1 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KADAPA.
Present:- Smt K.Prathusha Kumari,
Additional Asst. Sessions Judge, Kadapa.
Thursday, the 13th day of February, 2025.
Sessions Case No.231 of 2023.
1.Name of the ComplainantState: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, C.K. Dinne Police Station, Kadapa District.
2.Name of the accused.1. Akumalla Subhan, S/o. Babaiah, aged 60 years, R/o.D.No.3/19, C.K. Dinne Village and Mandal, YSR District. (A.1).
2. Akumalla Baba Fakruddin, S/o. Subhan, aged 38 years, R/o.D.No.3/19, C.K. Dinne Village and Mandal, YSR District. (A.2).
3. Akumalla Abdulla @ Nagendra, S/o. Subhan, aged 27 years, residing at D.No.3/19, C.K. Dinne Village and Mandal YSR District. (A.3).
3Offences charged Under Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against accused Nos.1 to 3.
4Plea of the accused.Found not guilty.
5Finding of the judgeFound not guilty.
6Sentence or Order In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same u/Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No order as to case property given as no case property is deposited in this case.
2 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023 7Accused defended bySri D. Reddaiah, Advocate for the accused Nos.1 to 3.
8Prosecution conducted byAddl. Public Prosecutor.
9Cr.No. and Name of the Crime No.324 of 2022 of C.K. Dinne Police Police StationStation, Kadapa.
10Committed byP.R.C.No.51 of 2022 of the Special Judicial
Magistrate of 1st Class for Prohibition and Excise
Offences, Kadapa.
11Date of offence28.08.2022.
12Date of report30.08.2022.
13Date of remandA.1 to A.3 – 31.08.2022.
14Date of release on bailA.1 to A.3 – 26.07.2023.
15Date of committal to 10.08.2023.
sessions Court
16Date of commencement of 16.10.2024. trial 17Date of close of trial.12.02.2025.
18Date of Judgment13.02.2025.
J U D G M E N T
The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, C.K. Dinne
Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable u/Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
2.In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution as per averments of the charge sheet is that the 1st informant Y.Khader Bee is the daughter one Smt.
3 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
Akumalla Baba Bee (deceased herein). P.W.1's grand-daughter had two sons and five daughters among them her father Babaiah and accused No.1 are the sons. Due to some misunderstandings in sharing their ancestral property, there were no good relations between the families of father of P.W.1 and accused
No.1. Hence, the family of the deceased is residing at Mulavanka village, whereas the family of accused No.1 is residing at C.K. Dinne Village. Eight months prior to the death of deceased, the husband of deceased demised due to ill-health. In the year 2014, marriage of P.W.1 was performed with one
Siddaiah and they blessed with two children. Due to ill-feelings with her husband, P.W.1 has been residing at her parents house since one year.
(a) During sharing of the ancestral properties, a house along with house site to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents situated at Moolavanka was given to the share of the deceased’s husband in which the deceased and her family were residing. Recent past to the death of deceased, they sold away the vacant house site to some others to meet medical expenses of deceased’s husband.
Later he passed away. Taking advantage of the same that there are no male persons remained in the family of deceased, the accused Nos.1 to 3 took aggressive steps and started threatening the deceased and P.W.1 with a demand to get the land returned from their purchaser and hand over the site to them. In that matter, on 25.07.2022 at 2.00 P.M., the accused Nos.1 to 3 armed with sticks went to the house of the deceased, assaulted the deceased, Pw.1 and also caused humiliation to the deceased and insulted her modesty. On that
P.W.1 was admitted in RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and basing on her statement, a case in Crime No.258 of 2022 for the offences u/Secs.324, 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
was registered by C.K. Dinne Police Station and it is under trial.
4 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
(b) The accused Nos.1 to 3 also started threatening the deceased saying that “even if they lodged police case what happened to them and even if they commit murder of them, who will come to their rescue and though they beat the deceased in the street dragging like a dog, she only able to live without shame and if anyone have faced such circumstances, they would have commited suicide so early”. This was witnessed by P.Ws.3, 4 and L.W.4-Syed
Moulali, L.W.5-K.Siddaiah, L.W.8-Shaik Ameer Basha. As the accused Nos.1 to 3 are high handed persons, nobody from neighboring persons would dare enough to come forward to say anything about the occurrence or against the accused. As all the accused seriously caused mental agony humiliating the deceased, she started saying to P.W.1 that the accused on one or other day would commit harm to P.W.1 also and if such thing happenings she will not able to bear the same and it is better to commit suicide well before happening of the same. However, P.W.1 used to console her in many ways. But due to fear of the accused on 28.08.2022 at 3.00 P.M., the deceased who unable to digest the humiliation, assault and insult caused by accused Nos.1 to 3, badly deserted on her life and consumed some pesticides granules that was hidden by her in the house to commit suicide and fill unconscious at her house. Learning the same,
P.W.1 who was out of the house to attend work, returned to the house and shifted the deceased to RIMS Hospital;, through 108 Ambulance and while undergo treatment on 30.08.2022 at 2.00 A.M., she succumbed to death. Later basing on the report of P.W.1, a case in Crime No.324 of 2022 u/Sec.306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. was registered and took up investigation.
(c) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and recorded the statements of witnesses besides visiting the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. On 31.08.2022 at 7.00 A.M. the Investigating Officer arrested the 5 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023 accused Nos.1 to 3, produced them before the Court for remand, forwarded viscera collected by the Medical Officer during postmortem certificate to RFSL,
Kurnool for chemical analysis. The expert after analysis, issued report that Item
Nos.1 to 3 are analyzed and alcohol is found in all of them and organophosphate an insecticide poisonous substance is found in all of them.
Accordingly, the Medical Officer issued final opinion for cause of death of the deceased is due to organophosphate an insecticide poisonous. Thus, after completion of investigation, the accused nos.1 to 3 were charge sheeted for the same offence registered under the FIR.
3.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise
Offences, Kadapa had taken cognizance of the case against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable u/Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Since the offence punishable u/Section 306 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions
Court, Kadapa u/Section 209 (a) of Cr.P.C by serving copies of case documents to the accused u/Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The same was registered as
S.C.No.231 of 2023 against accused Nos.1 to 3 and made over to this court for trial and disposal in accordance with law.
4.After appearance of the accused Nos. 1 to 3, on hearing learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel and upon considering
the material on record, the court framed charge u/Section 228 of Cr.P.C., for the offence u/Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against accused Nos.1 to 3, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
5. During the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor has examined nine witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 out of fourteen list of witnesses cited in the charge sheet. P.W.1 is the daughter of the decease and first informant who gave written report against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and to speak about the cause of death of the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 7 are the sisters and P.Ws.3 and 4 are neighbours of the deceased to corroborate version of P.W.1. P.W.5 and P.W.6 are stated to be inquest mediators inquest report.
PW.8 is the Professor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and P.W.9 is the Sub Inspector of Police, C.K. Dinne Police Station, who conducted further investigation, arrest of accused and filing charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3.
6. The evidence of L.W.4-Syed Moulali, L.W.5-K.Siddaiah, L.W.8-
Shaik Ameer Basha, L.W.11-Sunkesula Khabir and L.W.13-C.B.Lokesh, Asst.
Director, RFSL, Kurnool was given up by learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
Apart from the oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 were marked but no material objects were marked.
7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined u/Section 313 of Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating material elicited against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses in
Telugu, to which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Accordingly, the defence side evidence was closed.
8. Arguments heard from both counsel.
(a) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution submitted that evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 is consistent and corroborated with 7 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023 each other as to the harassment and abatement caused by the accused on the deceased to commit suicide. There was earlier altercation made by the accused on the deceased and P.W.1 with a demand to get back the property house site sold by them and caused injuries and on that a crime was also registered just a month back to the date of committing the suicide. The evidence of P.W.9 is also supported the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 and through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and 9, the prosecution is able to establish that there was direct threatening and abatement of accused Nos.1 to 3 on the deceased to commit suicide and hence, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are liable for conviction.
(b) On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused submitted that there is no consistency and corroboration among the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 and in fact P.Ws.2 and 7 are hearsay witnesses and hence their evidence cannot be considered as relevant. There is no wound certificate produced by the prosecution showing that there was earlier altercation made against P.W.1 and the deceased by the accused Nos.1 to 3 on 25.07.2022. Even as per the evidence of P.W.1, the ingredients for the offence u/Sec.306 of I.P.C. cannot be attracted to the case facts. There is no evidence showing that there is direct word or abatement caused by the accused on the deceased to commit suicide.
Allegedly the act of consuming poison had occurred within the closed premises and no one witnessed such occurrence including P.W.1. No neighbour is examined in support of the evidence of P.W.1. There are number of inconsistencies elicited even between the contents of Ex.P.1 report and the evidence of P.W.1 regarding mode of receiving information about the deceased consuming poisonous substance and the name of neighbour and from whom she came to know the same.
8 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
(ii) It is the further argument of the defence counsel that there is no medical evidence showing that the deceased was provided treatment from 28.08.2022 to 30.08.2022 in Government General Hospital, Kadapa. Further, there are number of inconsistencies between ocular and documentary evidence regarding time of death of deceased, time of registering F.I.R. and time of reaching F.I.R. to the Court along with inquest report. Non-giving of report by
P.W.1 and non-sending M.L.C. intimation from the hospital to the police till 30.08.2022 though the deceased was stated to be admitted in the hospital on 28.08.2022, creates lot of suspicion in this matter.
(iii) The defence counsel further stressed that there is no attempt made from the police or from the duty doctor to record last statement/Dying
Declaration from the deceased. No material object is seized from the alleged scene of offence by the Investigating Officer. Even the rough sketch does not contain the signature of the Investigating Officer who prepared it. The final argument of the defence counsel is that there are number of lacunas found in the investigation which are fatal to the case of the prosecution and as there is no consistent and credible evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the charge levelled against the accused, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled acquittal from the case.
9. Point ;- To bring home the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable u/Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C., it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish ; 1.That the deceased Akumalla Bababee committed suicide ?
2. That with a common intention the accused Nos.1 to 3 instigated/abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased ?
9 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
3. That such instigation/abatement attracts the ingredients of Section 107 of I.P.C.
Further, Section 107 of I.P.C defines the offence of abatement and it is constituted by any of the following ;-
(a) instigation to commit the offence; or
(b) engaging in conspiracy to commit it; or
(c) intentionally aiding a person to commit it.
10. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.Mohan Vs
State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC
626 and 2. Madan Mohan Singh Vs State of Gujarat, 2010 (8) SCC 628, analyzed meaning of the word ‘abatement’ and held in paragraphs 44 and 45 that ;- “44. Abatement 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.
“45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mensrea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.” 10 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
11. Thus, in view of the scope and ambit of Section 107 of I.P.C. and its co-relation with Section 306 of I.P.C. and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred decisions, to prove the offence u/Sec.306 of I.P.C., it requires an active or direct act which led the deceased victim to commit suicide seeing no option and in other words, the act must have been of such a degree intending to push the deceased into such a position that she committed suicide.
Essentially the grave-man of the offence punishable u/Section 306 of I.P.C. is abetting suicide. Abatement imposed a mental process of instigating a person or initially aiding a person in doing the offence. Thus, bearing in mind the aforesaid position, the court needs to analyze the case of the prosecution and the evidence placed on record to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilty of the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence u/Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased is no other than the sister- in-law of accused No.1, the accused Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of accused No.1 and P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased. Further, the husband of deceased by name Babaiah is no other than the brother of accused No.1. It is also not in dispute that earlier a case in Crime No.258 of 2022 for the offence u/Sec.324, 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C. was registered against the accused Nos.1 to 3 basing on the report of P.W.1 herein a month prior to the date of the present incident. It is also not in dispute that the family of deceased is resident of Moolavanka, whereas the family of the accused is resident of C.K.Dinne village. P.Ws.2 and 7 are no other than the own sisters of the deceased. According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased consumed poisonous granules on 28.08.2022 at 3.00
P.M. and on the same day after noticing the same, her daughter/P.W.1 shifted her to the Government Hospital, Kadapa and admitted there for treatment.
11 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
13. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased undergone treatment till 2.00 A.M. on 30.08.2022 and succumbed to death in the hospital itself. The present case is existed basing on the report stated to be given by
P.W.1 at about 11.00 A.M. on 30.08.2022. (telugu typed report). But surprisingly endorsement made by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and
Excise Offences, Kadapa, who received F.I.R. is 10.30 A.M. on 30.08.2022 i.e., half an hour prior to lodging of Ex.P.1 report. Further, the date mentioned on the round seal of the court and so also date of receive mentioned on the 1st page of the F.I.R., is 30.08.2022.
14. Further, the date and time of inquest conducted upon dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P.11-inquest report are 30.08.2022 from 12.30 P.M. to 2.30 P.M. But, according to the date mentioned by the Special Judicial
Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and Excise Offences, Kadapa on the said
inquest report is 30.08.2022. Time of receiving Ex.P11 inquest report is not
mentioned on the inquest report by the Special Judicial Magistrate of I
Class for Prohibition and Excise Offences, Kadapa, though it is mandatory as per Rule 24 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990.
So, the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and Excise
Offences, Kadapa who received Ex.P11 Inquest report without mentioning the time, has not followed the said Mandatory Rule and certainly it gives a lot
of suspicion as to the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of
the deceased and at what time it reached to the court on 30.8.2022, as rightly contended by the defence counsel.
15. Further, according to the contents of Ex.P.1 report, the deceased died at 2.00 A.M. on 30.08.2022 while undergoing treatment in the hospital. P.W.1 deposed the same before the Court during her evidence. But in Ex.P.4 inquest 12 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023 report at column No.3 relating to “by whom first found dead, when and where ?” it is mentioned that the deceased died while undergoing treatment on 30.08.2022 at 12.30 P.M. and it is firstly seen by the duty doctor.” Contrary to the same, in the same inquest report at column No.15, the time of death of the deceased is mentioned as 2.00 A.M. on 30.08.2022. Under these circumstances, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is scrutinized with due care and caution.
16. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.1, who deposed that her father died about thee years ago and thereafter, her mother sold Ac.0.02 cents of site to third parties to discharge their debts borrowed for providing treatment to her father, on that the accused Nos.1 to 3 went to their house on 25.07.2022 at about 2.00 P.M., made an altercation with her mother questioning why she sold the property to others and demanded her to get back the property claiming the same as their property and beat her mother with sticks and caught hold of her tuft, pulled and dragged her and thereby caused injuries to her. Accused No.1 to 3 also beat her with hands, legs, sticks and kicked her and also caused injuries on both of her hands. The Accused Nos.1 to 3 also scolded her mother in abusive language. On that she and her mother went to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, taken treatment and on that a crime was registered at C.K. Dinne Police Station against the accused Nos.1 to 3. Again the accused Nos.1 to 3 used to come to her house, scolded her mother in abusive language, made galata and challenged her that she won’t do anything and even if she filed police case, no one will save her and also scolded that even if they beat the deceased, dragged her like a dog in the street and she continued her life without feeling ashame and if anyone would have faced the same they would have committed suicide. On that her mother used to express her that no male person is there to help her and the accused would also kill her and even if the accused kill her no one will come 13 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023 forward as a witness and felt very bad.
17. P.W.1 further deposed that on 28.08.2022, she left the house to attend work and at about 3.00 P.M., her neighbours telephoned and informed her that her mother fell down unconsciously inside the house. Immediately, she rushed to the house and tried to wake up her mother but there was no response and some form of saliva was coming from her mother. Immediately, she shifted her to RIMS Hospital in 108 Ambulance and while undergoing treatment, her mother died on 30.08.2022. On the same day, she went to C.K. Dinne police station and lodged Ex.P.1 report. Police conducted inquest upon the dead body of deceased in RIMS Hospital in the presence of herself and her relatives. Police examined her. The cause of death of the deceased, who she was unable to bear the torture of beating and causing harassment of accused Nos.1 to 3, she committed suicide.
18. There is no dispute from the prosecution that the case in
C.C.No.1655 of 2022 instituted basing on the report of P.W.1 regarding the alleged attack made against her and the deceased by accused Nos.1 to 3 on 25.07.2022, was ended in acquittal by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First
Class for Prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa on 30.08.2024. On examining the entire evidence of P.W.1 deposed in chief that it is clear that she was not present in the house while the deceased consumed the pesticide granules. It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that she came to know that her mother fell down unconsciously inside the house through neighbours over phone around 3.00 P.M. on 28.08.2022 and immediately she returned to house and shifted her to RIMS Hospital. Though P.W.1 deposed that she came to know about the condition of her mother through neighbours over phone, the mode of receiving information i.e., telephonic information is not whispered in Ex.P.1 14 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023 report. So also P.W.1 neither whispered in Ex.P.1 nor deposed before the Court about the name of neighbour through whom she came to know the same. More so, said neighbour is not examined during the investigation and not cited as a witness in the charge sheet for the reasons best known to the Investigating
Officer.
19. Furthermore, though P.W.1 deposed in the evidence about the attack stated to be occurred on 25.07.2022 against her and the deceased, she failed to mention the dates when the accused again visited their house, scolded and threatened the deceased and at least she did not whisper the last date when the accused visited their house and scolded the deceased. Admittedly, there is no eye witness while the deceased consumed pesticide. In the cross-examination,
P.W.1 deposed that her mother was in unconscious state till the doctors provided first aid and after regaining unconscious, spoken to her and narrated about cause of her committing suicide. But there is no whisper about the same in
Ex.P.1 report.
20. Nevertheless,there is no medical evidence showing that the deceased was admitted in RIMS Hospital, Kadapa on 28.08.2022 after 3.00
P.M., and she was provided treatment till her the till of her death on 30.08.2022.
Further, admittedly P.W.1 did not make any attempt to present report either to
RIMS O.P.Police Station or to C.K. Dinne Police Station immediately after she came to know the alleged cause of death of the deceased through the deceased or immediately after admitting the deceased in the hospital. So also the duty doctor did not send the hospital admission intimation of the deceased to RIMS
O.P.Police Station and so also to the Judicial Magistrate of I Class to record dying declaration of the deceased till PW.1 presented report at 11.00 A.M. on 30.08.2022 i.e., nine hours after death of the deceased. Moreover, Ex.P.1 is a 15 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
Typed Telugu language report. On this aspect, P.W.1 in the cross-examination stated that she cannot say name of the police who typed it and she has not stated the Crime No.258 of 2022 and Section of Law at the time of preparing
Ex.P.1 report. According to the evidence of the Investigating Officer/P.W.9, he received the written report from P.W.1. However, Ex.P.1 contains the Crime
No.258 of 2022 along with section of law which was registered against the accused Nos.1 to 3 a month prior to the date of the present incident.
21. Moreover, there is no direct eye witness to support the evidence of
P.W.1 about the alleged attack took place on 25.07.2022 or subsequent threatening / harassment / abatement of the accused on the deceased. No neighgbour or villager is examined and supported the case of the prosecution in this regard. According to the evidence of P.W.1, she deposed in the cross- examination that PW.4 is her 2nd husband and they have been living together after she left her 1st husband and a year prior to the date of the present incident.
Though the alleged 2nd husband of P.W.1 is examined as P.W.4, he did not support the version of P.W.1. According to the evidence of P.W.4, he married
P.W.1 four or five months after death of the deceased but he does not know the cause of death of the deceased. However, he came to know through his wife that the deceased died by committing suicide. P.W.4 further deposed that police just noted his name.
22. Another witness who cited as corroborative witness is examined as
P.W.3. But P.W.3 is also not whispered anything about the attack and disputes between the accused and deceased and particularly cause of death of deceased. Both P.Ws.3 and 4 turned hostile in toto to the case of the prosecution inspite of facing cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution.
Therefore, there is no support from the evidence of 2nd husband of P.W.1 and 16 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023 one of the villagers of the deceased/Pws.3 and 4 to the version of P.W.1 made against the accused and cause of death of the deceased.
23. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.2 and 7 who are the own sisters of deceased. P.Ws.2 and 7 deposed their evidence contrary to each other.
P.W.2 deposed that there was a site dispute between the families of the accused and deceased and the site was sold by deceased. A year prior to the date of death of the deceased, accused No.1 and his sons along with their wives went to the house of the deceased, attacked her and PW.1 with sticks and kicked them with legs with a demand to give said site to accused No.1 and claiming right over it. The deceased informed the same to her over phone. Thereafter, she was unable to bear the harassment and hurt caused by the accused, she consumed pesticide and committed suicide. P.W.1 informed the same to her over phone and immediately, she went to RIMS Hospital and in her presence, the deceased died.
24. P.W.2 further deposed in the chief examination that police did not examine her in this case. In the cross-examination also P.W.2 deposed that the accused sold away the properties fallen to the share of husband of the deceased apart from their shares and she along with P.W.7 went to the hospital after knowing the death of deceased. P.W.2 further deposed in the cross-examination that she does not know whether P.W.1 and P.W.4 are responsible for the death of deceased and she gave evidence at the instance of P.W.1.
25. According to the the evidence of P.W.7, one month prior to the date of death of the deceased, the accused attacked the deceased and P.W.1 regarding house site and she came to know the same through the deceased over phone. Immediately, she rushed to the hospital and noticed that P.W.1 17 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023 sustained injuries on her hands. At that time, the deceased shared with her that the accused claiming the site, scolding and threatening her. On that she advised the deceased that it is better to give house site to the accused. A month thereafter, P.W.1 informed her through phone that the deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticide and she was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and there the deceased died.
26. P.W.7 further deposed that she has stated to the police about the earlier altercation between the accused and deceased and the deceased vexed with that and might have committed suicide. Police conducted inquest on the dead body of deceased in their presence. In the cross-examination, P.W.7 stated that P.Ws.1 and 4 have been residing in a rented house abutting to the house of the deceased prior to the death of deceased, but P.W.1 married P.W.4 after death of the deceased. P.W.7 further deposed in the cross-examination that herself and other relatives admonished P.W.1 for marrying P.W.4.
27. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 7, it is evident that they are not the eye witnesses for any of the attack/alleged scolding or harassment faced by the deceased in the hands of accused Nos.1 to 3. P.W.2 and 7 are only hearsay witnesses as they came to know about the earlier incident through the deceased and the present incident of committing suicide by the deceased through P.W.1. Thus, the hearsay evidence of P.Ws.2 and 7 cannot be relevant and considered to believe the case of the prosecution levelled against the accused. Moreover, there are number of inconsistencies elicited among the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 regarding P.W.1 had been staying with the deceased or with her 2nd husband/P.W.4 by the date of the present incident.
Further P.W.2 deposed that accused No.1 sold the disputed site, whereas
P.Ws.2 and 7 deposed that the deceased sold the disputed site and on that the 18 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023 accused grew wild and made alleged attack and threatening on the deceased.
Further, it is not the contention of the prosecution or P.W.1 that the accused came to the house of deceased and scolded or threatened the deceased on the same date of the present incident or on the previous day of the incident of the deceased consumed poisonous granules.
28. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.5 who deposed that after knowing about death of the deceased, on the request of the brother of deceased, he went to the hospital to see the dead body and at that time, police obtained his signatures on the inquest report. Whereas P.W.6 deposed that when he went to RIMS Hospital for treatment about two years ago at that time, police obtained his signatures on the inquest report. Both P.Ws.5 and 6 deposed that they do not know the contents of the inquest report. Thus, P.Ws.5 and 6 are turned hostile wholly.
29. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.8/Professor who deposed that basing on the requisition of S.H.O., C.K. Dinne Police Station, on 30.8.2022 at 2.00 P.M., he conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased from 2.40
P.M. to 3.40 P.M. He has not found neither external nor internal injuries on the dead body of deceased. On opening the stomach, it contains about 10 ml. of thick brown coloured fluids with suspicious smell. Mucosa was deeply congested. He preserved viscera and sent it for chemical analysis to RFSL
Kurnool and preliminarily issued postmortem certificate. Later after receiving
R.F.S.L. report, he issued final opinion that the deceased died due to organaophosphate an insecticide poison. In the cross-examination, P.W.8 deposed that he cannot say the approximate time and fatal dose of the poison consumed by the deceased. He has not mentioned in Ex.P.7 postmortem certificate and Ex.P.9 final opinion about the M.L.C. number.
19 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
30. As discussed supra, there is no dispute from the defence about the death and nature of death of the deceased. Now coming to the evidence of
P.W.9 Investigating Officer, who narrated his part of role done in this case as mentioned in the charge sheet. In the cross-examination, P.W.9 testified that though he received death intimation from RIMS Hospital on 30.08.2022 at 1.56
A.M. he did not forward the same to the Court. If the evidence of P.W.9 is considered about receiving death intimation of the deceased at 1.56 A.M. on 30.08.2022, it is highly suspicious over the evidence of Pw.9 that how he received death intimation from RIMS Hospital at 1.56 A.M. on 30.08.2022 when the deceased reportedly died at 2.00 A.M. on 30.08.2022 i.e., four minutes
before death of the deceased. Further, there is no explanation from Pw.9 that if
really he got received death intimation at 1.56 A.M. on 30.08.2022 why he kept quite without proceeding to the hospital and without making any effort to record the statement of P.W.1 or any other relative of the deceased and initiate F.I.R.
According to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.9 and as per contents of Ex.P.1 report and Ex.P.10 F.I.R., P.W.1 went to the police station and presented telugu typed report at 11.00 A.M. on 30.08.2022.
31. Furthermore, as discussed in the beginning of the discussion of this
Judgment that there are several discrepancies and inconsistencies committed while registering the crime, conducting inquest, sending F.I.R. and inquest report to the court and time of receiving the same by the Special Judicial Magistrate of I
Class, for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Kadapa. If really, the Investigating
Officer received the report of the P.W.1 at 11.00 A.M. on 30.08.2022, how it is possible to receive F.I.R. by the said Court at 10.30 A.M. on the same day. But, the prosecution is failed to clarify the serious discrepancy eliciting in this regard either through the evidence of Investigating Officer or to produce General Diary
Entry of the complainant Police Station regarding time of receiving report, 20 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023 registration of F.I.R. and dispatch of same to the court. Moreover, P.W.9 has admitted in the cross examination that he has not obtained the signature of
P.W.1 at column No.14 in the F.I.R. It is true that column No.14 in Ex.P.10 F.I.R.
is kept blank. Further, column No.15 in Ex.P.10 F.I.R., the time of dispatch F.I.R.
to the Court is also not mentioned and kept blank. Apart from all these lacunas found in the case of the prosecution, the prosecution failed to place substantive evidence that only because of the attack, harassment or humiliation caused by the accused on 25.07.2022 or subsequent dates, the deceased carried the same in her mind and committed suicide on 28.08.2022. There is lot of time gap between the alleged acts of the accused and the date of suicide. Further, the rough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer does not contain his signature. No tangible evidence/material object is collected from the scene of offence and placed before the Court. Moreover, P.W.1 admitted in the cross- examination of the defence that ‘she has not observed any piece of evidence of bottle or cover/packet or tablets of consumed poisonous substance by her month at her house and she has also not handed over any of such material to the police’.
32. Learned defence counsel has relied upon the observation of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Vs State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 3 S.C.R 329, held that “46. In this case, the doctors who had treated the deceased in the first nursing home and later on in the Mission Hospital, were not examined by the police. They were also not summoned as court witnesses. Their testimony could have been crucial. They could have thrown light into the nature of intake of the Organophosphate compound: whether by way of injection or consumed orally? Whether they could detect the smell of Organophosphate compound emanating from the patient? This serious lacuna is further compounded by the fact that the prosecution had failed to recover any syringe or needle from the crime scene. No container or bottle containing the pesticide were also recovered from the room where the 21 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023 deceased was found lying on the floor or in any part of the house. There is no evidence to suggest that police had made an endeavour to search for such container or bottle. If the deceased had injected the poison herself, considering the multiple injection marks over the front of both the elbows, then the syringe and the needle would have been there, in and around her. If she had orally consumed the poison, then also the bottle or the container of the poison would have been present in the crime scene or near about. There is absolutely no evidence in this regard. There is also no evidence to show as to how the deceased had acquired the pesticide. In addition to non-recovery of the syringe or the needle or the container, the police were unable to show the source from where the particular pesticide was obtained by the deceased. If the prosecution case is to be believed, then the syringe and the needle or the container must have been present in the scene of occurrence itself. Those were not found by the prosecution. Neither any trace of pesticide was seen by the investigating officer in the room. The FSL report as well as the chemical analysis report are silent as to whether any trace of the pesticide was detected from any of the seized articles. Prosecution is silent as to why no investigation was done in this regard. In a case of this nature, where the oral evidence including that of PW Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are not at all convincing, the absence of the container or the bottle containing the pesticide from where the deceased had orally consumed the pesticide, becomes very crucial. Similarly, recovery of syringe and needle if the deceased had injected the poison, is also crucial. As a general principle, it can be said that in a case of death by poisoning, be it homicidal or suicidal and which is based on circumstantial evidence, recovery of the trace of poison consumed by or administered to the deceased is of critical importance. It forms a part of the chain; rather it would complete the chain to prove homicide or suicide.
Conclusion
47. Human mind is an enigma. It is well neigh impossible to unravel the mystery of the human mind. There can be myriad reasons for a man or a woman to commit or attempt to commit suicide: it may be a case of failure to achieve academic excellence, oppressive environment in college or hostel, particularly for students belonging to the marginalized sections, joblessness, financial difficulties, disappointment in love or marriage, acute or chronic ailments, depression, so on and so forth. Therefore, it may not always be the case that someone has to abet commission of suicide.
22 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
Circumstances surrounding the deceased in which he finds himself are relevant.
48. Coming to the facts of the present case, we do not find any evidence on the basis of which we can hold the appellant guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased. While the death of a young woman is certainly very tragic, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that suicide has been proved; the other essential ingredient constituting the offence under Section 306 IPC, viz, abatement cannot also be said to have been proved.
49. Thus on a conjoint reading of the entire materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. The settled legal position, the evidence on record and the glaring omissions of the prosecution as pointed out above, leaves no room for doubt. We are therefore of the unhesitant view that the conviction of the appellant is wholly unsustainable.
50. That being the position, conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC is set aside. The judgment and order of the trial court dated 06.07.2004 as affirmed by the High Court vide the judgment and order
dated 17.09.2010 are hereby set aside and quashed.”
33. In the instant case on hand, on examining the entire evidence let in
before the Court on behalf of the prosecution, it is clear that there is no sufficient
and corroborative evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the role and involvement of the accused in threatening or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide. Moreover, several discrepancies and inconsistencies were elicited during investigation and also in the evidence of Pw.1, Ex.P1 report, FIR and Inquest Report as to time of death of the deceased, registration of FIR, receiving information to the police about death of deceased and reaching the
FIR and Inquest report to the Special Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class for
Prohibition and Excise Offences, Kadapa which leaves room for doubt over the guilelessness in the case of the prosecution levelled against the accused.
23 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
34. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchan Sharma
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, AIR 2021 SC 4313, held that “Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306IPC, the
Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.”
35. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence placed by the prosecution through oral and documentary, it is clear that there is no evidence revealing the existence of element of mensrea or positive act or part suggesting that the accused Nos.1 to 3 either to instigate or directly abate the deceased to commit suicide. Further, the prosecution also failed to prove the nexus between the accused and the deceased in committing suicide.
36. Moreover, in criminal jurisprudence, it is well settled principle of law that guilty of the accused for the charge levelled against them shall be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and if any amount of doubt raises or even if two views are possible basing on the evidence placed before the court, the view which is favorable to the accused shall be considered.On this aspect, the 24 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar Vs
State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563, held that ; "It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt”.
37. Thus, in the case on hand, the prosecution has failed to prove the the essential elements for offence u/Section 306 of I.P.C made against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, it is a fit case to acquit the accused by extending benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.
38. In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C., and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same u/Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No order as to case property since no case property is seized in this case.
Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of February, 2025.
Sd/- K. Prathusha Kumari,
Additional Asst. Sessions Judge,
Kadapa.
25 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W.1. Y. Khader Bee
P.W.2. C. Hussain Bee
P.W.3. G. Hussain
P.W.4: C. Bhanu Prasad.
P.W.5: T. Anjaneyulu.
P.W.6: G.B. Suresh Reddy.
P.W.7: P. Khadaramma.
P.W.8: Dr. M. Srinivasa Naik.
P.W.9: B. Arun Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police.
Witness examined for defence
NIL
Exhibits marked for prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1, Dt.11.08.2019. Ex.P.2: Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.3: Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.4: Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.5: Sec.161of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7. Ex.P.6: Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8. Ex.P.7: Signature of P.W.9 in the Inquest Report, Dt.12.08.2019. Ex.P.8: Signature of P.W.10 in the Inquest Report, Dt.12.08.2019. Ex.P.9: Postmortem Certificate of the deceased. Ex.P.10: F.S.L. Report. Ex.P.11: Final Opinion. Ex.P.12: Inquest Report of the deceased. Ex.P.13: F.I.R. in Crime No.165/2019 of Pendlimarri P.S., Dt.11.08.2019. Ex.P.14: Rough Sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.15: Carbon copy of the letter issued to the Tahsildar, Pendlimarri by the Investigating Officer.
26 Judgment in S.C.No.231 of 2023
Ex.P.16: Reply letter received from the Tahsildar, Pendlimarri, Dt.24.09.2010. Ex.P.17: Letter of Advice. Ex.P.18: Order in Crl.M.P.No.145 of 2022, Dt.17.01.2023 passed by the II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa.
Exhibits marked for defence:
- N I L -
Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution
- N I L -
Sd/- K. Prathusha Kumari
Addl.A.S.J. Kdp.