipt of summons from the court in the O.P filed by the husband of PW1 for divorce. The record discloses that, PW1 left the company of A1 and thereafter, she did not give report and only after receiving notice in O.P., she filed the present case. Having regard to all the circumstances stated above, this court is of the opinion that benefit of doubt can be extended to the A1, more so, when the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to allegations of harassment made against in-laws and others was disbelieved by the court below – Criminal Revision case is allowed”.
34. As per the above judgement, the FIR was lodged after receipt of summons in the OP and the Hon’ble Supreme Court extended benefit of doubt to A1 since the trial court disbelieved the version of prosecution regarding allegations against in laws and others. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not acquit the accused only the sole ground of giving report after receipt of notice in the OP but it is one of the circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1.
35. Learned counsel for accused further contended that a petition u/s 340 r/w 195 Cr.P.C was filed by A1, A2 seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against P.W.1 for making a willful and deliberate false statement on oath specifically her assertion that she has not completed her B.tech degree in the year 2012 and to rebut this assertion the accused examined D.W.1 and the oral evidence of D.W.1 and the documentary evidence clearly establishes P.W.1 completed her B.tech in April 2012. He further contended that this deliberate false statement appears to have been made solely to contradict the defence of A1 who contended that P.W.1 disserted him only after fulfilling her academic aspirations and completing her education. He further contended that the said petition is returned by this court questioning its maintainability and the accused resubmitted the petition after complying objections by relying on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pritish v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Reported in 2001 0 SC 1598 and the said petition is pending before this court and the court assured the petition would be considered on merits and orders will be passed along with final judgement. He also relied on a judgement between Mahila Vinodh Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2008 8 SCC 34 wherein it was held that “ Prosecution for perjury – Initiation of proceedings by Court before which perjury is committed -Pre conditions – Frequent use of provisions by Courts essential to curb menace of perjury”.
36. He further submitted that the conduct of P.W.1 amounts to perjury and warrants initiation of appropriate proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C in order to uphold the rule of law and protect sanctity of justice delivery system. On perusal of the record it appears that after filing the petition under section 340 Cr.P.C., my learned predecessor in the office returned the petition with some objections and the said petition is represented. But the said petition is again returned with endorsement previous objections not complied with and at present the said petition is not pending before the court. Here it is pertinent to mention that after assuming charge of this court, the said petition did not come before me and I have not given any assurance to the counsel for the accused as mentioned in his written arguments.
37. During the cross examination P.W.1 denied that she completed her B.Tech in the year 2012. As per the evidence of D.W.1, Professor and controller of examination, JNTU Kakinada, P.W.1 completed her engineering graduation in April 2012 and on 16.10.2012 the student collected her provisional certificate from the college and as per the college rules, they cannot produce the provisional certificate of the student unless it is applied by the student. The evidence of D.W.1 clinchingly proves that P.W.1 completed her B.tech in April 2012 from JNTU. The evidence on record shows she intentionally denied that she completed her B.tech in 2012 and she has given false evidence on oath. Hence, she is certainly liable for punishment for giving false evidence. Hence, the Superintendent of this court is directed to give report before 3rd Add.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court against P.W.1 for giving false evidence.
38. The another contention of the accused is that father P.W.1 has no such capacity to give dowry of Rs. 3,00,000 and other articles as deposed by P.W.1 and he relied on exhibit D3- Income certificate of L.W.2. As seen from exhibit D3, the annual income of L.W.2 is Rs.12,000. It is also an admitted fact that L.W.2 had four children and he has to maintain his family. In such a case, it is unbelievable that L.W.2 with a meager annual income of Rs.12,000 has given such huge dowry and valuable articles. Exhibit D3 clearly shows that L.W.2 had no such financial capacity to give dowry and valuable articles.
39. Learned counsel for the accused further contended that despite clear admissions of P.W.1 about unregistered land sale deeds dated 31.05.2010, 27.06.2011, this court refused to mark the said photocopies solely on the ground that they were not originals and this refusal is patently erroneous and it is settled law u/s 65 (c) of Indian Evidence Act, the secondary evidence is admissible where the original is lost or not in the possession of the party and a proper foundation is laid.
40. As per section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of document in the following cases:
(a)When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;
(b)When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
(c)When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;
(d)When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;
(e)When the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;
(f)[ When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in [India] [[[Cf. the Bankers’Books Evidence Act, 1891 (18 of 1891), Section 4.]], to be given in evidence;
(g)When the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the documents is admissible.
In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.
In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.
41. To mark the photocopies of documents, the party who intends to mark shall explain where is the original and as to why he is marking the photocopies of the documents. If the document is with the other party, first he has to give notice to the other party and even after receiving notice the other party fails to produce the document, then he can mark the photocopy. If he lost the original then also he is entitled to mark the photocopy, but in the case on hand there is no material on record to show that the accused or prosecution has given notice to other party to produce the documents and that the originals were lost. Without complying the conditions of section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, blaming this Court that the decision of the court is erroneous is not acceptable.
42. Learned counsel for the accused mentioned in his written arguments that the non production of the original unregistered sale deeds was reasonably explained during cross examination and it was put to P.W.1 that since accused no longer had access to the original land sale deeds dated. 31.05.2010 and 27.06.2011 since the property was transferred to Ch. Appala Raju and the denial of suggestion does not itself negate the reasonable explanation offered by the accused. On perusal of entire cross examination of P.W.1 it appears no such suggestion was given to P.W.1. As such the contention of counsel for accused that they have given reasonable explanation for not filing the originals is not at all acceptable.
43. The learned counsel for accused contended that the investigating officer failed to refer the matter for counselling and conduct preliminary enquiry which is mandatory prior to the registration of FIR and had there been a proper enquiry and counselling, A1 & P.W.1 would have led a happy marital life and A2 would not have died. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following judgements:
A. Lalitha Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2014 2 SCC 1 wherein it was held that “ A preliminary enquiry is mandatory in matrimonial disputes to prevent the misuse of criminal law machinery
B. Kah Kashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar reported in 2022 AIR SC 820 wherein it was held that “ This court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498 A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long terms ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore , this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them”.
C. Preethi Gupta and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. Reported in 2010 4 Crimes 19 SC wherein it was held that “The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
D. Rajesh Sharma and Ors. V. State of UP and Anr. reported in AIR 2017 SC 3869 wherein it was held that “ Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such committee. Such committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication”.
44. The counsel for accused further contended that the photocopy of alleged letter said to be have been given by P. Santhoshi on 28.02.2017, does not bear any endorsement or acknowledgment of Women PS and said Santhoshi was not examined, so it’s contents cannot be relied upon.
45. This court is aware that the court cannot look into the unmarked documents filed either by the prosecution or by the accused and the unmarked documents cannot be treated as evidence.
46. P.W.1 has given report nearly after 5 years of coming out from the house of A1, but she has not explained the reasons for the delay. It is admitted that she has given report after receiving notice in the divorce OP filed by A1. Had really there is such harassment by the accused, there is no necessity and possibility to P.W.1 to wait 5 years to give report to the police. The unexplained inordinate delay is certainly fatal to the prosecution case. Further the prosecution has not filed the report dated 28.07.2017 alleged to be given in women PS. No reasons were mentioned by the prosecution as to why the said report was not registered and what made P.W.1 to lodge another report on 03.08.2017. In the absence of reasons by the prosecution for not registering the first report, the suggested plea of the accused that P.W.1 made improvements in the second report to robe all the relatives of A1 and attribute serious allegations cannot be ruled out. Further, the certified copy of report given to protection officer which is filed by the accused in 313 Cr.P.C examination shows P.W.1 mentioned that her parents has given 6 cents of site which is contrary to her evidence. It shows she is changing her version from time to time. Further, since the report was given after 3 years of alleged harassment, the court has no power to take cognizance of offence. Since the report is barred by limitation, this court is of the considered opinion that basing on said cognizance order, the accused cannot be convicted.
47. In view of my foregoing discussion, it can be safely conclude that prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under section 498-A r/w Sec.34 of IPC. and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act beyond all reasonable doubt.
48. In the result, A.1 and A3 are found not guilty of the charge under section 498-A r/w Sec.34 of IPC. and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1 and A.3 shall be in force for a period of Six Months.
The Superintendent of this Court is directed to give complaint before III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Gajuwaka under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against PW.1 Matham Ramalakshmi @ Vijayalakshmi to proceed in accordance with law.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 7th day of July, 2025.
Sd/- Y. Srilakshmi
Additional Civil Judge( Senior Division)-cum-
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gajuwaka .
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution:
PW.1:Matham Ramalakshmi @ Vijayalakshmi
PW.2: Yelusuri Nookaraju
PW.3: Yelusuri Mutyalamma
PW.4: Yelusuri Ramarao
PW.5: B.Jagadeeswara Rao
PW.6: Nakka Lakshmi
PW.7: Pala Demudamma
PW.8: Tokada Apparao
PW.9 : Sk.Sayyed Bee
For Defence :
DW.1 :Dr.M.Nageswara Rao
Exhibits marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Report of P.W.1.
Ex.P.2 : 162 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.6
Ex.P.3 : Original FIR
For Defence: ‘D’ Series marked through PW.9
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of petition in FCOP 509 of 2017 on the file
of Hon’ble District Family Judge, Visakhapatnam
Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of printer FIR in Crime No.488 of 2017
Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of income certificate dated 09.03.2005 vide
certificate No.400/05 issued by MRO, Gajuwaka.
‘X’ series marked through DW.1.:
Ex.X1 : Authorization given by Registrar, JNTU,
Kakinada dated 29.01.2025
Material Objects Marked
NIL
Sd/- Y. Srilakshmi
Additional Civil Judge( Senior Division)-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gajuwaka .
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE GAJUWAKA
C.C.No.315/2020
Date of offence Prior to 03.08.2017
Date of report or complaint 26.12.2017
Date of apprehension of the accused or appearance of the accused in the Court 15.11.2021
Date of commencement of trial 19.11.2022
Date of close of trial 23.03.2025
Date of sentence on order 07.07.2025
Explanation of delay or remarks Due to non production of witnesses by the Prosecution
Name of the Complainant Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Police Station.
Name of the accused A1- Matham Vijaya Rao, S/o Matham Ramulu, aged 28 years, caste by Rajaka, R/o D.No.23-7-28, Simhagiri Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City.
A3 – Matham Ramulu, S/o late Appanna, aged 57 years, caste by Rajaka, R/o D.No.23-7-28, Simhagiri Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City.
Offence U/Sec.498-A r/w Sec.34 of IPC. and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act
Finding Found not guilty
Sentence In the result, A.1 and A3 are found not guilty of the charge under section 498-A r/w Sec.34 of IPC. and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1 and A.3 shall be in force for a period of Six Months.
The Superintendent of this Court is directed to give complaint before III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Gajuwaka under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against PW.1 Matham Ramalakshmi @ Vijayalakshmi to proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- Y. Srilakshmi
Additional Civil Judge( Senior Division)-cum-
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gajuwaka .