Page 1 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT
SESSIONS JUDGE AT SANGAREDDY
Present: Smt. B. Deepti,
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,
Sangareddy.
Thursday, on this 30th day of April, 2026
Sessions Case No. 379 of 2021
1.Name of the ::The State through complainant P.S. Pulkal.
2. Name of the accused :: A-1: Thalari Sudhakar s/o Anthaiah, age: 36 yrs, caste: SC mala. Occ: coolie. R/o S.ltikyal village. Pulkal Mandal of Sangareddy District
A2. Thalari Krishna s/o Anthaiah, age: 41 yrs, caste. SC(Mala) occ. Coolie. R/o S.Itikyal village. Pulkal Mandal of Sarigareddy District
A3. Bhagamma w/o Anthaiah age: 60 yrs, caste. SC(Mala). occ. Coolie. R/o S.Itikyal village. Pulkal Mandal of Sangareddy District.
A4. Thalari Prameela w/o Krishna, aged 35 yrs. caste. SC(Mala) occ. Coolie R/o S. Itikyal village. Pulkal Mandal. Sangareddy dist
3.Section of Law:: 306 and 498-A r/w. 34of IPC
4.Cr.No., and P.S.::138/2019, PS Pulkal
5.P.R.C. No.::24/2021
6.Name of the ::Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Officer, who Andole at Jogipet. committed the case
Page 2 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
7Prosecution ::Sri.C. Laxmi Narsimha Reddy, conducted byLearned Addl. Public Prosecutor
Sri. R. Srinivas, Advocate
8.Defence :: conducted by
9.Plea of the ::Not guilty accused
10. Finding of Court::Not guilty
In the result, the accused Nos.1 to
11. Result:: 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Section 498-A, 306 r/w. 34 of IPC.
Accordingly, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted Under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall continue to be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. from the date of this Judgment for preferring appeal to the higher Court against his Judgment by the prosecution or by the victim(s). The MO.1 vide
CPR No. 15/15/2025 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period through the committal court.
Page 3 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
This case is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri. C. Laxmi Narsimha Reddy,
Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution; Sri. R.
Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the accused; and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The State represented through the Sub
Inspector of Police, P.S. Pulkal laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Cr.No.138/2019 of P.S. Pulkal for the offences punishable Under Sections 306 and 498-A, r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2.A synoptical resume of the prosecution version is :
i.That Pw1/Defacto complainant lodged report with police written in telugu in which he stated that he has two sons and two daughters. His younger daughter
Talari Sukanya aged about 31 years had a love marriage with A1 10 years back. After marriage they led marital life for three years and out of the wedlock they had a daughter and a son aged about 8 years and 7 years
Page 4 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
respectively. Later the husband of his daughter i.e. A1,
A2 who is her brother-in-law and A3 who is her mother- in-law and A4 who is her co-sister-in-law harassed his deceased daughter mentally and physically demanding
additional dowry. It was further alleged that A1 to A4
had beaten his deceased daughter asking her to give
additional dowry and had driven the deceased out of
their house. In that regard a panchayath was held in the presence of village elders and they convinced the deceased and she was again sent to matrimonial home.
Thereafter, A1 to A4 again abused and had beaten the deceased. It was also alleged that A1 to A4 had harassed the deceased physically and mentally and in that regard a panchayath was held for the second time but A1 to A4 did not change their attitude and they continued to harass the deceased for additional dowry.
That unable to put up with the harassment vexed with her life the deceased committed by consuming pesticide in the house of A1 to A4 at about 12:00 hours seeking necessary action against the accused.
Page 5 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
ii.Basing on the report, PW8 registered a case in
Cr.No. 138/2019 U/Secs. 306, 498-A r/w. 34 IPC and issued FIR and took up the investigation. Then he examined and recorded statement of Pw1. Later on 24.12.2019, PW8 along with his PC No. 938 visited the mortuary of Government Hospital, Jogipet and where the dead body of deceased T.Sukanya W/o. Sudhakar was kept. At the Hospital he recorded statements of Pw2,
Pw3, Pw4 and Lw5/B. Shanthamma. On 24.12.2019 at 7:30 AM he recorded scene of offence panchanama and seizure panchanama in presence of Pw5 and Pw6. He seized empty poison bottle from the scene. Thereafter he handed over further investigation to PW9. On 02.01.2020
PW9 affected arrest of Accused No.1 to 4 at the house of
A1. Thereafter he had sent the accused for medical examination and he produced accused No.1 to 4 before
JFCM, Andole at Jogipet seeking Judicial custody. On 10.01.2020 he had sent the viscera of the deceased to
FSL. Thereafter he handed over investigation to
PW10/Naga Lakshmi. She collected FSL and thereafter she collected PME report and she deposited the case
Page 6 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
property vide CPR No. 273/15/2020 dated 19.09.2020.
After completion of the investigation she laid charge sheet.
3.Upon considering the material placed before the Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Andole at Jogipet took cognizance as per Section 190 (1)
(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offences punishable Under Sections 306, 498-A r/w. 34 Indian
Penal Code against the accused and the case was numbered as PRC 24/2021.
4.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 4
before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Andole at Jogipet, the copies of documents were furnished to them as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, the PRC No. 24/2021 was committed to the
Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Medak at
Sangareddy as per Sec.209 Cr.P.C.
5.On receipt of the case file, the Hon’ble Prl.
District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy took cognizance for the offences U/s 306, 498-A r/w. 34 IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 4 as per Sec.193 of Code of
Page 7 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
Criminal Procedure and the case was numbered as SC No.
379/2021 and the case was made over to this court for disposal as per law.
6.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 4 and on hearing the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 4 and upon considering the material, the accused was examined as per Section 228 Cr.P.C for the accusation for the offences punishable Under
Sections 306 and 498-A r/w.34 of IPC, for which they denied. Charges for the offences punishable Under
Sections 306 and 498-A r/w.34 of IPC were framed and read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 4 in
Telugu for which the accused No.1 to 4 denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.
7.For bringing home the guilt of the accused
No.1 to 4 the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 as
Prosecution Witnesses and exhibited Exs.P1 to P17 as documentary evidence and M.O.1 as material object.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE
PROSECUTION:
PW1 – K. Pochaiah is the informant and the father of the deceased.
Page 8 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
PW2 – K. Vinoda is the circumstantial witness and mother of the deceased.
PW3 – K. Anil Kumar is the circumstantial witness and elder brother of the deceased.
PW4 – K. Kiran Kumar is the circumstantial witness and younger brother of the deceased.
PW5 – T. Prakasham is the panch witness for Inquest.
PW6 – Begari Srinivas is the panch witness scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama.
PW7 – Dr. Shankar Babu is the medical officer who conducted autopsy of the deceased.
PW8 – Y. Malleshwar is the Investigating officer who conducted investigation.
PW9 – B. Pentaiah is the Investigating officer who conducted investigation.
PW10-B. Nagalakshmi in the Investigating officer who laid charge against the accused No.1 to 4.
The Prosecution gave up the evidence of LW5/B.
Shanthamma who is cited as a witness and LW6/K.
Pochamma who is cited as witness for inquest.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 is the report exhibited through PW1.
Exs.P2 to P5 are the the signature of PW5 on the Inquest panchanama exhibited through PW5.
Ex.P6 is the signature of PW6 on scene of offence
Page 9 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
panchanama-cum-seizure panchanama exhibited through PW6.
Ex.P7 is the signature of PW6 on the rough sketch exhibited through PW6. Exs.P8 to P11 are the the signature of PW6 on the Inquest panchanama exhibited through PW6.
Ex.P12 is the post mortem report exhibited through PW7.
Ex.P13 is the FIR exhibited through PW8. Ex.P14 is the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama exhibited through PW8.
Ex.P15 is the rough sketch exhibited through PW8.
Ex.P16 is the Inquest panchanama exhibited through
PW8.
Ex.P17 is the FSL Report exhibited through PW10.
MATERIAL OBJECT EXHIBITED BY THE
PROSECUTION
MO.1 is the poison bottle exhibited through PW8.
8.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C enabling them to explain personally the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the evidence and when the accused were called upon to enter their
Page 10 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
defence evidence, they reported no defence evidence on their side.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
AND DEFENCE:
9. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. The learned
Addl. PP submitted that the prosecution could establish the charges against the Accused as the witnesses had consistently testified that due to the harassment meted out by the accused the deceased was forced to commit suicide and the material on record would clinchingly establish that the accused had instigated and abetted the deceased to commit suicide due to their perpetual acts of harassment and as such the accused are required to be punished for the offences charged. The Learned Addl. P.P further argued that the essentials of Sec.498-A of IPC were also made out as the evidence would establish the cruelty and harassment towards the deceased.
10.In oppugnation the learned counsel for accused argued that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in as
Page 11 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
much as proving the essentials of the offence Under
Section 306 IPC are concerned. It was also argued that there is no persuasive evidence that there was incitement of suicide and when the ingredients are missing the accused cannot be hauled up for the offence charged and he further argued that the essentials of Sec.
498A IPC are not made out and the evidence on record would not prove the cruelty and harassment towards the deceased as alleged and the evidence on record is not persuasive in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt and thus he prayed the court to acquit the accused.
11.On rival contentions being made across the bar and on perusal of oral and documentary evidence on record the following points emerge for determination are :
(1) Whether the prosecution could prove that the
death of the deceased Talari Sukanya was suicidal
one beyond reasonable doubt?
(2) If the answer to the point no.1 is in affirmative
then whether the prosecution could prove that the
Page 12 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
accused had abetted the commission of such
suicide of the deceased Talari Sukanya ?
(3) Whether the prosecution could prove that the
accused Nos.1 to 4 had subjected the deceased
Talari Sukanya to cruelty and harassment and the
conduct of the accused No.1 to 4 drove the
deceased Talari Sukanya to commit suicide?
POINT NO.1 :
12.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case to prove the offence Under Section 306 IPC the prosecution is required to prove that the death of the deceased was suicidal and it was committed in consequence of the abetment by the accused.
13.The prosecution to prove that the death of the deceased was suicidal relied on Exs.P12, P16 and P17.
Ex.P12 is the Postmortem Examination report. Ex.P16 is the Inquest, Ex.p17 in the FSL report. In order to comply the statutory provision under Sec.174 Cr.P.C, PW8 had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased to know the apparent cause of the death as the deceased died otherwise than in natural circumstances. The inquest is used to know the apparent cause of the death of the
Page 13 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
deceased whether it is homicidal, suicidal or natural death.
14.The purpose of preparing an inquest had been succinctly discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Brahm Swaroop & Anr v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 280. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the whole purpose of preparing an inquest report under
Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to investigate into and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds as may be found on the body of the deceased and stating as in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument such wounds appear to have been inflicted. For the purpose of holding the inquest it is neither necessary nor obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to investigate into or ascertain who were the persons responsible for the death. The object of the proceedings Under Section 174
Cr.P.C. is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and, if so, what was its apparent cause. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the
Page 14 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery etc. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report. The inquest report cannot be treated as substantive evidence but may be utilized for contradicting the witnesses of inquest.
15. Thus it becomes clear that the scope of inquest is very limited and aimed at ascertaining the first apparent signs of the death.
16. As per Ex.P16, the panchas have opined that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison.
The contents of Postmortem examination under Ex.P12 would indicate that the deceased died due to consumption of organophosphate poisoning.
17.By virtue of Exs.P12, P16 and P17 the prosecution could unfold its case that the death of the deceased was due to suicide and there is no other evidence to show that the deceased died otherwise by committing suicide by hanging. Therefore the point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution.
POINTS NO. 2 & 3:
Page 15 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
18. Before determining the fulcrum of the cause, in the suitability of things it would be desirable to refer Sec.306 IPC and Sec.107 IPC 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.
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
Page 16 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
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.”
19.The essential ingredients of the offence under
Sec.306 IPC are (i) the abetment (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Sec.306
IPC.
20.The legal position as regards Section 306 IPC is succinctly discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh And Anr v. State Of Punjab., (2004) 13 SCC 129 as follows in paras 12:
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of
Page 17 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.”
21. In State of W.B v. Orilal Jaiswal., AIR 1994 SC 1418 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
Page 18 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
22.In the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797, the Hon;ble Supreme Court gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as follows in para 6:
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of
Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."
Page 19 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
[See also Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of
Gujarat.,(2009) 4 SCC 52]
23.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajesh v. State of Haryana., (2020) 15 SCC 359 relying on
Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal., (2010) 1
SCC 707 held that in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
24.InRamesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh., (2001) 9 SCC 318, a three judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while interpreting the term instigation and the ingredients of the abetment as set out under Section 107 IPC held that instigation is
Page 20 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
25.InChitresh Kumar chopra v. State
(Government of NCT of Delhi)., (2009) 16 SCC 605,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that to constitute “instigation”, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by “goading"”or “urging forward”. The dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates
Page 21 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
someone into action: provoke to action or reaction” (See:
Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts” (See: Oxford
Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition).
Similarly, “urge” means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to “goad” or “urge forward” the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an “instigation” may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or willful omission or
Page 22 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
26.As per the Section 107 IPC, a person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, 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 to Section 107 states that any willful misrepresentation or willful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of “abetment”. It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of
Page 23 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
suicide is essential to bring home the offence under
Section 306of the IPC.
27.The necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 306 IPC was considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in SS Chheena v. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan., (2010) 12 SCC 190. While explaining the concept of abetment it was observed that abetment involves a mental process of 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. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
28.In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2010) 8 SCC 628 while dealing with the
Page 24 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
provision of Sec.306 IPC and the meaning of abetment within the meaning of Sec.107 IPC, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India held in order to bring out an offence under
Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by
Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the concerned person as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC.
29.In Gurcharan Singh v. The State of
Punjab., (2020) 10 SCC 200, it was held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that as in all crimes,
mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea
Page 25 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous.
30.In Ude Singh v. The State of Haryana., (2019) 17 SCC 301, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and
Page 26 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
circumstances of each case. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self- esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than
Page 27 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased. Human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person’s reaction to any other human’s action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same.
31.On reading of the precedents discussed supra and considering the facts germane to the case of prosecution, now let us see whether the prosecution is
Page 28 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
successful in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
32.It is the case of the prosecution that accused were responsible for the death of the deceased as the deceased was harassed by them which ultimately forced the deceased to commit suicide and thus they are liable to be punished. The prosecution had examined PWs.1 to 10.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
33.PW1 is the father of the deceased. In his evidence he testified that he knew all the accused. He has four children, two daughters and two sons. The deceased was his youngest daughter. At about ten years back
Sukanya married A1. The marriage of A1 with Sukanya was a love marriage. Out of the wedlock A1 and Sukanya had two children. For ten years after marriage A1 and the deceased lead happy marital life. Thereafter disputes arose between deceased and A1 regarding dowry. A1 to
A4 had beaten the deceased and harassed the deceased for dowry and in that regard a Panchayat was conducted by village elders at his instance. After the above
Page 29 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
mentioned panchayat they had sent the deceased back to her matrimonial home and again A1 to A4 quarreled with the deceased demanding dowry unable to bear the harassment meted out in the hands of A1 to A4 the deceased consumed pesticides and died at her matrimonial home. In this regard he went to Police station and lodged report against A1 to A4. Ex.P1 is the report lodged by him with the police and the witness is confronted with the report and he admits and proves that it bears thumb impression. Police examined and recorded the statement.
34.In the cross examination PW1 testified that he did not know if the marriage of the deceased was performed on 28.10.2009 at TTD Kalayana Mandapam, owned by Government. He admitted that the deceased married A1 against his will. He admitted that as the deceased married against his will he had quarreled with
A1 to A4. I He admitted that immediately after marriage, he did not allow her deceased daughter to come to his house as she married against his will and thereafter he allowed her. He did not know if prior to the marriage A1
Page 30 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
had been working at Budhera Village and Narsapur and was not there at S. Itikyala. He admitted that for three years before the death of the deceased A1 had not resided at Shikvala village as he married the deceased against his will A1 feared him. He denied the suggestion that when A1 and the deceased came to their village to reside in their village he quarreled with him very often as they married against his will. He denied the suggestion that immediately before the death of the deceased he quarreled with deceased and pour Kerosene over to set her ablaze. He denied the suggestion that before the death of deceased his wife and himself quarreled with deceased and held a Panchayath and in the Panchayath his wife snapped the Pustulu Tadu of the deceased. The witness adds in that panchayath A1, A2 and A4 had beaten him and then the deceased took out her pustulu
Tadu and had thrown it away in rage and when her wife took it from the soil. He denied the suggestion that the deceased on her own accord threw the Mangal Sutram and his wife had not snatched it. He admitted that in 161
Cr.PC statement he had not stated that he snatched the
Page 31 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
Mangal Sutram of the deceased. He admitted that he knew the children of the deceased are with A1. He admitted that A1 is incurring the expenditure for the education of their children. He admitted that for the welfare of the children A1 did not remarry. He admitted that last rites of the deceased were performed by A1. Al had two brothers. He admitted that in the year 2017 A1 and his brothers had partitioned their ancestral properties and since then they are residing separately. He admitted that A3 resides at the house of her younger son. He admitted that A1 to A4's house is situated in front of his house. He denied the suggestion that as the deceased married against his will they constantly harassed her and unable to bear harassment the deceased committed suicide. He denied the suggestion that he had not stated in his 161 Cr.PC statement and in the report lodged with the police that A1 to A4 had beaten the deceased and harassed her for dowry. Some people were sent to him when he was working at his agriculture farm by the accused and those people informed him that the deceased died at the house of Accused. He admitted that
Page 32 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
in her examination in chief he did not say the quantum of amount demanded as additional dowry by the accused.
He admitted that he had not testified the date on which
Panchayath regarding issue of demand of additional dowry, by A1 to A4, was conducted at his instance. By the time of death of the deceased it was ten years since she was married to A1. The distance between his house and police station is about four Kilometers. He denied the suggestion that since the complaint is false complaint he took ten hours for lodging report with police and in the meantime he deliberated with many people to file a false complaint. He narrated the contents of the report with the police and they had reduced into writing however he did not know the contents that were written in the report as he is an illiterate. He had not written the report by himself but when he narrated the contents of the report police had reduced it into writing at his instance. He denied the suggestion that as he had abused the deceased she committed suicide. She denied the suggestion that A1 to A4 had never harassed the deceased in her lifetime.
Page 33 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
35.PW2 is the mother of the deceased and in her evidence she testified that Pw1 is her husband. The deceased is her daughter, she knew all the accused. She has four children, two daughters and two sons. The deceased is her younger daughter. A1 married her deceased daughter Sukanya, her husband and she did not perform the marriage. Al is her villager. For about ten years after marriage Al and the deceased lead happy marital life. After children were born to the deceased and
A1, A1 started quarreling with the deceased for dowry. A1 to A4 quarreled with the deceased demanding her dowry.
She did not know what had happened thereafter but the deceased committed suicide when all their caste people went to the house of A1 to A4 she had come to know about the death of the deceased and then she went to the house of A1 to A4. Then Pw1 lodged report with the
Police. Police had examined and recorded her statement.
36.In the cross examination PW2 testified that in her 161 CrPC statement she did not state that after the children were born to A1 and deceased A1 started harassing the deceased. She denied the suggestion that
Page 34 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
A1 to A4 had not harassed the deceased for dowry. She denied the suggestion that since her deceased daughter had married A1 against her will PW1 lodged a false report against A1 to A4.
37.PW3 is the brother of the deceased and in his evidence he testified that PW1 is his father, Pw2 is his mother. His parents have four children, two daughters and two sons. The deceased is the youngest daughter of his parents. He knew all accused. A1 had love marriage with the deceased Sukanya. For three years after marriage A1 and deceased lead happy marital life and had two children out of the wedlock. Till children were born to A1 and deceased. A1 took proper care of the deceased and thereafter A1 used to beat the deceased for dowry. A1 to A4 harassed the deceased mentally and physically demanding dowry unable to put up with the harassment the deceased committed suicide consuming pesticide. Then PW1 went to Pulkal police station and lodge report against the accused. Police had recorded his statement at Jogipet Hospital.
38.In the cross examination PW3 testified that he
Page 35 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
is a coolie. He denied the suggestion that A1 to A4 had not harrassed the deceased mentally and physically. He denied the suggestion that A1 to A4 had not demanded dowry much less additional dowry. He denied the suggestion that A1 had never quarreled with the deceased for dowry. He denied the suggestion that since the deceased married against their will they lodged a false report against the accused. He denied the suggestion that the deceased married against their will and when she had come to their village to reside his father, his mother and himself quarreled with the deceased frequently and unable to put up with harassment meted out in the hands of his father, his mother and himself deceased committed suicide.
39.PW4 is the brother of the deceased and testified that PW1 is his father, PW2 is his mother, PW3 is his brother. He knew the accused. His parents have four children two daughters and two sons. The deceased married A1 and eight years before the death of deceased she married A1 and her marriage was a love marriage.
Out of the wedlock the deceased and A1 had two children
Page 36 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
a boy and girl. Till the birth of children A1 had properly taken care of the deceased and thereafter he started harassment the deceased for dowry. As A1 used to harass the deceased for dowry they held panchayath two times in the presence of the village elders and during the panchayath A1 gave assurance that he would look after the deceased properly and would not demand dowry. All the accused even after panchayath continued to harass the deceased for dowry unable to put up with the harassment the deceased consumed pesticide and died in the house of accused. After the death of deceased his father lodged report with police. Police examined and recorded his statement.
40.In the cross examination PW4 testified that after the death of the deceased somebody had informed him about the death of his deceased sister and at that time he was working at an agriculture field. He denied the suggestion that he had not stated in his 161 Cr.PC statement that after the birth of children A1 started harassing the deceased for dowry. He did not remember the date on which the first panchayath was conducted
Page 37 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
and the names of the villagers who participated in the panchayath. He also did not remember the date of second panchayath and the names of the village elders who had participated in the panchayath. Panchavath was held after the birth of children of Al and the deceased.
The village elders who participated in the panchayath are from his village. He denied the suggestion that no panchayath was held by the village elders and therefore he is not able to disclose the names of the elders who had held the panchayath. He admitted that his deceased sister married A1 against the will of the family. He denied the suggestion that as the deceased married against the will of his parents after marriage when she had come to their village they abused her verbally. He admitted that the house of the accused situated in front of their house.
He denied the suggestion that they used to taunt the deceased that she went against the will of the family and married the accused and therefore she lodged a report in the regard with police and then police had called them and reprimanded them not to harass the deceased. He denied the suggestion that once his mother, his father
Page 38 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
and he had even snapped the mangal sutra from the neck of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that A1 had never demanded dowry from the deceased and never harassed her for dowry. He denied the suggestion that A1 to A4 had never harassed the deceased for additional dowry.
41. PW5 who is the panch for inquest had stated that at about 6 years back police Pulkal called him to
Police Station and obtained his signature on blank papers.
Then the witness is confronted with inquest panchanama and he admits that the panchanama bears his signature vide Exs.P2 to P5. Exs.P2 to P5 are the signature of PW5 on the inquest panchanama.
42.PW6 who is the panchayathdar for scene of offence and seizure panchanama had stated that at about five years back SI of police Pulkal called him to the house of deceased/Sukanya and had told him that they are conducting panchanama and had obtained his signatures on blank papers and when the witness was confronted with the scene of offence panchanama-cum-seizure panchanama he admitted that the panchanama bears his
Page 39 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
signature vide Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. Ex.P6 is his signature on scene of offence panchanama-cum-seizure panchanama and Ex.P7 is the signature of PW6 on the rough sketch.
Nothing was seized in his prence by the Police. He also admitted that the inquest panchanama bears his signature vide Exs.P8, P9, P10, P11.
43.PWs.5 and 6 were declared antagonistic to the case of prosecution and when they were examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as per Section 154 of
Indian Evidence Act r/w. Sec. 162 Proviso of Cr.P.C nothing could be elicited in favour of prosecution from them.
44.PW7 who is the Doctor had stated that on 24.12.2019 at 12 PM he received requisition from Pulkal
PS and then had conducted autopsy over the dead body of one female aged about 31 years namely Sukanya. The visceral contents were sent to forensic Lab he received the report on 13.04.2020 as per the report of FSL the cause of death of Sukanya was due to consumption of
Organophosphate poison. No external injuries were found on the person of the deceased at the time of recording
Post mortem of the deceased. Ex.P12 is the post mortem
Page 40 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
report.
45.PW7 in the cross examination stated that the counsel for the accused reported no cross examination.
46.PW8 is the investigating officer and in his chief examination he had reiterated the facts as narrated in the charge sheet. Thus chronicle of those facts over again would become superfluous.
47.In the course of his cross examination, PW8 denied the suggestion that the accused and the pw1 had disputes at the time of negotiations for marriage. He admitted that marriage of the deceased was a love marriage. He denied the suggestion that PW1 to Pw3 were against the marriage of the deceased and A1. He admitted that prior to the death of the deceased counseling was given to the deceased. Witness adds that the counseling is Regarding dowry issue. He had not examined and recorded the statement of children of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that after marriage of the deceased with A1 the deceased led happy marital life for ten years. Witness adds that the deceased led
Page 41 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
happy marital life for three years. He denied the suggestion that after the deceased had a love marriage with A1, she was not allowed by her parents i.e. Pw1 to
PW3 to visit their house. He denied the suggestion that as the deceased performed love marriage against the will of PW1 to Pw3, PW1 to PW3 had snatched away Mangal
Sutra during a counseling at Police station . He did not know if A1 and the deceased had a marriage in government sponsored marriages at Dharmalagnam
Jogipet. He admitted that Pw1 to Pw3 had not stated that at the time of marriage, dowry was given to A1. He had not examined any village elders in connection with the case. He denied the suggestion that he had implicated A1 to A3 by suppressing material facts. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted any panchanama.
He denied the suggestion that he have not been to the scene of offence and he had not recorded statements and his investigation is perfunctory. He denied the suggestion that he had not recorded statements of Lw4/K. Kiran
Kumar, Lw5/Shanthamma. The distance between the scene of offence village and police station is about seven
Page 42 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
kilometers and it would take half an hour to reach police station from scene of offence village. He admitted that there is delay of nine hours in lodgment of report with the police. He admitted that in Ex.P8 he had not mentioned the reason for the delay for the lodgment of report with police. He admitted that in Column No. 14 in Ex.P8 he had not obtained the signature of the complainant in the FIR in the column meant for the signature of the complainant.
He denied the suggestion that accused was not responsible for the death of the deceased and they had never harassed the deceased. He denied the suggestion that due to harassment of PW1 Pw3, who were against the love marriage of the deceased, the deceased committed suicide. He denied the suggestion that purposefully he did not examine the children of the deceased as a examination of the children will bring to light the actual truth. He denied the suggestion that the children of the deceased are in 8th standard and 9th standard at the time of incident. Witness adds that they are quite young at the time of incident aged about seven to eight years. He denied the suggestion that at the time
Page 43 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
of occurrence A1 was at his work. He denied the suggestion that the brother of A1 had separate families from A1. He denied the suggestion that A1 to A4 are implicated in the instant case.
48. PW9 who is the 2nd Investigating Officer and in his chief examination he had reiterated the facts as narrated in the charge sheet. Thus chronicle of those facts over again would become superfluous.
49.PW9 testified that on 02.01.2020 he affected arrest of Accused No.1 to 4 at the house A1. Thereafter he had sent the accused for medical examination and he produce accused No.1 to 4 before JFCM, Andole at Jogipet seeking Judicial custody. On 10.01.2020 he had sent the viscera of the deceased to FSL. Thereafter handed over investigation to Lw12/D.Nagalaxmi, Sub Inspector of
Police.
50.In the course of his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not done any investigation and his investigation is perfunctory. He denied the suggestion that he implicated the accused. He denied the suggestion that the accused are no way
Page 44 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
concerned with the offence.
51.PW10 is the investigating officer and in his chief examination he had reiterated the facts as narrated in the charge sheet. Thus chronicle of those facts over again would become superfluous.
52.In the course of his cross examination, PW10 testified that he collected FSL report. Ex.P16 the FSL report and thereafter he collected PME report vide Ex.P12 already marked. He deposited the case property vide CPR number 273/15/2020 dated: 19.09.2020. After completion of the investigation laid charge Sheet
53.In the cross examination of PW10, he testified that the marriage of deceased with Al was a love marriage. He did not know if the marriage was performed as a part of samuhika marriages performed by
Government. He did not know if the marriage of the deceased was performed against the approval of her parents. He did not know if due to the above disapproval the parents of the deceased and the deceased stopped visiting each others house. He denied the suggestion that, as the parents of the deceased were against the
Page 45 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
marriage of the deceased with A1, they even snatched away Mangalasutra from the person of the deceased. He had not examined the children of the deceased since they are very young. The age of the children are 7 years and 8 years respectively. By the time he assumed charge, the investigation was completed substantially and therefore, he have not recorded statements of neighbors. Already statement of two neighbours are recorded therefore he did not record the statements of other neighbours. He denied the suggestion that at the time of death of deceased childrens’ were aged about 11 years and 9 years respectivelHe denied the suggestion that as the children and neighbors would reveal the truth purposefully he had not examined them. He had not examined the panchayath elders. He denied the suggestion that investigation conducted by earlier I.O.
was not on proper lines and he did not properly conduct the investigation and laid a false charge sheet.
54. Mere harassment is not enough for bringing home the offence U/Sec. 306 IPC. In case of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or
Page 46 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
Mere fact that the accused had treated the deceased with cruelty or harassment is not enough. Merely on the allegation of the harassment to the deceased the accused cannot be convicted (See., Sohan Raj v. State., 2008
Cr.LJ 2569 ( SC), Mahendra Singh v. State., 1996
Crl.L.J 894 (SC)).
55. Every harassment does not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Sec. 498-A IPC. For the purpose of
Sec. 498-A IPC harassment simpliciter is not cruelty. That proof of willful conduct actuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical is sine-qua-non for entering a finding of cruelty against the accused person.
56.The Hon'ble Apex Court between State of
A.P. v. M.Madusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582 held that every harassment does not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Sec.498- A IPC. For the purpose of
Sec.498-A IPC harassment simpliciter is not cruelty and it is only when the harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related
Page 47 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc that it amounts to cruelty punishable under Sec.498-A IPC.
The Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.11 of the judgment observed as follows:
“11.Thus, providing a new dimension to the concept of "cruelty", clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A
I.P.C. postulates that any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide would constitute "cruelty". Such wilful conduct, which is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman would also amount to "cruelty". Clause (b) of the Explanation provides that 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, would also constitute "cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. It is plain that as per clause (b) of the Explanation, which, according to learned counsel for the State, is attracted in the instant case, every harassment does not amount to "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 498-A I.P.C.
The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be
Page 48 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
with a definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand. In other words, for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C.
harassment simpliciter is not "cruelty" and it is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc., that it amounts to "cruelty" punishable under Section 498-A
I.P.C”
57.The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433 held that proof of the willful conduct actuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical is the sine qua non for entering a finding of cruelty against the accused person.
58.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Bhaskar Lal Sharma v. Monika, (2009) 10 SCC 604
held that the allegations of harassment should be of such a nature and extent so as to coerce the wife to meet any unlawful demand of dowry or any other unlawful conduct on part of the accused of a nature which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
Page 49 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
danger to life, limb or health.
59.The Hon’ble Supreme court of India in State
of Uttar Pradesh v. Santosh Kumar and Others,
(2009) 9 SCC 626 analyzed the essential ingredients of
Sec.498A IPC. It held as follows:
"The following are the essential ingredients of Section 498-A
IPC: Essentials
(i)That there was a married woman;
(ii)That such woman was subjected to cruelty;
(iii)That such cruelty consisted of any willful conduct of such nature as was likely to drive such woman - to commit suicide, or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical; ha- rassment of such woman where such harassment was - with a view to coercing such woman or any person re- lated to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, or on account of failure by such woman, or any person related to her to meet the unlawful demand in able and the woman was sub- jected to such cruelty by - the husband of that woman; or any relative of the husband of that woman."
Page 50 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
60.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Manju
Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330
observed at Para No.21 as follows:
”Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to be established in the context of Sec.498-A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” to attract the provisions of
Sec.498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty”.
61.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Raj
Rani v. State (Delhi Administration)., (2000) 10 SCC
662 held that while considering the case of cruelty in the context of the provisions of Sec.498-A IPC, the court must examine that allegations/accusations must be of a very grave nature and should be proved beyond reasonable
Page 51 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
doubt.
62.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Giridhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra.,
(2002) 5 SCC 177 held that “cruelty” has to be understood having a specific statutory meaning provided in Sec.498-A IPC and there should be a case of continuous state of affairs of torture by one to another.
63.It is the duty of the prosecution to bring out the essentials of Sec.498-A IPC as defined in the section and the explanation appended to the section. On the glance of the definition of Sec.498-A IPC and the explanation attached to Sec.498-A IPC which defines cruelty the word “unlawful demand” is used. In order to prove the offence u/Sec.498-A IPC there must be an unlawful demand. What is unlawful demand has not been defined in IPC. Black’s Law dictionary defines the word “unlawful” as that which is contrary to law. “unlawful” and “illegal” are frequently used as synonymous terms, but in the proper sense of the word, “unlawful”, as applied to promises, agreements, considerations and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they
Page 52 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
involve acts which, although not illegal, i.e., positively forbidden are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights.
64.It is well settled proposition of law that the prosecution has to prove and establish that the accused had committed the acts of harassment or cruelty as contemplated in Sec.498-A IPC and such harassment or cruelty must be the cause forcing the wife to commit suicide. Solitary incident or couple of incidents cannot be interpreted to be the sufficient evidence of cruelty or harassment attracting the ingredients of Sec.498-A IPC unless the ingredients as envisaged in the section about the harassment or cruelty is proved. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the harassment was incessant, persistent and sufficiently grave in nature as is likely to drive the woman to a point of desperation leaving her with no option except to think about suicide. In this case there is no potent material brought on record by the prosecution in proving the fact that there was incessant and persistent harassment or cruelty. On careful scrutiny and evaluation of evidence on record taking into account
Page 53 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
the surrounding circumstances and probabilities, no persuasive evidence was brought on record by the prosecution in connecting the accused with the imputed crime.
65.In the case at hand there is no cogent evidence on record in establishing the willful conduct on the part of the accused actuating the deceased to commit suicide. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn is not fully established.
The circumstances are not conclusive in nature and tendency in the case at hand.
66.In State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh and Ors.,
AIR 1973 SC 2407., it was held that “A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give fight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the
Page 54 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.”
67.The criminal trial cannot be equated with a mock scene from a stunt film. The legal trial is conducted to ascertain the guilt of innocence of the accused arraigned. In arriving at a conclusion about the truth, the
Courts are required to adopt rational approach and judge the evidence by its intrinsic worth and the animus of the witnesses. The courts are not obliged to make efforts either to give latitude to the prosecution or loosely construe the law in favour of the accused.
68.One of the fundamental principles in Anglo-
Saxon Criminal Jurisprudence is that incontrovertibly the burden of proof precisely rests on the prosecution and it never shifts. There can be no gainsaying that conviction cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. It is also well settled principle that suspicion however grave cannot take the place of legal proof. The gravity of the offence cannot by itself over-weigh the legal proof. It is
Page 55 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
the duty of the prosecution to satisfy the Court that various circumstance in the chain of evidence are established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. The prosecution is expected to travel all the way from “may be true” to “must be true” to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable doubt, the accused is always entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. The golden rule that runs through the web of civilized criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged offence or offences. Presumption of innocence is a human right as envisaged under Article- 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights 1966. It envisages that every one charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Article-11(1) of Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 provides that every one charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the
Page 56 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
guarantees necessary for his defence.
69.In the instant case PW1 testified that after marriage for ten years A1 and the deceased led happy marital life thereafter, disputes arose between the deceased and A1 regarding dowry. PW1 did not name the quantum of dowry that was allegedly demanded by the accused No.1 to 4. Further more PW1 testified that a panchayath was held before the elders at his instance but he did not name any of the panchayath elders. PW1 in his cross examination testified that A1 has been incurring expenditure for education of his children. PW1 also admitted that for the welfare of the children A1 did not remarry. He further testified that the last rites of the deceased were performed by A1.
70.PW1, the father of the deceased, testified that the house of A1 to A4 is situated in front of their house.
He also testified that he did not mention the quantum of dowry demanded by the accused. He also testified that the distance between his house and Police Station is half kilometer and he filed the report in the instant case after 10 hours.
Page 57 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
71.PW2, mother of the deceased, testified that for about 10 years after marriage A1 and deceased led happy marital life and after children were born A1 started harassing the deceased for additional dowry. The version of PW2 and PW1 are mutually contradictory. He testified that A1 to A4 quarreled with the deceased demanding dowry and he did not know what had happened thereafter.
72.PW3, the brother of the deceased, testified that till the children were born A1 and the deceased led happy marital life and A1 took proper care of the deceased and thereafter A1 used to beat the deceased for dowry. He testified that A1 to A4 harassed the deceased mentally and unable to put up with the harassment deceased committed suicide by consuming poison.
73.PW4, the brother of the deceased, testified that till the birth of children A1 had taken proper care of the deceased and thereafter, started harassing the deceased for dowry. It was also testified that a panchayath was held by the village elders and during the
Page 58 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
panchayath A1 had given assurance that he would look after the deceased properly and would not demand
additional dowry. On perusal of evidence of material
prosecution witnesses I am of the considered opinion that the statements of PW1 to PW4 regarding harassment of the deceased lack details and are omnibus. Mere harassment and such issues between the wife and her husband along with in-laws do not create a scenario where the deceased wife was left with no other option other than to end her life. The essential ingredient of mensrea to instigate the suicide of the deceased person was absent. Not every kind of harassment would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC.
Cruelty simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence rather it must be done either with intention to cause grave injury or to drive her to commit suicide or with intention to coerce her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands. PW1 in his chief examination testified that the deceased was married to A1 at about 10 years back and he testified that for 10 years after marriage A1 had looked after the deceased properly. PW2 testified that A1
Page 59 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
to A4 quarreled with the deceased demanding dowry and he she did not know what had happened thereafter. PW3 testified that till the birth of the children A1 took proper care of the deceased and thereafter started harassing her. PW4 testified that till birth of children A1 had properly taken care of the deceased and thereafter he started harassing the deceased for dowry. I am of the considered opinion that the testimonies of PW1 to PW4 are mutually contradictory and are omnibus. Further more the prosecution failed to prove that the accused
No.1 to 4 instigated or goaded or suggested or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide and therefore the prosecution failed to prove the offences
Under Section 498-A and 306 r/w. 34 of IPC.
74.On atomistic cerebration of the evidence and the material placed before the Court, I am of the view that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the discussion the Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered against the prosecution.
RESULT
Page 60 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
75.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Section 498-
A, 306 r/w. 34 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted Under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall continue to be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. from the date of this Judgment for preferring appeal to the higher
Court against his Judgment by the prosecution or by the victim(s). The MO.1 vide CPR No. 15/15/2025 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period through the committal court.
Typed to my dictation by Grade-II Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of April, 2026.
SD/-
ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
SANGAREDDY.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1 - K. Pochaiah PW2 – K. Vinoda PW3 – K. Anil Kumar PW4 – K. Kiran Kumar PW5 – T. Prakasham PW6 – Begari Srinivas PW7 – Dr. Shankar Babu. PW8 – Y. Malleshwar PW9 – B. Pentaiah.
Page 61 of 61
Judgment dt. 30.04.2026 in S.C. No. 379 of 2021 of ASJ, Sangareddy.
PW10- B. Nagalakshmi. FOR DEFENCE:
- NONE-
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1: Report exhibited through PW1.
Exs.P2 to P5 are the the signature of PW5 on the Inquest panchanama exhibited through PW5.
Ex.P6:Signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama- cum-seizure panchanama exhibited through PW6.
Ex.P7: Signature of PW6 on the rough sketch exhibited through PW6. Exs.P8 to P11: Signature of PW6 on the Inquest panchanama exhibited through PW6.
Ex.P12: Post mortem report exhibited through PW7.
Ex.P13: FIR exhibited through PW8. Ex.P14: scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama exhibited through PW8. Ex.P15: Rough sketch exhibited through PW8. Ex.P16: Inquest panchanama exhibited through PW8. Ex.P17: FSL Report exhibited through PW10.
FOR DEFENCE: - NIL - MATERIAL OBJECTS: MO.1: Poison bottle.
SD/-
ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
SANGAREDDY.