Starting a thread of posts, more like a series of Judgments, from particular district courts in Andhra Pradesh.

Calling this specific series as Guntur DV Cases. Opening the series with son of a gun of a case.

Intro

• Nothing fancy or intriguing in the complaint (is that so??? Read on)
• Routine allegation of combo of IPC 498A and 3,4 Dowry Prohibition Act case

 

Allegations in Charge sheet

1. The offence had taken place in 4th lane, S.V.N Colony, Guntur, and that it was within the limits of Women Police Station, Guntur Urban and within the jurisdiction of this Court.
2. The marriage was solemnized in Tirumala Kalyana Mandapam, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada.
3. Moolah at Marriage at the time of marriage: The accused had taken
   1. cash an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs towards dowry and
   2. cash an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanam from PW2 and LW3-Angina Srinivas in the presence of PW3 and LW4-Thota Prabhavathi while
   3. PW2 and LW3-Angina Srinivas gifted 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to PW1.
4. After the marriage, PW1 had joined A1 in Gayathri Nagar, Hyderabad and that the accused had looked after PW1 well for one month.
5. Later the accused had started subjecting PW1 to physical and mental cruelty by stating that the dowry that was collected from PW2 and LW3-Angina Srinivas was not enough for them and they demanded that PW2 that she has to register her flat in  Vijayawada in favour of A1.
6. A1 had suspected the fidelity of PW1 and number of times he had sent PW1 to the house of PW2 and demanded to register the flat in favour of A1
7. PW1 has informed about the harassment of the accused to PW2, LWs. 3 and 4 (Angina Srinivas and Thota Prabhavathi respectively) and that PWs. 2, 3 and LWs. 3 and 4 (Angina Srinivas and Thota Prabhavathi respectively) had spoken with the accused, but they demanded that PW2 has to register her flat in Vijayawada in favour of A1.
8. In the month of May 2015, that the accused had necked out PW1 from their house.
9. On 30.12.2015, PW1 had given a report against the accused in Women Police Station, Guntur urban.

 

Interesting Titbits

1. PW4 is the Investigating Officer. Read through the judgment below to know what happened to PW4
2. Complaint from Knife states all the moolah mentioned in point 3 in above section was actually given to her.
3. Allegations were levelled against A1 and A2 and that food was not provided to her and that she was confined in a room. But, in her deposition itself PW1 had stated that PW2 used to come to Vijayawada from Guntur to the flat at Vijayawada (Contradictory statements give the benefit of doubt to A1 to A3)
4. Admissions in cross-examination:
   1. Her childhood and education up to the year 2009 was at Vijayawada and that
   2. MCNO.47/2016 against A1 was filed before the Hon’ble Family Court, at Vijayawada and
   3. the address in the said MC was mentioned by Pw1 as Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada and that the flat of her uncle was present there.
   4. All 3 evidences marked by prosecution also suggest the fact that the place of her residence was shown as Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada.
   5. neither relevant documents were produced nor other inhabitants of the flat at Vijayawada were examined to support the fact that the cause of action has arisen at Guntur; no documentary proof was filed by her to show that she was the resident of SVN Colony, Guntur.
   6. The dates of demanding PW1 by A1 to convey the flat of PW2 and the dates of sending her to the house of PW2 were not stated by PW2 to PW4 and that a report was given by PW1 at Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur, when A1 had left PW1 in the flat at Karmanghat when their residence was shifted to Karmanghat.
5. Undisclosed facts/allegation with Investigating Officer by PW1.
   1. On the report given by her at Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur, that A1 was missing, that the A.S.I and the Inspector of Police of the concerned police station did counseling and advised her to lead happy marital life and that the same fact had not been stated to the Women Police Station, Guntur.
   2. PW1 had not stated the afore said facts to him and that she has not even stated to them that, she was not provided proper food, which made this Court to entertain a doubt with regard to the genuineness in foisting the case in Guntur while the MC NO.47/2016 is pending before the Hon’ble Family Court, Vijayawada.
   3. No wound certificate was obtained by her when injury was sustained by her due to oil burnt and in the deposition of PW4 during his cross-examination it was stated by him that PW1 had not stated before him that, A1 had bitten PW1 over her breast and that he had caused injury by pouring oil over her fingers.
   4. In the cross examination of PW4, it has been stated by PW4 that the date and time of dispatch of FIR (EX.P9) was left blank in column no.15 and that the case was not referred to counseling after the registration of FIR.
   5. It has also been admitted by PW4 that he had not collected any proof from PW2 to show that she resides in Guntur, and that the period of stay of PW1 in the house of PW2 at Guntur was not mentioned by him
   6. PW4 has also stated in his cross-examination that PW1 had only stated to him that A1 had beaten her over her body and that he had behaved rudely and that no wound certificate was produced and that no requisition was made to PW4 for taking PW1 to the hospital for treatment
   7. PW4 had further stated that all the witnesses PWs. 1 to 3 had stated before him that PW1 was necked out in May 2015 and that the specific dates of harassment were not stated by PW1 to him (PW4). It was stated by PW4 that in EX.P8, the address was shown to be at Vijayawada.

 

Read the further dissection of the case by Hon’ble Justice Miss V Sri Rama.

Sub-Inspector of Police Vs Kanagari Karthik on 30 June, 2017