Sri. K. Kiran Kumar

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT: SRI K.KIRAN KUMAR

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem.

SESSIONS CASE No.78 OF 2023

Preliminarily Registered Case No.30 of 2023 committed by the learned III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kothagudem in Cr.No.80/2023 of P.S. Laxmidevipalli for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution.: Sri K.Raja Rao. Addl.Public Prosecutor.

Accused: A-1. Gundlapalli Hari Durga Prasad @ Durga, S/o. Biksham, Aged.34 years, Barber,R/o.Hemahcnadrapuram Village of Laxmidevipalli Mandal. A-2. Lingampalli Basavaiah @ Krishna, S/o.Pedda Venkateswarlu, Aged.42 years, Barber, R/o.CPS Road, Madhira Town and Mandal, Khammam District. Defence counsel: Sri B.Madhava Rao, counsel for accused Offence under Section: 306 of Indian Penal Code

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding: Accused A-1 and A-2 found Not guilty for the offence U/s.306 of Indian Penal Code 1 OF 15

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026

Sentence or Order IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guiltyfor the charge punishable Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, she is acquitted Under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties furnishedU/Sec.437-ACriminal Procedure Code shall remain in force for period of six (06) months from today. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case came up for final hearing and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The accused A-1 and A-2 stands charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.80 of 2023 of Laxmidevipalli Police Station, committed to this Court by the learned III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem.

2.Prosecution’s Case (Brief Facts):

LW-1 by name Sripathi Anasurya is the complainant and mother of the deceased/Jampala Rani. On 20.052023 at 10:00 hours the 2 OF 15

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026 complainant lodged report before Laxmidevipalli Police Station Stating that deceased was her daughter, whose husband was died about two years back due to Corona, since then, the deceased was living with her children; on 11052023 while the deceased went to Palvoncha to attend the marriage of their relatives, at about 4:00 P.M, A-2 took the deceased Rani on the terrace and while both were talking, A-1 went there, A-1 and A-2 abused the deceased Rani in most filthy lnguage and A-1 stated that how many lives you will destroy and why should you live rather die, after these words, the deceased Rani immediately went to her house at Hemachandrapuram and at about 11:00 PM, she made a phone call to her brother Ramesh (LW-7) and informed all the things happened at Palvancha and further informed that she vexed on her life and she will consume pesticide and on the next day i.e., on 1205.2023 at 09:00 A.M. LW-7/Ramesh went to the deceased house and found her in unconscious state by consuming unknown pesticide poison, immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital,

Kothagudem and while undergoing tretment, on 19.05.2023 the deceased was died.

3.Upon committal of the case by the learned Magistrate in P.R.C.

3 OF 15

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026

No.30/2023, the case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code against sole accused and numbered as

Sessions Case No.78/2023.

4.On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to them, a charge for offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal code against accused was framed, the contents of charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Then, the schedule for commencing the trial was issued.

Witnesses P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-10 were marked. The details of exhibits shall be noted at the Appendix of

Evidence as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).2973 of 2023 in between “Manojbhai

Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs The State of Gujarat”

6.Accused A-1 and A-2 were examined under Section 313 Code of

Criminal Procedure and they denied all the incriminating circumstances, found in the case of prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced.

4 OF 15

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026

7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and learned counsel for Accused.

8.Point for Consideration:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the accused committed the offence punishable

under Section 306 of Indian Penal code ?

POINT:

9.To attract the offence punishable Under Section 306 of Indian

Penal Code, the prosecution must establish not only that the deceased committed suicide, but also that the accused had intentionally abetted the commission of such suicide within the meaning of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code. The essential ingredients are the existence of mens rea direct or indirect instigation, intentional aid or active participation of the accused, coupled with a proximate nexus between the conduct of the accused and the suicide. Mere harassment, casual remarks, ordinary domestic disputes or words uttered in anger without any positive act compelling the deceased to take the extreme step, would not by themselves terms to the offence of abatement of suicide.

5 OF 15

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026

10.In support of its case, the prosecution has relied upon the oral testimonies of PW-1 to PW-8 and documentary evidence marked as

Exs.P-1 to P-10, in an attempt to prove that both the Accused abetted the deceased/Jampala Rani to commit suicide in between 11.05.2023 at 23:00 hours to 12.05.2023 at 09:00 hours at her residence.

11.The key prosecution witnesses include:

PW-1: mother of deceased/de facto complainant, she speaks about the contents of First Information Report, PW-2 and PW-3 are the children of husband of deceased through his first wife, deposed as circumstantial witnesses; PW-4 is the brother-in-law of the deceased, deposed as circumstantial witness; PW-5 is one of the mediator for inquest; PW-6 is one of the mediator for Crime Detail

Form; PW-7 is the own brother of deceased and deposed as circumstantial witness and PW-8 is the Investigating Officer.

12.PW-1, who is the mother of the deceased, deposed that the deceased attended a marriage at Palvoncha and the accused A-2 called her to the terrace of the building, thereafter the accused A-1 6 OF 15

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026 also came to the spot, abused her in filthy language and stated that how many lives will you destroy, she should die than live such a life and asked to consume some poison and die, after these words, deceased returned to her home crying and later consumed pesticide and died after one week while undergoing treatment at hospital. In the cross examination, PW-1 has admitted that she has not attended the marriage and that she has not approached the police on 11.05.2023 to 20.05.2023. She further admitted that the deceased remained conscious and was speaking during the said period. Significantly, no Dying Declaration of the deceased was recorded though the deceased survived for nearly one week after the alleged incident.

13.The evidence of PW-1 further discloses that the deceased was facing financial difficulties after the demise of her husband. It is evident that suggestions were also put to PW-1 regarding economic hardship and personal problems of the deceased. Though, denied by PW-1, the same circumstances probablize and alternate cause for the deceased taking extreme step.

14.PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 being the close relatives of deceased 7 OF 15

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026 and they were projected as material witnesses to the alleged occurrence, to the dismay of the prosecution none of them have supported the substratum of the prosecution case. Their testimonies, when carefully appreciated, do not inspire confidence so as to corroborate the alleged incident in the manner projected by the prosecution and thereby the ocular version put forth by the prosecution case remains unsubstantiated on material particulars.

15.PW-5 is one of the mediator for inquest report & PW-6 is mediator for Crime Detail Form & Seizure report. They corroborated the medical treatment/records and also the scene observation report. PW-5 & PW-6 evidence has no contradictions and it supports chain of evidence and it maintained the integrity of the physical evidence and hospital documentation relevant to the cause of death.

16.The own brother of deceased Jampala Rani was examined as

PW-7 and deposed that the deceased has attended a marriage at

Palvoncha where the accused A-2 allegedly called her to the terrace and thereafter the accused A-1 abused her in filthy language and allegedly instigated her to consume pesticide. According to him, 8 OF 15

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026 the deceased returned home in a disturbed condition and later informed PW-4 over phone about the incident and consumption of pesticide. However, he has admitted that he was not present at the alleged scene of occurrence. Upon scrutiny of his evidence, it is found to be purely hear-say in nature, he categorically admitted that he learnt about the altercation only through the deceased. He further admitted that he did not specifically state before police that the deceased inform him she was committing suicide due to the act of accused. Thus, his evidence is not direct in nature and materially rest upon what was allegedly informed to him by the deceased.

17.The investigating officer is examined as PW-8, he spoke about the registration of the crime, the stages of investigation such as recording the statements of witnesses, inquest, post mortem, scene observation, arrest of the accused and upon completion of the entire investigation filing of the final report. In the cross examination, he admitted that all the material witnesses are the close relatives of the deceased, that he did not examine any independent witnesses, that he did not seize alleged pesticide container and that he did not ascertain the source of procurement of pesticide.

9 OF 15

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026 18.It is well settled that unexplained delay in lodging the report or forwarding the First Information Report to the concerned court creates serious doubt and gives scope for embellishment, as held in

Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamilnadu1, Ishwar Singh Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh2 and Marudanal Augusti Vs. State of Kerala3 .

It is equally settled that where the investigation is perfunctory, material witnesses are not examined and important evidence is not collected, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt, as laid down in

Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar4 and Tomaso Bruno Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh5 .

19.Furthermore, the First Information Report (Ex.P-7) was dispatched to the concerned Magistrate with an unexplained delay of twenty four (24) hours. This delay, considered in light of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court’s dictum in State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja

Singh 6 , where it was held that the First Information Report must reach the Magistrate without undue delay, further weakens the 1(1972) 3 SCC 392 2(1976) 4 SCC 355 3(1980) 4 SCC 425 4(1998) 4 SCC 517 5(2015) 7 SCC 178 6(2001)3 SCC 147 10 OF 15

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026 prosecution’s case and suggests procedural laxity.

20.It is well settled that to attract Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, there must be clear and cogent evidence of instigation, intentional aid or active participation by the accused leading the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegation or suspicion are not sufficient. In the present case, except the alleged statements under Section 161 of Criminal

Procedure Code under Exs.P-2 to P-4, which have been denied by all the material witnesses, there is no substantive evidence on record to prove abetment. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K.Mishra

Vs. State of Uttarakhand7 , a statement under Section 161 of Criminal

Procedure Code is not substantive evidence and can be used only to contradict the witness.

21.The prosecution has not examined any independent witness to the alleged incident at the marriage function. No person from the alleged marriage gathering was examined corroborate the prosecution version regarding the abuses allegedly made by the accused. Further, the alleged words attributed to accused A-1, even if it accepted for arguments sake, appears to have been uttered during a sudden 7 (2015) 9 SCC 588 11 OF 15

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026 quarrel or emotional outburst.

22.Flaws in the prosecution case:

(a) There is no direct evidence of instigation.

(b) There is no dying declaration.

(c) The material witnesses are not eye witnesses.

(d) There is substantial delay in lodging the report.

(e) The deceased admittedly suffered financial and personal difficulties after the death of her husband.

23.The prosecution evidence falls short of proving beyond reasonable doubt that both the accused intentionally instigated or aided the deceased to commit suicide. The criminal jurisprudence mandates that when two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. Hence, this court is of the considerable opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

24. IN THE RESULT, the accused A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the charge punishable Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, they are acquitted Under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the 12 OF 15

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026 said charge. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties furnished U/Sec.437-A Criminal Procedure Code shall remain in force for period of six (06) months from today. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Digitally signed by KIRAN

KIRAN KUMAR

KUMAR KODAMAGUNDLA

KODAMAGUNDLADate: 2026.05.14 15:44:57 +0530

ASSISTANT SESSION S JUDGE,

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Prosecution Name of Witness Description

Witness No.

Sripathi Anasurya

1.de-facto Complainant and circumstantial witness Jampala Pavan Kumar

2.Circumstantial witness

Lingam Bhavani

3.Circumstantial Witness

Jampala Ramesh

4.Circumstantial Witness

Jampala Rama

5.Panch for inquest

Dharmarajula Ramesh

6.Panch for CDF

Sripathi Venkata

7.Circumstantial Witness Krishna J.Praveen

8.Investigating Officer, who

issued First Information

Report, who arrested the

accused and filed charge

sheet.

13 OF 15

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:

:: NONE ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved

No. by

/Attested by Report lodged by PW-1

1.PW-1

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2

2.PW-2

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3

3.PW-3

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4

4.PW-4

Inquest Panchanama

5.PW-5

Crime Detail Form

6.PW-6

First Information Report

7.PW-8

Photos

8.PW-8

Post Mortem Examination Report

9.PW-8

RFSL Report

10.PW-8

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil- 14 OF 15

S.C.No.78 OF 2023 Dated: :14.05.2026

Material Objects/ Muddamals

Material Description of the Exhibit Proved by

Object No. /Attested by

:: NIL ::

Digitally signed by KIRAN

KIRAN KUMAR

KUMAR KODAMAGUNDLA

KODAMAGUNDLADate: 2026.05.14 15:45:07 +0530

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM.

15 OF 15

S.C.No.88 OF 2024 Dated: :11.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT: SRI K.KIRAN KUMAR

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem.

SESSIONS CASE No.88 OF 2024

Preliminarily Registered Case No.12 of 2024 committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru in

Cr.No.350/2023 of P.S. Manuguru for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution.: Sri K.Raja Rao. Addl.Public Prosecutor.

Accused: A-1. Raparthi Laxmi,W/o. Dharmaiah, 57 years, Tailor, R/o.Fish Market Area, Adarshanagar, Manuguru. A-2. Palavayi Rambabu,S/o. Satyanarayana, 47 years, Flower Vendor,R/o.Sundaraiahnagar, Manuguru.

Defence counsel: Sri Arikala Ravi Kumar, counsel for A-1 Sri P.Bhaskar Rao, counsel for A-2

Offence under Section: 306 of Indian Penal Code

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding: Accused A-1 and A-2 found Not guilty for the offence U/s.306 of Indian Penal Code Sentence or Order IN THE RESULT, the Accused A-1 and 1 OF 14

S.C.No.88 OF 2024 Dated: :11.05.2026

A-2 are found not guilty for the charge punishable Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, they are acquitted Under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties furnishedU/Sec.437-ACriminal Procedure Code shall remain in force for period of six (06) months from today. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case came up for final hearing and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The accused A-1 and A-2 stands charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code in Crime

No.350 of 2023 of Manuguru Police Station, committed to this Court by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru.

2.Prosecution’s Case (Brief Facts):

LW-1 by name Patnala Sailaja, W/o.Sridhar is the complainant and mother of the deceased/Patnala Sai Kumar. On 20.09.2023 the complainant lodged report before the Manuguru Police Stating wherein 2 OF 14

S.C.No.88 OF 2024 Dated: :11.05.2026 she stated that deceased was her son and the marriage of her son was held with Sai Prasanna in the year 2019 and her son Sai had borrowed hand loans to meet family expenditures, due to which her son suffered from mental frustration, on that they gave moral support to him and on 23.08.2023 at noon time A-2 and LW-9 went to the house of deceased when A-2 abused the deceased in filthy language and also warned as "Chitti dabbulu kattatam chethakakapothe enduku chitti kattinavura chitti dabbulaku badulu nee intlo samanlu evvura, Chee Enduku Brathukuthunnavura ? after that returned from the house of the deceased, due to financial problems, the deceased did not pay the house rent to A-1, who is owner of house for the last two months, due to over debts, her son felt upset, as such, on the same day i.e., on 23.08.2023 after let off A-2 and LW-9 from the deceased, the A-1 also abused the deceased and warned him as "Inti Kirai

Katalenivadivi Neekendukura Pellam Pillalu Kojja Lanja kodaka,

Enduku Brathukuthunnavura ? Edanna Lorry Krinda Padi

Chandipora " then A-1 locked the rented room of the deceased and necked out him from the house, due to the acts of A-1, A-2 towards the deceased, the deceased felt mental agony and on 26.08.2023 the deceased went to Aswapuram, where he purchased a pesticide poison 3 OF 14

S.C.No.88 OF 2024 Dated: :11.05.2026 tin, later he came to Guttamallaram near Gayathri temple area and consumed pesticide poison and returned to his house and informed the same to his family members, then, immediately, he was shifted to

Government Area Hospital, Manuguru, from there, he was shifted to

Government Area Hospital, Bhadrachalam and from there, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, where on 19.09.2023 the deceased was died at 08:48 P.M in the hospital.

3.Upon committal of the case by the learned Magistrate in P.R.C.

No.12/2024, the case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code against sole accused and numbered as

Sessions Case No.88/2024.

4.On appearance of A-1 and A-2, case copies were furnished to them, a charge for offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian

Penal code against accused was framed, the contents of charge were read over and explained to them in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Then, the schedule for commencing the trial was issued.

Witnesses P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-15 were 4 OF 14

S.C.No.88 OF 2024 Dated: :11.05.2026 marked. The details of exhibits shall be noted at the Appendix of

Evidence as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).2973 of 2023 in between “Manojbhai

Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs The State of Gujarat”

6.A-1 and A-2 were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal

Procedure and they denied all the incriminating circumstances, found in the case of prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced.

7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and learned counsel for Accused.

8. Point for Consideration:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the A-1 and A-2 committed the offence

punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal code ?

POINT:

9.The accused A-1 and A-2 stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that they abetted the suicide of deceased Patnala Sai

Kumar.

5 OF 14

S.C.No.88 OF 2024 Dated: :11.05.2026

10.The brief case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet that PW-1/mother of the deceased, lodged a report on 20.09.2023 alleging therein that due to harassment and humiliation of the A-1 and A-2, the deceased suffered mental agony and committed suicide by consuming pesticide near Guttamallaram Gayathri Temple on 26.08.2023. On the said report, a case in Crime No.350/2023 of

Manuguru Police Station was registered under Section 306 Indian

Penal Code against the sole accused.

12.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution witnesses testimonies were consistent and remained unshaken in cross-examination. He contended that the defense's cross-examination inadvertently elicited facts and posed questions that established the motive and intention of the accused, thereby lightening the prosecution's burden of proof. The prosecution further submitted that the defense failed to present any credible rebuttal evidence and that Exhibits P-1 to P-15. PW-1 is the mother of the deceased and the defacto complainant, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-7 are the circumstantial witnesses; PW-4, PW-6, PW-8 are the eye witnesses;

PW-5 is the mediator for CDF; and PW-9 is the investigating officer.

6 OF 14

S.C.No.88 OF 2024 Dated: :11.05.2026

13.The mother of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and she is also the defacto complainant, she has categorically deposed that her husband committed suicide due to "heavy debts.” She specifically deposed that the police did not examine her nor recorded her statement and eventually she has denied the entire prosecution version. More-so, she has vehemently denied that the contents of report are known to her and she stated to the police as in her statement. Ultimately, utilizing the wisdom, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor sought the permission of this court to declare this witness hostile. Although, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had the advantage to cross examine the witness, but to the dismay of the prosecution, absolutely no averment could be elicited to substantiate the contention of the prosecution.

14.PW-2, PW-3 and PW-7, who are projected as circumstantial witnesses, they deposed in one voice that on 26.08.2023 in the afternoon time the deceased committed suicide due to unbearable “health issues“. They both denied having given any statement to police implicating the accused. All the witnesses were treated as hostile 7 OF 14

S.C.No.88 OF 2024 Dated: :11.05.2026 witnesses and their cross examination by the prosecution did not yield any material supporting the prosecution case.

15.PW-4, PW-6 and PW-8, who are projected as eye witnesses deposed that they do not know any facts of the case. PW-4, PW-6 and

PW-8 were also declared hostile and nothing useful was brought on record in favour of prosecution.

16.PW-1 to PW-8 are the material witnesses and they all being close relatives of the deceased, completely abondoned the case of prosecution and resiled from the version of the prosecution and also retracted from their earlier statements to the police and they did not attribute any role to the accused in abetting the suicide of the deceased.

17.The investigating officer is examined as PW-9, he spoke about the registration of the crime, the stages of investigation such as recording the statements of witnesses, inquest, post mortem, scene observation, arrest of the accused and upon completion of the entire investigation filing of the final report. In the cross examination, he 8 OF 14

S.C.No.88 OF 2024 Dated: :11.05.2026 admitted that all the material witnesses are the close relatives of the deceased, that he did not examine any independent witnesses, that he did not seize alleged pesticide container and that he did not ascertain the source of procurement of pesticide.

18.It is well settled that to attract Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, there must be clear and cogent evidence of instigation, intentional aid or active participation by the accused leading the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegation or suspicion are not sufficient.

19.In the present case, except the alleged statements under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code under Exs.P-1 to P-9, which have been denied by all the material witnesses, there is no substantive evidence on record to prove abetment. As held by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in V.K.Mishra Vs. State of Uttarakhand1 , a statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code is not substantive evidence and can be used only to contradict the witness.

20.Admittedly, the evidence of investigating officer alone, in the absence of corroboration from material witnesses or independent 1 (2015) 9 SCC 588 9 OF 14

S.C.No.88 OF 2024 Dated: :11.05.2026 evidence, is insufficient to base a conviction. The admitted lapse in investigation further weakens the prosecution’s case. The sole testimony of investigating officer/PW-9 is insufficient and inadequate to establish the nexus between the crime and the alleged participation of the accused.

21.The prosecution has failed to establish any proximate or direct act of instigation or harassment by the accused which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. On the contrary, the consistent version of the family members is that the deceased committed suicide due to “health issues”.

22.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of

Punjab2 held that to constitute abetment under Section 306 of

Indian Penal Code, there must be clear mens rea on the part of accused to instigate or aid the commission of suicide and there must be a direct or proximate link between the act of the accused and the suicide. Mere harassment, without any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence, is insufficient.

23.Applying the above settled principle of law to the facts of the 2(2020) 10 SCC 200 10 OF 14

S.C.No.88 OF 2024 Dated: :11.05.2026 present case, in the absence of any substantive evidence of instigation or intentional aid and in view of the hostile testimony of all the material witnesses, the offence Under Section 306 of Indian Penal

Code is not made out against the accused. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considerable opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

24. IN THE RESULT, the accused A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the charge punishable Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, they are acquitted Under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties furnished U/Sec.437-A Criminal Procedure Code shall remain in force for period of six (06) months from today. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Digitally signed by KIRAN

KIRAN KUMAR

KUMAR KODAMAGUNDLA

KODAMAGUNDLADate: 2026.05.16 15:17:56 +0530

ASSISTANT SESSION S JUDGE,

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM.

11 OF 14

S.C.No.88 OF 2024 Dated: :11.05.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Prosecution Name of Witness Description

Witness No.

Patnala Sailaja

1.de-facto Complainant

and circumstantial

witness

Komaram Sridhar

2.Circumstantial witness

Sriram Naga Durga

3.Circumstantial

Witness

Beera Ramesh

4.Eye Witnesses

Gundla Sandeep

5.Mediator for CDF

Kondru Venkateswarlu

6.Eye witness

Patnala Sai Prasanna

7.Circumstantial witness

Santhapuri Prasad

8.Eye witness

B.Rajesh Kumar

9.Investigating Officer,

Whoalteredthe

section of law from 174

Cr.P.C to 306 IPC,

arrested the accused

and filed charge sheet.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:

:: NONE ::

12 OF 14

S.C.No.88 OF 2024 Dated: :11.05.2026

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by

No. /Attested by

Signature of PW-1 on the complaint

1.PW-1

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1

2.PW-1

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2

3.PW-2

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3

4.PW-3

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4

5.PW-4

Crime Detail Form

6.PW-5

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6

7.PW-6

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.7

8.PW-7

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.8

9.PW-8

Report lodged by PW-1

10.PW-9

First Information Report

11.PW-9

Inquest Panchanama

12.PW-9

Photos 3 in number

13.PW-9

Post Mortem Examination Report

14.PW-9

Dying Declaration

15.PW-9

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil- 13 OF 14

S.C.No.88 OF 2024 Dated: :11.05.2026

Material Objects/ Muddamals

Material Description of the Proved by

Object No. Exhibit /Attested by

:: NIL ::

Digitally signed by KIRAN

KIRAN KUMARKUMAR

KODAMAGUNDLA

KODAMAGUNDLA

Date: 2026.05.16

15:18:06 +0530

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM.

14 OF 14

S.C.No.80 OF 2023 Dated: :15.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT: SRI K.KIRAN KUMAR

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem.

SESSIONS CASE No.80 OF 2023

Preliminarily Registered Case No.03 of 2023 committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru in

Cr.No.08/2023 of P.S. Edulla Bayyaram for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution.: Sri K.Raja Rao. Addl.Public Prosecutor.

Accused: Jallarapu Sambashiva Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, 30 years, Occ.Bekari shop, R/o.Mangapeta Village and Mandalm, Mulugu District.

Defence counsel: Sri J.Chokkaiah, counsel for accused

Offence under Section: 306 of Indian Penal Code

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding: Accused is found Not guilty for the offence U/s.306 of Indian Penal Code Sentence or Order IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guiltyfor the charge punishable Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, he is acquitted Under Section 235(1) of 1 OF 13

S.C.No.80 OF 2023 Dated: :15.05.2026

Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties furnishedU/Sec.437-ACriminal Procedure Code shall remain in force for period of six (06) months from today. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case came up for final hearing and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The sole accused stands charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.08 of 2023 of

Edulla Bayyaram Police Station, committed to this Court by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru.

2.Prosecution’s Case (Brief Facts):

LW-1 by name Modupurapam Krupa Rani, W/o.Sambashiva

RaoSridhar is the complainant and elder sister of the deceased/Ravulakolli Prasad. On 17.01.2023 the complainant lodged report before the Edulla Bayyaram Police Station stating that her younger brother who is deceased herein was working in the bakery 2 OF 13

S.C.No.80 OF 2023 Dated: :15.05.2026 shop of accused; on the eve of Sankranthi festival, her brother asked leave to his owner i.e., accused, then the accused abused him and beat him with his hands, the deceased informed the same to her by weeping, then she advised the deceased to return to the house from the shop, on which, while the deceased was returning to the house, the accused made a phone call to the deceased and blackmailed the deceased that he would file a false case as the deceased has committed theft of gold and cash from his shop, owing to this, the deceased was affronted and informed the same to LW-1, the LW-1 consoled him not to worry, but the deceased vexed on his life and committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison on the noon time of 16.01.2023 at 14:00 hours at Edulla Bayyaram.

3.Upon committal of the case by the learned Magistrate in P.R.C.

No.03/2023, the case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code against sole accused and numbered as

Sessions Case No.80/2023.

4.On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to them, a charge for offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal code 3 OF 13

S.C.No.80 OF 2023 Dated: :15.05.2026 against accused was framed, the contents of charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Then, the schedule for commencing the trial was issued.

Witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-10 were marked. The details of exhibits shall be noted at the Appendix of

Evidence as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).2973 of 2023 in between “Manojbhai

Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs The State of Gujarat”

6.Accused was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal

Procedure and they denied all the incriminating circumstances, found in the case of prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced.

7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and learned counsel for Accused.

8.Point for Consideration:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the accused committed the offence punishable

under Section 306 of Indian Penal code ?

4 OF 13

S.C.No.80 OF 2023 Dated: :15.05.2026

POINT:

9.The sole accused stood charged for the offence punishable under

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he abetted the suicide of deceased Ravulakolli Prasad.

10.The brief case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet that PW-1/elder sister of the deceased, lodged a report on 17.01.2023 alleging therein that due to harassment and humiliation of accused, the deceased suffered mental agony and committed suicide by consuming bathrooms acid. On the said report, a case in Crime

No.08/2023 of Edulla Bayyaram Police Station was registered under

Section 306 Indian Penal Code against the sole accused.

11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution witnesses testimonies were consistent and remained unshaken in cross-examination. He contended that the defense's cross-examination inadvertently elicited facts and posed questions that established the motive and intention of the accused, thereby lightening the prosecution's burden of proof. The prosecution further submitted that the defense failed to present any credible rebuttal evidence and that Exhibits P-1 to P-10. PW-1 is the elder sister of the 5 OF 13

S.C.No.80 OF 2023 Dated: :15.05.2026 deceased and the defacto complainant, PW-2 to PW-4 are the circumstantial witnesses and PW-5 is the investigating officer.

12.PW-1, who is the elder sister of deceased, deposed that the deceased was working in the bakery of the accused and that on 16.01.2023, he informed her over phone that the accused abused and beat him. She further deposed that the accused allegedly threatened to implicate the deceased in a theft case, due to which the deceased consumed bathroom acid and later died while undergoing treatment. She lodged Ex.P-1 report before the police.

In the cross examination, PW-1 admitted that she was not a direct eye witness to the alleged incident between the accused and the deceased. She further admitted that the accused informed her that the deceased had committed theft of gold and cash from the shop.

She also admitted that she had not witnessed any abuse or quarrel between them personally.

13.PW-1 further admitted that the deceased was suffering from health issues and was frequently absent from the work. She also admitted that Ex.P-1 was not written by her and that its contents were not read over to her. Importantly, she admitted that her chief 6 OF 13

S.C.No.80 OF 2023 Dated: :15.05.2026 examination was briefed by the police. Thus, the entire testimony of PW-1 regarding the alleged harassment is purely hear-say in nature and not based on her direct knowledge. No independent material is elicited from her evidence to establish any intentional instigation or active abatement by the accused. Her admissions considerably weakens the prosecution case and creates serious doubt regarding the alleged role of the accused in the suicide of the deceased.

14.PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 being the close relatives of deceased and they were projected as material witnesses to the alleged occurrence, to the dismay of the prosecution none of them have supported the substratum of the prosecution case. Their testimonies, when carefully appreciated, do not inspire confidence so as to corroborate the alleged incident in the manner projected by the prosecution and thereby the ocular version put forth by the prosecution case remains unsubstantiated on material particulars.

15.The investigating officer is examined as PW-5, he spoke about the registration of the crime, the stages of investigation such as recording the statements of witnesses, inquest, post mortem, scene 7 OF 13

S.C.No.80 OF 2023 Dated: :15.05.2026 observation, arrest of the accused and upon completion of the entire investigation filing of the final report. In the cross examination, he admitted that all the material witnesses are the close relatives of the deceased, that he did not examine any independent witnesses, that he did not seize alleged pesticide container and that he did not ascertain the source of procurement of pesticide.

16.It is well settled that to attract Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, there must be clear and cogent evidence of instigation, intentional aid or active participation by the accused leading the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegation or suspicion are not sufficient. In the present case, except the alleged statements under Section 161 of Criminal

Procedure Code under Exs.P-2 to P-4, which have been denied by all the material witnesses, there is no substantive evidence on record to prove abetment. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K.Mishra

Vs. State of Uttarakhand1 , a statement under Section 161 of Criminal

Procedure Code is not substantive evidence and can be used only to contradict the witness.

17.PW-1 to PW-4 are the material witnesses and they all being close 1 (2015) 9 SCC 588 8 OF 13

S.C.No.80 OF 2023 Dated: :15.05.2026 relatives of the deceased, completely abondoned the case of prosecution and resiled from the version of the prosecution and also retracted from their earlier statements to the police and they did not attribute any role to the accused in abetting the suicide of the deceased.

18.Admittedly, the evidence of investigating officer alone, in the absence of corroboration from material witnesses or independent evidence, is insufficient to base a conviction. The admitted lapse in investigation further weakens the prosecution’s case. The testimonies of PW-1 and investigating officer/PW-5 is insufficient and inadequate to establish the nexus between the crime and the alleged participation of the accused.

19.The prosecution has failed to establish any proximate or direct act of instigation or harassment by the accused which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. On the contrary, the consistent version of the family members is that the deceased committed suicide due to “health issues”.

9 OF 13

S.C.No.80 OF 2023 Dated: :15.05.2026

20.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of

Punjab2 held that to constitute abetment under Section 306 of Indian

Penal Code, there must be clear mens rea on the part of accused to instigate or aid the commission of suicide and there must be a direct or proximate link between the act of the accused and the suicide.

Mere harassment, without any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence, is insufficient.

21.Applying the above settled principle of law to the facts of the present case, in the absence of any substantive evidence of instigation or intentional aid and in view of the hostile testimony of all the material witnesses, the offence Under Section 306 of Indian Penal

Code is not made out against the accused. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considerable opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

22. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, he is acquitted Under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charge. The 2(2020) 10 SCC 200 10 OF 13

S.C.No.80 OF 2023 Dated: :15.05.2026 bail bonds of the accused and his sureties furnished U/Sec.437-A

Criminal Procedure Code shall remain in force for period of six (06) months from today. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Digitally signed by

KIRAN KUMAR

KIRAN KUMAR

KODAMAGUNDLA

KODAMAGUNDLA

Date: 2026.05.16

11:04:47 +0530

ASSISTANT SESSION S JUDGE,

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Prosecution Name of Witness Description

Witness No.

Modupurapam Krupa Rani de-facto Complainant and 1. circumstantial witness Modupurapam Sambashiva

2.Circumstantial witness Rao Vannapuram Durga

3.Circumstantial Witness Prasad Mannapuram Naresh

4.Circumstantial

Witnesses

TVR Suri

5.Investigating Officer,

Whoarrestedthe

accused and filed charge

sheet.

11 OF 13

S.C.No.80 OF 2023 Dated: :15.05.2026

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:

:: NONE ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved

No. by

/Attested by Report lodged by PW-1

1.PW-1

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2

2.PW-2

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3

3.PW-3

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4

4.PW-4

First Information Report

5.PW-5

Inquest Panchanama

6.PW-5

Photos 3 in number

7.PW-5

Post Mortem Examination Report

8.PW-5

Crime Detail Form

9.PW-5

RFSL Report

10.PW-5

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil- 12 OF 13

S.C.No.80 OF 2023 Dated: :15.05.2026

Material Objects/ Muddamals

Material Description of the Exhibit Proved by

Object No. /Attested by

:: NIL ::

Digitally signed by

KIRAN KUMAR

KIRAN KUMAR

KODAMAGUNDLA

KODAMAGUNDLA

Date: 2026.05.16

11:05:00 +0530

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM.

13 OF 13

S.C.No.31 OF 2024 Dated: :12.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT: SRI K.KIRAN KUMAR

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem.

SESSIONS CASE No.31 OF 2024

Preliminarily Registered Case No.05 of 2024 committed by the learned II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kothagudem in Cr.No.203/2023 of P.S. Palvoncha Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 307, 341, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution.: Sri K.Raja Rao. Addl.Public Prosecutor.

Accused: Balde Rambabu, S/o. Mallaiah, Age.50 years, Occ.Coolie, R/o.Bodrai Centre, Yanambaile, Palvoncha Mandal. Defence counsel: Sri Arikala Ravi Kumar, counsel for accused Offence under Section: 294(b), 307, 341, 506 of Indian Penal Code Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding: Accused found Not guilty for the offences U/s.294(b), 307, 341, 506 of Indian Penal Code Sentence or Order IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guiltyfor the charge punishable Under Sections 294(b), 307, 341, 506 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, he is acquitted Under 1 OF 12

S.C.No.31 OF 2024 Dated: :12.05.2026

Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused andtheirsuretiesfurnished U/Sec.437-A Criminal Procedure Code shall remain in force for period of six (06) months from today. The case property, i.e., M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case came up for final hearing and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The sole accused stands charged for the offence punishable under Section 294(b), 307, 341, 506 of Indian Penal Code in

Crime No.203 of 2023 of Paloncha Rural Police Station, committed to this Court by the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kothagudem.

2.Prosecution’s Case (Brief Facts):

LW-1 by name Kantem Praveen Kumar, S/o.Narasimha Rao is the complainant and injured. On 04.12.2023 at 11:00 hours the complainant lodged report before the Palvoncha Rural Police Station stating that on 03.12.2023 at 22:50 hours the complainant while 2 OF 12

S.C.No.31 OF 2024 Dated: :12.05.2026 going to his house at Yanambile on his motorcycle, accused stopped the motorcycle of the complainant at Bodrai Center, abused him in filthy language, when he asked the accused about his attitude, the accused broken beer bottle and stabbed him on his life side of the chest with an intent to kill him, by keeping previous grudges in his mind, due to which he fell unconscious with severe bleeding injuries.

3.Upon committal of the case by the learned Magistrate in P.R.C.

No.05/2024, the case was taken on file for the offences Under Sections 294(b), 307, 341, 506 of Indian Penal Code against sole accused and numbered as Sessions Case No.31/2024.

4.On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to them, a charge for offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 307, 341, 506of

Indian Penal code against accused was framed, the contents of charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Then, the schedule for commencing the trial was issued.

Witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-6 as well as

M.O.1 were marked. The details of exhibits shall be noted at the 3 OF 12

S.C.No.31 OF 2024 Dated: :12.05.2026

Appendix of Evidence as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).2973 of 2023 in between “Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs The State of Gujarat”

6.Accused was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal

Procedure and he denied all the incriminating circumstances, found in the case of prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced.

7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and the learned counsel for Accused.

8.Point for Consideration:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the accused committed the offences

punishable under Sections 294(b), 307, 341, 506 of

Indian Penal code ?

POINT:

9.The sole accused stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 307, 341, 506 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he attempted to murder on complainant/Kantem

Praveen Kumar, wrongfully restrained, abused him and threatened 4 OF 12

S.C.No.31 OF 2024 Dated: :12.05.2026 him with dire consequences.

10.The brief case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet that PW-1 is the de facto complainant and resident of Yanambile,

Palvoncha Mandal, lodged a report on 04.12.2023 alleging therein that on 03.12.2023 at 22:50 hours while the PW-1 was going to his house at Yanambile on his motorcycle, the accused stopped his motorcycle at

Bodrai Centre, abused him in filthy language, when PW-1 asked him about his attitude, then the accused took broken beer bottle from a side and stabbed him on left side of his chest, with an intent to kill him, by keeping previous grudges in his mind, due to which he fell unconscious with bleeding injuries. On the said report, a case in

Crime No.203/2023 of Palvoncha Rural Police Station was registered under Section 294(b), 307, 341, 506 Indian Penal Code against the sole accused.

11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution witnesses testimonies were consistent and remained unshaken in cross-examination. He contended that the defense's cross-examination inadvertently elicited facts and posed questions 5 OF 12

S.C.No.31 OF 2024 Dated: :12.05.2026 that established the motive and intention of the accused, thereby lightening the prosecution's burden of proof. The prosecution further submitted that the defense failed to present any credible rebuttal evidence and that Exhibits P-1 to P-6. PW-1 is the complainant and injured, PW-2 and PW-4 are the eye witnesses; PW-3 is the mediator for CDF; and PW-5 is the investigating officer.

12.PW-1 is the injured witness and the de facto complainant. In his chief examination, he supported the prosecution case by stating that the accused attacked him with a broken beer bottle on account of previous grudge. PW-1 further deposed that the accused stabbed him on his left side of chest and due to the impact he fell on the ground and sustained bleeding injuries. PW-1 in the cross examination has categorically admitted that the incident has occurred during late night hours and there was poor lighting and poor visibility at the scene. He further admitted that there was very less chance to identify the culprit and immediately after the attack he fell on the ground.

13.Significantly, he also admitted that there was a remote chance to name the culprit and that he identified the accused at the instance of 6 OF 12

S.C.No.31 OF 2024 Dated: :12.05.2026 police. He further admitted that due to prior enmity with the accused, he mentioned the name of the accused as the culprit. He also admitted that Ex.P-1 report was not drafted by him and that he signed the same without knowing its contents. It is apparent that PW-1 has made several material admission which goes to the root of the prosecution case. These admissions materially weaken the credibility of PW-1 regarding the identity of the assailant. Though, the evidence of injured witness ordinarily carries credit evidentiary value, when such witness himself admits inability to properly identify the assailant due to poor visibility and further admits implication due to prior enmity, the court must exercise caution before basing conviction solely on such testimony.

14.It is pertinent to note that the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence, mainly PW-2 and PW-4, who according to the prosecution witnessed the alleged incident and shifted PW-1 to the hospital, to the dismay of the prosecution, have not supported the case of prosecution and resiled from their earlier statements made to the police. Thus, the prosecution lost the benefit of independent corroboration to the testimony of PW-1. When the eye witnesses cited by the prosecution themselves failed to support the prosecution version, the court is 7 OF 12

S.C.No.31 OF 2024 Dated: :12.05.2026 required to scrutinize the remaining evidence with great caution.

15.PW-3 is only one of the mediator for scene observation report and the Crime Detail Form under Ex.P-3 and seizure of M.O.1. Even, he admitted in the cross examination that police obtained his signature at the police station and that he signed Ex.P-3 without knowing its contents. Therefore, his evidence does not inspires the confidence regarding seizure proceedings.

16.PW-5, the investigating officer, admits that there was delay in approaching the police Station and all the material witnesses cited in the charge sheet are the close relatives of PW-1 and that the accused and the PW-1 was having land disputes. He further admitted that his investigation is silent regarding the land disputes and that he did not examine any of the neighbour mentioned in the Crime Detail Form under Ex.P-3. These admissions clearly indicate that the investigation suffers from several lapse.

17.The alleged weapon M.O.1 namely broken beer bottle is commonly available article and no scientific evidence has been produced connecting the same with the offence. No forensic evidence 8 OF 12

S.C.No.31 OF 2024 Dated: :12.05.2026 was placed before the court. Though, the medical certificate under

Ex.P-6 shows injury on PW-1, the doctor who issued the certificate was not examined before the court. Moreover, the medical certificate itself discloses that the injury was simple in nature.

18.Further, as admitted by investigating officer/PW-5, there is unexplained delay in lodging the report. Though, the incident allegedly occurred at 10:50 P.M. on 03.12.2023, the report came to be lodged only on the next day at about 10.30 A.M. PW-1 admitted that Ex.P-1 was not drafted by him and he signed without knowing its contents.

Such delay assumes significance in view of the admitted prior enmity between the parties.

19.At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the settled principles governing criminal trials. It is a cardinal principle of Criminal

Jurisprudence that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt arising from the evidence on record. In the present case, the evidence of PW-1 suffers from material admission regarding poor visibility, inability to identify the assailant properly and implication of the accused due to previous 9 OF 12

S.C.No.31 OF 2024 Dated: :12.05.2026 enmity. The prosecution also failed to examined the material eye witnesses. These circumstances create a reasonable doubt regarding the involvement of the accused. Therefore, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

20. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable Under Sections 294(b), 307, 341, 506 of Indian Penal

Code, accordingly, he is acquitted Under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties furnished U/Sec.437-A Criminal Procedure Code shall remain in force for period of six (06) months from today. The case property, i.e., M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

Digitally signed by KIRAN

KIRAN KUMARKUMAR

KODAMAGUNDLA

KODAMAGUNDLA

Date: 2026.05.13

13:30:47 +0530

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Prosecution Name of Witness Description

Witness No.

Kantem Praveen Kumar de-facto Complainant

1.

and injured

10 OF 12

S.C.No.31 OF 2024 Dated: :12.05.2026

Vadde Vikram

2.Eye witness

Budagam Mahesh

3.Mediator for CDF

Kantem Spandana

4.Eye Witnesses

J.Kartheek

5.Investigating Officer,

WhoissuedFIR,

arrested the accused

and filed charge sheet.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:

:: NONE ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by

No. /Attested by

Report lodged by PW-1

1.PW-1

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2

2.PW-2

Crime Detail Form

3.PW-3

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4

4.PW-4

First Information Report

5.PW-5

Medical Certificate

6.PW-5

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil- 11 OF 12

S.C.No.31 OF 2024 Dated: :12.05.2026

Material Objects/ Muddamals

Material Description of the Proved by

Object No. Exhibit /Attested by

1 Broken Beer Bottle PW-5

Digitally signed by KIRAN

KIRAN KUMAR

KUMAR KODAMAGUNDLA

KODAMAGUNDLADate: 2026.05.13 13:31:00 +0530

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM.

12 OF 12

S.C.No.65 OF 2024 Dated: :13.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT: SRI K.KIRAN KUMAR

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem.

SESSIONS CASE No.65 OF 2024

Preliminarily Registered Case No.06 of 2024 committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru in

Cr.No.177/2022 of P.S. Aswapuram for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution.: Sri K.Raja Rao. Addl.Public Prosecutor.

Accused: Balavanthapu Sri Laxmi, W/o. Sudheer Kumar, Aged about 22 years, Occ.House wife, R/o.Mondikunta Village of Aswapuram Mandal. Defence counsel: Sri K.Pullaiah, counsel for accused Offence under Section: 306 of Indian Penal Code

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding: Accused found Not guilty for the offence U/s.306 of Indian Penal Code Sentence or Order IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guiltyfor the charge punishable Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, she is acquitted Under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail 1 OF 12

S.C.No.65 OF 2024 Dated: :13.05.2026 bonds of the accused and his sureties furnishedU/Sec.437-ACriminal Procedure Code shall remain in force for period of six (06) months from today. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case came up for final hearing and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The sole accused stands charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.177 of 2022 of

Aswapuram Police Station, committed to this Court by the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru.

2.Prosecution’s Case (Brief Facts):

LW-1 by name Balavanthapu Ravi Kumar, S/o.Sundar Rao is the complainant and father of the deceased/Balavanthapu Sudheer

Kumar. On 13.12.2022 the complainant lodged report before the

Aswapuram Police Station Stating that deceased was his son, who got married with the accused by doing work as Supervisor in Mission 2 OF 12

S.C.No.65 OF 2024 Dated: :13.05.2026

Bhageeradha and blessed with a daughter and a son; his don/deceased and daughter-in-law/accused used to quarrel with each other; the accused used to harass mentally and beat the deceased; used to insult the deceased in every aspect, used to insist the deceased to die what was used with him; the deceased bored with all the happenings and on the noon of 13.12.2022 at 01:30 hours the deceased committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan in the house with a chunny.

3.Upon committal of the case by the learned Magistrate in P.R.C.

No.06/2024, the case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code against sole accused and numbered as

Sessions Case No.65/2024.

4.On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to them, a charge for offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal code against accused was framed, the contents of charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Then, the schedule for commencing the trial was issued.

3 OF 12

S.C.No.65 OF 2024 Dated: :13.05.2026

Witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked. The details of exhibits shall be noted at the Appendix of

Evidence as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).2973 of 2023 in between “Manojbhai

Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs The State of Gujarat”

6.Accused was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal

Procedure and they denied all the incriminating circumstances, found in the case of prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced.

7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and learned counsel for Accused.

8. Point for Consideration:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the accused committed the offence punishable

under Section 306 of Indian Penal code ?

POINT:

9.The sole accused stood charged for the offence punishable under

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that she abetted the suicide of deceased Balavanthapu Sudheer Kumar.

4 OF 12

S.C.No.65 OF 2024 Dated: :13.05.2026

10.The brief case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet that PW-1/father of the deceased, lodged a report alleging therein that due to harassment and humiliation of the accused, the deceased suffered mental agony and committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan on 13.12.2022. On the said report, a case in Crime No.177/2022 of Aswapuram Police Station was registered under Section 306 Indian

Penal Code against the sole accused.

12.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution witnesses testimonies were consistent and remained unshaken in cross-examination. He contended that the defense's cross-examination inadvertently elicited facts and posed questions that established the motive and intention of the accused, thereby lightening the prosecution's burden of proof. The prosecution further submitted that the defense failed to present any credible rebuttal evidence and that Exhibits P-1 to P-9. PW-1 is the father of the deceased and the defacto complainant, PW-2 and PW-3 are the circumstantial witnesses; PW-4 and PW-5 are the investigating officers.

5 OF 12

S.C.No.65 OF 2024 Dated: :13.05.2026

13.The father of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and he is also the defacto complainant, he has categorically deposed that his son committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan due to "health issues" he specifically deposed that the police did not examine him nor recorded his statement and eventually he has denied the entire prosecution version. More-so, he has vehemently denied that the contents of report are known to him and he stated to the police as in his statement. Ultimately, utilizing the wisdom, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor sought the permission of this court to declare this witness hostile. Although, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had the advantage to cross examine the witness, but to the dismay of the prosecution, absolutely no averment could be elicited to substantiate the contention of the prosecution.

14.PW-2 and PW-3, who are projected as circumstantial witnesses, they deposed in one voice that the deceased committed suicide due to “some personal reasons“. They both denied having given any statement to police implicating the accused. All the witnesses were treated as hostile witnesses and their cross examination by the prosecution did not yield any material supporting the prosecution case.

6 OF 12

S.C.No.65 OF 2024 Dated: :13.05.2026

16.PW-1 to PW-3 are the material witnesses and they all being close relatives of the deceased, completely abondoned the case of prosecution and resiled from the version of the prosecution and also retracted from their earlier statements to the police and they did not attribute any role to the accused in abetting the suicide of the deceased.

17.The investigating officers are examined as PW-8 and PW-9, they spoke about the registration of the crime, the stages of investigation such as recording the statements of witnesses, inquest, post mortem, scene observation, arrest of the accused and upon completion of the entire investigation filing of the final report. In the cross examination,

PW-8, the 1st investigating Officer admitted that all the material witnesses are the close relatives of the deceased, that he did not examine any independent witnesses.

18.It is well settled that to attract Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, there must be clear and cogent evidence of instigation, intentional aid or active participation by the accused leading the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegation or suspicion are not sufficient.

7 OF 12

S.C.No.65 OF 2024 Dated: :13.05.2026

19.In the present case, except the alleged statements under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code under Exs.P-2 to P-4, which have been denied by all the material witnesses, there is no substantive evidence on record to prove abetment. As held by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in V.K.Mishra Vs. State of Uttarakhand1 , a statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code is not substantive evidence and can be used only to contradict the witness.

20.Admittedly, the evidence of investigating officer alone, in the absence of corroboration from material witnesses or independent evidence, is insufficient to base a conviction. The admitted lapse in investigation further weakens the prosecution’s case. The testimonies of investigating officer/PW-4 and PW-5 is insufficient and inadequate to establish the nexus between the crime and the alleged participation of the accused.

21.The prosecution has failed to establish any proximate or direct act of instigation or harassment by the accused which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. On the contrary, the consistent version 1 (2015) 9 SCC 588 8 OF 12

S.C.No.65 OF 2024 Dated: :13.05.2026 of the family members is that the deceased committed suicide due to “health issues”.

22.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of

Punjab2 held that to constitute abetment under Section 306 of

Indian Penal Code, there must be clear mens rea on the part of accused to instigate or aid the commission of suicide and there must be a direct or proximate link between the act of the accused and the suicide. Mere harassment, without any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence, is insufficient.

23.Applying the above settled principle of law to the facts of the present case, in the absence of any substantive evidence of instigation or intentional aid and in view of the hostile testimony of all the material witnesses, the offence Under Section 306 of Indian Penal

Code is not made out against the accused. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considerable opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

2(2020) 10 SCC 200 9 OF 12

S.C.No.65 OF 2024 Dated: :13.05.2026

24. IN THE RESULT, the accused accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, she is acquitted Under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties furnished U/Sec.437-A Criminal Procedure Code shall remain in force for period of six (06) months from today. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Digitally signed by KIRAN

KIRAN KUMAR

KUMAR KODAMAGUNDLA

KODAMAGUNDLADate: 2026.05.14 15:43:33 +0530

ASSISTANT SESSION S JUDGE,

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Prosecution Name of Description

Witness No. Witness

B.Ravi Kumar

1.de-facto Complainant and

circumstantial witness

K. Santhosh

2.Circumstantial witness

B.Kavitha

3.Circumstantial Witness

S.Jithender

4.Investigating Officer,

who issued First

Information Report,

recorded the statements

of witnesses

10 OF 12

S.C.No.65 OF 2024 Dated: :13.05.2026

P.Thirupathi Rao

5.Investigating Officer,

whoarrestedthe

accused and filed charge

sheet.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:

:: NONE ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by

No. /Attested by

Signature of PW-1 on the complaint

1.PW-1

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1

2.PW-1

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2

3.PW-2

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3

4.PW-3

Report lodged by PW-1

5.PW-5

First Information Report

6.PW-5

Crime Detail Form

7.PW-5

Inquest Panchanama

8.PW-5

Post Mortem Examination Report

9.PW-5

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil- 11 OF 12

S.C.No.65 OF 2024 Dated: :13.05.2026

Material Objects/ Muddamals

Material Description of the Proved by

Object No. Exhibit /Attested by

:: NIL ::

Digitally signed by

KIRAN KUMAR

KIRAN KUMAR

KODAMAGUNDLA

KODAMAGUNDLA

Date: 2026.05.14

15:43:47 +0530

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM.

12 OF 12