1
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE:TENALI
PRESENT: SMT.B.SOBHA KUMARI, M.COM.,LL.M.
ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, TENALI
Wednesday, this the 14th day of June, 2017
Sessions Case No.361/2015
Between: State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Duggirala Police Station (Cr.No.138/2014)
...Complainant
And
1. Malaprolu Thambi Babu @ Thambi S/o.Jaya Rao, Aged 25 years Caste – Mala, Tummapudi Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District.
2. Malaprolu Meramma W/o.Jaya Rao, Aged 55 years, Caste – Mala Tummapudi Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntru District.
3. Pommathoti Lakshmi W/o.Sai Babu, Aged 30 years, Caste – Mala Jampani Village, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District.
4. Borugadda Rani W/o.Ramesh,Aged 24 years, Caste – Mala,
Cherukupalli Village & Mandal, Guntur District....Accused
This Sessions case coming for final hearing on 6-6-2017 in the presence of Sri I.Raja Ram, Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri V.Raghavaiah, Advocate for A1 to A4; and having stood over to this day for consideration, the court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Sub-Inspector of Police,Duggirala Police Station has filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the offence Under Sections 498-A and 306
IPC in Cr.No.138/2014 of Duggirala Police Station.
2.The case of the prosecution story in brief is as follows:
The deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma is a resident of Pedakakani Village and she was given in to the marriage with A1 on 24-8-2009. After the marriage, the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma joined with A1 to lead marital life and came to Tummapudi Village and residing with the parents of A1. Due to their marital life the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma and A1 blessed with one daughter viz. Ramya , aged about 4 years and one son viz.Raj Kumar , aged about 3 years. A1 and deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma lived happily and amicably for 1 ½ year only. Later, A1 addicted to bad vices like consuming alcohol and other habits and did not feed his family properly. In this regard, when the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma used to question A1, A1 with the instigation of A2 subjected to the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma to cruelty,harassed the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma both mentally and 2 physically and used to beat her daily in drunken state. When the quarrel was arising between the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma and A1 and A2, then the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma left away to the house with her children to
Pedakakani Village to her parental home. After few days A1 used to bring her back to home. So many times the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma went to her parental home and return back again. Since 3 years at once A2 without any reason beat the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma cruelty and the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma gave a report at Duggirala Police Station . The police called the accused and gave counseling and sent them. When the father of the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma questioned A2, about the behavior of A1 , then
A2 also started beating the deceased. Since, two months A2 quarreled with deceased about the children of the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma and since then the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma stopped her children not to go before
A2. Then, A2 grew wild upon the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma and necked out her from the home. Then the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma along with children went to her parental home to Pedakakani Village and again A1 brought back the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma to Tummapudi Village.
Subsequently, the sisters of A1 i.e., A3 and A4 used to visit the house of the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma ,they also quarreled with the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma without any reason and harassing the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma uttering painful words. On the morning of 2-12-2014 the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma provided breakfast to A1, as the breakfast not tasteful to him, A1 grew any upon the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma and left the house. Later at about 10-00 AM , the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma being vexed on her life, consumed pesticide poison at her house. Later LW7 Karri
Daveedu shifted the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma to District Hospital, Teanli by 108 Ambulance. But, at the time of giving statement to the police , A1 and
A2 gave threats to the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma and gets her given false facts on her statement that due to vex the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma consumed pesticide. On 4-12-2014 at 2-00 PM the deceased viz.Malaprolu
Padma was discharged from the hospital andhen LW1 Sankuru Vijaya Rao taken the deceased to Pedakakani Village. Later on the night of 8-12-2014 at 7-00 PM when the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma suffered with stomache 3 ulcer she was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur by 108
Ambulance and on the same day while undergoing the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma died at about 11-50 PM. While deceased taking treatment at Tenali, LW16 R.Hariprasad ,Head Constable recorded the statements ,later on received admission intimation and death intimation, thereby case was registered u/s.174 Cr.P.C and after recording the statements by Tahsildar of the relatives of the deceased viz.Malaprolu Padma , the Section of Law was altered and LW18 SD.M.Subhani, Duggirala Police Station investigated into recorded statements of the witnesses ,observed the scene , called for inquest and other medical reports and after completion of investigation , LW19
CH.Appa Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Duggirala Police Station filed charge sheet against A1 to A4. Hence, the charge.
3.On receipt of charge sheet, the learned II Additional Junior Civil
Judge, Tenali took the case on file for the offence punishable under sections
498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code.
4.On appearance of the accused, the learned II Additional Junior
Civil Judge, Tenali supplied copies of documents as required under section 208
Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions
Judge Court, Guntur as the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of
Indian Penal Code are exclusively triable by Court of Sessions.
5.The Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur made over the case to Asst. Sessions Judge's Court, Tenali for trial and disposal according to law. On receipt of the same, summons are issued to the accused for his appearance.
6.On appearance of A1 to A4, after hearing and on consideration charge under sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code are framed against them and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as such proceeded with trial.
7.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and got marked
MO.1is marked and prosecution side evidence is closed. Exs.D1 and D2 are marked on behalf of the defence .
4
8.After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence. The defence set up by the accused are one of the total denial. No evidence is adduced on their behalf.
9.Heard arguments of both the counsel on record.
10.Now the points for determination are as follows:
1. Whether A1 being husband, A2 being mother-in-law and A3 and
A4 are being sister-in-laws of deceased Padma subjected her for cruelty and harassed her mentally and physically which is likely to drove her to commit suicide?
2. Whether A1 to A4 instigated deceased Padma to commit suicide by engaging in conspiracy to commit an offence?
3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt u/s.498-A and 306 IPC?
4. To what relief?
11.POINT NO.1: It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased
Padma was given in marriage with A1 on 24-8-2009. Thereafter , they lived happily for 1 ½ years and blessed with two children. Subsequently, A1 addicted to bad vices like drinking and other habits and thereby started harassing the deceased Padma without any reason and used to beat her in a drunken state, A2 who is the mother of A1 used to instigate A1 and also she herself started harassing deceased Padma on questioning by the father of the deceased about the attitude of A1 and A3 and A4 who are the sisters of A1, whenever they visited parental house used to dispute with the deceased
Padma without any reason and used to abused her with painful words, thereby subjected deceased Padama for cruelty and harassment which drove her to commit suicide. Accordingly,she committed suicide on 2-12-2014 by consuming pesticide available in matrimonial home. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PW1 who is the father of deceased Padama who deposed that he is the resident of Pedakakani and doing plot business and he performed the marriage of deceased Padma with A1 on 24-8-2009 and they started residing at their matrimonial home, Tummapudi Village and they lead happy marital life for 1 ½ years . Later A1 addicted to bad vices like drinking 5 and debauching and started harassing the deceased Padma without any reasonable cause. On questioning this PW1 to A2 about the behavior of A1 ,
A2 also started harassing the deceased Padma without any reason and used to beat her, oftenly the deceased Padma drove out form the matrimonial house and she used to come to parental house along with her children i.e.,
Pedakakani and used to stayed there for one or two months and after that A1 used to come to Pedakakani and requested PW1 that thereafter he will look after the deceased Padma affectionately ,giving promise used to take back deceased Padma to his house. In the meanwhile a dispute arose between A2 and deceased Padma about the children of her on that Padma instructed her children not to go in front of A2 ,thereafter A2 grew-wild and necked out her after some days, A1 again came to Pedakakani and requested PW1 to send the deceased Padma to his house. Accordingly PW1 sent her to her matrimonial house, but on 2-12-2014 he received a phone call from LW7 Daveedu stating that the deceased Padma consumed pesticide and admitted in hospital. Then, he gave information to his relatives including to PW2 to come to Tenali hospital, he was out of village. Then, his son,daughter-in-law and PW2 went to hospital and he followed them. There, the accused has forced PW1 and obtain wrong statement as that on Ex.P7, as if no one is responsible for her consuming pesticide. Later, on she was discharged on 4-12-2014 and taken to
Pedakakani Village, but, on 8-12-2014 her health not good she suffered with severe stomache , then she shifted her to Government General Hospital,
Guntur , there she died while undergoing treatment.
12.To support the evidence of PW1, the prosecution has also examined PW2 who is the relative and friend of PW1 who deposed that PW1 on receiving phone information from PW1, he went to Government Hospital,
Tenali, there he found Padma on enquiry,she stated that A1 did not mend his behavior even after so many counseling made by her parents, thereafter vexed with her life, she consumed pesticide. He also deposed about the harassment meted by deceased Padma in the hands of A1 to A4. The prosecution has also examined PW3 who is the mediator who was present at the time inquest over the dead body of deceased and also P.Ws. 4 and 5 who are the medical officers who examined the deceased Padma and who conducted post-mortem and 6 given final report. The prosecution has also examined PW6 Constable who recorded the statement of deceased Padma as per Ex.P7 at the first instance on 2-12-2014 at Government Hospital, Tenali , and also examined W7 who received admission and death intimation of the deceased Padma from
Government General Hospital, Guntur and who conducted investigation and deposed the manner of investigation conducted by him by reiterating contents of charge sheet. The prosecution has also examined PW8 who filed a charge sheet after investigation. The prosecution has examined PW9 who is
Tahsildar who received FIR u/s.174 Cr.P.C who conducted enquiry and recorded the statements of relatives and sent her report to the investigation officer.
13. With the above set of facts and evidence, to constitute an offence u/s.498-A IPC . The prosecution has to prove the cruelty that was meted by the deceased in the hands of A1 being husband, A2 being mother-in- law of the deceased who instigated by A1 to subject this deceased Padama for cruelty and who herself made part in harassing deceased Padma. Explanation to Section 498A of the IPC defines the term cruelty and it reads thus:
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means —
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
14.To constitute an offence u/s.498-A IPC, the prosecution must prove the harassment and cruelty meted by deceased Padma beyond all reasonable doubt and that the requirement proof is not satisfied by surmises and possibility. The same principle was held in decision Manjuram Kalita Vs.
State of Assam reported in 2009 (13) SCC P.No.330 wherein it was held that :
7
“for holding an accused guilty under Section 498A, IPC, it has
to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty
continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time to
the lodging of the complaint and petty quarrels cannot be
termed as "cruelty" to attract the provisions of Section 498A,
IPC, though mental torture to the extent that it becomes
unbearable may be termed as cruelty.”
15.On considering above decision the language of Section 498-A IPC that if a husband subjected his wife to cruelty , he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent for 3 years and also liable to fine.
The explanation u/s.498-A IPC contemplates two kinds of cruelty:
(i) It is deter-mental to life limb or health of the women
(ii) harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to fulfill the unlawful demand.
16.The instance case falls in first limb as it is not the case of the prosecution that. Deceased Padma is subjected to harassment for demand of
additional dowry . The fact that the deceased Padma died by consuming
pesticides available at her matrimonial home while all the inmates were absent on 2-12-2014 is an admitted fact. It is true there is a gap of six days to the date of consumption pesticide, to the date of death of deceased Padma. It is argued by the learned counsel for the defence, that at the time of discharge at
Government Hospital, Tenali , the doctor was satisfied himself that she is fit to discharge, thereby she was discharged on 4-12-2014, later she was shifted to
Pedakakani to the parental house, there her parents did not look after her welfare thereby she again effected with infection and shifted to Government
General Hospital, Guntur , there she died on 9-12-2014 so that it cannot be said that she died by consuming pesticide. On considering the arguments of the learned counsel it is true , the deceased Padma has taken pesticide available at home i.e., “ Gaddimondu” on 2-12-2014 and she was discharged on 4-12-2014 and she was shifted to Pedakakani which is parental house of the deceased Padma. There is a clear evidence of PW1 that the Doctor in 8 Government Hospital, Tenali stated that she is all right and it is better to discharge her. Even on perusal of evidence of PW4 i.e., The Assistant
Professor ,Guntur Medical College, Guntur has deposed that unless until the doctors satisfies that the patent is in good condition may not opt for discharge of the patient. From that , it is clear that after come to conclusion that the patient is in good condition might be the Doctor in Government Hospital, Tenali has discharged deceased Padma on 4-12-2014. But, subsequently as per the story of the prosecution and evidence admitted by the accused, she was suffered with severe stomache on 8-12-2014 and shifted to Government
General Hospital,Guntur, there she died while undergoing treatment . Though, it is the contention of the accused that she died due to infection. But, the
Doctor who treated deceased Padma at Government General Hospital, Guntur has given his final opinion as per Ex.P4 that she died due to consumption of
Paraquat Dichloride a Herbicide Poisonous Substance . Even on perusal of
Ex.P3 , the opinion given by the Forensic Science Laboratories also indicating that the specimen of pieces of stomach , intestine and its contents in brownish turbid liquid, piece of liver, kidney and brain in brownish contains Paraquat
Dichloride a Herbicide Poisonous Substance .
17. On perusal of Ex.P3 RFSL report and Ex.P4 final opinion given by
PW4 coupled with Ex.P2 , postmortem report clearly indicating she died due to consuming pesticide and vital organs of her containing poisonous substances noted in Exs.P3 and P4 that the vital organs of the deceased Padma contains
Paraquat Dichloride a Herbicide Poisonous Substance and there is no such other infection found by the treating doctor i.e.,PW4. Then, it cannot be said that the deceased Padma died with infection and she died certainly due to consumption of pesticides and there is no such negligence of parents appearing from record as alleged by the accused which was found by the
Doctor who treated deceased Padma. Then, there is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for accused.
18.Now coming to the point, it has been seriously argued by the both the counsels of the prosecution and defence before this Court is whether there is any define evidence to establish that accused treated his wife cruelty, instigated by A2 to A4. It is the case of the prosecution that after the marriage 9 between the deceased and A1,they lived happily for 1 ½ year, thereafter A1 is addicted to bad vices like drinking and debauching and started harassing the deceased Padma without any reason and he used to beat her in a drunken state. The said fact categorically deposed by PW1 who is the father of the deceased Padma that his daughter is subjected cruelty and harassment in the hands of A1, when he questioned the attitude of A1, the mother of A1 i.e.,A2 also started harassing the deceased Padma, in some occasion, she beat her indiscriminately thereby about 3 years back, deceased Padma has also filed a report against A2, then the police called A2 and warned her not to repeated the said act, inspite of that A1 and A2 did not mend their behavior and continuously harassing the deceased Padma who subjecting her for harassment and cruelty. The evidence of PW1 is also supported by PW2, who deposed that on receiving intimation from PW1 that deceased Padma consumed pesticide and she was shifted to Government Hospital, Tenali,he immediately proceeded there and questioned Padma that why she consumed pesticide , she stated that A1 did not mend his behavior inspite of several counseling, vexed with the attitude of A1 and dispute with A2, she has consumed pesticide. Though there are some omissions in the evidence of
PW2 , that the deceased Padma has stated to him that she was beat by the accused ,immediately before the consuming pesticide and A3 and A4 sister-in- law of her never harassed her, but, all omissions are not amounts to contradictions. In all criminal case nominal disturbances are bound to occur. In deposing of witness due to normal errors of observation. When such omissions amounting to contradictions, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the accused, such evidence is not safe to rely .However minor contradiction's inconsistency, improvements or trival matters which do not affect the case of the prosecution .In the instance case also PW2 has corroborated the evidence of PW1 in all aspect with regard shifting of PW1 to Government Hospital, Tenali and she was treated there and she had a occasin to talk with deceased Padma to know the grievance and mental agony meted by her in matrimonial house.
19.On perusal of the evidence of PW1, the matrimonial relationship between deceased Padma and A1 has rightly pictured through his evidence.
He has deposed that it is a regular practice of A1 and A2 to harassed deceased 10 Padma , thereby she was forced to come to parental house and she used to reside 3 or 4 months. thereafter A1 came to him and request him by making a promise that he will look-after the deceased Padma hereinafter affectionately and carefully , then it is the regular practice of him to sent her back his daughter to matrimonial house. In the same sequence she come back to
Pedakakani to his parental house just before period she committed suicide. The evidence of PW1 is supporting by statement given by the deceased Padma to
PW6 Head Constable as per Ex.P6.
20.On perusal of the statement of her, she stated that about two months back to the date of consuming pesticide there is a dispute arose with
A2 with regard to the children and she restricted her children not to go in-front ofA2, thereby A2 grew-wild and necked out her and she went to Pedakakani after 15 days , A1 came to Pedakakani and taken back her. on the day incident on 2-12-2014 she made morning breakfast Dosa (Attu)., But, A1 did not like it as it is not tasty and left the place with angry , the very statements of deceased Padma supporting evidence of PW1 that whenever there arose dispute she used to go to Pedakakani . In the like nature prior to the incident
A2 has necked out her form the matrimonial house, thereby she went to
Pedakakani to her parental house , after that A1 again came there and get back her to the matrimonial home. At this juncture , it is pertinent to note that the destiny and helpless father who used to send her daughter again and again ,though she persistently saying she has subjected to cruelty and harassment in the hands of A1 and A2. Though , repeatedly the deceased
Padama is coming to parental home reporting she meted with cruelty in the hands of husband and mother-in-law again and again, the father having no option fear of defame in the society and fear of future of grand children and family of his daughter, he forced to send her daughter to her matrimonial home believing the promise made by A1.
21.We all know The most common causes for women stalking and battering include dissatisfaction with the dowry and exploiting women for more of it, arguing with the partner, refusing to have sex with him, neglecting children, going out of home without telling the partner, not cooking properly or on time, indulging in extra marital affairs, not looking after in-laws etc. In some 11 cases infertility in females also leads to their assault by the family members.
The greed for dowry, desire for a male child and alcoholism of the spouse are major factors of domestic violence against women in rural areas.
22. In the instance case it was rightly brought on record by the prosecution , A1 is addicted to bad vices and he used to came to home in drunken state and beat her wife without any reason. It is argued by the counsel for the defence that the reason for consumption of pesticide is for trival, dispute the fact that on the day A1 refused to eat breakfast as it is not tasty is not at all a ground does not come within the definition of cruelty u/s.498-A IPC.
It is true that the incident that was narrated by prosecution is trival in nature.
But it is clear case of prosecution that deceased is subject to cruelty in the hands of husband and mother-in-law repeatedly and she is subjected to both mental and physical torture in the hands of them. The incident which was narrated by prosecution is not the only criteria to constitute cruelty but the other circumstances which were went on in the life of deceased during her matrimonial house is pertinent to look into. If a women subjected to continuous hunting and taunting without any fault of her and several trivial disputes in between them certainly creates a hated feelings of her own. Being a housewife and mother of two kids maintaining family lifting all responsibilities on her shoulder what all she expect from family is love and affection and understanding feelings of her. A common Indian house wife has a tendency to bear the harassment she is subjected to by her husband and the family. One reason could be to prevent the children from undergoing the hardships if she separates from the spouse. Also the traditional and orthodox mindset makes them bear the sufferings without any protest. Beyond that if she came out of the marital house complaining the family members denotes inability of her to coupe up with family and unbearable condition of her. In our Indian Culture ,immediately after the marriage the daughter suppose to go to in-laws house.
There is no any chance to understanding with each other and they supposed to lead conjugal life and adjust with the matrimonial family life and there is also a tendency which was already discussed the return of the daughter due to marital problems is often looked upon by parents as an abomination or disgrace rather than a cry for help. .In the instance case also repeatedly 12 deceased Padma has been returning to parental home,complaining she has subjected to cruelty and harassment in the hands of A1 and A2,but, still the father due to fear of society or other-wise , all the way he admonishing his son- in-law i.e., A1and pampering his daughter to adjacent and lead happy marital life with A1 and used to send her back again and again that repeated happening of events that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in the hands of A1 and A2 and returning to matrimonial home again and again as a long run harassment and continuous harassment meted by deceased
Padma. The prosecution has rightly brought on record through the evidence of
P.Ws. 1 and 2 supported by medical evidence that this deceased Padma is subjected to cruelty in the hands of A1 and A2.
23.It is argued by the learned counsel that except the evidence of
P.Ws. 1 and 2 that father and relatives of father, none of the neighbours has examined by the prosecution which is fatal to the case of the prosecution . As there is no corroborative evidence to support the evidence of family members.
For which he relied on decision reported inn 2007(2) ALT (CRL) 98 (AP) between
Gulan Mohmd Mozuddin Vs State of AP rep. By Public Prosecutor and others, where in it was held that except the oral testimony of PW1 and 2 there is no other evidence, non examination of neighbors is fatal to the case of prosecution. On considering the arguments of learned counsel for defense It is true on perusal of the case of the prosecution, except P.Ws. 1 and 2 none of the neighbours were examined. It is true a neighbor is always very important go through a light on correct relationship of husband and wife and what happened at the time of incident. But, it is also equally right that none of the neighbors may involved in the criminal case, it is natural human tendency no one bye problems and no one like to step into court . The endorsement made by the learned Addl.P.P. While giving up evidence as if they were win over by the accused, clearly indicating neighbors are not at all interested to give evidence to say facts of the case. If that is so, it cannot be said prosecution did not made any attempt to examine neighbours. Then ,it cannot be said that non-examination of the neighbors is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Particularly when there is a cogent and reliable evidence is available on record.
13
24.It is not out of point to discussed the behavior of A1 when A2 disputed with deceased Padma . It is true deceased Padma has stated in Ex.p7 statement that her husband is taking care of her. But, the circumstances which went on in the matrimonial relationship of the deceased Padma and A1 clearly indicating that the husband kept as silent speculator for the disputes between wife and mother. In a dispute between strong person and lean keeping silent is not impartial but he is supporting strong person. In the instance case also keeping silent by husband in disputes between A2 and deceased indicating that he supporting his mother rather than his wife, putting deceased in hopeless condition. The prosecution has rightly brought on record through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.P7 and the statements recorded by
Mandal Revenue Officer i.e., PW9 at the time of enquiry u/s.174 Cr.P.C though not a substantial evidence supported by previous statements of the witnesses corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clinchingly showing the harassment that was meted by deceased Padma in the hands of A1 and A2.
Thereby, certainly A1 and A2 are entitled for conviction u/s.498-A IPC .
25.Coming to A3 and A4 from the entire evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, there is no single allegation against A3 andA4 , admittedly A3 and A4 are the daughters of A2 who got married and residing elsewhere . From the evidence of PW2 especially from Ex.D2 , it was categorically stated by him that it was informed by the deceased Padma, she never meted with any harassment in the hands of A3 and A4 who are sister-in-laws of her. Corroborating the evidence of PW2 and his previous statement. There is a clear evidence of PW2 that A3 and A4 are residing elsewhere and they are not residing in the matrimonial home of the deceased Padma. Then, at any strech in can be viewed that A3 and A4 instigated A1 and A2 in harassing and subjected deceased Padma for cruelty. Thereby, A3 and A4 entitled for acquittal u/s.498-A
IPC. As already discussed above there is a clear evidence showing that A1 and
A2 subjected deceased Padma to harassment and A1 due to his bad vices and used to harass to the deceased Padma and mother-in-law of her, always used to dispute with deceased Padma without any reason of her and abuse her subjected deceased Padma for harassment. Thereby, they are rightly entitled 14 for conviction u/s.498-A IPC and prosecution able to prove guilt of A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered.
26.POINT NO.2: The next point for consideration is whether accused abetted deceased to commit suicide. Making a person a liable for an offence punishable u/s.306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that such person has abetted to commit of suicide. At this point pertinent to regard Section 306 IPC:
"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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
27.If the suicide is committed on the abatement of the accused then the Act of them will be punishable under the above provision i..e, 306 IPC. Thus the abatement is a material ingredient for the offence punishable u/s.306 IPC.
Abetment has defines u/s.107 of IPC:
Section 107 of the IPC defines the term abetment and this section reads thus:
107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who —
Firstly - 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.
Explanation 1 — A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
28. It is very clear in order to make out an offence under abatement of suicide the necessary requirement is that accused has either instigated the victim to commit a suicide or as engaged himself in conspiracy with others 15 for doing of that nature, so an Act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of conspiracy. So, that to constitute an offence u/s.306 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that all the accused has conspired together to instigate , the deceased Padma to commit suicide ought to see that there is no other way for her except taking away of her life. To prove the same ,the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2. No doubt the deceased died due to consumption of pesticide i.e. MO.1 Paraquat Dichloride a Herbicide
Poisonous Substance . The medical evidence clinchingly reveals that the cause of death of the deceased is because of consumption pesticides available in her house. On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 they categorically deposed that deceased Padma is subjected to harassment in the hands of A1 and A2, when PW1 stated to A2 to see that A1 should not harass the deceased
Padma and he has to mend his behavior, since then A2 also started harassing the deceased Padma. But, it is settled preposition of Law, an Act done prior to commission of suicide should closely proximate in time to the time of incident and all accused conspired together to made deceased to commit suicide.
So,that whatever the incident which probe deceased Padma should be immediate to the consumption pesticides by her. But as per the evidence of
P.W.1 there is no such dispute drive deceased to commit suicide immediately
before consumption pesticide . Through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 it is
clear on the date of incident on 2-12-2014 when deceased Padma made a breakfast preparing Dosa , A1 refused to eat as it is not tasty and he went to out angry against the deceased Padma. Whatever the narration of the dispute just prior to consuming pesticide showing a trivial dispute between wife and husband. Which it is not suffice to drove deceased Padma to commit suicide .
Moreover as seen Ex.P7 , the statements of the deceased Padama she stated that her husband is taking care of her , but there arose dispute between her and A2 about two months back , in result of the same , A2 has necked out her form the matrimonial home is the reasons stated by her for his disgusting.
So,the main dispute and harassment that was met by deceased Padma about two months back when she was necked out her from the matrimonial home. As seen evidence of PW1 and 2 they deposed that When A1 refused to eat breakfast grew wild against the deceased Padma and also beat her by holding 16 tuft of hair deceased Padma , but, the 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 are other-wise ,they never spoken either before police or before Mandal
Revenue Officer i..e, PW9 who recorded the statement of witnesses that A1 has beat deceased Padma while leaving the home, after refusing to eat breakfast prepared by her. Then the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are no evidence in the light to say the acts of A1 is probe this deceased Padma to commit suicide and there is immediate Act much instigated Padma to commit suicide. There is no any accelerate event instigated the deceased Padma to commit suicide though she was subjected to cruelty with the hands of A1 and A2 had times. The act done by A1 and A2 is not closely related to the incident it cannot be said, the harassment which was meted by PW1, is closely related to the time before committing suicide by the deceased Padma .The said Principle was laid in decision reported in 2007 Crl.L.J.4740 between Khyaliram and others Vs. State of Madhyapradesh in Para NO.6 wherein it was held that:
“ It may be well to be remembered that Act done to facilitate to what the commission of suicide should be closely, proximate in time to the time of incident. The Act done at a distance time with no close nearness or proximate to the time of suicide will obiously has ruled out , as Act facilitating and accelerating the commission of suicide''.
29.By considering the above decision though there went a trivial dispute between A1 and deceased Padma which is prior to the incident, there is no such accelerated event that went between the parties which drived deceased Padma to commit suicide.
30.The other important point to be considered while dealing Section 306 IPC is the Menseria. In order to convict a person u/s.306 IPC there is to be a clear Menseria to commit an offence and also requires active and direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide putting her in a situation that no option was left and his act must have intended to push deceased in such a position that she might have committed suicide. The same principle was held in decision reported in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 it was held that ” ‘instigation’ may be inferred from a series of acts on the 17 part of accused that led to creation of such circumstances where the deceased had no other option left with him or her than committing suicide. This series of acts may include use of force, words, conduct, willful omission or deeds or for that matter even silence of accused in order to annoy or irritate the deceased which resultantly caused the latter to take steps to put an end to one’s life.
This overt act has to necessarily coupled with a concomitant element called the mens rea to encourage the deceased to commit suicide. However, in a series of judgments it has been noted by the Apex Court that the use of the word ‘instigation’ need not be confused with ‘intimidation.’ Intimidation may as a result frighten the person on the receiving end which may cause him or her to retaliate whereas statements as a result of instigation may provoke or encourage the deceased to cause his death. In absence of any one of the element either mental process of intentional aiding or an overt act to cause this instigation to commit suicide, conviction will not be successfully sustained.”
31.On considering the above decision and as seen present case in hand there is no such intention for A1 while refusing to eat the breakfast that it is route cause or driving the deceased Padma to commit suicide , even, there is no other incident happen in between refusal to eat the breakfast and leaving the house by A1, just prior to consuming pesticide. At this juncture this court wants to rely on decision which was relied by learned counsel for defence repotted in 2017(2) ALT (CLR) 123 (SC) between Gurcharan Singh vs state of
Punjab, where in it was held by Honorable apex court to constitute abatement the intention and involvement of the accused aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted int eh intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abatement essential to attract the punitive mandate of section 306 of IPC . Further held court have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end her file by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord the differences in domestic life quite common to society which she belongs and 18 such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abatement could not be held guilty.”
32.On considering above decision Certainly there is no any conspiracy or intention between A1 and A2 to probe this deceased Padma to commit suicide. the trivial issue that went between her and A1 cannot be said that A1 instigated her to commit suicide . At this joint it is pertinent to refer
Ex.P7 , statements given by deceased at Government Hospital, Tenali to
PW6,wherein she stated that she has taken pesticide available in the house, but ,she not intended that may cause death to her. The Act of the deceased
Padma consuming pesticides with an intention that she is not subjected to death due to the consumption of pesticides indicating she want to convey her feelings and get attention of her family members as well as means to show her appeal to the family. deceased Padma want to show her feelings and her grievance to the family members. But, turned other-wise with Tragic end.
To record conviction Section 306 IPC ,the allegations of the prosecution is baseless , vague and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is no evidence in the eye of law of regarding conviction u/s.306 IPC. Though the prosecution has rightly brought on record that the deceased Padma is subjected to harassment , cruelty in the hands of A1 and A2, but, certainly there is no evidence to show just before her death, she was subjected to harassment in the hands of A1 and
A2, much less probe her to commit suicide and decide put an end to her life.
In the absence of such evidence showing that due to harassment of the A1 to
A4 deceased committed suicide it may not be said that accused abetted the death of the deceased and a conspiracy to probe deceased Padma to commit suicide. Thereby the accused A1 to A4 are entitle for acquittal u/s.306 IPC.
Accordingly point 2 is answered.
33.POINT NO.3: With the above discussion and decision in Point Nos.
1 and 2, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offence u/s.306 IPC and against A3 and A4 u/s.498-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/s.498-A IPC.
19
34.POINT NO.4: In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence u/s.498-A IPC and A1 and A2 are convicted u/s.235(2) Cr.P.C. A3 and A4 are found not guilty for the offence u/s.498-A IPC and they are acquitted u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. Further A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence u/s. 306
IPC and they are acquitted u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of June, 2017.
Sd/-B.SOBHA KUMARI
ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE,
TENALI
35. Hearing on Quantum of Sentence:
When A1 and A2 are questioned about the quantum of sentence they stated that they did not committed any offence and nothing to say about the sentence On considering plea taken by A1 and A2, facts, evidence and circumstances of the case , this Court is not inclined take into consideration
Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court feels the following sentence may meet ends of justice.
36.: In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and A1 and A2 are convicted for the same under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and further
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each (Rupees One thousand only).
In default of payment of fine, A1 and A2 shall undergo Simple
imprisonment for a period of one month. A1 to A4 are not found guilty for the offence u/s.306 IPC and they are acquitted u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. Further A3 and A4 are not found guilty for the offence u/s.498-A IPC and they are acquitted u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. The remand period that was undergone by A1 and
A2 during inquiry investigation and trial from 9-1-2015 to till 24-1-2015 (16 days) shall ordered to be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of
A3 and A4 are herewith forfeited. Further, A1 and A2 are informed about their right of appeal before Hon’ble Sessions Court and also informed about their right to get free-legal aid through Hon’ble Chairman, District Legal Services
Authority, Guntur, if he has no means. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
20
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of June, 2017.
SD/-.B.SOBHA KUMARI
ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
TENALI.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For defence:
PW1: Sankuru Vijaya Rao-None- PW2: Sankuru Yesuratnam PW3: Kolluri Rathaiah PW4: Dr.V.Krishna Murthy, Asst.Professor PW5: G.V.Kumar, HC 2117 PW6: R.Hari Prasad, HC 1800 PW7: SD.M.Subhani, ASI Duggirala PS PW8: CH.Appa Rao, SI of Police, Duggirala PS PW9: S.Vijaya Lakshmi, Tahsildar, Duggirala
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Inquest Report Ex.P2: Postmortam Certificate Ex.P3: RFSL Report Ex.P4: Final Opinion Ex.P5: Admission Intimation Ex.P6: Death Intimation Ex.P7: Statement of Deceased Ex.P8: FIR Ex.P9: Scene Observation Report Ex.P10: Rough Sketch Ex.P11: Alternation Memo
For defence: Ex.D1: Marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.2 Ex.D2: Marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.2
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
M.O.1 : Plastic Bottle
SD/-B.SOBHA KUMARI
ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
TENALI.
// TURE COPY //
ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
TENALI.
CALENDAR & JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: TENALI
21
Sessions Case No.361/2015
Between: State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Duggirala Police Station (Cr.No.138/2014)
...Complainant
And
1. Malaprolu Thambi Babu @ Thambi S/o.Jaya Rao, Aged 25 years Caste – Mala, Tummapudi Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District.
2. Malaprolu Meramma W/o.Jaya Rao, Aged 55 years, Caste – Mala Tummapudi Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntru District.
3. Pommathoti Lakshmi W/o.Sai Babu, Aged 30 years, Caste – Mala Jampani Village, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District.
4. Borugadda Rani W/o.Ramesh,Aged 24 years, Caste – Mala, Cherukupalli Village & Mandal, Guntur District.
...Accused
(P.R.C.No.23/2015, dt.5-8-2015 committed by Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, LLB, II Addl.Judl.I Class Magistrate, Tenali) ChargesU/ss.498-A and 306 IPC Date of offence2-12-2014 Date of appearance of the accused9-1-2015 Date of commencement of Trial15-2-2016 Date of closing of trial09-12-2016 Date of sentence or order14-06-2017 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty Finding of the courtA1 and A2 are Found guilty
Sentence of Order: In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and A1 and A2 are convicted for the same under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and further
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each (Rupees One thousand only).
In default of payment of fine, A1 and A2 shall undergo Simple
imprisonment for a period of one month. A1 to A4 are not found guilty for the offence u/s.306 IPC and they are acquitted u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. Further A3 and A4 are not found guilty for the offence u/s.498-A IPC and they are acquitted u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. The remand period that was undergone by A1 and A2 during inquiry investigation and trial from 9-1-2015 to till 24-1-2015 (16 days) shall ordered to be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A3 and A4 are herewith forfeited. Further, A1 and A2 are informed about their right of appeal before Hon’ble Sessions Court and also informed about their right to get free-legal aid through Hon’ble Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, if he has no means. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Explanation for Delay:- The sessions Case record received from sessions Court, Guntur on 26-09-2015. On 30-10-2015 accused appeared before the court. On 28-1-2016 charge U/ss.498-A and 306 IPC was framed against them U/s.228 Cr.P.C. On 15-2-2016 P.W.1 was examined and prosecution side evidence was closed on 9-12-2016 . On 19-1-2017 accused are examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. On 06-06-2017 arguments were heard on both side. On 14-6- 2017 Judgment is pronounced. Hence there is no avoidable delay.
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Tenali. ddl.Asst.Session.s Copies to:
1. The Registrar,(Judl) High Court of A.P, Hyd. through The District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.
2. The District & Sessions Judge, Guntur
3. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur.
4. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, (Addl. Asst. Sessions Court, Tenali). NOTE: A1 and A2 are paid fine amount of Rs.1000/- each (Total Two Thousand Rupees) on 14-6-2017.
22 23