Sri. M.johnson

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI. M.JOHNSON

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated on this the 4th Day of February, 2019

SC No. 419/2017

Name of the complainant: The State through P.S. Uppal

Name of the accused : Domakonda Ravi Kumar, S/o. D. Balraj, Age: 28 years, Occ: Marketing at Dharani Ventures, R/o. H.No.3-16-105/5, Venkat Reddy Nagar, Ramanthapur, R.R.District.

Crime Number:787/2015

Offence Under Section:U/Secs. 306, 420 IPC

PRC No.: 56/2016 on the file of III Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at Uppal

Case committed by:Smt.M. Kalpana, III Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at Uppal

Prosecution conducted by:Smt.P.Manjula Devi, Addl. P.P.

Defence conducted by:Sri. Shiva Shankar Advocates for Accused

Plea of the accused: not guilty.

Sentence of order : In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence under Sections 306 420 IPC and they are hereby acquitted U/s.232 Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

This case is coming before me for hearing in the

presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State

and of Sri. Shiva Shankar, Advocate for the accused

and having stood over the matter for consideration

till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State through the Inspector of Police, P.S Uppal has filed the charge sheet against the accused herein for the offence under Sections 306, 420 IPC in crime No.787/2015.

2

2. According to the charge sheet the case of the prosecution is as hereunder:

That on 14-8-2015 about 12.30 pm, the defacto complainant/Pw1/

D. Chandra Reddy lodged a written report as per Ex.P1 stating that his sister/Kavitha working in Dharani Venture Real Estate office at

Habsiguda. On 12-8-2015 at about night time his sister told him that she lost Rs.1,00,000/- kept in the room, and she searched then and there but of no use . On 14-8-2015 at about 8.15 hours while his sister searching for money in the room, he went to drop his brother and returned to his house and by the time the door was locked he called her sister, but she did not respond, due to which he watched inside house through window and he found his sister/kavitha hanging herself to the ceiling fan hook with her chunni around the neck and he broke open the door and taken her to Matrix hospital for treatment but, on examining his sister, Doctor declared that she died. So that he is under impression, because of missing of money of Rs.1,00,000/- she was upset and committed suicide and accordingly, he lodged a report to the police.

Then,the sub-Inspector of police has registered a case in

Cr.No.787/2015 U/Sec.174 Cr.P.C and issued FIR as per Ex.P11.

Further, Lw16/Head Constable-2549/I.Brahma Chary has recorded the statement of Pw1 and visited the scene of offence situated at Venkat

Reddy Nagar, Ramanthapur, R.R.District and observed scene of occurrence and secured the presence of two mediators i.e.,

Pw5/G.Suresh, Lw8/B.Ravinder and in their persence prepared scene of offence panchanama/Ex.P4 and also drawn rough sketch under Ex.P5 and also seized MO1/Chunni used in the commission of suicide by the deceased. Then, the dead body was shifted to Gandhi Hospital 3

Secunderabad and there, the inquest was conducted in the presence of two mediators i.e., Pw6/U.Rupesh Kumar and Lw11/D.Shalini under

Ex.P9 and then the dead body of the deceased was subjected to

Postmortem Examination through the Medical Officer/Pw8/Dr.P.Vanisri who issued Postmortem Examination Report as per Ex.P8 opinion that the cause of death due to hanging. While further investigation is pending on 9-9-2015 Pw1 again came to police station and informed that her sister deceased/Kavitha has left a suicide note written in

Telugu language was found in the house and he stated that the reasons for her committing suicide is one D.Rvi Kumar/Accused herein who deceived her under the promise of the marriage. Further, Pw1 also handed over the mobile phone of the deceased in which some

Audio and video data was found to show that there is a love affair between the deceased/Kavitha and the accused/Ravi Kumar.

Basing on such information furnished by the Pw1, Sub-Inspector of Police /Pw9/L.Ravi Kumar altered the section of law from Sec.174

Cr.P.C to Sec.306 and 420 IPC and filed memo to that affect under

Ex.P10 before the court. It is also the case of prosecution that after taking up the investigation by Pw9 he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 4 and also Lw2/G.Venkat Reddy and Lw4/G.Devender Reddy and Lw6/M. Sowmya as circumstantial witnesses. Further, on 10-9-2015 Pw9/Sub-Inspector of Police affected the arrest of the accused and produced him before the court for judicial remand and then basing on the evidence collected in the case, and material found in the mobile phone of the deceased i.e., Redmi mobile phone bearing Airtel SIM card and 4GB memory card shows that the date of messages reveals that the accused in under promise of marriage deceived the deceased due to which she committed 4 suicide by hanging herself to the ceiling fan. As such, the accused liable for punishment U/Sec.306 and 420 IPC.

3.The charge sheet has been taken on file by the learned III

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar and preliminary cognizance was taken U/Sec.306, 420 IPC and registered the case as PRC.No.56/2016 and committed the case to the

Metropolitan Magistrate Sessions Division Cyberabad vide committal order dt. 16-5-2017. Thereafter, Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge-

Metropolitan Sessions Division, Cyberabad has registered this case as

SC.No.419/2017 and made over the case to this court court for the

purpose of trial.

4. On appearance of Accused herein, after ascertaining the compliance of Sec.207 Cr.P.C, accused herein was examined U/s.227 r/w 228 Cr.P.C, by explaining the accusation and the particulars of offence alleged U/s 306 and 420 IPC, accused denied the accusation, and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trail on behalf of prosecution, Pws 1 to 9 were examined and Ex.P1 to P11 were marked and also MO1 to 3 were marked. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence the accused herein were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence on record, and he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. When opportunity was given to produce defence evidence if any, the accused herein and his counsel have reported there is no defense evidence.

6. Heard both sides

7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 306, 420 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

5

8.The charge framed against the accused herein is

U/Sec.420 and 306 IPC on the allegations that the accused herein and deceased moved together as lovers and the accused herein suppressed the fact that he was already married and promised to marry the deceased/Kavitha and as on the date of committing suicide, the deceased and the accused were in love for the last six months and because of the breach of the promise, the deceased/Kavitha committed suicide by hanging herself and thereby the accused liable to be punished U/Sec.306 and 420 IPC.

9.The charge u/s 306 IPC is concerned In order to attract section 306 of the Indian Penal Code i.e., the abetment to commit suicide, it is necessary that the act of abetment as contemplated under section 107 of Indian Penal Code is to be complied with. The meaning of 'abetment' under the Indian Penal Code to be strictly read as per the section and then only can be attracted. Section 107 IPC states as follows:

1) "107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who--

2) First -- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly --Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly -- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

3) Explanation 1.--A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

4) Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

5)Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act".

6

10.In order to prove the charges against the accused herein, prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 9 and also got marked Ex.P1 to

P11 and Mos.1 to 3. PW1/G.Chandra Reddy who is the brother of the deceased, who gave report to the police and he deposed that on 13-8- 2015 his sister/Kavitha has found missed her money of Rs.1,00,000/- kept in the house and she was in search of money but of no use and he along with his brother/Devender Reddy went to Chilukanagar, Uppal, to drop my brother at his work place and he returned to house at 09.00

P.M he found that his sister is in the house, but when she called her she did not opened the door so that he looked at her in and found she was hanging to the ceiling fan in the house with the help of chunni.

Immediately he broke open the door and removed the dead body from the hanging position and immediately taken to her Matrix hospital situated at Ramanthapur and Doctor on examination declared she died and he gave report to the police under Ex.P1 and the police came to hospital and shifted the deceased to the Gandhi Hospital after conducting panchanama. Pw1 also deposed that he gave report to the police under the impression that his sister committed suicide because of missing of Rs.1,00,000/- and subsequently, he noticed a suicide note in the house wherein his sister/Kavitha written the reasons for her death that one D.Ravi Kumar/accused deceived in promise of marriage so that he committed suicide, so that he went to police station and handed over the suicide note and mobile phone of deceased to the police for the purpose of investigation.

11.Similarly, Pw2/Pushpa who is mother of Pw1 as well as the deceased has deposed that her daughter/Kavitha committed suicide because of missing of Rs.1,00,000/- of Rs.1,00,000/- and after 11th day of the ceremony, they have noticed a suicide note and the same was 7 handed over to the police for the purpose of investigation. So also,

Pw3/V.Mounika who is the friend of deceased examined on behalf of prosecution to establish the love affair between the accused and the deceased and she also stated that the accused and deceased/Kavitha worked together in Dharani Real Estate Venture situated at Habsiguda and they used to come to Metro Shopping mall at Uppal now and then and hey used to move together closely. Furthermore, Pw3 stated that on the date of death of the deceased Kavitha, the accused made a phone call to her between 8.00 and 9.00 A.M and told that Kavitha told him that she is going to die, because of such disputes. Pw3 deposed the facts relating to the friendship between the accused and deceased.

12.Pw1 subject to cross-examination by the counsel for the accused and it is elicited from the cross examination of Pw1 that in the house at Ramanthapur, the deceased and elder brother of Pw1

Devender Reddy and himself used to reside and accused also resided in the same locality for sometime and further admitted the fact that after death of the deceased and after completion of postmortem the dead body was handed over to them and the dead body was taken to their native place at Pangidipally at Warangal District. It is further admitted that, as on the date of death of Kavitha they were residing in that house and deceased/Kavitha studied upto B.Tech. It is also further stated in the cross examination of Pw1 “It is true the suicide note under Ex.P-2 was written in the sheet of diary pertaining to

August 2010. My statement was recorded for the first time on 14-08- 2015 and subsequent statement was recorded on 09-09-2015 at about 10.00 or 11.00AM. My sister studied in telugu medium upto intermediate and B.Tech in English medium. My sister signed in 8 telugu as “KAVITHA”, without any initial of surname”. Immediately, in the cross-examination of Pw2 she also admitted the fact that the deceased studied upto B. Tech at Hyderabad and she and she never seen the person by name Ravi Kumar. Whereas in the cross examination of Pw3 she has stated that she do not know whether the accused belongs to Reddy community or not and she did not remember the mobile number of the accused but she saved his number in his name as Ravi. Moreover, she stated that she did not made any call to the brothers of the decease and she did not stated to the Pw1 and LW4/G.Devender Reddy that the accused called her over the phone and informed about the deceased/Kavitha committed suicide. From the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, I do not found any circumstances, to point out that the accused herein instigated the deceased in committing suicide.

13.Next considering the evidence of Pw4/Venkateshwarlu

Tilak who examined as circumstantial witness by the prosecution and he deposed that with regard to his employment in Dharani Ventures as a Manager and he also stated that both the deceased/Kavitha and the accused worked in Dharani Ventures as agents as usually, they used to move closely and except that he did not know any other affairs between deceased and accused. He also further stated that he did not know as to why the deceased/Kavitha committed suicide. Pw4 treated as hostile by the prosecution and cross examined with the permission of the court suggesting that Pw4 has stated in his statement given to the police that because of the breach of promise of marriage by the accused, the decea/Kavitha committed suicide and the prosecution got marked previous statements given to the police as Ex.P3 and Pw4 denied the contents of statements. Further, learned defence counsel 9 elicited from Pw4 that in the office of Dharani Venture, there is no any hand writing and signature of deceased/Kavitha, except her signature on relevant records of remuneration record and it is further elicited from him deceased/Kavitha used to sign in English.

14.The other witness examined on behalf of prosecution i.e.,

Pw5/G.Suresh who acted as mediator to the Scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch as supported the case of prosecution that, at request of the police he acted as mediator to the panchanama proceedings under Ex.P4 & 5 and at that time police also seized ‘Chunni’ at the place of offence and the same is marked as MO1. So also Pw6/Rupesh Kumar who acted as inquest also supported the version of prosecution. The evidence of Pw5 and 6 is in circumstantial nature and there is no any credit worthiness. The evidence of Medical

Oficer/Dr.P.Vanishri/Pw8 shows that the deceased/Kavitha died due to hanging and accordingly she furnished Ex.P8/Postmortem Examination report and in the cross-examination she stated the nature of injuries found on the dead body of the deceased shows that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself. Further, oral evidence of Pws.1 to 3, the documentary evidence under Ex.P9/inquest report and Ex.P8/

PME report shows that the deceased died due to hanging. It is the contention of learned defence counsel, from the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 absolutely there is no any evidence to find out that the accused herein instigated or abated the deceased in committing suicide. He also further contended that even if the facts are taken into consideration, absolutely there is nothing on record that there is love affair between the accused and the deceased to come to conclusion that because of breach of promise that the deceased/Kavitha committed suicide, that 10 the accused was already married person and the question of promise of marriage to the deceased does not arise.

15.Next considering the evidence of Pw7/K.Sridhar who acted as mediator to the seizure panchanama marked as Ex.P7 and he stated that in the month of October 2015, police Uppal called him to police station along with P.Srinivas Reddy and at that time one

Chandra Reddy also there in the police station. He handed over the suicide note, Mobile phone, Photographs, Memory Card and as such police seized the same under cover of panchanama. On this aspect it is vehemently contended by the learned defence counsel that deceased committed suicide on 14-8-2015 and on the same day basing on the Ex.P1, the police registered the case U/Sec.174 Cr.P.C and subsequently, basing on the alleged suicide note under Ex.P2, the section of law altered to 306 and 420 IPC on 10-9-2015 by filing memo under Ex.P10. Further, it is clear after lapse of 25 days from the date of death of the deceased, the section of law altered and implicated the accused in the case. Further, the evidence adduced by the prosecution must be substantiated carefully.

16.Therefore, Keeping in view the rival contentions of learned

APP and also a learned defense counsel, I have gone through

Ex.P2/suicide note and also evidence adduced by prosecution. It is true as contented by learned defence counsel that Ex.P2/suicide note is written in Telugu language and it is signed under the note as Kavitha in Telugu language. Absolutely, no evidence collected by investigation officer/Pw9 to ascertain the writing on Ex.P2 is that of the writings of deceased/Kavitha and as admitted by Pw1 & 2, the deceased/Kavitha studied B.Tech and as admitted by Pw4 who is the Manager of Dharani

Ventures, has categorically stated that the deceased/Kavitha used to 11 sign in English language in the records of Dharani ventures. Therefore,

Ex.P2 cannot be taken into consideration that it is the suicide note of the deceased. Even, in the cross examination of the investigating officer/Pw9/L. Ravi Kumar, has admitted in his cross examination, that “ I have not collected any documentary evidence from the said Real estate firm, I have not collected any documentary evidence from the house of deceased/Kavitha, I have not collected any evidence from neighbour of the house of the deceased. I have not examined the house owner of the deceased. It is true as on 10-09-2015 the deceased family vacated the house situated at Venkat Reddy Nagar

Colony. I have not collected any admitted hand writings of the deceased to get examination of the Hand writing in suicide note, written by the deceased. It is true I did not send the suicide note to the hand writing expert along with admitted signature or writings of the deceased. The Call Date record of the mobile phone and the Data copy of the CD are not subjected to any examination by the “Expert”.

In view of such admissions made by the investigation officer and, from the evidence of Pw1, 2 and 3, no presumptions available to the prosecution to come to conclusion that the because of the breach of promise or love affair between accused and deceased, it is not possible to give specific finding of abetment to commit suicide.

17.The learned counsel for the accused, while submitting his arguments, he relied on various decisions reported in Kailashi Bai V/s.

Arrtiarya 2009 (2) ALD (Cri) 714and another decision Sohan Raj

Sharma Vs. State of Haryana 2008 AIR (SC) 2008, but these two decisions are not relevant to the present case in hand and they are decisions on different set of facts. It is the contention of the learned counsel that there must be direct and indirect acts of incitement to the 12 to the commission of suicide and mere fact that there is a breach of promise of marriage is not enough. Further, learned counsel has placed reliance of decision in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh wherein at para No.21, 22 it was held as here under.

Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

18.Therefore, looking into the case law relied on by the defence counsel and also taking into consideration, the arguments submitted by the learned APP, I have carefully scrutinized the eivdence adduced by prosecution. Pw1 and 2 are related to the deceased and though they have deposed their evidence that after noticing the Ex.P2 they came to know that because of one Ravi kumar/accused, the deceased has committed suicide. Pw3/Mounika who is the friend of the deceased also stated the fact that the deceased and accused used to move together closely while working in Dharani Ventures. But, the testimonies of Pws.1 to 3 does not inspire any confidence to fasten criminal liability against the accused for the offence of cheating or abetment to commit suicide against the deceased. Remaining witnesses are circumstantial nature and no doubt, as per the evidence adduced through Pw8 shows that the deceased committed suicide by using MO1/Chunni and hanging to ceiling fan. In view of the evidence of Pw9, that he did not collected any material evidence to prove the hand writing in Ex.P2/suicide note, the same cannot be taken into consideration as valid evidence. Thus, accepting the submissions of 13 learned defence counsel that in the absence of any direct evidence for the offence of cheating and abetment for committing suicide as contemplated U/Sec.107 IPC, the accused certainly entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, the following decision relied on by defence counsel in

Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh case, I come to conclusion, there is no sufficient evidence on record to fasten criminal liability against the accused for the offence U/Sec.306 and 420 IPC.

Accordingly, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

19. In the result, the accused herein found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.306, 420 I.P.C and he is hereby acquitted U/Sec.232

Cr.P.C, the bail bond of the accused, if any shall stands cancelled. The

MO1/Chunni and MO2/CD is liable to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and MO3/ Mobile phone of the deceased shall be returned to Pw1 herein after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of February,

2019.

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: G. Chandra Reddy - Nil - Pw.2 : G. Pushpa Pw.3: V. Mounika Pw.4: Venkateshwarlu Tilak Pw.5: G. Suresh Pw.6: Rupesh Kumar Pw.7: K. Sridhar Pw.8: Dr.P. Vanishri Pw9: L. Ravi Kumar 14

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Suicide Note Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P4: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5: Rough sketch Ex.P6: Signature of Pw6 on inquest report Ex.P7: Seizure report Ex.P8: Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P9: Inquest Ex.P.10: Alteration Memo Ex.P.11: FIR

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

MO1: Chunni Nil MO2: CD MO3: Mobile Phone

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

15

Police present. Accused no.1 to present. Judgment is pronounced (vide separate judgment) in the open court.

In the result, A.1 to A3 found not guilty for the offence U/s.498-A and 307 IPC and they are hereby acquitted U/s.232 (1) Cr.P., and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

PASJ 16

AIR (SC) 327 (2010)

Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI. M.JOHNSON

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated on this the 5th Day of February, 2019

SC No. 549/2017

Name of the complainant: The State through P.S. Mailardevpally

Name of the accused : Syed Nawaz,, S/o. Late Syed Abdullah, Age: 22 years, Occ: Car driver, R/o. H.No.18-8-224/4,RiyasathNagar Chandrayan Gutta, Hyderabad Dist.

Crime Number:473/2016

Offence Under Section:U/Secs. 306, 498-A IPC

PRC No.: 12/2017 on the file of VIII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Rajendranagar

Case committed by:Smt.M. Kalpana, VIII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Rajendranagar

Prosecution conducted by:Smt.P.Manjula Devi, Addl. P.P.

Defence conducted by:Sri. Mohd. Mujahid Qureshi Advocates for Accused

Plea of the accused: not guilty.

Sentence of order : In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence under Sections 306 498-A IPC and he is hereby acquitted U/s.232 Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

This case is coming before me for hearing in the

presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State

and of Sri. Mohd. Mujahid Qureshi, Advocate for the

accused and having stood over the matter for

consideration till this day, this court delivered the

following:

J U D G M E N T

The State through the Inspector of Police, P.S Mailardevpally has filed the charge sheet against the accused herein for the offence under Sections 306, 498-A IPC in crime No.473/2016.

2

2. According to the charge sheet the case of the prosecution is as hereunder:

That on 4-9-2016 about 6.00 P.M, the SHO P.S Mailardevpally received an information from Osmania General Hospital that a person by name Ayesha Begum, W/o. Syed Nawaz, aged 26 years was admitted in burn ward of OGH with MLC No.26753, OP.No.78446 and allegedly made an attempt to commit suicide by hanging herself in her house. Immediately, the Sub-Inspector of police P.S Mailardevpally has visited the Osmania Hospital and recorded the detailed statement of the mother of the victim by name Mallika Begum and also conducted enquiry about the act of commission of suicide and it was revealed that because of the mental and physical harassment caused by her husband she vexed up with life and decided to put an end to her life and accordingly, on 3-9-2016 at about 10.00 P.M made an attempt to commit suicide by hanging herself to ceiling fan with the help of chunni on listening loud noise, her neighbours broke open the door and rescued her and brought to hospital. Basing on such information, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case in

Cr.No.473/2016, U/Sec.498-A 306 IPC and issued FIR as per Ex.P6. The the Sub-Inspector of Police taken up further investigation and he visited the scene of offence situated a Subhan Colony, Rajendranagar, under Ex.P3 and then recorded the statements of witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 3 and also Pw2/Ameen Begum, Lw3/Sk. Munawar and Lw5/Md. Altaf.

Furthermore, the investigating officer also visited the Osmania hospital where the deceased dead body was kept in mortury by securing persons of Pw4/Hasan Bin Ali Al Jabri and Lw2/Arifa Begum and in their presence prepared inquest under Ex.P4 and then addressed a letter to

Medical Officer and got conducted Postmortem Examination over the 3 dead body of the deceased. Pw5/Dr.Md.Thaquiddin has conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased issued

Ex.P5/Postmortem Examination Report. Thereafter, the investigation officer/Pw6 has arrested the accused herein and produced him before the court for judicial remand and after conclusion of the investigation,

Pw6 has filed charge sheet alleging that because of harassment caused by the accused to his wife, on 3-9-2016 about 10.00 P.M the deceased committed suicide by hanging her to the ceiling fan with the help of Chunni and on hearing loud voice, the neighbors shifted to the hospital unfortunately the deceased died. Hence, the accused is liable to be punishable U/Sec.306 and 498-A IPC.

3. The charge sheet has been taken on file by the learned VIII

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar and preliminary cognizance was taken U/Sec.306, 498-A IPC and registered the case as

PRC.No.12/2017 and committed the case to the Metropolitan

Magistrate Sessions Division Cyberabad vide committal order dt. 20-6-

2017. Thereafter, Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge has registered this case as SC.No.549/2017 and made over the case to this court court for the purpose of trial.

4. On appearance of Accused herein, after ascertaining the compliance of Sec.207 Cr.P.C, accused herein was examined U/s.227 r/w 228 Cr.P.C, by explaining the accusation and the particulars of offence alleged U/s 306 and 498-A IPC, accused denied the accusation, and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trail on behalf of prosecution, Pws 1 to 6 were examined and Ex.P1 to P6 were marked and also MO1/Chunni was marked. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence the accused herein was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating 4 evidence on record, and he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. When opportunity was given to produce defence evidence if any, the accused herein and his counsel have reported there is no defense evidence.

6. Heard both sides

7. Now the point for determination is “whether the

prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the

offence under Sections 306, 498-A IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt” ?

8. In order to prove the charge against the accused herein, prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 6. Pw1/Mallika Begum is the mother of the deceased/Ayesha Begum and she stated in her evidence in chief that originally, the Ayesha Begum married with one

Mohd.Mohin and they were blessed with five children. Subsequently, due to disputes among them and separated and living independently and while so, Ayesha Begum contacted with second marriage with the accused herein who is Syed Nawaz, who is the car driver and their marriage is love marriage. It is further stated after the marriage, the accused and the deceased started living together at Subhan Nagar,

Bandlaguda and gradually differences arose among them and further stated that the accused demanded money to perform the marriage of his sister due to which the differences and disputes between them and accused used harass with such demand of money. So that due to vexed in the life the deceased committed suicide and that she was shifted to hospital, the police came there and recorded their statement as per Ex.P1. Similarly, Pw2/Ameen Begum sister of the accused and

Pw3/Md.Riyaz who acted as mediator to the scene of offence marked 5 as Ex.P2 and the rough sketch marked as Ex.P3 and they have supported the case of prosecution.

9.Pw1/Mallika Begum and Pw2/Ameena Begum are mother and elder sister to the deceased and they are one categorical tone that because of the hanging of accused herein the deceased have committed suicide by hanging herself. Both Pw1 and 2 are subjected to cross examination by the learned counsel by the accused at length.

The entire cross examination, the some and substances the evidence of Pw2 and 3 is attacked by defence counsel and the contents of the statement of Ex.P1 is false and there is no person by name Fayaz

Mohammad Siddiqui who intended to marry the deceased/Ayesha begum as second wife Fayaz Mohammad Siddiqui used to assist the family of Pw1 by giving money. But, the deceased/Ayesha Begum refused to marry Fayaz Mohammad Siddiqui and left the house and got married the accused herein. It is also the case of the accused by way of cross examination, the family member of Pw1 habituated by filing the cases. It is also suggested that one Quamer Begum has filed a police case against Fayaz Mohammad Siddiqui for the offence

U/Sec.498-A and 506 IPC on the file of P.S Pahadishareef, this fact admitted by Pw1. Though several disputes are suggested to Pw1 and 2, they denied the suggestions of learned defence counsel. However,

Pw2 has admitted in the cross-examination that “ It is true at the time of marriage between the accused and deceased, our father was not present. The name of the daughter my brother Munawar is Qumar

Begum and she is aged about 22 years as on the day. I do not know that the Qumar Begum was given in marriage to Fayaz Mohammad

Siddiqui. I do not know the age of Fayaz Mohammad Siddiqui is about 70 years”. Further it is the contention of the learned defence counsel, 6 the entire family of Pw1 have habituated to file the criminal case against the in-laws with demand of money. However, even in the cross-examination of Pw1, it is admitted by her that the accused worked as driver under Fayaz Mohammad Siddiqui. Further stated by

Pw2 that “It is true I did not give any phone numbers to the police. It is true police did not collect any documentary evidence from me about mobile phone, to show that the deceased used to informed her over phone that the accused harassing her. So also in the cross- examination of Pw3 it is an admitted fact that police conducted the panchanama in his presence and seized a chunni of pink colour. But, it is pointed out by learned counsel, the chunni produced before the court as MO1 by the prosecution is not of pink colour. Further, the entire case of the prosecution is full of doubt and falsehood and as such no case made out against the accused herein, for the charge

U/Sec.498-A and 306 IPC.

10.Next considering the evidence of Pw5/Dr.Md.Thaquiddin

Khan who furnished Ex.P5/Postmortem Examination has deposed in his evidence as per the requisition of the then Tahasildhar/Dy.Collector,

Rajendranagar Mandal, he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and he opined , the cause of death due to hanging. In the cross examination of Pw5 has stated that he received requisition from the police on 5-9-2016 and in the requisition of the police it contains the corrections and alterations of the date and time and there is no any initial against such corrections.

11.Coming to the evidence of Pw6/I. Mahendranath/Sub-

Inspector of Police, he deposed about the recording of the statements of Pw1, registered the case, issued FIR under Ex.P6 and arrested the accused persons and filing the charge sheet. But, in the cross- 7 examination, learned counsel for the accused elicited several facts from the evidence of Pw6 and he stated that firstly he recorded the statement of Pw1 on 4-9-2016 at Osmania Hospital at about 6.00 AM and he recorded the statements of Pw2, Lw2/Arifa Begum,

Lw3/Sk.Munawar on the same day at about afternoon time, and the statement of Lw5/Md.Altaf was recorded on 5-9-2016. However, in the statements recorded by Pw6, certain facts deposed by Pw1 and 2 are omitted. The learned counsel specifically pointed out the investigation officer that whether Pw1 and 2 stated certain facts as deposed in the court. Pw6 and admitted that Pw2 did not stated before him that “after two or three months of the marriage between the accused and the deceased, Ayesha Begum used to say over the phone now and then that the accused harassing her on the ground on demand money and also bring household articles and essential commodities” .

Further, Pw1 also did not stated the fact that “she also accompanied with PW1 to the house of deceased and when tried to convince the accused not to harass the deceased and then accused did not listen to

Pw1 and other family members and then they have taken Ayesha

Begum to the parental house and after two days of such incident again she went to the house of accused” Pw6 also stated that measurements of MO.1 chunni not recorded. And the Chunni colour is of multi colour. It is true in Ex.P-2 the signature of mediators not obtained on the first page. There is no date mentioned under Ex.P2 and 3 as admitted by Pw6. There are no paper slips duly signed by the mediators along with MO1/chunni. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused, the investigation is also doubtful and investigation done by Pw6 is not fair towards accused herein and as such the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

8

12.The learned counsel has relied on decisions reported in

Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh where in it was held at para No.12” it is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea, It is in a fit of anger and emotional.

So also , the learned counsel relied on another decision reported in State of Gujarath Vs. Ramesh Nanji Luhar and another I (2013 DMC 573 wherein it was held at para No.9 that “Prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and material contradictions in depositions of the witnesses came into light, and when material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the ingredients of Sec.498-A is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Similarly, in at another decision reported in Rajaram @

Raja Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh I (2013) DMC 160 “Wherein no allegations of death of deceased was suicidal nor accidental –

Witnesses could not prove that deceased who was kept with comfort for 7-8 years, suddenly dealt with cruelty or overt act of appellant was of such a nature so that it could fall with essential ingredients of

Sec.107 IPC – ASJ erred in convicting appellant for offence under

Sec.306 IPC – No cruelty is proved beyond doubt against appellant –

For reason established on record by which deceased committed suicide – Appellant cannot be convicted for offence U/Sec.498-A IPC”.

13.Further, considering the contentions of learned defence counsel, I am unable to accept with the submissions of Learned APP that the case of prosecution proved beyond doubt. In view of the facts admitted by Pw6 in his cross-examination, he failed to collect relevant evidence and moreover, the prosecution witnesses Pw1 and 2 9 improvised their version beyond the statement given to the police and the testimonies of Pw1 and 2 is not at all trust worthy so as to come to conclusion that the accused herein made unlawful demands to bring money or house hold articles to perform the marriage of his sister.

Admittedly, no neighbours of Subhan Colony are examined by the investigation officer and he chosen to examine the family members of deceased who resides away from Subhan colony, Rajendranagar.

Therefore, the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is full of doubts with regard to factual matrix of the case. Therefore, I am in acceptance with submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and the following decisions relied on by him, I hold that prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients U/Sec.306 and 498-A IPC. Hence, the accused herein entitled to be acquitted for the charge framed against the accused.

14. In the result, the accused herein found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.306, 420 I.P.C and he is hereby acquitted U/Sec.232

Cr.P.C, the bail bond of the accused, if any shall stands cancelled. The

MO1/Chunni is liable to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of February,

2019.

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: Malika Begum- Nil - Pw.2 : Ameena Begum Pw.3: Md. Riyaz Pw.4: Hasan Bin Ali Jabri Pw.5: Md. Thaquiddin Pw.6: Mahendranath 10

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: Rough sketch Ex.P4: Inquest panchanama Ex.P5: Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P6: FIR

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

MO1: Chunni Nil

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

11

Police present. Accused no.1 to present. Judgment is pronounced (vide separate judgment) in the open court.

In the result, A.1 to A3 found not guilty for the offence U/s.498-A and 307 IPC and they are hereby acquitted U/s.232 (1) Cr.P., and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

PASJ 12

AIR (SC) 327 (2010)

Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI. M.JOHNSON

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated on this the 13th Day of February, 2019

SC No. 391/2017

Name of the complainant: The State through P.S. Chaitanyapuri

Name of the accused : Panyala Jagannath Das, S/o. Late PLN Swamy, Age: 42 years, Occ: Journalist, R/o. Flat No.520, Janapriya Apartments, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, R.R. Dist.

Crime Number:684/2016

Offence Under Section:U/Secs. 306, 498-A IPC

PRC No.: 04/2017 on the file of XI Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar

R.R.District

Case committed by:Smt.D. Indira, XI Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar,

R.R.District.

Prosecution conducted by:Smt.P.Manjula Devi, Addl. P.P.

Defence conducted by:Sri. C.Narayana Reddy Advocates for Accused

Plea of the accused: not guilty.

Sentence of order : In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence under Sections 306 498-A IPC and he is hereby acquitted U/s.232 Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

This case is coming before me for hearing in the

presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State

and of Sri. C.Narayana Reddy, Advocate for the

accused and having stood over the matter for

consideration till this day, this court delivered the

following:

J U D G M E N T

The State through the Inspector of Police, P.S Chaitanyapuri has filed the charge sheet against the accused herein for the offence under Sections 306, 498-A IPC in crime No.684/2016.

2

2. According to the charge sheet the case of the prosecution is as hereunder:

That on 19-12-2016 about 7.00 P.M, the defacto complainant/Pw1/Kallampudi Bramha Naidu lodged a report under

Ex.P1 stating that the deceased/Prashanthi is his sister and the marriage of Prashanthi was performed with one P.Jagannath Das about 6 years back and they were resided together in Safilguda after three years they shifted their residence to Flat No.528, Janapriya Quarters,

Mohan Nagar, Kothapet and they blessed with a male child and then the accused/P.Jagannath Das started harassment to his sister physically and mentally and suspecting her character and abused her in filthy language and due to which her sister vexed on life that on 19- 12-2016 at about 1410 hours she has committed suicide by hanging herself in the bedroom with the help of Bed sheet. Accordingly, he requested to take necessary action against the accused.

Basing on Ex.P1/report the Station House Officer P.S

Chaitanyapuri has registered the case in crime No.684/2016,

U/Sec.306, 498-A IPC and issued FIR as per Ex.P9. Then, the Sub

Inspector of Police/Pw12 has taken up the investigation and he recorded the statements of PWs.1, 5 & 7 U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C and also recorded the statements of PWs.2 to 4 the circumstantial witnesses. It is also the case of prosecution that during he course of investigation

Pw12 visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of mediators i.e., Pw6/G.Naveen Sharma, Pw8/Malla Pandu Goud and in their presence prepared scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P5 and also Rough Sketch under Ex.P6 and then visit the Osmania hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P8 and also got conducted Postmortem Examination over the 3 deadbodyofthedeceasedthroughMedical

Officer/Pw.10/Dr.Taquiuddin and he issued PME report as per Ex.P7. It is also the case of prosecution that at the time of conducting panchanama under Ex.P5, MO1/Bed sheet was seized at the place of occurrence where the deceased/Prashanthi committed suicide.

Subsequently, as per the evidence collected in the case, the Sub-

Inspector of Police/Pw.12 affected arrest of the accused and produced him before the court for judicial remand and after conclusion of the investigation Pw12/K.S.Ratnam has filed the charge sheet against the accused herein for the offence U/Sec.306, 498-A IPC.

3. The charge sheet has been taken on file by the learned XI

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar and preliminary cognizance was taken U/Sec.306, 498-A IPC and registered the case as

PRC.No.04/2017 and committed the case to the Metropolitan

Magistrate Sessions Division Cyberabad vide committal order dt. 25-

04-2017. Thereafter, Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge has registered this case as SC.No.391/2017 and made over the case to this court court for the purpose of trial.

4. On appearance of Accused herein, after ascertaining the compliance of Sec.207 Cr.P.C, accused herein was examined U/s.227 r/w 228 Cr.P.C, by explaining the accusation and the particulars of offence alleged U/s 306 and 498-A IPC, accused denied the accusation, and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trail on behalf of prosecution, Pws. 1 to 12 were examined and Ex.P1 to P9 were marked and also MO1/Bed sheet was marked. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence the accused herein was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence on record, and he denied the evidence of 4 prosecution witnesses. When opportunity was given to produce defence evidence if any, the accused herein and his counsel have reported there is no defense evidence.

6. Heard both sides

7. Now the point for determination is “whether the

prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the

offence under Sections 306, 498-A IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt” ?

8.Now coming to the evidence on record, Pw1 who alleged the first information report as deposed that the marriage of his sister/Prashanthi was performed with the accused herein about 8 years ago and their marriage was love marriage and they also blessed with a male child and they have shifted their residence Safilguda to Janapriya

Apartments, Kothapet and resided in Flat No.528. But, on 19-12-2016

Pw1 has received a telephone call from the accused itself and he told him that deceased/Prashanthi committed suicide by hanging herself in the house and asking him to come to the spot and so that he went there and noticed her sister/Prashanthi found dead and then he given report to the police to take action. He also further stated in his evidence that he came to know that the accused treated the deceased in indecent manner, suspecting her character and also abused her in filthy language due to which deceased committed suicide.

9.Similarly, Pw2/K.Mohan Rao who is the father of the deceased/Prashanthi and Pw1 and also deposed similarly to Pw1 stating that due to harassment and suspecting character of deceased/

Prashanthi, due to which she committed suicide by hanging herself to the balcony grill. Admittedly, Pw1 and 2 are not direct witness to the actual incident. However, Pw3/K.Jagan Mohini who is mother of the 5 deceased, wife of Pw2 and also mother of Pw1 and also deposed with regard to death of deceased by committing suicide and she also alleged that the accused and deceased lived together happily for about 2 years and on the date of death, the accused and his wife used to reside in the rental house at Kothapet.

10.Pws.1 to 3 are subjected to cross-examination by the counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination of Pw2 it is suggested to him that the deceased was suffering from ill health as on the date of incident so also in the cross examination of Pw1 it is elicited from him that Pw1 did not stated any thing in Ex.P1/report to show that the deceased and accused resided for about 8 months and also admitted that he never stated before the police as in Ex.P1/report.

Though, Pws.1 to 3 stated in their evidence because of the harassment, of the accused the deceased committed suicide, but they have not deposed anything about unlawful demands of accused like demand of dowry or valuable securities or any other property. Except the bald statement that the accused herein harassed the deceased by suspecting her character, and to substantiate the contention, no evidence adduced by prosecution. Therefore, I have also gone through the other evidence addressed on behalf of prosecution.

11.Pw4/K.Rajeshwari who is the wife of Pw2 is seems to be 2nd wife and she is sister of Pw3 and she also stated in the same lines as deposed by Pw3. I do not find any substance of evidence in cross- examination of Pw4 and her evidence is not reliable and trust worthy.

Moreover, the witness Pw5/T.S.Jai Gopal, Pw6/G.Naveen Sharma, Pw7/

A.Venkata Durga Prasad who are occupants of Janapriya Apartments situated at Kothapet, and nothing stated against the accused herein and learned APP treated them as hostile and after seeking permission 6 of the court they were subjected to cross-examination with reference to Ex.P2, P3 and P4 but, they have denied the suggestions of the prosecution.

12.Pw8/G. Pandu who acted as mediator to the panchanama proceedings under Ex.P5 has supported the case of prosecution and categorically stated the police conducted panchanama and also drawn rough sketch under Ex.P5 and seizure of MO1/Bed sheet there was used in commission of offence. So also Pw10/Taquiddin Khan deposed with regard to postmortem examination conducted on the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P7/Postmortem examination report.

According to Pw10/Taquiddin Khan the cause of death of the deceased was due to hanging. So also Pw11/Esther Anitha deposed about the inquest report under Ex.P8 and it is not disputed by accused.

13.Coming to the evidence of Pw12/K.S.Ratnam/Sub-Inspector of Police, though he deposed about the recording of statements of witnesses, conducted panchanama and conduct postmortem examination is also not in dispute with the accused. But, only contention of the accused counsel, there is no reasonable evidence to point out that deceased/Prashanthi was subjected to cruelty by the accused husband at any point of time to get attract the essential ingredients of Sec.498-A and so also, so far as abetment to commit suicide, there is no evidence to point out that the accused herein used any unparliamentary language and uttered any language as against the deceased/Prashanthi. Moreover, in the cross-examination of Pw12/

K.S.Ratnam has deposed in his evidence that the Tahasildar recorded the statements of Pws.2 and 3 at the time of inquest.

14.Therefore, looking into over all evidence on record, I have come across to the decision relied on by the counsel for the accused 7 reported in S.S. Chheena V. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another reported in 2011 (1) ALD (Crl.) 227 (SC) where in it was held at para

No.28 as here under:

“Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a Person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ration of the cases cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ration of cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. it is 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 committed suicide”.

15.Therefore, relying on the above decision, I have carefully scrutinized the evidence of Pw1 to 5 and 7. As already stated above that Pw5, 6 did not supported the case of prosecution and they also denied Ex.P2/statement and also Ex.P4 statement given to the police and further, denied the signatures on Ex.P3/inquest. The remaining evidence available is the testimony of Pws.1 to 3. Admittedly, Pw2 and 3 not at all resided with the deceased and accused at any point of time. The evidence of Pw1 is also hearsay evidence and he is not a direct witness to the actual incident. Therefore, the evidence of Pw1, 5, 7 and 4 is not to be taken into consideration without any corroboration cruelty that was caused to the deceased/Prashanthi.

Hence, looking into the evidence of Pw1, 5 and 7 as well as Pw8, the accused herein entitle to be acquitted on benefit of doubt. As such, the prosecution could not establish the essential ingredients of offence and he is entitled to be acquitted on benefit of doubt.

8

16. In the result, the accused herein found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.306, 498-A I.P.C and he is hereby acquitted U/Sec.232

Cr.P.C, the bail bond of the accused, if any shall stands cancelled. The

MO1/Bed sheet is liable to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of February,

2019.

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: K. Brahma Naidu - Nil - Pw.2 : K. Mohan Rao Pw.3: K. Jagan Mohini Pw.4: K. Rajeshwari Pw.5: Jaya Gopal Pw.6: G. Naveen Sharma Pw.7: A. Venkata Prasad Pw.8: G. Malla Pandu Goud Pw.9: P. Appa Rao Pw.10: Dr. Taquiuddin Pw.11: Esther Anitha Pw.12: K.S.Ratnam

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Complaint -Nil- Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw5 Ex.P3: Signature on scene of offence panchanama & Rough sketch Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw7 Ex.P5: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6: Rough sketch Ex.P7: Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P8: Inquest Report Ex.P9: FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

MO1: Bed sheet Nil

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

9 10

Police present. Accused no.1 to present. Judgment is pronounced (vide separate judgment) in the open court.

In the result, A.1 to A3 found not guilty for the offence U/s.498-A and 307 IPC and they are hereby acquitted U/s.232 (1) Cr.P., and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

PASJ 11

AIR (SC) 327 (2010)

Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI. M.JOHNSON

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated on this the 14th of February, 2019

SC No. 630/2017

Name of the complainant : The State through P.S. Vanasthalipuram

Name of the accused : A1: Bala Madhu, S/o. Venkataiah, Age: 24 years, R/o. Plot No.63, Sriram Nagar Colony Mansoorabad, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

A2:Yerra Mahesh, S/o.Yerra China Muthaiah, Age:23years, Occ: Hotel worker, R/o.Plot No.407, Christian Colony, Vanasthalipuram, R.R.District.

A3: Jatagoni Dasaratha, S/o. Gopal Age: 23 years, Occ: Mason, R/o. Huts near Hasthinapuram

A4: Bayya Sai Kumar, S/o. Ramulu, Age: 25 years, Occ: Pharmacy, R/o.Plot No.33, Nagarjuna Colony, Hasthinapuram, R.R.District.

Crime Number : 567 / 2016

Offence Under Section :U/s. 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C

PRC No. :61/2016 on the file of VII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, Hayathnagar

Case committed by :Sri. N. Jesuratna Kumar, VII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad Hayathnagar.

Prosecution conducted by :Smt.P.Manjula Devi, Addl. P.P.

Defence conducted by :Sri. Someshwar Rao Advocate

Plea of the accused : not guilty.

Sentence of order : In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 307 r/w 34 I.P.C and they are hereby acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C, and bail bonds of A1 to A4 are hereby cancelled.

2

This case is coming before me for hearing in the

presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri. Someshwar Rao, Advocate for the accused and

having stood over the matter for consideration till this

day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Vanasthalipuram has filed the charge sheet in crime No.365/2016 of P.S.Vanasthalipuram against the accused No.1 to 4 herein for the offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2. The brief facts of case of prosecution as hereunder:

According to the charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is that on 16-7-2016 at about 0030 hours, the defacto complainant/Pw1/Sirimurthula Harish came to P.S Vanasthalipuram and lodged a report in writing under Ex.P1 stating that he migrated from

Kondadoddi Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District to Vijayapuri

Colony at about 10 years ago and staying there. On 15-7-2017 at about 5.30 P.M he along with his younger brother and some other friends played cricket at Nagarjuna Grounds with Madhu and his friends and in that match Madhu team was defeated and they picked up quarrel with him and his team and thereafter, Madhu along with his friends came to the DPS school and assaulted on him and stabbed with knife on back of his younger brother Venkatesh/Pw2 due to which he sustained bleeding injury and the accused herein with an intention to kill him but, Pw2 as escaped from the attack. Accordingly, he requested to take necessary action against the accused persons.

Basing on the Ex.P1/report, the Asst. Sub-Inspector of

Police/Lw15/P.Anjaiah registered the case in Cr.No.567/2016 and issued

FIR U/Sec.307 r/w 34 IPC vide Ex.P10. Then Pw11/Sub-Inspector of Police has taken up the investigation and recorded the statements of Pw1 and 3 the statements of injured/Pw2/S.Venkatesh and other eye witness as

Pw4/J.Laxman, Pw5/P.Subhash and Lw4/P.Prameela and Pw3/T.Ranjith

Kumar and also recorded the statements of Lw7/Y.Pedda Ramulu who is the circumstantial witness and father of Pw2. Thereafter, the investigation officer called upon two mediators i.e., Pw7/T. Gopal, Pw8/T. Venkatramulu and in their presence prepared scene of offence observation proceedings by way of Crime Detail Form under Ex.P11 and seized a knife on the spot that was used by the accused. Therefore, after seizure of the knife under

Crime Detail Form, the accused persons were apprehended by

Pw11/M.Gopal on 15-7-2016 and recorded the confessional statement of the accused persons in the presence of two mediators i.e., Pw9/SV. Ammi

Raju and Lw13/K.Lalu under Ex.P4 and P5 and then Pw11/M.Gopal arrested the accused persons and produced them before the court for judicial remand. It is also the case of prosecution that Pw2 injured under gone treatment in Gandhi hospital and the Medical Officer/Dr.Raj Karan/Pw10 has treated the injured and furnished Wound Certificate as per Ex.P12.

Therefore, the evidence collected in the case established that the accused herein assaulted on Pw2 on the date of incident on the point of knife resulting bleeding injury and thereby the accused committed offence punishable U/Sec.307 r/w 34 IPC.

3. After filing the charge sheet, Learned VII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at Vanasthalipuram has registered the case as

PRC.No.61/2016 and on appearance of accused persons, copies of charge sheet and other documents supplied him as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C and thereafter, the case has been committed to Metropolitan Sessions

Division of Cyberabad U/Sec.209 Cr.P.C and after registration of the case as S.C 630/2017, the case has been made over to this court for the purpose of trial. As such, on appearance of the accused, this court conducted examination under Section 227 R/w 228 Cr.P.C by explaining 4 the accusation and particulars of the offence alleged under Section 307, r/w 34 IPC for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and the charge framed and read over to the accused in vernacular language.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PWs. 1 to 11 were examined and Ex.P1 to P15 were marked. After conclusion of the evidence on behalf of prosecution, the accused herein were examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C, by explaining incriminating evidence on record. But the accused herein denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

5. Heard arguments of learned Addl.P.P. and also counsel for the accused.

6. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution

is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence 307 r/w

34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. According to the charge framed against the accused herein on 15-7-2016 at about 5.30 P.M, the accused persons and Pw1 and his friends participated in a cricket match due to defeat of the team of accused, they developed grudges on Pw2 and others and they assaulted on Pw2 with point of knife due to which Pw2/S.Venkatesh sustained stab injury and as such the accused person liable U/Sec.307 r/w 34 IPC.

8. In order to prove the case of prosecution it has examined as many as 11 witnesses, Pws.1 to 11 and also got marked Ex.P1 to P15 and

MO1/Knife. Coming to the evidence on record the defacto complainant/S.Harish has deposed in his evidence on intervening night 15/16-7-2016 at about 11.00 pm he received a telephone call from his brother Venkatesh/Pw2 and he told him that someday have assaulted on him due to which he sustained injury, so that he came to Pw2 and immediately he was taken to P.S and lodged a report Ex.P1 with the police 5 taking necessary action. But infact, the evidence of Pw1 is inconsistent with report lodged with police under Ex.P1. While so, the injured/Pw2/Venkatesh has deposed in his evidence that in the year 2015 one day some unknown persons assaulted on him due to which he received bleeding on his back and at the same time when Ranjeeth interfered he also sustained injury over the hand. The witness has nothing stated as against the accused herein as such, the learned APP treated both Pw1 and 2 as hostile and cross examined them referred to the statement given to the police under Ex.P2 and P3 respectively, but Pw1 and 2 have denied the contents of the statements.

9. Next considering Pw3/T.Ranjith Kumar, Pw4/J.Laxman, Pw5/

P.Subhash, Pw6/P.Ramulu who are examined on behalf of prosecution have treated hostile, they did not supported the case of prosecution.

Since, Pws.1 to 6 turned hostile, I have also taken into consideration, the evidence of Pw7/C.Gopal who acted as mediator to the witness to the

Ex.P11/Crime Detail Form and except identifying his signature as Ex.P8,

Pw7 also not supported the case of prosecution and seizure of MO1/Knife.

Whereas, Pw8/P.Venkat Ramulu who acted as mediator to the witness to the crime detail form also turned hostile. Whereas, Pw9/S.V.N.Raju who said to have been acted as mediator to the confessional panchanama of the accused also turned hostile.

10. Pw10/Dr.Raj Karan Reddy has deposed that on 26-7-2016 he examined Pw2 and furnished wound certificate but, infact Pw10 is not the Medical Officer who treated the injury Pw2 and he deposed that one

Dr.Narmada treated the injured and referred to him for further examination. Therefore, the Medical Evidence adduced by prosecution is also inconsistent with prosecution evidence.

11. Under these circumstances, the evidence of Pw11/Sub-

Inspector of Police who investigated the case is having no credit 6 worthiness. Absolutely there is no any corroboration to the evidence of

Pw11 with regard to the recording statements, seizure of MO1/Knife.

Therefore, the uncorroborative testimony of PW11 cannot be relied on to prove the charge framed against the accused herein. As such, I accept the submissions of counsel for the accused herein that the prosecution failed to prove its case with reliable and admissible evidence beyond doubt. Hence, A1 to A4 herein are entitled to be acquitted.

12. In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 herein found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 307 r/w 34 I.P.C and they are hereby acquitted

U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C, and bail bonds of accused No.1 to 4 are hereby cancelled. MO1/Knife shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 14th day of February, 2019.

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW.1: Srimurthula Harish - Nil - PW.2: Srimurthula Venkatesh PW.3: T. Ranjith Kumar PW.4: Jala Laxman PW.5: P. Subhash Pw.6: P. Ramulu Pw.7: Theppa Gopal Pw.8: T. Venkatramulu Pw.9: SV. Ammi Raju Pw.10: Raj Karan Pw.11: M. Gopal

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw2 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw3 Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw4 Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw5 Ex.P7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw6 7

Ex.P8: Signature of Pw7 on Crime Detail Form Ex.P9: Signature of Pw7 on Crime Detail Form Ex.P10: FIR Ex.P11: Crime Detail Form Ex.P12: Wound Certificate Ex.P13: Seizure Report Ex.P14: Confession Statement of A1 Ex.P15: Confession Statement of A2 to A4

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MO1: Knife

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

8

Police present. Accused no.1 to present. Judgment is pronounced (vide separate judgment) in the open court.

In the result, A.1 to A3 found not guilty for the offence U/s.498-A and 307 IPC and they are hereby acquitted

U/s.232 (1) Cr.P., and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

PASJ

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI. M.JOHNSON

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated on this the 15th Day of February, 2019

SC No. 893/2017

Name of the complainant: The State through P.S. L.B.Nagar

Name of the accused A.1: K. Rama Rao, S/o. Venkaiah, Aged about 35 yrs, R/o. H.No.3-9-522/13, Bairamalguda Colony, Mansoorabad, L.B.Nagar.

A.2 : Smt. N. Lalitha, W/o. Late Buchamaiah, aged about 38 years, R/o. Saidabad.

A3: Baspally Latha, W/o. Yadagiri, Age: 32 years, Occ: Pvt. Work, R/o.Gandhi, Road No.4, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

A4: Peramandla Rani, W/o. Ganesh, Age: 23 years, Occ: Labourer, R/o. Ambedkar Colony, Kothapet.

A5: Meravath Laxmi, W/o. Raju, Age: 30 years, Occ: Labourer, R/o. R.N.Reddy Nagar, Saroornagar, R.R.District.

A6: Bandaru Om Prakash S/o. Late Mohan, Age: 26 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.11-217/107/8/B, P & T Colony, Saroornagar, R.R.District.

A7: Penugonda Shanker. S/o. P. Rajaiah, Age: 33 years, Occ: Business, C/o. Krishna Hotel, Chandrapuri Colony.

A8: Md. Althaf, S/o. Md. Thayab, Age: 27 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Eidi Bazar, Chandrayan Gutta.

Note: (the case against A2 is abated on 10-2-2016 and the case against A5 was separated vide

PRC.No.54/2015)

Crime Number:462/2014

Offence Under Section:Under Section 3,4 & 5 of PITA Act.

2

PRC No.: 50/2015 on the file of III Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

Case committed by:Smt. M. Kalpana, IIII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

Prosecution conducted by:Smt.P.Manjula Devi, Addl. P.P.

Defence conducted by:Sri. Md. Gafar Advocates for Accused

Plea of the accused: not guilty.

Sentence of order : In the result, Accused No.1,3,4,6,7 & 8 found not guilty for the offence under Section 3,4 & 5 of Pita Act and they are hereby acquitted U/s.232 Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

This case is coming before me for hearing in the

presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State

and of Sri. Md. Gafar, Advocate for the accused

No.1.3,4,6,7 and having stood over the matter for

consideration till this day, this court delivered the

following:

J U D G M E N T

The State through the Inspector of Police, P.S L.B.Nagar has filed the charge sheet against the above mentioned accused persons herein for the offence under Section 3,4 & 5 of PITA Act in crime

No.462/2014.

2. According to the charge sheet the case of the prosecution is as hereunder:

That on 19-5-2014 about 7.30 pm, PW.3/M.Kashivishwanath/the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. L.B.Nagar has received a credible information about the prostitution activities at Srinivasa Lodge,

L.B.Nagar and on receipt of such information, Pw3 along with his staff, after obtaining search proceedings under section of 165 Cr.P.C, from superior officer, conducted a raid in the lodge and found one woman/ organize the prostitution activities and he apprehended her and 3 interrogated and on interrogation the said lady disclosed her name

Nalabali Lalitha, W/o. Late Buchamaiah and she is resident of Mirriguda

Village, Nalgonda District. And further, on the basis of the statement,

Sub-Inspector of Police/Pw3 also apprehended two more woman by name B.Latha and P.Rani in the lodge and on further interrogation they revealed they are sex workers and in the same lodge he apprehended one J.Bujji, Shanthamma, Mekala Sujatha along with the customers namely P. Shankar, Md. Althaf, B. Omprakash and recorded the confessional statement and also seized cash of Rs.1000, and one white nokia cell phone from her possession in the presence of mediators. It is also the case of the prosecution, the accused persons was apprehended in Srinivasa Lodge in Room No.103, 104. Therefore, after recording the confessional statements of the accused persons, they were taken in to custody and brought them to police station and handed over to the Station House Officer P.S. L.B.Nagar. Thereby, panchanama proceedings conducted by Pw3, Lw10/D.Nanu Naik/the then Sub-Inspect of Police registered the case and issued FIR as per

Ex.P2. According to prosecution case, Ex.P1/Confessional cum seizure panchanama prepared in the presence of mediators Lw8/K.Bathini

Nagaraju, Lw9/B.Srinu. Therefore, further investigation was handed over to T.Avinash Babu/Sub-Inspector of Police/Lw11. Thereafter,

Lw12/E.Srinivas Reddy/Inspector of Police has filed the charge sheet, against the accused persons by producing them before the court.

On filing the charge sheet, the learned III Metropolitan

Magistrate, R.R.District, preliminary cognizance was taken and the

case was registered vide PRC No.50/2016 and committed the case to the Metropolitan Sessions Division of Cyberabad U/Sec.209 CPC and after registration of the case as S.C 893/2017, the case has been made over to this court for the purpose of trial. As such, on appearance of 4 the accused, this court conducted examination under Section 227 R/w 228 Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation and particulars of the offence alleged under Section 3, 4 and 5 of PITA Act for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to tried and the charge framed and read over to the accused in vernacular language. It is noted that in the present case A2 is abated and as such the case against A5 was separated vide PRC.No.54/2017. Hence, the present case is against A2 filed.

3. During the course of trial on behalf of the prosecution,

PW.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Ex.P-1 & Ex,.P-2 were marked.

After conclusion of the evidence of prosecution, the accused herein were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence on record. But, accused herein denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

4. I have heard submissions of learned APP and defence counsel.

5. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the offence Under under Section 3,4 & 5 of PITA Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

6. Now coming to the evidence on record, Sub-Inspector of

Police/Pw3 who detected the case has deposed in his evidence that on 19-05-2014, at about 7.30 P.M on receipt of credible information he obtained permission from the Assistant Commissioner of police and he along with his staff Lw3/Sai Pavan/HG1150 and Lw4/Surekha WPC 5703 and raided the Srinivasa Lodge and apprehended the Om Prakash/A6,

Althaf/A8 and Shankar/A7 and on interrogation and basing on confession he also apprehended A3/B.Latha and A4/P.Rani and after recording their confessional statements, he apprehended A6/B. Om 5

Prakash, A7/P.Shankar, A8/Md.Althaf who are also associated with the said females in prostitution activities. In the presence of mediators, seized cash of Rs.3000/- and also seized five mobile phones different types. As such, A2 to A8 were taken into custody and handed over to the Station House Officer P.S. L.B.Nagar and also depose that the case property seized by him by depositing the case property in

CPR.No.462/2014. He identified the case property deposited in the court vide CPR.No.16/2018 on the file of this court. The Witness Pw3 identified MO1 case property including the mobile phones.

7.Pw2/G.Surekha and Pw1/Shekar Reddy are police officials supporting the version of Pw3. Pws.1 to 3 subjected to cross examination by the counsel for the accused herein. In view of the submissions of Pw1 that Sub-Inspector of Police called him and he cannot say the names of mediators and descriptive particulars of mediators in whose presence the panchanama was conducted so also

Pw2 deposed in the cross examination that he do not know from where the mediators were called by Pw3. Pw2 also unable to give the full particulars of the case property and seized on the day. Whereas, in the prosecution of Pw3 deposed that the panchanama proceedings conducted by him in the presence of the mediators.

Ex.P1/Panchanama marked to establish the confession of accused and seizure of the material produced by the mediators are not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of Pw3 can not be taken into consideration to prove the confession of accused persons.

8.Whereas, Pw4/T.Avinash Babu/Sub-Inspector of Police who conducted further investigation has deposed with regard to statements recorded by him and deposit of the case property. He also deposed that he arrested accused No.1 and produced before the court on 30-5- 2014. It appears from the evidence on record, the entire prosecution 6 case relied on the confessional statements of the accused persons under Ex.P1/panchanama. In fact, the investigation officer has not examined witnesses of Srinivasa Lodge, none of the employees and owners of the Srinivasa Lodge are cited as witnesses. Furthermore, the search proceedings U/Sec.165 Cr.P.C has not been marked by the prosecution. Therefore, the entire action of Pw3 in apprehending of the accused persons creates a shadow of doubt as to the prostitution activities of the accused herein. Therefore, the case of the prosecution has not established through reliable source of evidence. Hence, the accused herein A1, A3, A4, A6 to A8 are entitled to be acquitted for the charge framed against them.

9.In the result, accused No.1, 3, 4, 6 to 8 found not guilty

U/Sec.3, 4 and 5 of PITA Act and accordingly, they are acquitted

U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C and their bail bonds shall stands cancelled. The case property if any subjected to disposal of the case against A5 vide

PRC.No.54/2017, on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of February,

2019.

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: Shekar Reddy - Nil - Pw.2 : G. Surekha PW.3: M. Kashivishwanath PW.4: T. Avinash Babu 7

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P2: FIR

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Nil Nil

PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

8

Police present. Accused no.1 to present. Judgment is pronounced (vide separate judgment) in the open court.

In the result, A.1 to A3 found not guilty for the offence U/s.498-A and 307 IPC and they are hereby acquitted U/s.232 (1) Cr.P., and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

PASJ