CC 3388 of 2019

PJCJ - VIII AMM, Kukatpally Date: 09-05-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM VIII

ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, R.R. DISTRICT
AT KUKATPALLY

Thursday, the 9th day of May, 2024

PRESENT: SRI PRITHVI RAJ D.T.,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
VIII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
R.R. DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

CALENDER CASE No. 3388 OF 2019

Between:
The State of Telangana
through Police Miyapur
… Complainant
AND
Shaik Ayub Pasha, S/o Hazarath Saab,
Aged 38 years,
R/o Near Hajrathali masjid, Street No.13
Adhitya Nagar, Hafeezpet, Miyapur.
…Accused
This case is coming before me for final disposal in the presence of
Smt. Krishnaveni, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and
M/s. G. Srinivas Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Accused and upon
considering the material evidence available on record and having stood
over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGEMENT ::

1. The Accused is prosecuted for the offence punishable U/Sec 498(A)

of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC).

2. The law was set into motion when the Defacto complainant Smt.

Shaik Shafiya Begum/PW1 gave a report to the police on 29.09.2018 at

12:00PM wherein she stated that eight years ago she got married with

the accused by name Ayub Pasha. Out of their wedlock, they were

blessed with three daughters. However, the accused maintained illegal

intimacy with her sister and they both are now staying together. The

1/6
CC 3388 of 2019
PJCJ - VIII AMM, Kukatpally Date: 09-05-2024

accused failed to provide basic needs to the petitioner and her children

and he is harassing her over petty issues. As the complainant is unable to

support herself and her daughters she filed a report.

3. Based on the report a case was registered in Cr. No. 869 of 2018,

U/Sec 498(A) of IPC by the concerned investigating officer. During the

course of investigation, the relevant witnesses were examined and their

statements were recorded. The investigating officer collected the marriage

certificate and wedding card from the complainant. On 03.08.2019 the

accused surrendered but he did not cooperate with the investigation. As

such the IO arrested him and produced for judicial remand. Thereafter a

charge sheet was filed.

4. Cognizance was taken and the Accused was summoned. On

appearance of the accused, copies required U/Sec 207 of Cr.P.C. were

furnished and he was examined U/Sec 239 of Cr.P.C. Based on the

allegations, charges U/Sec 498(A) of IPC were framed and were read over

to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case

came up for trial, wherein the prosecution has examined three witnesses

and exhibited two documents. After the evidence was closed, the Accused

was examined U/Sec 313 of Cr.P.C and he denied the prosecution

evidence and reported no evidence.

5. Heard both the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the Learned

Defence Counsel and perused the material on record.

2/6
CC 3388 of 2019
PJCJ - VIII AMM, Kukatpally Date: 09-05-2024

6. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the prosecution was

able to prove the charge framed against the accused?

7. POINT:

7.1. The evidence on record would disclose that the prosecution was

able to examine only three witnesses out of the eight witnesses listed in

the charge sheet. The police filed reports that they were unable to secure

the presence of the remaining witnesses as such the evidence had to be

closed. Apart from the de facto complainant who was examined as PW1,

the only witness who deposed in support for the prosecution case is the

PW2 who is father of the PW1. The PW3 who is the investigating officer in

this case had nothing much to offer to the case as he only spoke about

the investigation done by him and the collection of proof of marriage

which is not in dispute.

7.2. It is the contention of the PW1 that the accused harassed her for

not giving birth to a male child and he maintained an extra marital affair

with his sister. She alleges that the accused neglected her and her

children and he is living separately with her. Although PW1 claims that

she was harassed physically and mentally, the witness failed to mention

any specific details as to when she was subject to such mental and

physical cruelty. It was argued by the learned prosecutor that the cruelty

was continuing pursuant to the affair between the accused and the sister

of PW1. However no proof was filed to elicit such an affair other than bald

accusations. When there is an allegation that the accused was

3/6
CC 3388 of 2019
PJCJ - VIII AMM, Kukatpally Date: 09-05-2024

maintaining an affair with a lady, it is required by the police to gather

some evidence that would probably prove the fact, rather than resting the

case of oral allegations. It is also pertinent to mention that a husband

having an affair per se may not constitute an offence under section 498A

of IPC unless it is followed by a consequential act of mental or physical

injury. But as stated before the PW1 failed to mention any such specific

instances or injury and violence.

7.3. What further dilutes the case of the prosecution is the admission

made by the PW1 while being cross examined by the learned counsel for

the accused. The PW1 says that she cannot read or write Telugu and she

cannot understand what is mentioned in her report as it was written in

Telugu. The witness further admits that she did not mention in her

statement to police that the accused harassed her for not begetting a

male child. This admission clearly goes to show that there is improvement

in the evidence of the PW1. It was also admitted by her that her sister

Zakiya Begum was married 6-7 years back and her husband resides in

Jaipur and her evidence does not disclose when she came to Hyderabad

and when the illicit relationship perpetuated. The lack of these specific

details in the evidence would make the allegations highly unreliable for

the court to arrive at a conclusion.

7.4. As mentioned before, the father of the PW1 also deposed as PW2

wherein he reiterated the same allegations made by the PW1. However,

the witness does not appear to be an eyewitness to the alleged assault

4/6
CC 3388 of 2019
PJCJ - VIII AMM, Kukatpally Date: 09-05-2024

done by the accused. Even the PW2 is not specific as to when and where

the accused beat or abused PW1. He also alleges that the accused is

maintaining an illicit relationship with his younger daughter and he eloped

with her. But it is not mentioned as when the incident actually took place.

When the allegations made by the prosecution witnesses are vague and

ambiguous without being supported by any documentary evidence. It

becomes very difficult for the court to determine the guilt of the accused

as the lacuna offers a great deal of doubt which benefits the accused.

Pursuant to these facts and circumstances, the court is of the view that

the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence U/Sec

498A of IPC. Hence he is acquitted U/Sec 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds

shall be cancelled after six months.

(Typed by me in my laptop, Corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on the 9th day of May, 2024).

Sd/-
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
VIII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
KUKATPALLY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 : Shaik Shafiya Begum

PW2 : Syed Mahaboob
PW3 : Ch. Raghuramulu

5/6
 CC 3388 of 2019
PJCJ - VIII AMM, Kukatpally Date: 09-05-2024

FOR DEFENCE :

- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Report
Ex.P2: FIR

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-Nil-

Sd/-
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
VIII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
KUKATPALLY

6/6