THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1172 of 2008 21-04-2014 BETWEEN:
Cherukuri Jnaneswar And another.
…..Appellants AND State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1172 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants/A1 and A.3 against the Judgment dated 18.09.2008 passed in S.C.No.480 of 2006 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, whereby the learned Judge found the appellants/A.1 and A.3 and convicted and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one year each.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That the deceased is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 and she was aged about 18 years. The present appellants/accused along with the other accused harassed the deceased to marry A.1 and threatened that if she refused to marry A.1, they would kill her parents and kidnap her brother; and that they offered to pay the deceased Rs.2,50,000/- as their caste is lesser than the caste of the deceased. On the particular day, the deceased due to the unbearable harassment meted out in the hands of the accused, committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and set fire to ablaze and died on the same day. A case was registered against the accused and after completion of investigation Police filed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased, who set the law in motion by lodging a complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.1. She deposed that the accused has harassed the deceased and due to such harassment, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her and set fire and died on the same day. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased, who also deposed on the same lines of P.W.1 and supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 is the person, to whom the deceased alleged to have informed about the harassment in the hands of the accused, when P.W.3 tried to put down the fire to save the deceased. He turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 is the maternal uncle of the deceased and P.W.5 is the sister of the deceased, who deposed that the accused harassed the deceased and as such, she committed suicide and died, and supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.6 and P.W.7 are the mediators in whose presence, Ex.P.3, Observation Report; Ex.P.4, Rough Sketch and Ex.P.5, Inquest Report were prepared. P.W.8 was the then Sub Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation and for further investigation, he handed over the case to P.W.9, the Sub Inspector of Police, who completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the A.1 and A.3 for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
The learned trial Judge after evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and also on hearing oral submissions on both sides found the appellants/A.1 and A.3 guilty and convicted them for the offence under Sections 306 IPC and accordingly sentenced them as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused.
Heard the learned counsel for appellants/A.1 and A.3 and the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the material available on record.
Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellants/A.1 and A.3 beyond all reasonable doubt?
It is to be noted that none of the witnesses are the eye witnesses to the occurrence when she subjected herself to burn injuries. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the mother and father of the deceased respectively, who alleged that the deceased on her death bed informed that because of the demand and continuous harassment of the accused, she committed suicide. Even though it is stated by the prosecution that the appellants continuously harassed the deceased, no specific instance was stated by the prosecution except the incident as alleged by P.Ws.1 and 2 that the appellants approached P.Ws.1 and 2 and requested them for arranging marriage of the deceased with A.1 and that the same was not accepted by P.Ws.1 and 2. It is also stated that the accused are willing to give Rs.2,50,000/- if P.Ws.1 and 2 agree for the marriage. It is the contention of the prosecution that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, more particularly, the fact that the deceased informed the reason for commission of suicide, which amounts to dying declaration, would clearly show that the deceased committed suicide only because of the harassment meted out by the deceased in the hands of the accused.
The prosecution has failed to prove that P.Ws.1 and 2 were informed by the deceased that the appellants/accused harassed the deceased and compelled her to marry A.1. Even admitting the entire case of the prosecution is true, mere demand to marry the A.1 and also the accused expressing willingness to marry the deceased would not amount of an offence under Section 306 IPC, as the same cannot be called an inducement to commit suicide. Further, if the case of the prosecution that the appellants/accused harassed the deceased continuously is true, it is not known as to why the parents of the deceased have not filed any complaints earlier against the appellants/accused for such harassment. Further, the said fact was not informed to any of the elders, even according to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. If the demand and harassment are so cruel in nature, which necessitates the deceased to commit suicide, necessarily it would have been informed by the said witnesses to the relatives and police officials concerned. Apart from that, except P.Ws.1 and 2 claims that the deceased informed the reason for commission of suicide, the Doctor who admitted the deceased in the hospital for treatment, not examined before the Court and the records of the Hospital are also not produced before the Court to enable the Court to appreciate what is stated by the deceased at the time of admission in the hospital. Hence, this Court is of the view that the appellants/A.1 and A.3 cannot be said to have committed any offence, more particularly, an offence under Section 306 IPC, and as such, the Judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.
In the result, the Judgment of the trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellants/A.1 and A.3 for the offence under Section 306 IPC is set aside, and the appellants/A.1 and A.3 are acquitted of the said charge. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties stand discharged.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 21.04.2014 pln