1 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :
AT: KARIMNAGAR.
Present:- K. Venkatesh, Secretary, D.L.S.A, Karimnagar, FAC: Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
Tuesday, this the 21st day November, 2023.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 201 of 2022
(PRC No.23/2022 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise)-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in Cr. No. 50/2022 of Police Station, Ramadugu against the accused no.1).
1Name and :The State of Telangana through the Circle- description of the Inspector of Police, Police Station, complainantChoppadandi.
2Name and :A1: Sri. Vontela Sujatha @ Pushpamma, description of the W/o: Lachi Reddy, Age: 46 years, Caste: accusedReddy, R/o: H.No. 1-35/1, Sriramulapalli Village of Ramadugu Mandal.
3Offences with :Under Section 306, 290 and 504 of IPC. which charged 4Counsel for the:Sri G.Laxman,Addl. P.P. Prosecution 5Counsel for the :Sri. E. Raja Reddy Accused 6Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty.
7Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.
8Sentence or Order:Accused no. 1 is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
This Sessions Case is coming on 17.11.2023 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. G.Laxman, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and Sri. E. Raja Reddy, Advocate for the accused no.1 and upon hearing the arguments of both the sides and the matter 2 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022 having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Circle-Inspector of Police, Choppadandi Circle had filed charge sheet in Crime No.50/2022 of Police Station Ramadugu for the offences punishable under Section 306, 290 and 504 of Indian Penal
Code (for brevity “IPC”) against accused no.1.
2.The brief allegations of the prosecution are that, on 17-03-2022, at 12.30 P.M, the complainant/Pw.1/Sri. Vontela Amarender Reddy came to Ramadugu Police Station and lodged a written report, wherein he stated that they are two brothers and that agricultural lands of his father and his villager Vontela Sujatha (accused), W/o Lachi Reddy are located adjoining to each other at their village and that at the time of alive of his grand-father, in the process of exchanging lands with
Vontela Sujatha, they have given 11 guntas of land to Vontela Sujatha, but Vontela Sujatha is not registering 11 guntas of land to them and that in this regard, quarrels were taken place in between them and accused and that since one month his father is asking accused to register 11 guntas land, but since then accused has been abusing his father in filthy language and insulting him wherever she found him seen and that his villagers Banda Thirupathi Reddy and Kosna Naresh
Reddy came and stood in front of their house, abusing his father in 3 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022 most vulgar language like anything, asked to come outside of the house and abetted his father to die anywhere else and why he is alive still and insulted his father and that his father made a phone call and informed the same to him and worried mentally by saying that he would die with the abuses and insult of the accused and that unable to tolerate such insult caused by the accused, on 16-03-2022, at about 4.00 A.M, his father went to their agricultural land, consumed "Ginny", a herbicide poison and returned home, upon which, his mother found herbicide poison smell from his father and when she enquired his father, he told his mother by crying that he consumed herbicide poison at their agriculture field, due to unable to tolerate the abuses and insults from accused. Immediately his mother called his neighbour/cousin Vontela
Anil Reddy/Pw.4 and with his help, shifted his father in 108 Ambulance to Omega Hospital, Karimnagar and admitted for treatment and she informed the same to Pw.1 over phone, as he was in Karimnagar at that time, he immediately rushed to hospital and noticed his father was undergoing treatment for consuming herbicide poison and that today i.e. on 17.03.2022, at 11.26 AM, his father was died while undergoing treatment in Omega Hospital, Karimnagar and that he concluded that the accused Vontela Sujatha at the instigation of Banda Thirupathi
Reddy and Kosna Naresh Reddy, had abused his father in most vulgar language, insulted and instigated him to die, due to unable to bear the 4 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022 same he vexed over his life and committed suicide by consuming herbicide poison.
3.Basing on the report of Pw.1, Pw.14/Sri. G. Anantha Reddy, the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of police, P.S Ramadugu has registered a case in Cr.No. 50/2022 for the offences punishable U/s. 306, 290, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and issued the FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of the investigation, Pw.14 visited Government Head quarters hospital, Karimnagar, where he secured the presence of two mediators i.e., Pw.12/Sri Madishetti Srinivas and Pw.13/Sri Enugurthy
Nagaraju, in their presence he conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased/Raghava Reddy and obtained the signatures of the above mediators after explaining it’s contents. Later, Pw.14 has examined and recorded the statements of PW.1/Sri Vontela Amarender
Reddy, PW.2/Vontela Srinivas Reddy, PW.3/Smt. Vontela Manemma,
PW.4/Sri Vontela Anil Reddy, PW.5/Sri Gaddam Shankar and LW.5/Sri
Vontela Ravinder Reddy. Later, Pw.14 got photographed over the dead body of the deceased with the help of PW.5. Later, he gave requisition to the LW.18/Sri Dr. B. Shubhangini, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Medical officer of the Government Hospital, Karimnagar for postmortem examination. After completion of postmortem examination, Pw.14 handed over the dead body of the deceased to his relatives. Later, he 5 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022 visited the scene of offence situated at agricultural fields of the deceased situated at Sriramulapalli village, where he observed the scene minutely and searched for pesticide tin or any other material objects, but the same was not found. Later, he conduced the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., PW.13/Sri
Enugurthy Nagaraju and Sri Madishetti Srinivas/LW.17 and obtained the signatures of the above mediators after explaining it’s contents.
Further, prior to lodging of Ex.P1/report, on coming to know about admission of the deceased in Government Hospital, Karimnagar,
LW.20/Sri M. Shankaraiah, HC No. 1607 of P.S Ramadugu gave requisition to LW.19/Smt. M.R. Arpitha, I Additional Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Karimnagar to record dying declaration of the deceased. On
16.03.2023, LW.19 visited the Government Hospital, Karimnagar and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased/Sri. Vontela Raghava
Reddy. Pw.14 handed over the C.D file to LW.22/Sri S. Sambamurthy,
Sub-Inspector of police, P.S Ramadugu for further investigation. Later,
Lw.22 had took up the further investigation, during the course of further investigation, he collected the PME report from Lw.18, who preserved the viscera of the deceased, then, he obtained the authorization letter from ACP, Karimnagar Rural on 08-04-2022 and handed over the viscera to RFSL, Karimnagar for examination and report. Subsequently, on 09-04-2022, the Pw.15/Sri. G. Ravinder, 6 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022
Circle-Inspector of police, Choppadandi Circle took the C.D file from
Lw.22 and verified the investigation done by him and same were found on correct lines. During the course of further investigation, Pw.15 visited the Sriramulapalli village, where he re-examined Pws.1 to 6 and
Lw.5/Sri. Vontela Ravinder Reddy orally, but he did not record their statements as they re-iterated their earlier statements before the Pw.14.
On 26-04-2022, Pw.15 apprehended the Accused at her house situated at Sriramulapalli village and interrogated her, on interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and she further confessed that, "the Accused nos. 2 and 3 were not instigated her to abuse the deceased to commit suicide and she herself only abused the deceased to commit suicide. Later, Pw.15 brought the
Accused no.1 to P.S and affected her arrest and produced her before the court for judicial remand. Later, on 27.04.2022, he visited
Sriramulapalli village, where he recorded the statements of PW.6/Sri.
Chanti Jeevan, PW.7/Sri. Madishetti Raji Reddy, PW.8/Vontela Padma,
PW.9/Sri. Kachidi Raji Reddy, PW.10/Sri. Vontela Karunakar Reddy and LW.9/Sri. Kosma Mahipal Reddy and later he visited Thasildar
Office, Ramadugu, where he secured the presence of LW.13/Sri.
Chinthala Komal Reddy, Thasildar and recorded his statement. As per the statements of independent witnesses i.e., PWs.6 to 10 and LW.9, who have not supported the versions of Pws. 1 to 4 and LW.5 and 7 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022 according to statements of Pws. 6 to 10 and LW.9, Accused nos. 2 and 3 never abetted the deceased to die nor abetted the accused no. 1 to abuse the deceased in filthy language, as such no case was made out against accused nos. 2 and 3, then he filed a requisition before the
Asst. Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar Rural to delete the names of accused nos. 2 and 3 and accordingly the ACP, Karimnagar Rural accorded permission to delete the names of accused nos. 2 and 3. After collecting relevant documents and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against accused no.1 U/s. 306, 290 and 504 of IPC.
4. The case was taken on file by the Learned Special Judicial
Magistrate of First Class (Excise)-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Karimnagar for the offences punishable U/s. 306, 290 and 504 of IPC against the accused no.1.
5.On appearance of the accused no.1, the learned Magistrate furnished the copies of case documents to the accused as required under Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.).
As the offence under Section 306 is exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, hence the learned Magistrate after compliance of Sec.209
Cr.P.C., committed the case vide P.R.C.No.23/2022 to the Hon'ble
Principal Sessions Court, Karimnagar.
8 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022
6. The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, assigned the
Sessions Case No.201/2022 and made over to this Court for disposal
according to law.
7. Upon hearing both sides, charges have been framed under
Section 306, 290 and 504 of IPC against the accused no.1, the same were read over and explained to her in Telugu, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the Court fixed the trial schedule and issued summons to the witnesses to record their evidence.
8. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, Pws.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P1 to P18 were got marked and Ex.D1 got marked on defence side.
9.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of
Lw.5/Sri. Vontela Ravinder Reddy, Lw.9/Sri. Kosma Mahipal Reddy,
Lw.13/Sri. Chinthala Komal Reddy, Lw.17/Sri. Madishetti Srinivas,
Lw.18/Smt. Dr. Shubhangini, Lw.19/Smt. M.R. Arpitha, Lw.20/Sri. M.
Shankaraiah and Lw.22/Sri. S. Sambamurthy and reported that the prosecution evidence was closed.
9 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022
10.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same were read over and explained to her in
Telugu, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on her behalf.
11. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the accused. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor filed his written arguments and the same are perused.
12.Perused the record.
13. Now the following points would arise for determination is:
1. “ Whether the prosecution has able to prove the charge for the offence punishable Under Section 504 of IPC against the accused no.1 beyond reasonable doubt ?”
2. “ Whether the prosecution has able to prove the charge for the offence punishable Under Section 290 of IPC against the accused no.1 beyond reasonable doubt ?”
3. “ Whether the prosecution has able to prove the charge for the offence punishable Under Section 306 of IPC against the accused no.1 beyond reasonable doubt ?”
4. If so, to what extent?
10 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022
14. POINT No.1:-To prove the charge U/Sec. 504 of IPC, the prosecution must be able to prove that the accused is the person, who uttered the deceased Vontela Raghava Reddy in most filthy language and insulted him.
15.The testimony of Pw.1 is that, their ancestral property was exchanged between the accused no.1 and her husband and their property was not given till today and that several times, his parents asked the accused no.1 and her husband to give the land as agreed towards exchange of the lands in the presence of the elders and panchayaths were also held, but the accused no.1 and her husband did not heed their words. Pw.1 further deposed that, on 15.03.2022, the accused no.1 came to their house situated at Sriramulapalle village and abused his father and on the next day, i.e., 16.03.2022, in the morning at about 4.00 A.M, his father went to the agricultural fields and consumed the pesticides (Gaddi Mandu) and returned to the house.
Then, his mother and his cousin brother PW.4 brought his father to
Omega hospital, Karimnagar and admitted him and later, on 17.03.2022, at about 11.30 A.M, his father was died while undergoing treatment. Pw.1 further deposed that, his father while undergoing the treatment at hospital, told them that due to the abusive words of the accused no.1, he committed the suicide and the accused no.1 and her 11 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022 husband used to abuse his parents prior to 15.03.2022. On perusal of contents of Ex.P1, Pw.1 has stated that since one month the accused was abusing his father indiscriminately and insulted him and that on 15.03.2022, at about 7.30 A.M, while his parents are inside their house, meanwhile the accused came in front of their house and abused his father in the filthy language. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 and contents of Ex.P1 report, though Pw.1 has stated that the accused no. 1 abused his father in filthy language, but he did not state the specific words spoken by the accused towards his father.
16.Pw.2/Sri. Vontela Srinivas Reddy, who is the elder brother of
Pw.1, who deposed that, on 15.03.2022, at about 7.30 P.M, the accused no.1 came to their house situated at Sriramulapalle village and abused his father by using the words that “inka enduku brathiki unnav ekdyna poyi chavupo” and she abused for a period of three hours during the night, then his father called him through phone and informed about the incident and on the next day, i.e., 16.03.2022, in the morning hours, at about 4.00 A.M, his father went to the agricultural fields and consumed the pesticides. Though, Pw.2 has stated that, the accused no.1 abused stating as “inka enduku brathiki unnav ekdyna poyi chavupo”, those words cannot be called as abusive.
12 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022
17.Pw.3/Smt. Manemma, who is the mother of Pw.1 and wife of deceased Vontela Raghava Reddy, her testimony is that, accused no.1 and her husband continuously abused her husband every day and the accused no.1 and her husband used the words that “nuv chavupora lanjakoduka” and repeatedly used the words and presently now also the accused no.1 also abusing her, due to which her husband left the home and went to somewhere else and consumed pesticides and died on 17.03.2022 at hospital.
18.Pw.4/Sri. Vontela Anil Reddy, who is the son of younger brother of the deceased, his testimony is that, accused no.1 used to abuse his deceased senior paternal uncle as “potti lanjekoduka enduku brathukuthunavu miku thelivi leda mi ayyalaki thelivulu leva, nenu pysalu petti land registration cheyinchukunannu”. As seen from the evidences of Pws.1 to 4, each witness has stated different version with regard to the abusing towards the deceased by accused no.1. There is no consistency between the evidences of Pws.1 to 4. Further, though
Pws. 2 to 4 have stated different versions, but in their Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements, they did not state the abusive words as stated by them
before the court.
19.Further, Pw.6/Sri. Chanti Jeevan, Pw.7/Sri. Madishetti Raji
Reddy, Pw.8/Smt. Ontela Padma and Pw.10/Sri. Ontela Karunakar 13 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022
Reddy who are the alleged eye witnesses to the incident, they did not support to the versions of Pws. 1 to 4 with regard to the abusing of accused no.1 towards the deceased Vontela Raghava Reddy. So, the evidences of Pws. 1 to 4 falsifies the case of the prosecution for the offence punishable U/Sec. 504 of IPC.
20.Further, after alleged incident, the deceased was admitted in a hospital, while undergoing treatment, his dying declaration was recorded by the Lw.19/Sri. M. R. Arpitha, the then I-Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar which is marked as Ex.P16,
wherein the deceased did not state anything against the accused no.1 either with regard to the abusing of accused towards him or with regard to the non-registration of land by accused no.1 in favour of him. It is crystal clear that, the accused no.1 did not abuse any words against the deceased. Hence, I answer this point against the prosecution and in favour of the accused no.1.
21. POINT No.2:-To prove the charge U/Sec. 290 of IPC, the prosecution must be able to prove that the accused abused the deceased, thereby caused the public nuisance. When the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge U/Sec. 504 of IPC, the question of attracting the charge U/Sec. 290 of IPC against the accused does not arise. Further, for a moment it assumes that, the accused abused the 14 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022 deceased, thereby caused the public nuisance, but no one has lodged any report against the accused due to the act of the accused caused public nuisance. Hence, I answer this point against the prosecution and in favour of the accused no.1.
22. POINT No.3:-To prove the charge U/Sec. 306 of IPC, the prosecution must be able to prove abatement as defined U/Sec. 107 of
IPC, 1860. The Section 107 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under :- “107 – Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing, who–
First :- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly:- Engages with one or more other person/ persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly :- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
23.Pw.1/Sri. Vontela Amarender Reddy, who is the defacto- complainant and son of the deceased/Vontela Raghava Reddy, his testimony is that, Pw.2/Sri. Vontela Srinivas Reddy is staying at
Hyderabad and he is residing at Karimnagar and his parents are residing at Sriramulapalle village and that their ancestral property was exchanged between the accused no.1 and her husband and their 15 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022 property was not given till today. Several times his parents asked the accused no.1 and her husband to give the land as agreed towards exchange of the lands in the presence of the elders and panchayaths were also held, but the accused no.1 and her husband did not heed their words. On 15.03.2022, the accused no.1 came to their house situated at Sriramulapalle village and abused his father and on the next day, i.e., 16.03.2022, in the morning at about 4.00 A.M, his father went to the agricultural fields and consumed the pesticides and returned to the house, then his mother and his cousin brother (PW.4) brought his father to Omega hospital, Karimnagar and admitted him and on 17.03.2022, at about 11.30 A.M, his father was died while undergoing treatment. He further deposed that, his father while undergoing the treatment had informed them that due to the abusive words of the accused no.1, he committed the suicide. Pw.2/Sri. Vontela Srinivas
Reddy, who is the elder brother of Pw.1, Pw.3/Smt. Manemma, who is the mother of Pw.1, Pw.4/Sri. Vontela Anil Reddy, who is the cousin brother of Pw.1 have deposed in similar lines to that of Pw.1.
24.As seen from the evidences of Pws. 1 to 4, it is evident that, the deceased consumed pesticide poison and committed suicide on the ground that, the accused no.1 and her husband exchanged the land of the deceased, but the accused no.1 and her husband did not give their 16 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022 land to the deceased Vontela Raghava Reddy. To substantiate the versions of the Pws.1 to 4, the prosecution did not file any scrap of paper to show that the land of the deceased was given to the accused or to her husband. Even PWs. 14 and 15, who are the Investigating
Officers who have categorically admitted that, they did not file any document to that effect. For a moment it assumes that, the land of the deceased was given to the accused or her husband, and that if the accused and her husband refused to give their land to the deceased, that itself does not amounts to abetment to commit suicide. If at all, the deceased given land to the accused, if the accused fails to give the same extent of land to the deceased, he ought to have take steps against the accused through the court of law.
25.Further, Pw.15/Sri. G. Ravinder, who is the Second Investigating
Officer, who categorically admitted in his cross-examination that, he did not collect any document to show that the father of the deceased transferred his land in favour of the accused. He further admitted that, the deceased did not state any incriminating evidence against the accused no.1 in his dying declaration in Ex.P16 before the Magistrate.
When the deceased did not state any incriminating evidence against the accused, the entire evidence of Pws.1 to 4 falsifies the case of the prosecution. Even in Ex.P16, the deceased did not state any single 17 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022 word against the accused herein. On the other hand, the learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor has mentioned in his written arguments that, the deceased was in a semi conscious condition, as such he did not tell the involvement of accused. If that is so, then how the doctor has certified that the deceased was conscious and fit state of mind, later how the
Lw.19 Judicial Magistrate of First Class has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. So, the prosecution is doubting his own witnesses. Even, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor did not choose to examine LW.19 to prove his contention.
26.Pw.5/Sri. Gaddam Shekar, who is the Photographer, his evidence prove that, after the alleged incident, he went to the Civil hospital,
Karimnagar, where he photographed over the dead body of the deceased. Pw.6/Sri. Chanti Jeevan, who is the then Sarpanch of
Sriramulapalle village has deposed that he does not know anything about this case, but he came to know that there were disputes between the accused family and deceased family since 15 years with regard to the land. Pw.7/Sri. Madishetti Raji Reddy, who is the another alleged witness to the incident has deposed that, he does not know anything about this case and the police did not examine and recorded his statement. Pw.8/Smt. Ontela Padma, who is the agnate of Pws. 1 to 4 and accused has deposed that, she does not know anything about this 18 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022 case and she did not witness anything and that the police did not examine and recorded her statement.
27.Pw.9/Sri. Kachidi Rajireddy, who is the villager of Pws.1 to 4 and accused, his testimony is that, he does not know anything about this case and he did not witness anything and that on the next day morning of the death of the deceased, he went to Sriramulapalle village, where he came to know that the deceased Vontela Raghava Reddy consumed poison and committed suicide. Pw.10/Sri. Ontela Karunakar Reddy, who is the villager of Pws. 1 to 4 and accused has deposed in similar lines to that of Pw.8. As seen from the evidences of PWs. 5 to 10, they did not support the case of prosecution and they declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has cross-examined the Pws.5 to 10, during cross- examination the learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not elicit anything against the accused except to put suggestions which were denied by them.
28.Pw.11/Sri. Utukur Abhilash, who is one of the mediator for inquest panchanama has deposed that, on 17.03.2022, in the evening hours, he went to Government Civil hospital, Karimnagar to see the dead body of the deceased Vontela Raghava Reddy, where the police,
Ramadugu have conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of 19 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022 the deceased and drafted inquest panchanama in his presence and obtained his signature on that after explaining it’s contents. Pw.12/Sri.
Madishetti Srinivas, who is the one of the mediator for scene of offence panchanama has deposed that, on 17.03.2022, in the morning hours, while he was proceeding towards road in his village, the police called him to the place of deceased/Raghava Reddy, where the police have obtained his signature on some written document. He further deposed that, on the same day, he went to Government Civil hospital,
Karimnagar to see the dead body of the deceased/Vontela Raghava
Reddy, where the police, Ramadugu have conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased/Raghava Reddy and drafted inquest panchanama in his presence and obtained his signature. Pw.13/Sri. Enugurthy Naga raju, who is the another mediator for scene of offence panchanama has deposed that, about one year back, he went to the fields of the deceased to see his dead body, where the police have drawn rough sketch and obtained his signature after explaining its contents. As seen from the evidence of Pws. 11 to 13, it is evident that, after the death of the deceased Vontela Raghava
Reddy, the police have conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased, so also, scene of offence panchanama at the fields of the deceased.
20 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022
29.Then there remains the evidence of Pw.14/Sri. G. Anantha Reddy and Pw.15/Sri. G. Ravinder, who are the Investigating Officers in this case. Though the evidences of Pws. 14 and 15 prove with regard to receiving of report from Pw.1, registration of FIR and recording the statements of Pws.1 to 10 and other witnesses, conducting scene of offence panchanama at the fields of deceased, so also, inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in Government Civil hospital, Karimnagar and filing of charge sheet, but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge U/Sec. 306 of IPC. For a moment, it assumes that, the accused abused the deceased as stated by Pw.2 as “inka enduku brathiki unnav ekdyna poyi chavupo”, that itself does not amounts to abetment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan
Reddy Vs. State of A.P reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 has held that “in order to convict a person U/sec. 306 of IPC, there must be clear mens rea to commit offence. It is also requires an active act or direct act which leads the deceased to commit suicide”. In view of the ration laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above Judgment and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, I am of considered view that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused with which she was charged, hence this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.
21 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022 30.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and foregoing reasons and in view of the answers given in point nos. 1 to 3,
I am of considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges with which accused was charged and accordingly I hold that the accused is entitled for acquittal.
31.POINT No. 4 :- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under Section 504, 290 and 306 of IPC and accordingly she is acquitted under Section 235(1) Code of Criminal
Procedure for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A of
Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21 st day November, 2023.
SECRETARY, D.L.S.A, KARIMNAGAR,
FAC: ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR .
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION
PW1- Sri. Vontela Amarender Reddy (Defacto complainant and son of deceased),
PW2- Sri. Vontela Srinivas Reddy (Elder son of deceased),
PW3- Smt. Vontela Manemma (Wife of deceased),
PW4- Sri. Vontela Anil Reddy (Brother’s son of deceased), 22 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022
PW5- Sri. Gaddam Shekar (Photographer).
PW6- Sri. Chanti Jeevan (Eye witness).
PW7- Sri. Madishetti Rajireddy (Eye witness).
PW8- Smt. Ontela Padma (Circumstantial witness).
PW9- Sri. Kachidi Rajireddy (Eye witness).
PW10- Sri. Ontela Karunakar Reddy (Eye witness).
PW11- Sri. Utukur Abhilash Reddy (Panch witness for inquest).
PW12- Sri. Madishetti Srinivas (Panch witness for CDF and inquest).
PW13- Sri. Enugurthy Nagaraju (Panch witness for CDF).
PW14- Sri. G. Anantha Reddy (First Investigating Officer).
PW15- Sri. G. Ravinder (Second Investigating Officer)..
FOR DEFENCE: -None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1Signature of Pw.1 on the report.
Ex.P2Photographs (4 in number).
Ex.P3Compact disc.
Ex.P4Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement of Pw.6.
Ex.P5Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement of Pw.7.
Ex.P6Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement of Pw.8.
Ex.P7Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement of Pw.9.
Ex.P8Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement of Pw.10.
Ex.P9Inquest panchanama.
Ex.P10Signature of Pw.12 on crime details form.
Ex.P11Crime details form.
Ex.P12First information report.
Ex.P13RFSL report by Pw.14.
Ex.P14Postmortem examination report.
23 of 23 SC.No. 201 of 2022
Ex.P15Requisition given by Lw.20 to Lw.19.
Ex.P16Dying declaration of the deceased.
Ex.P17RFSL report by Pw.15.
Ex.P18Final opinion given by Lw.18.
FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.D1Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement of Pw.4.
Material Objects Marked: --NIL--
SECRETARY, D.L.S.A, KARIMNAGAR,
FAC: ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR