Sri D.Kiran Kumar

1 SC.246 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,AT

SHADNAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SRI D.KIRAN KUMAR,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DIST.

FAC: Asst. Sessions Judge, at Shadnagar, R.R.District.

Dated this the 30th day of June, 2022

SESSIONS CASE No. 246 of 2021

(As per the P.R.C.No. 34/2021, dated 10-08-2021 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum -I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Shadnagar,connected with Crime No. 428/2021 of P.S. Shadnagar).

BETWEEN:

The State: being represented by the Sub – Inspector of Police, Shadnagar, Police Station.

...Complainant

A N D

Sandula Shiva S/o. Ramulu, Age. 25 Years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Indiranagar Colony, Shadnagar Town, Ranga Reddy District. … Accused

This Sessions case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Ch. Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate legal aid counsel for accused and on perusing the material on record, the matter having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case of “ subjecting a married woman to cruelty and abetment to Commit Suicide” for which the S.I of police P.S. Shadnagar filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.

498- A and 306 IPC.

2.In brief the prosecution case is as follows:- 2 SC.246 of 2021

One Lalitha got marriage with the accused about one year back, after marriage the accused and his mother have started harassing her both physically and mentally, they ill treated her. Family members of said

Lalitha several times requested the accused not to harass her, however there is no change in the attitude of the accused.

On 24-05-2021 during night at 10.00 pm the accused picked-up quarrel with Lalitha in a drunken state of mind on information as to quarrel brother of Lalitha advised her to stay in the house thereafter said Lalitha has committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan of house and died.

Immediately on such information Sri A. Ravi, who is brother of Lalitha went to there, there after he lodged a report to police on 25-05-2021 at 8.00 am complaining that the accused harassed his sister as such on 24-05-2021 at 10.00 am he received phone call from his sister thereafter he got information that his sister died by committing suicide on such report S.I of police P.S. Shadnagar registered a case during the course of investigation he recorded the statements of complainant and relatives of deceased

Lalitha, visited the scene of offence house secured presence of two mediators in their presence drawn rough sketch of the scene and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, later he subjected dead body for post mortem examination and as per his investigation the accused herein has committed offence U/sec. 498-A, 306 of IPC. Hence, filed charge sheet.

3. Taking cognizance and committal of the case: Learned Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 IPC. Since the said offence is exclusively traible by the Court of Sessions, Ranga Reddy District, learned

Magistrate registered the charge-sheet as PRC No. 34/2021 and copies of

3 SC.246 of 2021 all documents were furnished to the accused, on his appearance, as required under Section 207 of the Code. The learned Magistrate committed the case, under Section 209(a) of the Code, vide separate order, dated 10-08-2021 and thereafter, the Hon'ble District & Sessions

Judge Mahabubnagar District made over the case to this Court, for trial

and disposal according to law, after registering it as S.C. No.246/2021.

4. Appearance of the accused and opening the case under

Section 226 of the Code: The accused is in Judicial custody from the date of his remand on his production from District Jail, Mahaboobnagar, on enquiry the accused reported he is not having sufficient means to engage an advocate to defend him. Accordingly this court appointed

Sri Ch. Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate as legal aid counsel to represent and defend the case. Thereafter, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opened the case by describing the charge brought against the accused and also about the evidence that is going to be let-in, to prove the guilt of the accused.

5. Framing of charge: Upon hearing the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor as well as the learned defence counsel and considering the entire material available on record, this court prima-facie found that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Hence, the charge for the said offence was framed against the accused, under Section 227 r/w 228 of the Cr.P.C., read over and explained to her in Telugu language, for which she denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was stood posted for prosecution evidence, after fixing the schedule for trial, under

Section 230 of the Code.

4 SC.246 of 2021

6. Prosecution Evidence, under Section 231 of the Cr.P.C:During the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 witnesses, and got exhibited Ex.P1 to P8. PW1 is complainant and brother of deceased, PW2 to 4 are sisters and Uncle of the deceased, PW5 and 6 are examined as eye witnesses, PW7 and 8 are witnesses of scene of offence panchanama,

PW9 is witness for inquest panchanama over dead body of deceased

Lalitha, PW10 is Medical Officer, who conducted Post mortem examination over the dead body, PW11 and 12 are 1st and 2nd investigation Officers.

7. Examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C:

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under

Section 313 of the Code, by putting the incriminating circumstances, appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses (PWs-1 to 12 ) against him, to which he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Arguments:- After completion of the evidence, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor submitted oral arguments contending that

PW1 is brother of deceased, PW2 is elder sister of deceased, evidence of

PW1 and 2 is consistent and reliable, PW2 spoke to the deceased just

before her suicide, PW3 is sister in law of deceased the evidence of PW3

and 4 is supporting the case of prosecution witness, according to the evidence the accused has seen the deceased for first time, therefore the prosecution evidence clearly established charge against the accused in support of his contention learned counsel relied on the following citations:

i) Crl. Apl. No. 435/2008 between Maqbool @ Zubair and another Vs. State of A.P., dated 08-07-2010 of Hon’ble Supreme court of India, where in Hon’ble Supreme Court held that : “ if the occurrence takes place during late night and there would be gathering in such circumstance it may not be possible to investigation officer to collect the blood stained earth and other material evidence”.

5 SC.246 of 2021 ii) Crl. Apl. No. 1341/2005 between Thrimukh Maroty Kirkan

Vs State of Maharashtra, dated 11-10-2006 of Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India, wherein it is held that : “ there is no requirement of eye witness of occurrence in a case of suicidal death court has to get inference form the circumstances and relying on circumstantial evidence to point out that guilt of the accused”.

9.Learned legal aid counsel appearing for the accused submitted written arguments along with memo of citations. In written arguments learned counsel contended that the prosecution witnesses have not deposed anything against the accused as to dowry harassment. PW1 who is brother of deceased stated that police have not examined him, prior to death his sister was suffering from skin decease and also suffered from

Covid – 19, further PW2 in her cross examination deposed as to Covid – 19 to deceased Lalitha. It is further contended that, scene of offence of panchanama prepared in the police station, no such inquest was conducted, PW10 medical officer did not found any external injuries, the investigation Officer not examined the neighbours of deceased house, he did not seized any physical property from the scene of offence, there is no such offence committed by the accused, it is further contended that panchayath elders are not examined the deceased died due to Covid – 19, therefore prayed to acquit the accused. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied on the following decisions:

i) Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Chathisgarh in Crl. Apl. No.

617/2000, dated 17-10-2001, where in Honble Supreme court held that : “the offences U/Sec. 498- A, and 306 IPC are independent and constitutes different offences, court has to be very cautious in assessing the facts and circumstance of the case”.

ii) Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in

Crl.Apl.No. 1301/2002, dated 05-01-2010 of Supreme Court of India, where in it is held that: “in a dispute between husband and wife for 6 SC.246 of 2021 offence of suicide instigation, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act prosecution has to establish the requirements of definition of abetment”

10. Now the P oints for determination are as follows:

i)Whether the accused being husband of Smt. Lalitha has committed physical and mental cruelty towards his wife with an intention to drive her to commit suicide?

ii)Whether the accused with an intention and knowledge has abetted Smt. Lalitha to commit suicide if so whether the accused can be punished for the offences U/Sec. 498- A, 306 of IPC?

11. POINT No. 1 and 2:

In criminal prosecution it is the duty of the prosecution to establish guilt of the accused for charges offences the standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case the accused is charges for the offences U/Sec. 498- A, 306 of IPC to substantiate charge the prosecution relied on oral evidence of PW1 to 12 and documentary evidence in Ex. P1 to P8, in this case the prosecution evidence can be divided into three categories they are : direct witnesses PW1 to 6, circumstantial witnesses PW6 to 9 and official witnesses PW10 to 12.

12.As per charge against the accused, the accused is husband of deceased Lalitha, aged about 25 years, marriage of the accused was performed about one year back of death of Lalitha.

13.The prosecution alleged that the accused being husband of Smt.

Lalitha, after five months of marriage he started to harass his wife both mentally and physically sometimes he use to bet her knowingly, further the harassment of the accused is within the knowledge of relatives of Smt.

Lalitha, even after advise by elders the accused not change, as such on 24-05-2021 at 10.00 pm said Lalitha vexed with her life has committed suicide after a quarrel with the accused.

7 SC.246 of 2021

14.The prosecution examined PW1, who is brother of deceased Lalitha, his evidence is that after five months of marriage quarrels took place between accused and Lalitha, the accused addicted to alcohol, several times he intervened and pacified the matter, they are not having parents.

On 24-05-2021 at 11.00 pm his sister Lalitha called him over phone, informed that the accused harassing her by consuming alcohol for which he advised her that he will talk to her on the next day, thereafter PW1 requested his sister (PW2) to visit house of Lalitha, accordingly PW2 visited the house of deceased at 12.00 mid night, then accused opened the door by that time body of Lalitha was hanging to the roof with aid of a Saree, later dead body was dropped to down, PW1 got phone call about death they rushed to the house of Lalitha, on the next day morning at 8.00 am he lodged a report. In cross examination of PW1 it is elicited that, on the date of death during night hours he went to police station informed about death of Lalitha to police, police have visited the scene and instructed them to shift the body to hospital.

15.PW2 M.Kalyani, who is sister of deceased Lalitha, deposed in the lines of PW1, stating that, PW1 called her over phone on one day at 11.30 pm and informed her to visit house of Lalitha, as she was crying, then she made a phone call to Lalitha at that time deceased Lalitha was crying but she has not informed anything, thus she rushed to the house of accused by 12.30 mid night and knocked the door then accused opened the door, she noticed that his sister was hanging to a ceiling fan they have dropped the body later PW1 has come to the place. In cross examination PW2 further stated that the accused was in drowsy state at the time of opening the door, deceased has taken treatment for swelling of legs, she effected with Covid – 19 in first face. She walked for about 30 minutes after getting down from a bus to go to house of a deceased on the date of incident.

8 SC.246 of 2021

16.The next witness of prosecution is Smt. A. Laxmi, she examined as

PW3, she is wife of PW1. Her evidence is that, about 6 months back

Lalitha called her over phone and informed that accused by consuming alcohol harassing her and requested the PW1 to come to her house, then

PW1 requested PW2 to go to her house, later they come to know about death and seen the dead body of Lalitha.

17.The prosecution examined PW4, as close relative of deceased, he deposed as to marriage of accused with deceased and quarrels between deceased and accused according to him he intervened as elder and advised accused to live without quarrel. PW1 during mid night visited his house and informed that Lalitha died as such himself as PW1 rushed to the house of Lalitha, they have seen dead body.

18.The prosecution examined PW5 and 6 as eye witnesses to the incident and neighbours to the house of the accused. These two witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. They stated that they do not know how Lalitha died. Nothing is elicited in cross examination of PW5 and 6 in support of prosecution case.

19.The prosecution examined PWf7 and 8 as mediators for scene of offence panchanama. These two witnesses stated that on one day at 9.00 am police have called them to Indira Nagar of Shadnagar near bus stand locality, and conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence.

They have identified their signatures on Ex. P4 scene of offence panchanama. These two witnesses clearly stated that the scene of offence is situated at Indira Nagar colony of Shadnagar.

9 SC.246 of 2021 20. Prosecution examined PW9 as a mediator for inquest panchanama over dead body of deceased Lalitha. She deposed that she has observed dead body of Lalitha in her presence police have conducted panchanama,

Ex. P5 is said panchanama. PW10 Dy. Civil Surgeon, Area Hospital,

Shadnagar, deposed that on 25-05-2021 on the request of police she conducted PME examination over dead body of deceased Lalitha, she found ligature mark extending from 4 cm., below left angle of mandible over the front of the neck over the thyroid cartilage upto 4cm., below the right angle of mandible, Hyoid bone fractured as per her opinion the cause of death is due to suicide, there are no external injuries present over the body. Ex. P7 is PME report.

21.The investigation officers in this case are examined as PW11 and 12.

PW11 was SHO on 25-05-2021 his evidence is to the extent of receiving report from PW5 and conducting inquest panchanama over dead body of the deceased. PW12 S.I of Police, deposed that he recorded statement of the complainant he visited Indira Nagar Colony, Shadnagar, the scene of offence is a residential house of the accused. He secured presence of PW7 and 8 conducted Ex.P4 panchanama. Later he issued a requisition to

PW10 for PME examination of dead body, on 14-06-2021 he arrested the accused produced him for Judicial custody. PW12 did not seized any material objects from the scene of offence.

22.With the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses now it is to be seen:

Whether the evidence of prosecution is sufficient to convict

the accused for charged offences?

23.As seen from oral evidence of relative witnesses to the deceased i.e.

PW1 to 4, the place of occurrence is Indira Nagar Colony, Shadnagar Town.

10 SC.246 of 2021

PW 7 and 8 who are mediators of scene of offence panchanama have clearly deposed that the place of offence is at Indira Nagar of Shadnagar.

PW11 and 12 investigation officers have also stated that the place of offence is Indira Nagar Colony, Shadnagar. On examination of Ex. P4 Crime

Detail Form containing the scene of offence particulars, the scene of offence is a house situated at Indira Nagar back side to Shadnagar RTC

Bus stand open place. The accused in his examination and cross examination of prosecution witnesses not disputed as to place of occurrence. Therefore the prosecution has established the place of occurrence is Indira Nagar of Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

24.Now with regard to date and time of occurrence according to the prosecution the date of incident is 24-05-2021 mid night between 11.00 pm., to 12.00 am. Ex. P1 report was lodged before the police on 25-05- 2021 at 8.00 am. As seen from Ex. P1 report, it is mentioned that during mid night 12’O’ clock of 25-05-2021 PW2 went to the accused knocked the door and she has seen body of Lalitha hanging to a ceiling fan in their house. PW1 in his oral evidence deposed that at 11.30 pm he got phone call from his sister there after he requested PW2 to visit house of the accused. PW2 in her examination clearly deposed that she reached to the house of Lalitha at 12.30 mid night the accused opened the door and she witness the dead body. Similarly PW3 who is wife of PW1, other witness

PW4 who is relative of PW1 and deceased, stated that at 12.30 or 1.00 am they went to house of Lalitha. As seen from oral evidence of all these witnesses they have consistently deposed as to time of occurrence which is during intervening night of 24-05-2021 and 25-05-2021 between 11.30 pm to 1.00 am. The accused also not disputed as to time of occurrence in cross examination of witnesses. Therefore the prosecution has established the time of occurrence by satisfactory evidence.

11 SC.246 of 2021

25.Now with regard to suicidal death of Smt. Lalitha, evidence of PW1 to 5 who are blood relatives and evidence of PW9 who is a witness for inquest panchanama clubbed with medical evidence of PW10 and Ex. P7

Post mortem report clearly established that Smt. Lalitha died and cause of her death is due to hanging. Even in cross examination of PW10 there is no suggestion that cause of death of Smt. Lalitha is not due to hanging.

The prosecution evidence established that Smt. Lalitha on intervening night of 24-05-2021 and 25-05-2021 has committed suicide by hanging herself to a ceiling fan in her house situated at Indira Nagar Colony of

Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District. Ex.P7 Post Mortem examination report further proceed cause of death of Lalitha is not due to covid – 19.

26.Now the only point is to be decided by this court whether the accused subjected the deceased Lalitha to physical and mental cruelty which led her to commit suicide. Whether the accused can be convicted for the offences U/Sec. 498-A and 306 IPC. To prove charge under Sec.

498- A IPC the prosecution has establish cruelty on the part of accused committed towards deceased Lalitha, Sec. 498-A of IPC reads as follows:

498-A. - Husband or relative of husband of a woman

subjecting her to cruelty: reads as follows.

“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 purposes 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 12 SC.246 of 2021 for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

27.To convict the accuse for the above charge the prosecution has to established the willful conduct of the accused which is such nature likely to drive deceased to commit suicide and harassment on the part of the accused. In the present case there is no allegation as to dowry demand against accused, however as seen from oral evidence of PW1 to 5 there is evidence that after five months of marriage the accused started harassing deceased Lalitha, he committed physical and mental harassment.

28.It is undisputed that death of Smt. Lalitha is suicidal death occurred within short span i.e., of one year of their marriage. Sec. 113-A of Indian

Evidence Act, provides for presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman within seven years of marriage, by her husband or any of his relatives, the said section reads as under:

113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married

woman.—When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

29.Explanation added to Sec. 113 -A of Indian Evidence Act, clearly provides that ‘Cruelty’ shall have the same meaning as in Sec. 498-A IPC.

The prosecution case is that marriage of deceased was performed with 13 SC.246 of 2021 accused about one year prior to her death, the deceased was residing with her husband at Indira Nagar Colony, Shadnagar, according to evidence of

PW1 to 4 accused and deceased Lalitha lived happily for a period of five months, there after the accused started ill treating the deceased.

Evidence of PW1 stands corroborated with the evidence of PW2 to 4. the prosecution examined PW5 and 6 as eye witnesses to the incident however they have not supported the case of prosecution. PW1 in his evidence clearly stated that on 24-05-2021 the deceased called him informed that accused harassed her in drunken state of mind and requested him to come to her house, PW2 in corroboration with evidence of PW1 deposed that on the request of PW1 she went to the house of deceased by that time deceased committed suicide. PW3 who is wife of

PW1, her evidence is circumstantial her presence with PW1 is natural because she is wife of PW1, she clearly stated that her husband got phone call from deceased Lalitha, there after her husband instructed PW2 to go to house of Lalitha.

30.It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that PW1 to 4 are close relatives of the deceased Lalitha, they are nothing but own brother, sister, sister in law and maternal uncle naturally they will speak against the accused. Therefore they must be corroboration to their version with independent evidence. Learned counsel further contended that, the relative witnesses and interested witnesses evidence cannot be believed.

31. Honble Supreme Court of India in a three judges bench

decision between Maranadu and another Vs. State by Inspector of

Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in (2008) 16 SCC Page No. 529 held

as to relative witnesses testimony as follows:

“Merely because the eye witnesses are family members their evidence cannot perse be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere Statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a 14 SC.246 of 2021 ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also deal with the contention regarding interested-ness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witnesses, foundation has to be laid if false implication is made in such cases the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyze evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible”.

32.In the case on hand PW1, 2, 3 and 4 they are related to the deceased they are natural witnesses. There is no bar in examining the family members of deceased person as a witness, their evidence cannot be discarded on this ground. The offence of subjecting married woman to cruelty is mostly committed within the boundaries of the house which in itself diminishes the chances of availability of an independent witnesses and even if an independent witness is available he may not be willing to be a witness in a case because no independent or unconnected person prefers to become a witness for a number of reasons.

33.From a perusal of oral evidence of PW1 to 4, their evidence is consistent without any material contradictions, and inspires confidence.

PW1 is resident of Shadnagar, he is doing coolie work, PW2 is resident of

Jadcherla which is at distance of 25 km., to Shadnagar, PW3 and 4 are also residents of Shadnagar. House of deceased Lalitha and accused is situated at Shadnagar Indiranagar Colony. Therefore it is quite natural that a person who is suffering harassment in the hands of her husband calling her relatives even at 10.00 pm and requesting them to come to her house. There are no doubtful circumstances as to this aspect in the prosecution evidence. Therefore, the statements of PW1 to 4 are intact even in the cross examination nothing contradictory could be elicited by the defence.

15 SC.246 of 2021

34.As stated above the prosecution has successfully established the charge of cruelty as laid down in explanation (a) of Sec. 498-A IPC, and also the fact that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to a ceiling fan within seven years of her marriage. Now the question is whether the accused can also be held guilty for offence U/Sec. 306 IPC with aid of presumption under Sec. 113-A of Indian Evidence Act.

35.In the case on hand there is no direct evidence to establish that the accused has abetted the deceased into committing suicide. The prosecution has placed reliance on Sec. 113-A of Evidence Act., to establish the charge of abetment against the accused.

36.Sec. 107 of IPC describes the offence of abetment as under : A person abets the doing of a 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.

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.

Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

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.

16 SC.246 of 2021

37.Sec. 306 of IPC provides punishment for the offence of abetment of suicide, which read as under:

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.

38.On examination of Sec. 113-A of Evidence act to presume abetment on the part of accused towards his wife to commit suicide the following conditions are required to be fulfilled. 1) The woman has committed suicide, 2) such suicide has been committed within seven years from the date of her marriage, 3) the charged accused had subjected her to cruelty.

39.From the facts of the present case all the above three conditions stands fulfilled, there is no dispute about the fact that the deceased has committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, there is evidence that the accused has subject to the deceased to cruelty that the prosecution has been successful in proving the charge of cruelty under explanation (a) of 498- A IPC. Therefore this court has draw a presumption that the suicide committed by Lalitha had been abetted by her husband. The presumption is rebuttable one, the accused in the present case has not led any evidence in support of his contention.

As per Sec. 4 of Indian Evidence Act which defines the phrase ‘ may presume’ used in Sec. 113-A of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as follows:

4. “May presume”.—Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.

40.The above definition of the words ‘may presume’ makes its clear that whenever the act provides that court may presume a fact, the said fact is to be regarded as proved unless until disproved in the present case the accused not adduced any kind of evidence, the evidence in the case 17 SC.246 of 2021 clearly established the offence of cruelty. Therefore there is no evidence to rebut the presumption.

41.Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case it can be safely concluded that the evidence adduced by the prosecution successful in establishing the charge U/Sec. 498-A IPC of Cruelty against the accused from which reasonable inference can be drawn that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging, she was with the accused and died within the four walls of her matrimonial house under suspicious circumstances.

42.Learned counsel for the accused based reliance of judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme court as to abetment under Sec. 107 of IPC and cruelty

which are referred above are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the present case the deceased died within seven years of her marriage, presumption under Sec. 113-A is drawn against the accused basing on oral evidence of cruelty.

43. In view of the above circumstances the prosecution clearly established to guilt of the accused for charge offences U/Secs. 498-A and 306 IPC without any doubt. Accordingly the accused is liable to be convicted for said charges.

In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under Sections 498- A and 306 IPC he is convicted Under Sec. 235(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Typed my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30st day of June. 2022).

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

FAC: Assistant Sessions Judge, at Shadnagar, R.R.District.

18 SC.246 of 2021

On production of the accused from District Jail Mahabubnagar, the accused is examined on question of sentence the accused prayed to take lenient view, heard learned APP. This is not a fit case to extend to benefit available under probation of offenders Act and Section 360 Cr.P.C having regard to the nature of offence, circumstances of the case Social Condition of the accused in my view if the accused is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years on each count for offence U/Sec.498-A, 306 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- on each count for offence U/Sec.498-A, 306 IPC. The same would meet under of Justice.

In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for offence U/Sec.498-A IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for offence U/Sec.498-A IPC indefault of payment of fine SI for a period of one month. The accused also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for offence

U/Sec.306 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for offence U/Sec.306

IPC indefault of payment of fine SI for a period of one month, both sentences and default sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period of accused from 14.06.2021 to till date is ordered to be given set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. The accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal, free copy of this Judgment is given to accused. Address a letter to

DLSA as to legal aid to accused.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

FAC: Assistant Sessions Judge, at Shadnagar, R.R.District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1 : A. Ravi - None-

PW2 : M. Kalyani

PW3 : A. Laxmi

PW4 : Y. Ramu

PW5 : M. Bujjamma

PW6 : M. Amrutha 19 SC.246 of 2021

PW7 : M. Raju

PW8 : M. Jangaiah

PW9 : Y. Jyothi

PW10: Dr. K. Jyothi

PW11: J. Pandu

PW12: P. Suresh Yadav

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Complaint

Ex.P2 : 161Cr.P.C. statement of PW4

Ex.P3 : 161Cr.P.C. statement of PW6

Ex.P4 : Crime Detail Form

Ex.P5 : Inquest Panchanama

Ex.P6 : Requisition Report

Ex.P7 : PME Report

Ex.P8 : FIR

DEFENCE: - Nil -

Material Objects Marked

- Nil -

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

FAC: Assistant Sessions Judge, at Shadnagar, R.R.District.