THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.791 of 2014 07-10-2014 BETWEEN:
P.Nathe Naik …..Appellant AND Tadimarri Imamuddin And others.
…..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.791 of 2014 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/de facto complainant challenging the Judgment dated 30.01.2012 passed in Special S.C. No.63 of 2010 by the Hon’ble Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs and STs cases – cum – Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 306 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That the accused, fourteen days prior to 23.01.2010, the day on which the deceased committed suicide, intentionally insulted P.W.1 by abusing him touching upon the caste with intent to humiliate him within the public view and thereby committed the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act. That A.1 loved the deceased and promised her to marry, but later he stated that he would not marry. When questioned as to why A.1 would not marry the deceased, A.1 and A.2 asked them to do whatever they liked and asked the deceased to die by consuming insecticide poison. Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide on 23.01.2010, by consuming insecticide poison. Thereby the accused committed an offence under Section 306 IPC.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and M.Os.1 to 3.
No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court disbelieving the evidence of P.W.1, acquitted A.1 and A.2/respondents 1 and 2, observing as follows.
The evidence of P.W.2 is hearsay evidence as she was not in the alleged Panchayat along with P.W.1. P.W.1 did not say that in the alleged panchayat, A.1 and A.2 abused him saying sugali na kodaka. Further, there is a doubt as to when the alleged panchayat was held – whether it was 14 days or 1 day prior to the date of occurrence, i.e., 23.01.2010. Though P.W.1 stated that 10 or 15 elders were in the Panchayat, none of the elders was examined.
The suicide note, M.O.1, was not sent to handwriting expert. None of the witnesses examined stated that M.O.1 is in the handwriting of the deceased. In M.O.1, it is mentioned that though A.1 was willing to marry the deceased, A.1’s parents were against the marriage, that A.1’s parents went and insulted P.W.1 on that issue and on hearing that A.1 refused to marry the deceased because of his parents, the deceased committed suicide. There is nothing in M.O.1 to suggest that the accused were instrumental in infusing the idea of suicide into the mind of the deceased. Merely because of the acts of the accused, the deceased felt humiliated and committed suicide, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was intended in any manner by the accused. The suicide appears to be an independent act of the deceased.
The learned trial Judge also observed that even admitting the evidence of P.W.1 to be true and also admitting that the M.O.1 is written by the deceased, the same will not attract an offence under Section 306 IPC. The relevant observations are as follows.
‘Abetment’ in Section 306 IPC has to be understood with reference to its definition given in Section 107 IPC. A person abets the doing of thing, who first instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. ‘Conspiracy’ between A.1 and A.2 or ‘intentional aiding’ by A.1 and A.2 is not alleged by the prosecution. Then, ‘instigation’ remains. ‘Instigation’ denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic action or to stimulate or incite. It is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was in the alleged panchayat. Even if it is accepted that there was a panchayat and in the panchayat the accused asked the deceased to die, it cannot be said that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is no evidence that any of the accused told the deceased to commit suicide.
Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant/de facto complainant submits that it is the duty of the prosecution to examine the Panchayatdars and that M.O.1, suicide note, should have been sent to the handwriting expert. He further submits that the case of the complainant should not suffer because of the lapses on the part of the investigation agency and requests that the case may be remanded to the Court below.
This Court is of the view that it is true that the lapses on the part of the investigation agency cannot be the ground to reject the case of the complainant. But in the present case, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused not only on the ground of lapses on the part of the investigation agency, but also on the ground that even admitting the entire case of the prosecution and the M.O.1, suicide note, to be true, the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act and Section 306 IPC are absent in the case on hand, and as such, it cannot be said that the accused have committed any of the alleged offences.
On perusing the entire evidence and hearing the submissions on both sides, this Court is of the view that the Court below correctly came to a conclusion that A.1 and A.2/respondents 1 and 2 have not committed the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act and Section 306 IPC. This Court is of the view that the Court below has considered the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given above while acquitting the accused is also in accordance with law.
The Judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court. The criminal appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 07.10.2014 pln