Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04
TSNI080000702023
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BODHAN, NIZAMABAD DISTRICT
Present: Smt. Varoodhini Dharmavarapu, V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bodhan.
Wednesday, this the 08th day of April, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.17 OF 2023
1) From what Court the appeal: The Assistant Sessions Judge, is preferred Bodhan
2) Number of the case in that : Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 Court
3) Number of the Appeal : Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
4) i) Name of the Koppula Gajender S/o: Vittal, appellant/Accused No.1Aged: 30 years, Occu: Auto Driver, R/o: Domaledigi Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District ii) Name of the respondent: The State represented by its Addl. Public Prosecutor, Bodhan
5) The sentence and law : The accused No.1 was sentenced 1 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 under which it was passedto undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. Further, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under section 498 A of IPC. The sentences shall run concurrently.
6) Whether confirmed, modified or reversed; and if : Confirmed modified the modification
This appeal is coming before me for hearing on 31-03-2026 in the presence of Sri S. Raju Patel, Advocate for appellant/accused No.1 and of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, upon perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment dated 28.03.2023 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 rendered by the learned Assistant 2 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04
Sessions Judge, Bodhan (for short "trial court"). The Appellant herein
is accused 1 and he along with accused 2 stood trial for commission of offences punishable under sections 498 A and 306 read with 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC")wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced:
a) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 5 years and to pay of fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC and
b) To undego rigorous imprisonment for the period of 3 years and to pay of fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under section 498
A of IPC.
c) The accused 2 is acquitted for the offences under section 498A and 306 of IPC.
2. Prosecution version as unfolded is as follows:
3 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04
Deceased Nagamani is the daughter and appellant is the son in law of Pw1. Pw1 who is the informant in this case lodged Ex.P1 report stating that on 24.01.2017 deceased married the appellant and it was love marriage. They are blessed with two children namely
Hanisha and Sai out of their wed-lock. On 25.02.2019, she was informed by Pw2 that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. Upon inquiry with her grand son she came to learn that appellant subjected deceased to physical and mental cruelty. On 24.02.2019 when the deceased refused to attend the marriage ceremony of the brother of appellant, an altercation took place between them. When the accused returned home post attending the marriage, he beat the deceased and left home. When he returned home at 12.30 AM he found deceased dead by hanging. It is further stated in the report that appellant had illegal intimacy with accused 2 and appellant abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
3.Sri.I.Nagarjuna Goud, Inspector of Police, Police Station Bodhan registered a case in Crime No.66/2019 under section 498A and 306
IPC on the strength of Ex.P1 and issued Ex.P9 FIR. Thereafter 4 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 investigation was entrusted to Pw7 Sub Inspector of police. Pw7 examined and recorded the statement of Pw1, visited the scene of offence and found the deceased died by hanging with her saree to the iron hook to the roof. He conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared sketch map of the scene in the presence of Pw4 and one Mahesh Reddy. In the presence of Pw4 and one
Anthula Sharadha he conducted inquest panchanama and seized
MO.1-Saree. Thereafter he recorded the statements of other prosecution witnesses. On 28.02.2019 he apprehended the appellant. The confession statement of accused was recorded in the presence of one Gangadhar and Pw5. As per the confession statement made by him Pw7 apprehended A2 and recorded her confession in the presence of aforementioned panchas. He secured
Ex.P6 Post Mortem Examination report, Ex.P7 FSL report and Final
Opinion report. As per the final opinion report, deceased died due to “asphyxia consequent to hanging”. Post completion of investigation
Pw7 filed charge sheet against appellant and accused 2 for the 5 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 offence punishable under section 498 A and 306 read with 34 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4.Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bodhan took cognizance and registered the case as PRC No.10 of 2019. After completion of formalities, the case was committed to the Hon'ble
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad as the case is
exclusively triable by Sessions Court. Inturn the learned Prl. Dist. &
Sessions judge, Nizamabad assigned Sessions Case.No.266 of 2022
and was made over to the learned trial court, Bodhan for disposal as per law.
5.Post appearance of accused and hearing on charges, charges under section 498A of IPC against appellant and Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC against appellant and accused no.2 were framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular. Both pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.To prove the charges leveled against appellant and accused no.2, prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw7 and got marked Ex.P1 to 6 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04
Ex.P9, the specifics of which are mentioned in the appendix of evidence in the Judgment of the Trial Court. After closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating material brought on record by the prosecution has been putforth to them during their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied it as false.
7.To disprove the charges, defence got examined Sai Hanesh, the son of deceased and appellant as Dw1.
8.Having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, the
Learned Trial Court held that prosecution proved the charges against appellant and convicted and sentenced him as stated supra and accused no.2 was acquitted.
9.GROUNDS OF APPEAL
Aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Trial Court, appellant preferred this appeal. He challenged the said Judgment of the Trial Court on the following grounds:
7 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04
a)The trial court erred in properly appreciating the evidence on record, the spirit of provisions of section 306 and 498 A IPC and arrived at a wrong conclusion which resulted in miscarriage of justice.
b)The fact that occular evidence on record does not prove the abettement of the appellant which resulted in the death of the deceased was not properly considered.
c) The prosecution witnesses failed to testify anything regarding the cruelty meted by the deceased and even if it is assumed that appellant had illegal intimacy with accused 2, it do not constitute an offence as contemplated under section 498 A and 306 IPC.
d)The trial court erred in exhibiting Ex.P3 undertaking letter
dated 08.08.2018 which is not proved, as none of the witnesses
mentioned in it are examined to prove its contents.
e)The testimony of Dw1 was entirely discarded by the trial court and arrived at a wrong conclusion.
8 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04
f)The fact that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged marriage of the brother of appellant on 24.02.2019 ought to have been considered by the trial court.
g)Though no evidence was let in by the prosecution that the appellant neglected the welfare of the deceased and her children, the trial court erred in assuming that the appellant neglected them in view of his extra-marital relationship with accused 2. Even if it is assumed that appellant neglected the deceased and her children, it does not consitute abetment.
On the aforementioned grounds, learned counsel for apellant sought to allow the appeal and to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 28.03.2023 in
Sessions Case no.266 of 2022.
10.Heard the learned counsel for appellant and Additional Public
Prosecutor Perused the occular and documentary evidence on record.
9 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04
11. Now the points that emerge for determination in this appeal are:
1. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant for the offences under section 498 A and 306 IPC beyond resonable doubt? 2.Whether the judgment dated 28.03.2023 in Sessions Case No.266/2022 passed by the learned trial court is sustainable under law or liable to be set aside?
Point No.1:-
12.The conspectus of the case of the prosecution against the appellant is that his marriage with the deceased is love marriage and they were blessed with two children out of their wedlock. Post the death of the father of the deceased, he harrased her mentally and physically demanding dowry. Hence, Pw1 presented 1 1/2 acres as dowry to the appellant. That apart, he developed extra-marital relationship with accused 2 and subjected the deceased to cruelty as she interfered with their illegal intimacy. In a panchayat held regarding his illegal intimacy, appellant assured to leave the society of accused 2 which was reduced into writing under Ex.P3. On 24.02.2019, an altercation took place between appellant and deceased in respect of attending the marriage of brother of the 10 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 appellant and he beat her and went to attend the marriage. Post returning from marriage, he again beat her and left the house. When he returned at 12.30 am, he along with his son found the deceased dead by hanging. Hence, the appellant along with accused 2 by their wilful conduct subjected deceaased to cruelty and abetted the commision of suicide by her.
13.To substantiate the charges levelled against appellant, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses in all and got exhibited 9 documents and one material object/Saree. Out of all the witnesses examined, PW1 the mother of the deceased is the informant, PW2 and PW3 are the circumstantial witnesses, PW4 is one of the mediator for Ex.P4 scene of offence panchanama and
Ex.P5 inquest panchanama, PW5 is one of the panch for confession statement of appellant and accused 2, PW6 is the doctor who conducted autopsy and PW7 is the investigation officer who conducted investigation and laid chargesheet.
14.It is trite that in criminal law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and the accused is presumed to be innocent unless 11 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 proved guilty. Further, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
15.Unearthing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, Pw1 the mother of deceased testified that the marriage of deceased was solemnized with appellant which was a love marriage performed without their knowledge. Her husband died in the year 2010 and having learnt the death of her husband, appellant and deceased visited their house and till then, their whereabouts were not known to her. Deceased informed her that they were residing at Bodhan and are blessed with two children. Eversince appellant started harassing the deceased demanding dowry. Hence, she settled by presenting Ac 01.20 gts of land situated at the outskirts of Takli shivr of Kotagiri and executed a document. On 25.02.2019 at about 5.30am she recieved a phone call from Pw2 that deceased committed suicide by hanging. Immediately, she along with her son went to the house of appellant at Bodhan and found the deceased hanging to a ceiling fan. When she inquired with her grand son Sai
Hanish, it was learnt that as the deceased failed to attend the 12 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 marriage of her brother-in-law, appellant picked up an altercation and beat her on 24.02.2019 before he left to the marriage. He came back at 8.30 pm, beat the deceased again and left the house. When he came back at 12.30 am and knocked the door, her grandson opened the door and enquired about the deceased, they both went to first floor and found the deceased hanging. As on the date of the incident her grandson was 7 years old.
16.She further testified that prior to 6 months of the incident, deceased informed her that appellant developed illegal intimacy with accused 2 and they both along with her grand son went to
Tirupathi and after they returned, her grand son informed the said fact to the deceased. It was further deposed by her that on 08.08.2018, a panchayat was held at the house of appellant regarding his illegal intimacy with accused 2. In the panchayat,
Lw3/Vittal, Hanmanth Rao, Middela Raju, Pramod Kumar were present from her side. Appellant along with his father, elder brother and cousin brother and Balu who is his friend attended the panchayat. In the panchayat, he admitted his guilt and assured to 13 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 change himself and leave the company of Accused 2 and accordingly executed a document on non judicial stamp paper. Even after holding the panchayat, there was no change in his attitude.
She lodged Ex.P1 report post the death of deceased. Ex.P2 pattedar pass book of deceased and Ex.P3 understanding letter dated 08.08.2018 executed by appellant were exhibited through her.
17.Pw2 testified that PW1 is his younger paternal aunt. On 25.02.2019 at about 5.00Am, he came to Bodhan on some work and when he reached New Bus stand, Bodhan he found several persons gathered and speaking about a girl committing suicide. He went to the said place and found that the deceased who committed suicide was the daughter of Venkateshwara Rao who is the husband of Pw.1 and immediately he informed the matter to PW1. Immediately, Pw1 along with her son, PW3 and few villagers went to Bodhan. Pw1 lodged Ex.P1.
18.Further, Pw2 testified that deceased committed suicide as she was harrassed by the appellant as he developed illegal intimacy with another woman. In the year 2018, a panchayat was held at Bodhan 14 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 regarding the illegal intimacy of appellant and in the panchayat, he admitted his guilt and promised to look after the deceased well and executed a document to that effect. Despite holding the panchayat appellant continued his intimacy with another woman. appellant harrased deceased to die, so that he can marry another woman.
19.The elder brother of father of the deceased is examined as Pw3 who testified that in the year 2007, the deceased and appellant got married and their marriage is love marriage which was performed against the wish of their parents. They resided at Bodhan and are blessed with a son and daughter. On 25.02.2019, deceased died. He came to know about her death from Pw2. Then, he along with Pw1 and Pw2 came down to the house of deceased at Bodhan and noticed deceased committed suicide by hanging. He came to know through Pw1 that deceased and appellant used to frequently quarrel with each other and it might be the cause of her death.
20.The mediator for Ex.P4 scene of offence panchanama/crime details form and Ex.P5/inquest panchanama PW4 testified the conduct of scene of offence panchanama and later at Government 15 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04
Hospital, Bodhan. As per Pw5 one of the mediator for confesion statement of appellant and accused 2, on 25.02.2019 at about 10.30 or 11.00 am, SI of police, called him to Ambedkar Cross Roads,
Bodhan where he found the appellant in the custody of police and when he enquired him at the instance of police, appellant confessed about his illegal intimacy with accused 2. He further revealed that there were frequent quarrels between him and deceased and he was inclined to marry accused 2. On one day, appellant picked up quarrel with deceased in this regard, beat her and instigated her to do whatever she wants to. Appellant attended a marriage and after returning home, he noticed that deceased committed suicide by hanging. On inquiring accused 2, she revealed at her house about her illegal inticmacy with appellant.
21.According to Pw6 Professor and Head of the Department of
Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Nizamabad, on 25.02.2019 he conducted autopsy of the deceased and issued Ex.P6
Post Mortem Examination report. He found Antemortem ligature mark on front of the neck. Thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone was 16 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 intact. There were no other injuries. He collected viscera and sent it to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for opinion. Post reciept of Ex.P7/FSL report, he issued Ex.P8/final opinion report stating that the deceased died due to asphyxia, due to hanging about 12 to 24 hours prior to his examination.
22.The investigation officer stated about the registration of FIR by the Inspector of Police, recording of statements of prosecution witnesses, conducting the scene of offence panchanama, seizure of
MO.1/Saree, conducting inquest panchanama, apprehending the appellant and recording the confession statments of appellant and accused 2 in the presence of mediators, effecting the arrest of appellant and post obtaining Ex.P6 to Ex.P8, laying the chargesheet.
23.What emerges from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses is that Pw1 is the crucial witness to the case of the prosecution who set the law into motion by lodging Ex.P1 report and the case of the prosecution substatially rests upon the evidence of Pw1 to Pw3 coupled with Ex.P3. At the outset, prosecution has proved the death of deceased by relying upon Ex.P5 inquest report and Ex.P6 PME 17 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 report. PW7 post registration of FIR, visited the scene of offence and conducted inquest panchnama at Government Hospital, Bodhan over the corpse of the deceased in the presence of Pw4 and one
Anantha Sharada. The evidence of Pw1 to Pw3 in respect of death of deceased by hanging is amply corroborated by the evidence of Pw6 doctor. As per Ex.P8 final opinion report, deceased died due to asphyxia due to hanging about 12 to 24 hours prior to the examination of PW6. Ex.P6 to Ex.P8 remained uncontroverted.
Though the defence tried to elicit the contradictions with regard to the place and time of inquest panchnama, this court opines that the said contradictions are not sufficient to discredit the testimony of
Pw4.
24.A cumulative perusal of the testimonies of Pw1 to Pw3, suggests that deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself unable to bear the demand of dowry by the appellant and primarily due to his developing illicit intimacy with accused 2 thereby neglecting the deceased which reuslted in their marital discord.
According to Pw1, upon inquring her grand son as to what transpired 18 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 prior to the death of deceased is that as the deceased didn't attend the marriage of Appellant's brother, he picked up an altercation and beat her twice on 24.02.2019 which has driven the deceased to commit suicide and thus, the act of the appellant consitute abetment and instigation for the deceased to commit suicide.
25. Now adverting to Ex.P3 the understanding letter which is undated suggests that appellant executed it wherein he admits his extra-marital relationship with another woman and he promises to leave the society of the said woman. He further assures to take care of the welfare of deceased and her children. One K. Raju, K.
Gangadhar, D. Balu, A. Vittal and Pw1 are said to have witnessed and signed on Ex.P3.
26.Apt it is to advert to the plea of defence and contentions raised by defence. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contends that none of the witnesses spoke about any act of the appellant which constitute cruelty as contemplated under section 498 A IPC, therefore, the prosectuion failed to prove the charges levelled against him. It is further contended that as there is 19 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 no evidence on record adduced by the prosecution establishing either harassment or demand for additional dowry by the appellant and that the appellant herein is in no way responsible for abetting the suicide committed by the deceased which was purely an independent act of her and since there was no such participation of the appellant in abetting the offence of suicide, the conviction and sentence under Section 498 A and 306 IPC is required to be set aside.
27.That apart, it is specifically contended that the evidence of
PW1 to PW3 cannot be relied upon as their evidence is hearsay and they are interested witnesses. It is the settled position of law that in cases of cruelty by the husband or the relatives, the chances of witnessing the cruelty by eye witnesses is meak and even if there are eye witnesses they may or may not corroborate the prosecution version. Learned counsel for appellant contended that even Pw7 categorically admitted during his cross examination that he failed to examine the neighbours of appellant and deceased. Even assuming that the neighbours are examined, the probability of them deposing 20 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 in favour of Pw1 are bleak, as any prudent person cannot be expected to disclose any altercation occurred within the confines of any house. However, in the case at hand, the factum of cruelty suffered by deceased was testified by Pw1 and Pw2. What emerges from their evidence is that disputes cropped up between appellant and deceased with regard to the illegal intimacy of appellant with accused 2, resultantly appellant neglected deceased and harrased her which was informed to Pw1 by the deceased. Subsequently, in the panchayat, appellant admitted his illegal intimacy and promised to look after the deceased and her children. Thus, it is comprehendible as per the evidence of Pw1 that even after holding the panchayat, appellant didn't mend his attitude and continued illegal intimacy with accused 2 which might have caused agony to the deceased, as a consequence of which an altercation took place between appellant and deceased on 24.02.2019, the date of the fateful incident.
28.To further substantiate the aforementioned contention, defence highlighted the omissions which crept in the evidence of 21 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04
Pw1. However, Pw1 denied the suggestions put to her that she omitted to state before the police that her daughter informed her that they are residing at Bodhan and are blessed with two children, that after she started visiting the house of her daughter, appellant stated harrassing the deceased demanding dowry, that as on the date of incident, her grandson was aged 7 years and deceased informed her that about 6 months prior to the incident A1 developed illegal intimacy with accused 2 and that on 08.08.2018 a panchayat was held at the house of appellant vis-a-vis his illegal intimacy with accused 2 and in the said panchayat appellant admitted his guilt. As per the defence, all the aforementioned are the omissions in the testimony of Pw1. These omissions, the court considers, as mentioned by the defence, would not result in totally discrediting the witness.
29.Pw1 was cross examined at length by defence but nothing has come out in the cross examination, except minor discrepancies. She categorically admitted during cross examination that the signature of one Vittal who acted as one of the panchayat elder does not 22 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 appear on Ex.P3. The defence could establish during her cross examination that her husband had Ac 05.20 Gts of land and she got
Ac 01.10 Gts of land and Lw2/Ravi Kiran who is her stepson got Ac 02.30 Gts of land and out of the said extent of her land, the deceased got Ac 01.20 Gts which was mutated in the revenue records under Ex.P2.
30.Be that as it may, the plea set up by the defence is that on 24.02.2019, the date of occurrence of the incident, the deceased along with her son Hanish came to the house of Pw1 where Pw1 abused deceased for marrying appellant and necked her out of the house and unable to take her words, deceased went into depression and committed suicide. Except suggesting Pw1 on this aspect, defence utterly failed to produce any sort of evidence to substantiate this plea. Hence, the contention of the defence that
Pw1 by her words has driven the deceased to commit suicide remains dislodged.
31.Now, it is pertinent to advert to the testimony of Dw1 by whose evidence, defence made a thwarted endeavour to disprove the 23 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 prosecution version. Dw1 is none other than the son of appellant and deceased and the grand son of Pw1. He is aged 12 years.
According to him, on 24.02.2019, he along with the deceased visited the house of PW1. They left Bodhan at 5.00 Pm to Pw1's house and reached at 5.30 Pm. Pw1 scolded deceased for marrying a schedule caste boy, abused her and sent them away from her house. They left the house of Pw1 at 7.00 Pm and reached their house at 8.00Pm.
Deceased was weeping and went upstairs and slept and he slept in the ground floor. At about 1.30 Am appellant came home and inquired about deceased, then he replied that she was upstairs. He along with appellant went upstairs and on peeping from the door they found deceased hanging to the ceiling. Appellant cried holding the deceased and he also cried. He further testified that on the fateful day, appellant did not state anything to deceased. During his cross examination by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he stated that post the death of deceased he was residing with his paternal grand father and as on the date he was residing with him. The boy admitted that as he was residing with his grandfather, he should 24 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 listen to him and oblige his words. Learned APP in order to discredit the testimony of DW1, suggested that in his school, in order to read any subject, he ought to prepare thoroughly, to which the boy admitted to be true. However, he denied the suggestion that he was made to practice his evdience by his grand father and appellant.
32.Learned counsel for appellant strenuously contended that the learned trial court discarded the evidence of DW1 which mars the entire case of the prosecution. It is trite law that there is no strict rule about the level of intelligence and knowledge required for a child to be considered a competent witness. At this juncture, the court relies upon the judgment rendered in State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Balveer Singh reported in 2025 INSC 261 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "while child witness testimony can form the sole basis for conviction, courts generally seek corroborative evidence to ensure reliability." It was further observed that "Child witnesss are susceptible to influence. Courts must carefully assess whether the testimony is spontaneous or manipulated." The ruling in the aforementioned case underscores 25 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 the complexity of child witness testimony and the need for careful judicial scrutiny.
33.In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare .Vs. State of Maharashtra reproted in (1997) 5 SCC 341, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that " A child witness, if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable, such evidence could be the basis of conviction. The only precaution courts should bear in mind is that the witness must be reliable and there should be no likelihood of tutoring." Conversely, in the case at hand, the defence produced the child witness DW1 to disprove the occurrence of any altercation between appellant and deceased on 24.02.2019 and in order to manifest that due to the harrassment and abusive words of PW1 on the said date, the deceased committed suicide.
34.Basing on the principles promulgated in the authorites mentioned supra, it is incumbant upon this court to scrutinize the evidence of DW1 before placing reliance. As rightly observed by the learned trial court, DW1 testified with absolute consistency regarding the exact time of leaving the house, reaching the house of 26 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04
PW1 and returning home on 24.02.2019 which creates suspicion about his credibility, as any boy who is aged 6 to 7 years(at the time of occurrence of the incident) is not expected to recollect the exact time and events with precision unless tutored. Moreover, as per
DW1, when he along with deceased went to the house of PW1, there
PW1 abused and scolded deceased that she married schedule caste boy. It is discernible from his evidence that he was perfectly tutored, as it cannot be expected from a boy of his age to speak consistently on the aspect of caste and allied aspects. For the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of DW1 needs to be jettisoned and does not come to rescue the appellant.
35.Learned Counsel for appellant relied upon the ratio and the observations made in the judgments referred hereinbelow:
i) Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana in INSC 149 of 2024 wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “in the absence of any cogent evidence of harassment or cruelty, an accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under section 306 of IPC by raising presumption under section 113A.” ii) M. Mohan Vs. State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1238 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the charges under 27 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 section 306 IPC against the appellant and discussed about the excercise of power under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
iii) Learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment rendered in Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka in 2024 INSC 156, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para No.39 as under:
“39. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan (supra), this Court observed that abetment would involve a mental process of (2020) 15 SCC 359 instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Delineating the intention of the legislature and having regard to the ratio of the cases decided by this Court, it was concluded that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It would also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of the accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” iv) Further he relied upon judgment rendered in Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 1249 wherein learned counsel highlited para 22 which is extracted hereunder:
“22. It could thus be seen, that it is well-settled that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under the same roof and being the last person seen with the deceased. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof would lie upon the accused”.
28 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04
v) In Nazir Ahmad Dar and Others Vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Others dated 31-05-2024 Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar held in para 21 as extracted hereunder:
21) “In order to show that a person has abetted the commission of an offence, his intention must be visible. There must be something on record to establish or to show that the accused had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, he abetted the suicide of the deceased.” vi) In Smt. Prema and Another Vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2013 dated 04-11-2024, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru relied uopn the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State reported in 2011 (3) SCC 626 has observed as under:
“44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.” “45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It is also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.” vii)Learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs. State of Gujarat reported in Criminal Appeal No.811 of 2004 dated 09-09-2013, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “mental cruelty varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and degree of endurance, some may 29 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 meet with courage and some others suffer in silence, to some it may be unberable and a weak person may think of ending one’s life.”
36.Perused the aforementioned judgments. The prepositions of law laid down in the aforementioned judgments are inapposite and distinguishable to the factual matrix of the case on hand.
37.The contention of learned counsel for appellant that the prosecution failed to prove abetment and the case of the prosecution as alleged against appellant does not fall within the ambit of Section 306 IPC is deviod of merits. Though learned counsel contends that if the husband gets involved in extra-marital relationship with another woman, that may not constitute cruelty so as to drive a woman to commit suicide. In the case at hand, prosecution through the evidence of PW1 to Pw3 coupled with Ex.P3 established that factum of appellant developing illegal intimacy with accused 2. Panchayat being held vis-a-vis the appellant's extra- marital affair and in the panchayat though, he promised to leave the society of accused 2 and assured to look after the deceased, he failed to mend his attitude and continued his relationship with her.
30 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04
Ex.P3 remained uncontroverted. The trial court has rightly concluded that appellant while continuing his extra marital affair with accused 2, has picked up an altercation with deceased which instigated the deceased to drive her to commit suicide and it cannot be said that there is only a solitary instance to connect the appellant with the death of the deceased. Hence, there is no reason to discard the evidence of the prosecution witnesses more particularly Pw.1 to Pw.3 regarding the harassment meted by the deceased. Moreover, though the defense introduced Dw.1 to disprove the case of the prosecution, it failed in its attempt in toto.
38.With regard to the involment of accused 2, although she is found to have illegal intimacy with the appellant, prosecution failed to prove her active role in the death of the deceased. There is no material on record to demonstrate that she is the relative of deceased, so as to fall under the purview of Section 498-A IPC.
Hence, this court cannot take a different view against the view of the trial court. From the foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered view that prosecution has established the guilt of the 31 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04 appellant/accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered in the affirmative.
39.Point No.2:-
Perused the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court.
Though the charges for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 306 IPC were framed by the trial Court against Appellant and accused 2, it has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 498-A and 306 IPC and acquitted accused
2. Hence, this court is of the view that there is no legal or factual infirmity in the Judgment under appeal warranting interference.
Further having regard to the nature of offences proved against the appellant, the Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence imposed by the trial court against the appellant is reasonable.
Therefore, the Court is not inclined to interfere even with the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the appellant/accused 1.
32 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023
DATED 08
2026 in Sessions Case No.266 of 2022 04
40.In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment
dated 28-03-2023 in SC No.266 of 2022 passed by the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Bodhan. The remand period if any undergone by the appellant/accused 1 shall be given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. Appellant/accused 1 shall be committed to the prison to serve out the remaining sentence of imprisonment.
(Partly typed by me on my personal laptop and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade.I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08 th day of April, 2026).
V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BODHAN // Appendix of evidence // --Nil--
V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BODHAN 33 of 33 V ADJ Bodhan