THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1124 of 2008 18-07-2014 BETWEEN:
Erukala Yadaiah …..Appellant/Accused AND State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of A.P.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1124 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused against the Judgment dated 02.09.2008 passed in S.C.No.114 of 2007 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, at Siddipet, whereby the learned Judge found the appellant/accused guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years, for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
The deceased is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2. The accused harassed the deceased both physically and mentally suspecting her fidelity and that on 27-12-2005, the deceased consumed pesticide and died. Basing on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, a case was registered against the appellant/accused. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused but marked Ex.D1, contradiction portion in the Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., of P.W.2.
The learned trial Judge after evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and also on hearing oral submissions on both sides found the appellant/accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Sections 306 IPC as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
To decide the point, it is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, as recorded by the Court below, and the same reads as under.
The evidence of P.W-1 Yellaiah who is the complainant is that his daughter Bharathamma was given in marriage to the accused about eleven years ago and that his son-in-law was beating his daughter in drunken condition and one person from the village of accused came and informed that his daughter died and he immediately rushed to the house of the accused, where he saw body of his daughter containing some marks on her neck and breast. He lodged complaint to police under Ex.P-1. He also says that earlier panchayaths were held on three occasions at Indupriyala, Mandapur and Tirumalapur villages and the elders found fault with the accused and advised him to lookafter her well.
P.W.-2 Yellavva also stated in her evidence that the accused used to beat her daughter in drunken condition at the instance of his mother harassed her, as such, her daughter committed suicide and died. She says that she saw some marks on the neck and breast on the body of her daughter.
P.W-3 says that about two and half years ago, the wife of the accused consumed pesticide and took her in an Auto to Gajwel Hospital on the way she died.
P.W-4 also stated in her evidence that the accused used to beat her sister on the instigation of his mother and she died due to beating of the accused and that she say marks on the neck and breast.
P.W-5 stated that the Police conducted panchanama for scene of offence and also inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and obtained signatures on rough sketch. Ex.P-2 is Scene of Offence Panchanama, Ex.P-3 rough sketch, Ex.P-4 is inquest panchanama contains his signature.
P.W-6 who is S.I. of Police stated that on 28-12-2005 he received complaint from P.W-1 and he registered in Cr.No.132/05 under Section 306 IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P-5. He says that he recorded the statement of P.W.1 at Police Station, visited Yerravalli village where he examined P.Ws.2 to 4, Gowri Yellaiah, Erukala Shamaiah, and Erukala Narsimulu. He says that he conducted scene of offence panchanama in presence of P.W-5 and Raju and drawn rough sketch for scene of offence. He says that he also conducted inquest over the deadbody of the deceased Bharatamma in presence of P.W-5, Raju and Pochavva. He says that he send body to Hospital for Postmortem examination. P.W-6 also says that after receiving all the reports and on completion of investigation, he filed Charge Sheet against the accused under Section 306 I.P.C. He says that doctor who conducted autopsy over the deadbody of the deceased, now he left to Saudi Arabia. E.x.P-6 P.M.E. Report. Ex.P-7 is F.S.L.Report dt.18-03- 2006 which show Organo Phosphate insecticide poison is found.
On perusing the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, this Court is of the view that even admitting the entire case of the prosecution as true, the said evidence does not disclose the offence under Section 306 IPC. To attract an offence under Section 306 IPC, there should be specific element of inducement and the person who died should have no other alternative remedy except to commit suicide. In the present case, none of the witnesses deposed that the appellant/accused induced the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution has failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant/accused and because of such cruelty, she committed suicide. Mere allegation that the appellant/accused and the deceased have disputes and they were quarreling with each other, and as such the deceased committed suicide, is not a ground to convict the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Even though, P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that there was panchayat before elders on two or three occasions, prosecution has failed to substantiate the same by way of examining any of the elders, who participated in the alleged panchayats. Hence, this Court cannot believe that the said Panchayats were held. Further, P.Ws.1 to 4, who are closely related with the deceased, did not depose any specific incident or overt acts against the appellant/accused, which necessitated the deceased to commit suicide.
In view of the above discussion and in the absence of any evidence that the appellant/accused induced the deceased to commit suicide, this Court is of the view that the appellant/accused is entitled for acquittal, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable, and is liable to be set aside, and accordingly, the same is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of the charge.
In the result, the Judgment of the trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC is set aside, and the appellant/accused is acquitted of the charge. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties stand discharged. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him.
The criminal appeal is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 18.07.2014 pln