THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1953 of 2007 Date:17.09.2014 Between:
Nandyala Ranga Reddy . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its’ Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1953 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 13-09-2007 in Sessions Case No.472/2005 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda whereunder second respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
S.H.O., Garidepally filed charge sheet against the second respondent alleging that marriage of deceased- Chandrakala was fixed with one Sudhakar Reddy and that on 05-10-2004, at about 8:30 P.M., the said Chandrakala was found lying on the ground unconscious and they noticed some smell was emanating from her mouth and that she was shifted to hospital and thereafter, she died and the funeral was completed on the dead body. Subsequently, on 10-10-2004, sister of T. Sudhakar Reddy disclosed that she handed over some letter to Chandrakala in which the accused wrote indecently against Chandrakala about her character and due to that she committed suicide and on that, police registered Crime No.111/2004 and investigation revealed that the accused was responsible for the death of Chandrakala and liable for punishment for the offence under Section 306 IPC. On these allegations, 14 witnesses are examined and nine documents are marked besides two material objects on behalf of prosecution and no witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused and on an over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC and acquitted second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, defacto- complainant preferred present revision.
3. Hard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that the trial Court has not considered the evidence of P.W.7, which would clearly reveal that the death was due to the letter written by the accused. He submitted that there is other evidence to support the testimony of P.W.7, but the trial Court, without considering the same, acquitted the accused and that the same is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Advocate for second respondent submitted that the evidence of P.W.7 was also considered by the trial Court and as there was no evidence to show the suicide of deceased was due to the alleged letter (Ex.P2) and the trial Court extended benefit of doubt to the accused. He further submitted that there is no material to show that the cause of death and there was no post-mortem and after completing funeral subsequently, the case was registered and considering all these aspects, trial Court extended benefit of doubt to the accused and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in revision is whether judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
7. Point:- According to prosecution, the letter written by the accused made the deceased to commit suicide.
To prove its case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses.
P.W.1 is the father of the deceased & defacto-complainant and P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the person who shifted the deceased-Chandrakala to the hospital along with P.Ws.1 & 2. P.W.4 is the paternal uncle of P.W.1. P.W.5 is said to have received letter from unknown person in which, there were allegations of bad character of the deceased.
P.W.6 is the relative of P.W.5, who is a practicing Advocate a t Hyderabad and the others are circumstantial witnesses. Now the main contention of the revision petitioner is that the evidence of P.W.7 is not considered by the trial Court, but as seen from the Para No.15 of the trial Court’s judgment, it refers the evidence of P.W.7 and considered the same. As seen from the material, the alleged letter was not directly handed over to the deceased, it was given to the father of the deceased and two days after the handing over of this letter, the alleged incident took place. There is no material to show that the deceased was disgusted on account of this letter-Ex.P2. The trial Court also observed that there is no suicide note left by the deceased and the entire material is only assumptions and surmises.
As rightly pointed out by the Advocate for second respondent to prove an offence under Section 306 IPC, prosecution has to establish that deceased committed suicide on account of abetment caused by the accused. As rightly pointed out by the Advocate for revision petitioner there is no material to show that this Ex.P2-letter was written by the accused as it was not sent to any handwriting expert to determine that the said letter contains the handwritings of the accused. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the entire case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and in a case of circumstantial evidence, every link must be proved, but here the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the chain of events by proving the necessary circumstances. The learned trial Judge has rightly considered the evidence on record and he has not committed any error in appreciating the material on record. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and there are no incorrect findings in the judgment of the trial Court.
8. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial Court and that the revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
9. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:17.09.2014 mrb