IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI
DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY
Present: G. Praveen Kumar, Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.
Monday, this the 7th day of August, 2023
S.C.No. 346 OF 2018
Name of the Complainant:The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Jagadgirigutta
Name of the Accused:S. Nagaraju S/o S. Papanna, Age:37 years, Occ: Driver, R/oH.No.2-1-242,JanmabhoomiColony, Yellammabanda, Kukatpally.
Crime No.:412 OF 2017
Offence Under Section :306 of IPC
PRC.No.:11 OF 2018 on the file of FAC.XXIV Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Prakash Nagar.
Case Committed By:Smt S. Sreedevi, FAC.XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Prakash Nagar.
Prosecution Conducted By:Sri D. Upender., Additional Public Prosecutor
Defence Conducted By:Sri B. Damodar, Learned Advocate for Accused
Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty
Sentence of the Order:In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C framed against him and accordingly he is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
This Case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Upender, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B. Damodar., learned counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S Jagadgirigutta filed the Charge Sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable U/S.306 of Indian Penal Code, in short ‘IPC’ in
Crime No.412 of 2017 of Jagadgirigutta Police Station.
2 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018
2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are:
2.1.K. Sathyanarayana is deceased. PW1 Kanchi Ramalingaiah is brother, PW5 Smt
K.Chandrakala is wife, PW3 Kiran Kumar is nephew and accused is brother-in-law of deceased. PW2 S. Bheemudu, PW4 A. Jai Krishna are neighbours of deceased.
2.2.Deceased was conductor. Deceased and PW5 are resident of Janmaboomi
Colony. One 60 yards plot situated backside of the house of deceased was for sale. PW7
S.Sathyam was owner of such plot. Accused informed PW5 that PW7 was about to sale of such plot. Hence, PW5 decided to purchase the plot and without informing to deceased she entered into agreement of sale for purchase of such plot from PW7 and gave advance of Rs.50,000/- promising to pay the remaining sale consideration within 45 days.
On 02/06/2017 both PW5 and accused without informing to the deceased also gave
Rs.5,50,000/- being balance sale consideration to PW7.
2.3.On the same day, during evening hours, deceased came to know about purchase of plot by PW5, quarreled with her by questioning the purchase of plot without informing to him and beat her. Hence, PW5 in order to inform to police dialed 100. Police came to the house of deceased and took deceased to the Police Station and gave counseling to deceased and PW5.
3 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018 2.4.Since deceased manhandled PW5, Accused picked up quarrel with deceased and beat him. Feeling insulted deceased mentally depressed and vexed with life committed suicide by hanging in his bed room on 07/06/2017. Thus stating PW1 lodged Ex.P1 report for necessary action against accused.
2.5.On the basis of Ex.P1 report, PW10 P.Srinivas, Inspector of Police, P.S.
Jagadgirigutta registered the present case in Cr.No.412/2017 for offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC, issued Ex.P9 FIR and handed over the C.D. file to PW11 G.Murali
Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Jagadgirigutta for further investigation.
2.6.During the course of investigation, PW11 examined and recorded Section 161
Cr.P.C. statement of PW1, visited the scene of offence situated at Janmaboomi Colony, prepared Ex.P10 Crime Details Form in the presence of PW8/ T. Giri and PW9/ S.
Ramulu. On 08/06/2017 PW11 visited mortuary room Gandhi Hospital, examined and recorded Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 to PW4, conducted Ex.P11 inquest
Panchanama over the corpse of deceased in the presence of PW6/ S. Gopal and PW12/
G. Krishnaiah, subjected the dead body for autopsy through PW13 Dr. Ch. Laxman,
Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College,
Secunderabad.
2.7.Later, PW11 also examined and recorded Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7
S.Sathyam and PW5 K. Chandrakala. On 01/02/2018 on the basis of order of Hon’ble 4 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018
High Court in Crl.P.No.222/2018 dated: 19/01/2018 on furnishing of sureties accused was released on bail and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused and thereby the accused committed offence Punishable U/S.306 of Indian Penal
Code.
3.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC against the accused in PRC No.11 of 2018 by the learned XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate,
Cyberabad, Kukatpally and committed the case to the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, as the learned Magistrate having
perused the record found the case as exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions after furnishing the case copies as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4. The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in
SC.No.346 of 2018 and made over the case to this Court for the purpose of disposal
according to Law.
5. This Court having considered the record, framed charge for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which accused denied the said charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial, to prove it’s case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW13 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13.
5 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material evidence and reported no defence.
8.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.
9. Now the point for determination is:-
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt for the charge punishable under Section 306 of IPC?
10.PW5 Smt K. Chandrakala is wife, PW1 K. Ramalingaiah is elder brother, PW3
P.Kiran Kumar is nephew and accused is brother-in-law of deceased. PW5 and accused are siblings. There is no dispute with regard to relationship of the parties. Deceased was conductor. He along with PW5 are resident of Janmabhoomi colony, Yellamma Banda,
Cyberabad. The same is also no in dispute.
11. The case of the prosecution is that on 07/06/2017 deceased committed suicide by hanging. In order to prove the same the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to
PW13 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P13.
12.PW5 is the wife of deceased. The evidence of PW5 speaks that deceased committed suicide in the bed room by hanging. PW2 S. Bheemudu and PW4 A. Jai
Krishna are neighbours to deceased. The evidence of PW2 & PW4 speaks that two or three years prior to giving evidence before the Court and one day, at about 9 a.m. PW5 came and told them that deceased locked himself in the room and was not opening the 6 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018 doors of bed room. On such information, both PW2 & PW4 accompanied PW5 to her house, broken the doors of the bedroom, entered into the room and noticed that deceased hanging to ceiling fan with saree. Both of them further deposed they cut the saree, laid the body on the floor and by that time deceased was no more.
13.The evidence of PW1 who brother of deceased speaks that on 07/06/2017 at about 09.50 a.m. PW5 made a phone call to him and told that deceased locked himself in a room and was not opening the doors and on such information he rushed to the house of deceased but by that time the body of deceased laid on the floor and came to know through PW5 that deceased committed suicide by hanging to ceiling fan. The recitals of
Ex.P1 report also show the same.
14. PW3 is nephew of deceased who deposed that he came to know through PW2 that deceased died and on such information at about 10 a.m. he rushed to the house of deceased and came to know that deceased committed suicide.
15. PW11 G. Murali Kumar is the Investigating Officer of this case. The evidence of
PW11 speaks about his visiting of scene of offence, preparing Ex.P10 Crime Details
Form in the presence of PW8 & PW9, shifting of dead body to the mortuary room of
Gandhi Hospital 7 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018 conducting Ex.P11 Inquest panchanama in the presence of PW6 and PW12. The recitals of Ex.P10 show that the deceased committed suicide by hanging to ceiling fan in his house. The recitals of Ex.P11 also show that deceased died by committing suicide.
16.The evidence of PW11 further speaks that the dead body of the deceased was subjected to autopsy through PW13 Dr. Ch. Laxman. The evidence of PW13 speaks that during autopsy noticed ante-mortem dark red pressure abrasion i.e., ligature mark measuring 30 cm x 1 cm placed obliquely above thyroid cartilage running upwards and backwards on both sides of neck, on cut section underlying neck structures are contused.
In his opinion, the cause of death of the deceased to the best of his knowledge was due to hanging and accordingly he issued Ex.P12 PME Report.
17.The learned counsel for the accused cross examined PW1 to PW5, PW11 &
PW13. During the cross examination, their evidence that the deceased died due to committing suicide by hanging to ceiling fan, is unchallenged by the accused. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that on 07/06/2017 during morning hours the deceased committed suicide by hanging to ceiling fan with saree.
18.Now, it is to be decided what was the cause of committing suicide by the deceased. According to the prosecution, PW5 and accused purchased land to an extent of 60 Square Yards without informing to deceased and on 02/06/2017 on such information deceased beat PW5 questioning the purchase the said plot without informing to him, then 8 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018
PW5 dialed 100 on which police took deceased, gave counseling and later accused beat deceased for manhandling PW5 and then feeling insulted and due to abetment of accused the deceased committed suicide.
19.The initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove that due to abetment of accused the deceased committed suicide and thereby accused is liable for charge punishable under
Section 306 of IPC.
20.The case of the prosecution is that there is a land to an extent of 60 Square Yards situated backside of the house of deceased and on the instructions of accused, PW5 purchased the same without intimating to deceased and in that regard quarrel took place between PW5 and deceased. In order to prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW7, PW11 and Ex.P1 report.
21.The prosecution examined S. Sathyam, owner of above 60 Square Yards land, as
PW7. The evidence of PW7 speaks that he was owner of above land. Both, PW5 and accused came to him in connection with purchase of the above land. He agreed to sell the same to PW5 for sale consideration of 6 lakhs. Initially an amount of Rs.50,000/- was given to him towards advance of sale consideration. Later PW5 and accused paid the balance sale consideration. This part of evidence of PW7 is unchallenged by the accused. Therefore, the oral evidence of PW7 speaks that both PW5 and accused 9 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018 approached him and purchased land to an extent of 60 Square Yards which is situated back side of the house of PW5 by paying Rs.6,00,000/-.
22.The recitals of Ex.P1 report show that PW5 and accused purchased the above plot without informing to deceased. The evidence of PW1 speaks that PW5 and accused without informing to deceased purchased the above 60 square yards plot. The evidence of PW3 speaks that he came to know through PW1 that PW5 & accused purchased above plot without informing to the deceased. PW1 & PW5 were subject to cross examination.
During the cross examination, the evidence of PW1 & PW3 and contents of Ex.P1 that
PW5 and accused purchased the above land without informing to the deceased, is unchallenged by the accused.
23.The further case of the prosecution is that on 02/06/2017 quarrel took place between PW5 and deceased with regard to purchase of the above land, during such quarrel, deceased beat PW5, hence PW5 called police by dialing 100 and police gave counseling to both of them in the police station. The oral evidence of PW1 and recitals of Ex.P1 also speaks the same. However, admittedly, the above quarrel did not occur in the presence of PW1.
24.The evidence of PW3 also speaks that his mother told that Police Jagadgirigutta took the deceased to the police station and saying so instructed him to go to police station. His evidence further speaks that accordingly he rushed to police station, noticed 10 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018 deceased, PW5 and accused in the police station, that police conducted counseling to
PW5 and deceased. On the other hand, PW5 on whose complaint police conducted counseling in the police station did not support the case of prosecution. However, the evidence of PW1 & PW3 that there was a quarrel between PW5 and deceased on which a counseling held by police in the police station is unchallenged by the accused.
25.In respect of charge under Section 306 of IPC against accused, the specific case of the prosecution is that since deceased manhandled PW5, accused beat deceased in front of police station and feeling insulted deceased committed suicide. For the purpose of appreciation, this court indents to reproduce the provisions relating to abetment of suicide.
26.“306 of IPC . Abetment of suicide.-
If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
27. What is “Abetment of a thing” has been described in Section 107 which reads as under:— “107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
First. —Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly. —Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or 11 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018
Thirdly. —Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1. —A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.”
From the bare reading of the said provisions, it clearly transpires that in order to convict a person for the offences under Section 306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC have to be established.
28.In this regard, the evidence of PW3 speaks that while police conducting counseling to PW5 and deceased, he left the police station to have tea, that after 10 minutes when he came back, noticed accused beating deceased with hands by holding collar of deceased, that by the time he went near to deceased, both accused and PW5 left that place on bike by leaving deceased alone, hence he pacified the deceased, took the deceased to his house and after stay of one day in his house the deceased left to his house.
29.The evidence of PW1 and contents of Ex.P1 report show that accused beat deceased and hence feeling insulted deceased committed suicide. Admittedly, the incident was not occurred in the presence of PW1. The same is also admitted by PW1.
In such circumstances, it is for PW1 to depose as to how he came to know about the incident.
12 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018
30.In this regard, the evidence of PW1 speaks that, after counseling in the police station, deceased directly came to his house, cried bitterly stating accused beat him in front of police station. Now, it is to be seen whether the act of accused in beating deceased in front of police station amounts to instigation within the definition of section 107 of IPC stated supra and abetment under Section 306 of IPC.
31.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the Judgment in between Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 at para No.20 held as under:
“20. Instigation is to prod, 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. The present one is not a case 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.”
32.In the present case, even assuming for a moment, accused beat deceased in front of police station and insulted, there is nothing on record to show that 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. More over there is a gap of 4 days in between the date of alleged beating and the date of committing suicide by the deceased.
13 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018
33.On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 further speaks that deceased stayed in his house for two days and was in very depression due to above incident. After two days the deceased left for his house. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 that after the incident in front of police station, deceased directly came to his house and stayed in his house for two days, that during the stay deceased told him that accused beat him in front of police station, is contradicting to the evidence of PW3 that after such incident PW3 took the deceased to his house where deceased stayed in his house for a day. More over, if at all
PW3 was present at the time of above incident he would have stopped accused in beating deceased or else at-least tried to rescue the deceased from the hands of accused or would have informed the police about such incident, but nothing done by PW3. This conduct of PW3 gives a serious doubt about his presence at the time of incident that allegedly occurred in front of police station.
34.Further the entire case of the prosecution can be brushed aside basing on the evidence of PW2 & PW4 who deposed that deceased and PW5 quarreled each other in respect of the plot purchased above and they came to know that the deceased committed suicide due to quarreling with PW5. It is not the evidence of PW2 & PW4 that the suicide of deceased was due to abetment of accused.
35.The above discussion leads this Court to conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused abetted or instigated deceased to commit suicide and thereby 14 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018 accused is liable for charge punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The point is accordingly answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.
36.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable under
Section 306 of I.P.C framed against him and accordingly he is acquitted U/s 235 (1)
Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
37.The unmarked Blue Colour Saree, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of August, 2023.
Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined on behalf of
PROSECUTION:
K. Ramalingaiah PW1:
S. Bheemudu PW2:
B. Suresh PW3:
Kiran Kumar PW4:
K. Chanrakala PW5:
PW6:S. Gopal 15 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018
S. Sathyam PW7:
P. Giri PW8:
S. Ramulu PW9:
P. Srinivas PW10:
G. Murali Kumar PW11:
G. Krishnaiah PW12:
Dr. Ch. Laxman Rao PW13:
DEFENCE:
- None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1:The complaint
Ex.P2:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2
Ex.P3:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4
Ex.P4:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5
Ex.P5:Signature of PW6 on Inquest Panhanama
Ex.P6:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7
Ex.P7:Signature of PW8 on the Scene of offence 16 OF 16 SC.No.346 OF 2018
Panchanama
Ex.P8:Signature of PW9 on the Scene of offence panchanama
Ex.P9:First Information Report
Ex.P10:Crime Details Form
Ex.P11:Inquest panchanama
Ex.P12:PME Report
Ex.P13:Signature on inquest of PW.12
FOR DEFENCE:
- Nil -
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
- Nil -
Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally