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.
