You are on page 1of 12

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES


AGAINST WOMEN, NELLORE

Tuesday, this the 12th day of February, 2019

Present:- Dr. B. Satyanarayana,


VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge for trial of Offences against Women, Nellore

SESSIONS CASE No.247/2014


(Crime No.193/2013 of Balaji Nagar Police Station)
(P.R.C.No.11/2014 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District)
--

1 Name of the Complainant : State – Sub-Divisional Police Officer,


Nellore Town, Sub-Division, SPSR Nellore
District.
2 Name of the accused : 1. Potluru Samuel @ Swamaiah, (A1)
S/o Venkateswarlu, 24 years,
2. Potluru Vijayamma, (A2)
W/o Venkateswarlu, 45 yers,
3. Buduru Subbamma @ Suvarthamma (A3
W/o Lakshmi, 47 years.

All are S.T (Yanadi),Girijana colony,


Vaddipalem village, Challayapalem
Panchayat, Buchireddypalem Mandal.

3 Charges : Charge No.1:Sec.498-A of IPC for


subjecting the deceased
Hebsiba @ Pavitra to
cruelty and harassment.

Charge No.2:Sec.304-B of IPC for dowry


death.

4 Plea of Accused : Not guilty

5 Finding of the Judge : Not guilty

6 Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 to A3 are found not


guilty of the offences punishable u/s.498-A
and under section 304-B of IPC and are
acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
Their bail bonds of the accused and their
sureties bonds shall stand cancelled after
expiry of six months from the date of this
Judgment as contemplated u/s 437-A
12.2.2019 2 SC 247 of 2014

Cr.P.C. The non-valuable property i.e.,


MO1, plastic can, shall be destroyed after
expiry of appeal time.

In view of the facts and circumstances,


I am of the considered opinion that the
female child of deceased namely Krupa
Sindhu aged about six years became
victim of the offence. Hence, I am of the
considered opinion that it is a fit case to
invoke Section 357A Cr.P.C. for victim
compensation scheme for recommending
the award of compensation to the victim
Krupa Sindhu, minor daughter of the
deceased, as contemplated U/Sec.357(A)
(3) Cr.P.C.

The Office is directed to address a


letter to the District Legal Services
Authority as required Under Section
357A(2) Cr.P.C.

7 Prosecution conducted by : Sri S.V.L.N.S.R.V.Prasad,


Public Prosecutor, Nellore.

8 Defence conducted by : Sri G.Suresh,


Advocate for Accused

JUDGMENT

1. The accused/A1 to A3 stand charged under section 498-A of IPC for

subjecting the deceased Hebsiba @ Pavitra to cruelty and harassment and under

section 304-B of IPC for dowry death.

2. It is the case of the prosecution, as per the charge-sheet, that accused/A1

being the husband of deceased Hebsiba @ Pavitra subjecting the deceased to

cruelty and harassment and accused/A2 & A3 being the mother-in-law and sister-

in-law of the deceased also demanded additional dowry and harassment her

within seven years of the marriage between the deceased and accused/A1 and

accused/A1 had highhandedly taken away the child of the deceased and as such,
12.2.2019 3 SC 247 of 2014

the deceased vexed with her life and committed suicide by pouring kerosene on

her body and ablaze herself and on the report given by the PW1/T.Sreenaiah,

PW17/A.Nageswara Rao, SI of Police, Balajinagar Police Station, Nellore

registered the same as a case in Cr.No.193/2013 for the offences U/s.498-A, 306

of IPC and investigated into. It is the further case of the prosecution that during

investigation he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and got

conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased by the Mandal Executive

Magistrate, got photographed the scene of offence and seized 20 liters empty

kerosene tin in the presence of PW11/M.Musalaiah and PW12/G.Seshu under the

cover of mediator reort and after autopsy and after completion of investigation,

PW18/P.Venkatanadha Reddy, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Town Sub-

Division arrested the accused on 2.11.2013 and sent them for judicial custody and

laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/s.498-A, 304-B of IPC.

3. The learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore had

taken cognizance of the offences against the accused and numbered it as

P.R.C.No.11/2014 and after appearance of the accused, copies of documents were

furnished to the accused u/s 207 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of

Sessions, Nellore. The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore has numbered

the same as Sessions Case No.247/2014 and made over the same to I Additional

Sessions Judge's Court, Nellore.

4. After appearance of the accused/A1 to A3 before the court and after

hearing both sides under section 228 of Cr.P.C charges under sections 498-A,

304-B of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for

which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.


12.2.2019 4 SC 247 of 2014

5. When the Sessions case is coming for trial, the Hon’ble District and

Sessions Judge, Nellore has withdrawn the said case from the file of I Additional

Sessions Judge, Nellore and transferred to this Court on the point of jurisdiction

as this Court is newly established Court for the trial of offences against Women.

6. To Prove the case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 18 and marked

Exs.P1 to P21 and MO1 are marked. The evidence of LW6/M.Murahari and

LW7/K.Raghavulu closed since they died. The evidence of

LW10/A.Chenchamma @ Rani closed as her whereabouts are not known. The

learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

LW17/Dr.G.Muralidhar, CAS.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 to A3 were examined

under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining to them in Telugu, the incriminating evidence

and the circumstances appearing against them, for which, the accused denied the

same and they have no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides, on the points of facts and law.

9. The accused/A1 to A3 have complied with section 437-A Cr.P.C for their

appearance before the Appellate Court, if any.

10. Now, the points for determination are:

(1) whether the prosecution has proved that the accused have
subjecting the deceased Hebsiba @ Pavitra to cruelty and
harassment.

(2) whether the prosecution has proved that the accused have
caused the death of deceased and it is a dowry death?
12.2.2019 5 SC 247 of 2014

POINTS 1 and 2:-

11. For the sake of convenience, points 1 and 2 are discussed together.

12. It is the case of the prosecution, as per the charge-sheet, that accused/A1

being the husband of deceased Hebsiba @ Pavitra subjecting the deceased to

cruelty and harassment and accused/A2 & A3 being the mother-in-law and sister-

in-law of the deceased also demanded additional dowry and harassment her

within seven years of the marriage between the deceased and accused/A1 and

accused/A1 had highhandedly taken away the child of the deceased and as such,

the deceased vexed with her life and committed suicide by pouring kerosene on

her body and ablaze herself.

13. Coming to the evidence on record, PW1/T.Sreenaiah, father of

deceased/Eebsiba, PW2/T.Mani, brother of PW1, PW3/T.Bujjamma, mother of

PW1, PW4/T.Thimothi Babu, brother of deceased, PW5/K.Indiramma, alleged

eyewitness, PW6/T.Varamma, relative of the deceased and PW7/R.Mangamma,

alleged witness regarding the harassment against the deceased by the accused,

have not supported the case of the prosecution.

14. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on the alleged report, 27.10.2013. Exs.P2 to

P8 are the section 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 to 7. P.Ws.1 to 7 have denied

the contents in Exs.P2 to P8 and they have denied the contention of the

prosecution that the accused have subjected the deceased to cruelty, demanded

her to bring additional dowry and A1 had forcibly taken away the child of the

deceased from her custody.


12.2.2019 6 SC 247 of 2014

15. PW8/K.Masthanaiah, alleged mediator pertaining to inquest report of the

deceased. PW9/D.Sasidhar, another mediator pertaining to inquest report.

PW10/K.Sampurna, another inquestdar have not supported the case of

prosecution and their signatures are marked as Exs.P9 to P11 on the inquest

report. P.Ws.8 to P10 have denied that inquest was held over the dead body of the

deceased in their presence.

16. PW11/M.Musalaiah and PW12/G.Seshu alleged mediators pertaining to

scene of offence observation report have not supported the case of prosecution

and their signatures are marked as Exs.P12 and P13 on the scene of offence

observation report and seizure report.

17. PW13/M.Narasimhulu, the then Tahsildar has supported the case of

prosecution regarding the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased on

27.10.2011 in the presence of P.Ws.8 to 10 and Ex.P14 inquest report of the

deceased. It is his further evidence that he examined blood relatives of the

deceased and recorded their statements and thereafter, he sent the dead body for

post mortem examination.

18. PW14/Dr.G.Sobha Rani, Associate Professor, ACSR Medical College,

Nellore has supported the case of prosecution regarding the postmortem

examination conducted over the dead body of the deceased and noticing the burns

over the dead body of the deceased, which are ante-morem in nature. Ex.P15 is

postmortem certificate of the deceased and the cause of death is due to external

burns and and shock.


12.2.2019 7 SC 247 of 2014

19. PW15/P.Gopi, Police Constable has supported the case of prosecution and

according to his evidence he has followed the instructions given by Tahsildar and

handed over the dead body of the deceased to her blood relatives on 27.10.2013.

20. PW16/D.Venkata Ramanaiah, photographer has supported the case of

prosecution and it is his evidence that he photographed the place of occurrence

showing the deceased in Ex.P16, 13 photographs in number with CD.

21. PW17/A.Nageswara Rao, the then SI of Police has supported the case of

prosecution. It is his evidence that on 27.10.2013 at about 3-00pm.,

PW1/Sreenaiah gave report to him in Ex.P17 and based on it, he registered the

same as a case in Cr.No.193/2013of Balaji Nagar Police Station, Nellore for the

offences U/s.498-A and 306 of IPC and Ex.P18 is the registered FIR. It is his

further evidence that he informed the incident to Tahsildar for inquest, examined

witnesses and recorded their statements and later, he visited the place of

occurrence and prepared rough sketch in place of occurrence in Ex.P19 and also

observed the scene in Ex.P20 and at that time he also seized plastic can (MO1)

under the cover of Ex.P20 and based on the statements of the witnesses he had

altered the section of law to 304-B of IPC by filing a memo in Ex.P21. It is his

further evidence that after inquest of the deceased by PW13/Tahsildar, he handed

over the investigation to his higher officials. Nothing is elicited in the cross-

examination of PW17 in favour of the accused.

22. PW18/P.Venkatanadha Reddy, SDPO, Nellore town has deposed that on

28.10.2013 he received copy express FIR memo from PW17/he took up

investigates the case, visited the scene of offence verified the investigation done
12.2.2019 8 SC 247 of 2014

by Pw17 and recorded the statements and thereafter, he arrested the accused on

2.11.2013 and sent them remand for judicial custody and after completion of

investigation and after receipt of post mortem certificate and other documents, he

laid charge sheet against the accused U/s.304-B of IPC.

23. In the cross-examination, PW18 has deposed that he did not seize anything

from the place of occurrence and he did not find kerosene stove or kerosene can

at the place of occurrence. He has denied the suggestion that the accused has not

committed any offence, but he was falsely implicated in this case even though

deceased died due to fire accident.

24. The above evidence on record goes to show that the relatives and blood

relative of the deceased and alleged eyewitnesses have not supported the case of

prosecution to say that the accused have harassed the deceased and drove her to

commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and set fire to her body.

25. The prosecution has proved the death of the deceased that was caused due

to the burn injuries. There is no material evidence to say that the marriage

between the accused and deceased was occurred within seven years of date of

offence. Even otherwise, there is no evidence, much less, legal evidence to say

that the accused have subjected the deceased to cruelty and demanded additional

dowry and drove her to commit suicide. PW1 being father of the deceased and

lodged a report with police has not supported the case of prosecution. The learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined P.Ws.1 to 7 with the permission

of the court, however, could not elicit anything against the accused. The

prosecution failed to prove the contents in the first information report and alleged
12.2.2019 9 SC 247 of 2014

report of PW1 in Ex.P17.

27. Section 304-B of IPC deals with dowry death and according to it, the

prosecution has to show that soon before the death of the deceased, she was

subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused and then only the death of the

deceased would come under the purview of dowry death. In the instant case,

there is no material evidence to show that soon before the death of the deceased,

she was subjected to harassment and her child was taken away by A1 forcibly,

which lead to commit suicide by the deceased.

28. Section 113-B contemplates presumption as to dowry death and in the

instant case, the prosecution failed to prove that the death of deceased is a dowry

death and hence, the presumption under section 113-B of Evidence Act shall not

be invoked. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that

the prosecution failed to prove the alleged incident, dt.27.10.2013 that

accused/A1 has forcibly taken away the child of the deceased and demanded for

additional dowry. There is no evidence to say that the accused have abetted the

deceased to commit suicide. Hence, section 13-A of Evidence of Act pertaining to

presumption cannot be invoked in this case.

29. In view of the above circumstances and material available on record and I

am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to presume that the death of

the deceased is a dowry death and the accused have subjected the deceased to

cruelty and harassment. Hence, these points are decided against the prosecution.

30. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable

u/s.498-A and under section 304-B of IPC and are acquitted under Section
12.2.2019 10 SC 247 of 2014

235(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds of the accused and their sureties bonds shall

stand cancelled after expiry of six months from the date of this Judgment as

contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. The non-valuable property i.e., MO1, plastic can,

shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

In view of the facts and circumstances,

I am of the considered opinion that the female child of deceased namely Krupa

Sindhu aged about six years became victim of the offence. Hence, I am of the

considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke Section 357A Cr.P.C. for victim

compensation scheme for recommending the award of compensation to the

victim Krupa Sindhu, minor daughter of the deceased, as contemplated

U/Sec.357(A) (3) Cr.P.C.

The Office is directed to address a letter to the District Legal Services

Authority as required Under Section 357A(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced


by me in the Open Court, on this the 12th day of February, 2019.

Sd/- Dr.B.Satyanarayana,
Fair copy: VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge for trial of offences against Women,
Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:

PW1: T.Sreenaiah
PW2: T.Mani
PW3: T.Bujjamma
PW4: T.Thimothi Babu
PW5: A.indiramma
PW6: T.Varamma
PW7: R.Mangamma
12.2.2019 11 SC 247 of 2014

PW8: K.Masthanaiah
PW9: D.Sasidhar
PW10: K.Sampurna
PW11: M.Musalaiah
PW12: G.Seshu
PW13: M.Narasimhulu, Tahsildar
PW14: Dr.G.Sobha Rani
PW15: P.Gopi, PC 3029.
PW16: B.Venkata Ramanaiah, Photographer.
PW17:A.Nageswara Rao,SI of Police.
PW18: P.Venkatanadha Reddy, SDPO, Nellore Town Sub-Division.
For Defence:
Nil.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Thumb impression of PW1 on the report.


Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1.
Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2.
Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3.
Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4.
Ex.P6: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-5.
Ex.P7: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-6.
Ex.P8: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-7.
Ex.P9: Signature of PW8 on the inquest report, dt.27.10.2013.
Ex.P10: Signature of PW9 on inquest report, dt.27.10.2013.
Ex.P11: Signature of PW10 on the inquest report
Ex.P12: Signature of PW11 on the Scene observation report, dt.27.10.2013.
Ex.P13: Signature of PW12 on the scene observation report.
Ex.P14: Inquest report of deceased.
Ex.P15: Post mortem certificate of deceased.
Ex.P16: Photographs 13 in number with C.D.
Ex.P17: Report given by PW1.
Ex.P18: FIR in Cr.No.192/2013 of Balaji Nagar Police Station.
Ex.P19: Rough sketch.
12.2.2019 12 SC 247 of 2014

Ex.P20: Scene observation.


Ex.P21: Altered memo.
For Defence:
Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: Plastic can

VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-


Special Judge for trial of offences against Women,
Nellore.

Copy submitted to: -

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh,


Vijayawada.

2. The Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Copies to: -

3. The V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, SPSR Nellore


District.
4. The Director of Prosecution, Amaravathi.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Nellore.
6. The District Collector, Nellore.
7. The Add. Public Prosecutor, Nellore.
8. The SDPO, Nellore town sub division, Balaji Nagar Police Station.
9. Sri G.Suresh, defence counsel.

// True Copy //

VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-


Special Judge for trial of offences against Women,
Nellore.