Page 1 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NIRMAL
Present :
Sri. A. KARNA KUMAR
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nirmal
Wednesday, this the 16th day of April, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.27 of 2022
Judgment in Criminal Appeal:Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2022
From what Court the appeal is:Assistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal. preferred
Number of the case in that :S.C. No.384 of 2021 Court
Number of the appeal:Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2022
Name and description of:A1: Rathod Shantha Bai, W/o. Ganesh, appellantAge: 45 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Burgupalli-G Village of Narsapur-G Mandal.
A2: Rathod Dattu, S/o. Ganesh, Age: 26 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Burgupalli-G Village of Narsapur-G Mandal.
Name and description of:State of Telangana through S.H.O., respondents PS Narsapur-G.
The sentence and law under: The accused nos.1 and 2 are found guilty which it was imposed in thefor the offence under section 306 r/w.34 IPC lower Courtand accordingly they are convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Six Years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) each, in default of payment of said fine amount, A1 and A2 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two Months, for the offence
Page 2 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
U/Sec.306 r/w.34 IPC. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
The A1 and A2 were in judicial custody from 17.06.2019 to 04.07.2019. Therefore, the above said detention period of A1 and A2 is ordered to be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
Whether confirmed, revised :In the result, the criminal appeal is and if modifiedallowed by setting aside the judgment in S.C. No.384 of 2021, dated 07.11.2022 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal.
The appellants/accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.306 r/w.34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence.
Thebailbondsofthe appellants/accused No.1 and 2 shall stands cancelled after expiry of revision time. The fine amount paid by the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 in the trial Court as imposed by it in its impugned judgment, shall be refunded to them after expiry of revision time. The MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of revision time.
This Criminal Appeal is coming before me for final hearing on 07.04.2025 in the presence of Sri. D. Rajashekhar, Advocate for appellants/accused No.1 and 2 and of Sri. K. Vinod Rao, Public Prosecutor for respondent/state and on hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
This is a criminal appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C by the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal in S.C. No.384 of 2021
Page 3 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
dated 07.11.2022 and to acquit the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence
under Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC.
02.The respondent herein is the complainant i.e., State of
Telangana represented through Station House Officer, P.S. Narsapur-G.
For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
03.The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Narsapur-G had filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for offence punishable U/Sec.306 r/w.34 of IPC in Cr.No.32 of 2019.
04.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 10.06.2019 at 07:15 hours the PW1 has lodged a report stating that the house of A1 is situated near to her house at Burgupalli village. On 09.06.2019 in the evening at 05:00 pm, A1, A2 and A3 came to their house and picked up quarrel with her elder sister/Jadav Savithri Bai claiming that the open land situated beside her house is belongs to them and abused her in most filthy language. Upon which her elder sister/Jadav Savithri Bai got anxiety, disgusted over her life, entered into the cattle shed and consumed pesticide with an intent to commit suicide, came out and fell down in severe condition. On observing, the
PW1 called an Auto and immediately shifted her to Government Area
Hospital, Nirmal, where the PW1’s elder sister has been expired on 23:30 hours while undergoing treatment.
Page 4 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
05.Basing on the contents of the report, PW15 has registered a case in Cr.No.32 of 2019 u/sec.306 r/w.34 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation PW15 has examined and recorded the statement of PW1 in part-II case dairy and rushed to the Government Area Hospital, Nirmal and found the dead body lying in the stretcher in mortuary facing upward. Then PW15 took the photographs with the help of PW7 duly examined and recorded his statement u/sec.161 Cr.P.C., later PW15 examined PW2 to PW7 and recorded their statement in part-II case diary u/sec.161 Cr.P.C and secured the presence of two mediators i.e. PW10 and PW11, before whom observed the dead body and conducted inquest. As part of further investigation, PW15 has visited the scene of offence i.e., cattle shed at Burgupalli village and observed the scene of offence and found one bottle which suspected as poison bottle and labled as UPL
PHOSKILL Monocrotophos 36% SL insecticide and having a little quantity of liquid. Then the PW15 secured the presence of two mediators i.e. PW12 and PW13, before whom observed and seized the poison bottle under a cover of CDF, drawn rough sketch of scene of offence. Further PW15 has examined PW7 and PW9 and recorded their statements in part II case diary. The involvement of A3 was not established before PW7 and PW9.
Page 5 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
06.On 17.06.2019 PW15 on receiving credible information, rushed with sufficient force to Burgupalli village and apprehended A1 and A2 at 10:30 hours and brought them to the police station at 11:45 hours and interrogated them. During the course of interrogation, A1 and A2 voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. As such
PW15 affected their arrest u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C by issuing arrest memos and produced them before the Court for judicial remand. Further, PW15 has forwarded the material object i.e. Viscera of the deceased and sent to RFSL, Karimnagar through the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nirmal for analysis and report. The PW16 has took further investigation of this case on transfer of PW15 and received the RFSL report through the Sub
Divisional Police Officer, Nirmal and collected final opinion from the
Medical Officer, Nirmal. On 26.11.2019 the PW16 has sent the proposal to the SDPO, Nirmal through CI of Police Nirmal to delete A3 from this case. On completion of entire investigation, the SI of Police, Narsapur-G has filed the charge sheet.
07.On verification of Charge Sheet, the learned Addl. Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal took cognizance of the offence
punishable under Sec.306 r/w.34 IPC against A1 and A2 and registered the case as P.R.C. No.08 of 2021. After following the procedure prescribed by law, furnishing copies of documents under Sec.207 of
Cr.P.C. to the accused, he has committed the case to the Court of
Page 6 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
Sessions, Adilabad and made over it to the trial Court for disposal
according to law.
08.Later, on appearance of accused No.1 and 2 before the trial
Court, charges for the offence U/Sec.306 r/w.34 IPC was framed against the accused No.1 and 2 and the contents were read over and explained to them in their vernacular languages, for which they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
09.In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has examined
PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and MO.1 on its behalf. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of
LW15/Dr. G. Gopinath, Assistant Director, RFSL, Karimnagar.
10.After closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 are examined U/Sec.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by placing
before them the incriminating evidence from Prosecution witnesses, for
which the accused have denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.
11.The trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides framed the following point for determination is:
“Whether the Prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.306 r/w.34 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?”
Page 7 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
12.The trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and after considering oral and documentary evidence and material object adduced by the prosecution, found the A1 and A2 are guilty for the offence U/Sec.306 r/w.34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Six years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) each, in default of payment of said fine amount, A1 and A2 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two months, for the offence U/Sec.306 r/w.34 IPC.
13.Aggrieved by the said judgment, conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 preferred this criminal appeal to set aside the said judgment on the following grounds:
14.The judgment of trial Court is contrary to law, facts and based on assumptions and presumptions. It is further submitted that mere abusing in filthy language by the accused does not attract ingredients of Section 306 of IPC, but the trial Court without considering the same, erroneously found the accused guilty. It is further submitted that it is well settled law that prior to this alleged incident there were no incident happened regarding harassment made against the deceased, but trial Court without considering the same wrongly found the accused guilty. There was no material to show that the appellants/ accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide, but the trial Court without considering the same found the accused guilty.
Page 8 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
15.It is further submitted that there is no corroboration regarding land dispute. According to evidence of PW8 there was a quarrel due to pouring mud by the appellant/accused No.1 on that the deceased/Savitri Bai called elders and informed to look into the dispute.
The quarrel has taken place between appellant/accused No.1 with the deceased/Savitribai. According to evidence of PW9, PW1 has informed about the vacant place in this regard, the deceased went to cattle shed and consumed poison. The evidence of PW7, PW8 and PW9 are inconsistent and not corroborating each other, but the trial Court erroneously found the accused guilty. The trial Court without proper considering the evidence of PW1 to PW16 found the accused guilty which is not correct. Mere harassment without “mens rea” leading to commit suicide by the deceased does not attract the ingredients of
Section 107 of IPC and Section 306 of IPC. Therefore, prayed to acquit the accused.
16.Heard arguments of both sides.
17.The learned counsel for the appellants/accused submitted oral arguments on the same lines of grounds of appeal.
18.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of respondent/complainant submitted that the trial Court after proper considering oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and material objects rightly found the
Page 9 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022 accused guilty under Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC and rightly convicted the accused which is sustainable under law and on facts. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed.
19.Now the point for consideration is that:
1. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/Sec.306
r/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
2. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court in S.C. No.384 of 2021, dated 07.11.2022?
3. Whether the judgment of trial Court is sustainable under law and on facts?
POINTS No.1 and 2:
20.The allegation of the prosecution is that the complainant/
Jadhav Seetha Bai and deceased/Rathod Santha Bai are own sisters and co-sister-in-law, A1 and A2 are neighbours of deceased. There are disputes between A1 and A2 and complainant and deceased regarding a narrow lane situated between their houses and quarrels also took place between them. They used to quarrel each other on silly reasons in view of said lane dispute situated between their houses. On 09.06.2019, when the deceased and complainant returned to their house after attending agricultural work, they found accused No.1 and 2 placing Gravel on the disputed lane. Then the deceased and
Page 10 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022 complainant asked the accused as to why they are doing like that.
Upon which, A1 and A2 got annoyed, started abusing the deceased in most rude language. The complainant informed the matter to the village elders and the village elders entered into the dispute to pacify the quarrel, again A1 and A2 started abusing the deceased in most vulgar words. Due to which, the deceased felt much insult of her reputation, got disgusted over her life, rushed into her cattle shed and consumed poison with an intention to commit suicide. She came out from the shed and fell down in a serious condition. Then, she was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Nirmal, where she declared died at about 2330 hours while undergoing treatment. Hence, A1 and A2 committed offence under Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC with common intention.
21.The trial Court framed charge under Section 306 r/w.34 of
IPC against both the accused. The prosecution in order to prove its case, relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW16 and Ex.P1 to P10 and
MO1. The trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, found the accused guilty under Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Six years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand Only) each, in default of payment of said fine amount, A1 and
A2 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two months vide judgment dated 07.11.2022.
Page 11 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
22.Challenging the judgment of trial Court dated 07.11.2022, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants/accused No.1 and 2. The learned counsel for the appellants/accused contended that the trial Court without considering the oral and documentary evidence and material object filed by the prosecution erroneously found guilty under Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC, hence prayed to acquit them.
23.Section 306 of IPC provides punishment for abetment of suicide which reads as follows:
306. Abetment of suicide.— If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
24.The prosecution in order to prove the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC must establish that:
1) The commission of suicide by person;
2) The accused abetted the commission of the offence.
25.Section 107 of IPC defines what is abetment which reads as follows:
107. Abetment of a thing—
A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Page 12 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
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.
Explanation: 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation: 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act”.
26.Section 34 of IPC defines common intention which reads as follows:
Sec.34 of IPC - Acts done by several persons
in furtherance of common intention.—
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
27.The prosecution must establish that:
(1) That a criminal act is done by the actual participation of more than one person.
(2) That the said act is done in furtherance of common intention of all engaged at a prior concert.
Page 13 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022 (3) That in furtherance of common object the criminal act was done”.
28.The prosecution in order to prove the ingredients of above offences, relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW16, Ex.P1 to P10 and
MO1.
29.PW1 is the defacto complainant and eye witness to the incident, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW7, PW8 and PW9 are the eye witnesses to the incident, PW6 is the Photographer, PW10 and PW11 are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama, PW12 and PW13 are the panch witnesses for CDF and Rough sketch of scene of offence,
PW14 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased, PW15 and PW16 are the first and second Investigation
Officers respectively.
30.The prosecution cited 17 witnesses, but examined all the witnesses, except LW15 who is the Scientific Officer RFSL, Karimnagar whose evidence was given up by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
31.Ex.P1 is the report submitted by PW1 to the Police, Ex.P2 is the photographs along with CD, Ex.P3 is the signature of PW10 on inquest panchanama, Ex.P4 is the CDF, Ex.P5 is the postmortem examination report, Ex.P6 is the final opinion, Ex.P7 is the first information report, Ex.P8 is the RFSL report, Ex.P9 is the inquest
Page 14 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022 panchanama, Ex.P10 is the Memo of SDPO, Nirmal and MO1 is the plastic bottle.
32.The prosecution must establish that suicidal death of the deceased and in order to prove the suicidal death of the deceased, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of Doctor who is PW14 and also
Ex.P5/postmortem examination report, Ex.P6/final opinion and Ex.P8/
RFSL report. The PW14/Dr. Bingi Vishwanath who is the Duty Doctor, he deposed that he received requisition from SHO P.S. Narsapur-G and conducted postmortem examination and he gave report. PW14 is the
Doctor who deposed that he has conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased on 10.06.2019 at 11:00 a.m. and he gave preliminary report under Ex.P5. Ex.P5 reveals that the PW14 reserved his opinion for want of chemical analysis report. PW14 deposed that he received FSL report/Ex.P8 stating that items No.1 to 3 are analyzed and Monocrotophos an Organophosphate insecticide poison is found in all of them. After receipt of Ex.P8, PW14 issued final opinion under Ex.P6. Ex.P6 established that cause of death is due to “consumption of Organo phospate poison”. The evidence of PW14,
Ex.P5, P6 and P8 established that the deceased/Jadhav Savitribai consumed insecticide poison and committed suicide. The inquest panchanama/Ex.P9 reveals that the deceased committed suicide by consuming insecticide poison. There is no disputes regarding cause of death. No suggestion was given to either PW14 or Investigation Officer
Page 15 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022 regarding cause of death of deceased. The evidence of PW14, Ex.P5,
P6, P8, P9 evidence of Investigation Officer/PW15 established cause of death of deceased is consuming insecticide poison and it is a suicidal death. The prosecution established that the death of deceased is suicidal death.
33.The prosecution must established that due to abetment and instigation made by the accused No.1 and 2, the deceased vexed with her life, consumed insecticide poison and committing suicide.
34.The prosecution in order to prove the same, relied on the evidence of PW1/defacto-complainant and eye witnesses i.e. PW2, PW3,
PW4, PW5, PW7, PW8 and PW9. Out of them, PW1 who is the defacto- complainant in this case, she deposed that at about 05:00 p.m. on 09.06.2019, the A1 A2 and A3 (not charge sheeted) were doing work beside their gravel in the open place belongs to them. When the deceased questioned them why they are working in their place, on that they abused her sister in filthy language. Then PW1 advised them to settle the matter before the elders and PW1 has approached the elders i.e. PW7, PW8 and PW9, who came there and advised the accused to settle the matter tomorrow. Stating so, they went away and the accused re-started abusing the deceased in filthy language and among accused, A1, A2 and A3 (not charge sheated) asked deceased to go and die. Then, deceased went into cattle shed and consumed pesticide poison, then came out on the road and fell down. PW1 and her son, her
Page 16 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022 villager/Rathod Kishan shifted the deceased to Government Hospital,
Nirmal, where she died while undergoing treatment. Then, she went to the Police Station and lodged a report.
35.PW1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused, during cross examination, she deposed that on her oral dictation her report was scibed at the hospital. She admitted that she has not mentioned specific words of abusing her sister in Ex.P1. She further admitted that she has not stated before Police about conducting of Panchayat before village elders regarding galata. She admitted that she has not mentioned in Ex.P1 about arrival of elders to the scene of offence and advising both the parties to settle the matter. It is alleged that there was a previous quarrels between the accused and deceased, but whereas PW1 admitted that there were no previous disputes, except on the date of incident. PW1 has not mentioned in Ex.P1 about specific abusive words as stated in chief examination. She denied that quarrel took place between her and her sister due to which she vexed with life had committed suicide. There are improvements in the evidence of PW1. She did not state before Police in her Section 161
Cr.P.C. statement that there was a panchayath held before the village elders and there was a galata.
36.PW2 is the eye witness, she stated that there was a quarrel between deceased regarding pouring of gravel, then accused abused deceased, she also deposed that deceased and PW1 intervened and
Page 17 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022 advised to settle the matter before the elders by name Rathod Jayaram,
Vasanth, Jadav Ramesh came and advised to settle the dispute.
Thereafter, A1 abused deceased in filthy language, then deceased went to cattle shed consumed pesticide poison and committed suicide. There are also improvements in the evidence of PW2. PW2 did not state
before Police about specific abusive words used by the accused No.1 or
accused No.2. She admitted that she has not stated before Police in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that her daughter fell down on the road after she consumed pesticide poison. She further deposed that
Police not examined her and she deposed as told by the Police. PW2 is the mother of the deceased and interested witness in this case.
37.PW3 is also an eye witness, son of the deceased and interested witness. He also deposed about quarrel between A1 and deceased regarding pouring of mud, then A1 started abusing deceased.
Then, PW1 called elders even after the elders advised that they will settle the issue tomorrow. Even when the elders went away, the A1 and A2 and Pushpa abused his mother in filthy language. Due to which, deceased consumed poison and died. There are also improvements in the evidence of PW3 that he has not stated that he was present at the scene of offence at the time of incident. He do not remember the date of incident. He said to be tried to stop his mother not to consume poison, but in vain, he has not stated the same before Police. He has also not stated about abusive words used by the A1 and A2.
Page 18 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
38.PW4 is another eye witness, son of deceased and interested witness. Though, he was projected as eye witness, but as per the admission made by the PW4 that he was at Kuntala the time of incident and his brother/PW3 has informed about admitting his mother in the hospital. Then, he reached hospital and saw the dead body of deceased. So, evidence of PW4 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution, because he is only hearsay witness, but projected him as eye witness in the charge sheet which is not correct.
39.PW5 is said to be eye witness, relative of the deceased and interested witness. He deposed that at about 05:00 p.m. the returned to house, at that time A1 was pouring mud in their place, then deceased questioned them, A1, A2 and A3 abused deceased. Then, deceased called elders and informed that they will settle the dispute on the next day. Again A1 to A3 abused in filthy language, then deceased went to shed, consumed poison and committed suicide. There are improvements in the evidence of PW5. He did not state before Police about abusive words specifically stated in his chief examination.
40.PW6 is the photographer, he supported the case of the prosecution that he took the photographs and Ex.P2 is 3 photographs along with CD belongs to the deceased.
Page 19 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
41.PW7 is said to be eye witness who deposed that he saw PW1 and A1 were quarreling with each other and they were abusing each other, thereafter deceased consumed pesticide poison. There are also improvements in the evidence of PW7 that he has not stated to the
Police in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that he was standing at the house of PW1 and deceased/Savithribai. He has not stated to the Police in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement about abusive words used by the accused. He has not seen while deceased consumed pesticide poison.
He has not stated in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that who were present at the time of incident.
42.PW8 is said to be eye witness he also deposed that on the date of incident there was a quarrel due to pouring mud by A1. Both A1 and deceased quarreled with each other. The deceased called elders and they informed that they will look into the dispute on the next day and went away. The deceased consumed poison and died at the hospital.
43.PW9 is said to be eye witness, he deposed that he, PW7 and
PW8 went to the scene of offence. PW1 informed about the vacant place in that regard both A1 and deceased quarreled with each other.
Thereafter, the deceased went to the cattle shed and consumed. There are improvements in the evidence of PW9, he has not stated to the
Police that he was at the house. He has not stated before Police that he was present at the house of Ramesh. He has not stated before Police in
Page 20 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that he was present at the time of quarrel. The presence of PW9 at the time of quarrel is doubtful in view of admission made by PW1 during cross examination made by the counsel for the accused.
44.PW10 is the panch witness for inquest panchanama who deposed that he do not know what panchanama was conducted by the
Police. He has signed on the panchanama and he identified his signature as Ex.P3. PW10 did not state about conducting of inquest panchanama by the Police, but he stated that the panchanama was conducted and he does not know about the nature of panchanama conducted by the Police.
45.PW11 is the another panch witness, he did not support the case of the prosecution and he stated that on receipt of information of death of deceased, he went to the hospital and Police obtained his thumb impression. He do not know what purpose the Police have taken his thumb impression who is an illiterate and he do not know reading.
The evidence of PW11 also not corroborated the evidence of
Investigation Officer.
46.PW12 is the one of the panch witnesses for CDF and he supported the case of the prosecution in chief examination, but during cross examination he deposed that he do not know what is written in the panchanama. He do not know about the date as he is an illiterate.
Page 21 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
MO1 has been marked through PW12 by the prosecution. Ex.P11 is the
CDF prepared by Investigation Officer/PW15.
47.PW13 is another panch witness for CDF and he was initially declared hostile. He deposed during cross examination made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that Police have shown MO1 at the scene of offence which was brought from the cattle shed. He put his signature on MO1. During cross examination, he deposed that he has put his thumb impression at the request of Police and he do not know the panchanama. The Police have not seized MO1 in his presence. He do not know about MO1. He has not put his thumb impression on MO1.
48.PW15 is the first Investigation Officer who deposed about investigation done by him and registration of this case. Ex.P7 is the first information report issued by PW15. Ex.P8 is the FSL report. Ex.P9 is the inquest panchanama admitted by PW15. Because, PW15 is the
Investigation Officer and interested witness he supported the case of the prosecution.
49.During cross examination, PW15 stated that he has not collected document for the vacant land dispute which is fatal to the case of the prosecution, because it is the cause regarding quarrel between the accused and the deceased. PW15 categorically admitted that in Ex.P1 report there is no specific abusive words mentioned by
PW1. PW1 has not mentioned in Ex.P1 that the family members of PW1
Page 22 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022 were present at the time of incident and she has not mentioned in
Ex.P1 that the deceased and herself were residing in one house. It is true that the PW1 has not mentioned in Ex.P1 that the A1 and A2 were pouring gravel in the vacant land. PW1 has not stated in Ex.P1 that the deceased has asked A1 and A2 why they are pouring gravel. PW1 has not mentioned in Ex.P1 that they have said to the accused A1 and A2 that the vacant land belongs to them. PW1 has not mentioned in Ex.P1 that the PW1 intervened in quarrel and asked why they are making quarrel. PW1 has not mentioned in her report Ex.P1 that she called the village elders Rathod Jayaram, Vasanth and Jadhav Ramesh. PW1 has not mentioned in Ex.P1 that the village elders have told the deceased that the matter will be seen tomorrow.
50.PW15 further admitted that PW1 has not mentioned in her
Ex.P1 report that the village elders have told them not to make dispute.
PW1 has not mentioned in her Ex.P1 that the accused A1 has abused and accused A2 and A3 have abused saying that "Dongamunda peddamanushulanu enduku peelipinchave neeku mataladadam chethakada enduku bathukutunnave" and why she was alive and to go and die anywhere. PW1 has not mentioned in Ex.P1 that the PW1 and his Krishna and villager Rathod Kishan have brought the deceased to the Govt. Hospital Nirmal. PW2 has not stated in Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement that she came from the agricultural fields after work. PW2 has not stated in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that word road.
Page 23 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
PW3 has not stated in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that he told not to quarrel.
51.PW15 further admitted that PW3 has not stated in his
Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that the accused A1 told the deceased to go and die anywhere. PW4 has not stated in his Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement that he came after doing the agricultural work. PW5 has not stated in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that A1 said to deceased "Chanipo randa Enduku bathukutunnave, batheke badulu chavu”. PW5 has not stated in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that elder maternal
Aunt/deceased call the elders of the village. PW6 has not stated in
Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that how many number of photographs taken. He has taken CD from the photographer at Police Station.
PW7,PW8 and PW9 are said to be elders, they have not stated in their
Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements that they went to scene of offence and told that they will see the matter tomorrow.
52.PW15 further admitted that he has not shown the gravel in the rough sketch map. He has not shown the insecticide poison bottle in the rough sketch. He has not mentioned as Sukarchand, but he has shown the house in the name of Savithribai in the rough sketch map.
He has not examined Rathod Madan Lal and Rathod Kishan Lal.
53.As can be seen from the admission made by PW15 during cross examination there are material improvements in the evidence of
Page 24 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW7, PW8 and PW9. None of the eye witnesses projected by the prosecution stated before Police about the specific abusive words used by the either A1 or A2 to die why she is living which is material improvements in the evidence of PW1, PW2,
PW3, PW5, PW7, PW8 and PW9 who are said to be village elders went to the scene of offence and told to both accused and deceased that they will see see the matter tomorrow and going to PW7 to PW9 to the scene of offence is also doubtful, the same are not considered by the trial
Court. The trial Court has not considered the improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, said to be eye witnesses i.e. PW1,
PW2, PW3, PW5 and also PW7, PW8 and PW9 which is not correct.
54.The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PW16 who is the second Investigation Officer in this case who filed charge sheet after sending proposals to SDPO, Nirmal for deleting the name of accused No.3.
55.As per the allegation there is no involvement of the accused
No.3/Rathod Pushpa in this case, but strangely, PW1 stated presence of
PW3 also. PW2 stated about only A1 quarreling with deceased and abusing the deceased. PW3 also stated about A1, A2 and A3/Pushpa abusing to the deceased which is doubtful about the presence of accused No.3. PW4 stated that he came to know A1 and A2 abused his mother. PW5 stated about presence of A1 to A3 and abusing his deceased mother, the same are not considered by the trial Court.
Page 25 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
However, the prosecution established that deceased on 09.06.2019, consumed pesticide poison and died and death of deceased is suicidal death as per the evidence of Doctor/PW14, Ex.P5 and P6. FSL report
Ex.P8 also reveals that the deceased consumed insecticide poison as the Scientific Officer found Monocrotophos an Organophosphate insecticide poison is found in items No.1 to 3.
56.The main contention of the accused is that they never abused deceased nor instigated the deceased to commit suicide nor abetted her to die nor they facilitated the deceased to commit suicide.
57.The prosecution must establish that the commission of suicide by the person and accused No.1 and 2 abetted the commission of offence with common intention. In a decision reported in 2010 (12)
SCC page 190 between S.S. Chenna Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan wherein it was held that:
“Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction could not be sustained”.
58.In another decision reported in 2010 (1) SCC (Crl.) page 917 between Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of A.P. wherein it was held that:
“Deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison. He appeared to be hypersensitive man. Accused was not liable to be convicted under Section 306”.
Page 26 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
59.It is also held in another decision reported in 2011 (3) SCC page 626 between M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by the Dy.
Supdt. of Police wherein it was held that:
“There must be clear mens rea to commit offence. Conviction could not be sustained without positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide”.
60.In view of above three decisions, it is clear that the prosecution must establish that the positive act on the part of accused to instigate or aid deceased in committing suicide and mens rea on the part of accused to commit offence.
61.In a decision reported in 2019 (1) L.S. page 29 (S.C.) in between Rajesh VS. State of Haryana wherein at para No.8 it was held that:
“Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC”.
Page 27 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022
62.The learned counsel for the appellants/accused relied on another decision reported in 2024 (2) ALD (Crl.) page 356 (SC) between Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka wherein it was held that:
“No case for abetment to commit suicide by deceased could be made out against appellant - Oral evidence not at all convincing - No evidence pointing out any act of instigation, conspiracy or aiding on part of appellant which compelled deceased to commit suicide - A words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending any consequence - Cannot be said to be instigation to attract offence of abetment of suicide”.
63.The above decisions relied by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 are rightly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case.
64.On careful perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, eye witnesses in this case it is only established by the prosecution that there was a quarrel between deceased/Savithribai, A1 and A2 regarding pouring of gravel in the alleged place of deceased and the quarrel took place between the both deceased, A1 and A2 family as per the evidence of PW7, PW8 and PW9 regarding land dispute. Mere quarrel between the deceased, A1 and A2 does not attract ingredients of
Section 306 of IPC. The prosecution must establish the intention of the accused No.1 and 2 to integrate the deceased to commit suicide. So, it cannot be said that the A1 and A2 abetted, instigated, facilitated and
Page 28 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022 aided the deceased to commit suicide. The PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 being the relatives and interested witnesses, they improved their statements and without stating in their statements about specific abusive words used by A1 and A2 to commit suicide, they stated as if
A1 and A2 abused deceased to commit suicide. PW1 to PW4 and PW5 who are the relatives, they stated alleged abusive words used by the accused against the deceased to commit suicide are created after thought.
65.The prosecution must establish the ingredients of Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and any doubt in the case of the prosecution and benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused No.1 and 2. The deceased appears to be hyper sensitive and after the quarrel committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison. The incident of quarrel occurred at about 1700 hours and later she committed suicide. The trial Court observed that A1 and A2 abused in filthy language and also instigated her by saying to go and die anywhere which is not at all correct as accused never instigated the deceased to go and to die anywhere.
66.In view of my above foregoing reasons, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused that A1 and A2 with common intention on 09.06.2019 at 1700 hours, abetted the deceased to commit suicide beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court without considering the improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses
Page 29 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022 and related witnesses i.e. PW1 to PW5 and without considering the cross examination of prosecution witnesses by the defence counsel and without proof that the accused No.1 and 2 instigated the deceased and abetted the deceased to commit suicide erroneously found the accused
No.1 and 2 guilty under Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC which is not correct and not sustainable under law. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 under Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentencing the accused No.1 and 2 in S.C. No.384 of 2021, dated 07.11.2022 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction of trial Court in S.C. No.384 of 2021, dated 07.11.2022. The fine amount shall be refunded the accused No.1 and 2. Points No.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.
67. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment in S.C. No.384 of 2021, dated 07.11.2022 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal.
The appellants/accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.306 r/w.34 of IPC and they are acquitted
U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence.
The bail bonds of the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 shall stands cancelled after expiry of revision time. The fine amount paid by
Page 30 of 30 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2022 the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 in the trial Court as imposed by it in its impugned judgment, shall be refunded to them after expiry of revision time. The MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of revision time.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and after correction
pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2025.
PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NIRMAL