1
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT JAGTIAL.
PRESENT:- SRI M.SRINIVAS B.A.L.,LL.M., Assistant Sessions Judge, Sircilla F.A.C.: Assistant Sessions Judge,Jagtial.
WEDNESDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF MAY, 2017.
SESSIONS CASE No.16 of 2016.
(On committal by II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial vide P.R.C.No.33 of 2015 order dated 01-12-2015).
Name of the complainant:The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Kodimial in Cr.No.112 of 2015.
Description of the accused:A.1 Thupakula Buchavva,W/o: Narsaiah, Age:60 years, A.2 Thupakula Lingavva, W/o:Pochalu, Age:40 years, A.3 Thupakula Mahesh,S/o: Pochalu, Age:22 years, All are R/o: Nachupalli village.
Charge:U/Sec.306 I.P.C.
Plea of the accused:Not guilty. Finding of the Court:NOT G U I L T Y.
Sentence or order: IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.306 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of all accused shall remain in force for six months from the date of this judgment, in compliance of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. Prosecution conducted by:Sri K.Amarender Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor
Defence conducted by :Sri D.Laxma Reddy,Advocate for the accused.
This case is coming before me on 01-05-2017 for final hearing in the presence ofSri K.Amarender Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri D.Laxma Reddy,Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodimial Police Station filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offence U/Sec.306 I.P.C in Cr.No.112 of 2015 on the file of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial.
2
2. The case of prosecution as per the contents of charge sheet is that, on 06-10-2015 at 04-00 hours, the defacto-complainant/L.W.1 namely Pendala
Gangavva came to Police Station and lodged a report stating that about 6 months back, her husband went to Dubai. She had 3 daughters and one son. About 3 years ago, they performed the marriage of her elder daughter namely Thupakula Rama by giving cash of Rs.50,000/-, besides gold worth of Rs.70,000/- and other house hold articles. Her daughter and son-in-law lived happily for 4 months. Later, her son-in-law went to Dubai for livelihood. Since 4 or 5 months, A1 to A3 started harassing her daughter alleging that her daughter talking to somebody over phone frequently and questioned her alleging that she developed illegal contacts with others and insulted her and abetted her to die. So vexed with her life, her daughter poured kerosene on her body and set ablaze and while taking treatment, she died on 6-10-2015.
3.Basing on the above report, the LW.16 namely N.Ravi/Sub-Inspector of Police of Kodimial Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.112 of 2015
U/Sec.306 I.P.C and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, on the requisition of S.I. of Police, LW13 namely N.Srinivas,
Tahsildar visited the Government Area Hospital,Jagtial, secured the presence of mediators/LWs.8 to 10 namely Ganaboina Lachamma,Janga Narsamma and Madigela Raja Narsaiah, conducted an inquest examined the dead body and found burn injuries all over her body,got photographed the dead body of deceased with the help of LW7 namely Ravula Narsinga Rao, photographer, examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 6 namely
PendalaGangavva,RegulaAruna,PendelaShirisha,Ganaboina
Narsaiah,Janga Peddulu,Basaravena Pochavva and subjected the dead body to post mortem examination,visited the scene of offence and prepared crime 3 details form in the presence of LWs.11 and 12 namely Shamirishetti Suresh and Ganga Narsaiah. LWs.14 and 15 namely Dr.Padmini and Dr.Aishwarya jointly conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and opined that the cause of death is due to burns. On 16-10-2015 at 14-00 hours, LW17 namely K.Ravinder/Sub-Inspector of Police of Kodimial Police Station, arrested all the accused and produced them before court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for offence U/Sec.306 I.P.C.
4.The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial took cognizance of the offence U/Sec.306 I.P.C., against A1 to A3, registered it as
P.R.C.No.33 of 2015 and supplied copies of all the documents to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. By order dated 01-12-2015, the learned
II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Karimnagar, since the alleged offence is exclusively triable by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions. In turn, the Hon’ble
Sessions Judge, Karimnagar made over the case to this court for disposal as
per law.
5.On appearance of A1 to A3 before this Court and on hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, this Court framed charge U/Sec.306 I.P.C. against them, the contents of charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7.
7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, A1 to A3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances appearing in 4 the evidence of prosecution witnesses, are explained to them, for which they denied the same. In defence, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.D1 and D2 are marked.
8.Heard arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and defence counsel for accused.
9.Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution proved the offence U/Sec.306 I.P.C. against the accused Nos.1 to 3, beyond all reasonable doubt or not?
POINT:
10. It is the specific case of prosecution that due to harassment of A1 to
A3 alleging that the deceased had extra-marital relationship with others and also for talking over cell phone with others and suspecting her character and threatening her to inform the same to her husband if she asked the loan amount of Rs.20,000/- given to A3 by her mother etc., and for abetting her to die only, the deceased vexed on her life, poured kerosene on her body on 6-10-2015 at 4-00 A.M., and died in government area hospital, Jagtial at 7-00 A.M., on the same day while undergoing treatment and thus the A1 to
A3 are liable for punishment for the offence U/Sec.306 I.P.C.
11.It is reiterated that to substantiate the guilty of accused for the aforesaid offences, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13, out of the 17 listed witnesses. Among the so examined witnesses, the P.W.1 is defacto- complainant and mother of deceased. Whereas P.Ws.2 to 6 are other family members and relatives of deceased and circumstantial witnesses. PW7 is one of panch witnesses for inquest. PW8 is the photographer who took the photos of the dead body of deceased. PWs.9 and 10 are the panch witnesses for crime details form. PW11 is the then Tahsildar and Executive
Magistrate who conducted the inquest over the dead body of deceased.
5
PW12 is the government doctor who conducted autopsy along with another doctor and lastly, PW13 is the first investigation officer. This Court has gone through the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, exhibits marked and the other material available on record.
12.The testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses are very much available on record in the shape of depositions and there is no need to reproduce the same in this Judgment to avoid repetition. Hence, the appreciation of evidence of such witnesses, is directly proceeded with as follows, under different heads:
a) PROVING THE LENDING AMOUNT AS HAND LOAN TO THE A3:
13.The main reason for death of deceased alleged against the accused is that, the A3 asked hand loan of Rs.20,000/- from the mother of deceased/PW1 for purchasing a motor cycle. So the prosecution has to prove the said aspect through its witnesses beyond reasonable doubt, before proving the other aspects. It is the evidence of PW1 who is mother of deceased that she herself lent Rs.20,000/- to the A3 at his request, for purchasing a motorcycle. During the cross-examination, the PW1 admitted that she paid Rs.20,000/- to A3 and at that time, nobody was present and that she did not obtain any document in token of borrowing Rs.20,000/- as he assured to pay the availed loan amount within 15 days and that she did not give any legal notice to A3 about repayment of such loan amount.
Contrary to such evidence, the Ex.A1/report given by PW1, discloses that 5 months prior to going to the house of accused for admonishing them, the deceased brought the A3 to the house of PW1 and got provided Rs.20,000/- through PW1 as hand loan and that the PW1 lent such loan amount as the
A3 threatened her to inform to the husband of deceased that the deceased had been talking over phone with several persons and that she was moving with others in extra-marital relationship, so that only the PW1 gave such 6 loan amount. On one hand, the evidence of PW1 in court shows that she voluntarily gave the hand loan of Rs.20,000/- to A3 for purchasing a motorcycle and on the other hand, her report/Ex.P1 to police and her
Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement show that on threatening by A3 to inform about the illicit relationship of deceased only, the PW1 gave such loan amount. The above said two versions are contradictory to each other.
14. The PW1 also subsequently admitted in her cross-examination that she got mentioned in Ex.P1 mistakenly that she paid Rs.20,000/- as her daughter committed mistake. It is specifically admitted by PW1 in her cross- examination that the A1 resided separately, whereas A2 and A3 resided in a separate house in the same village. Admittedly, there is no document evidencing the lending of Rs.20,000/- to A3 by PW1, except her self-serving testimony. Whatever it may be, it is interesting to note that, the PW1, in the last two lines of her cross-examination that the police did not examine her and record her statement, which erases her entire evidence given in court. The PW2 who is the daughter of PW1 and younger sister of deceased deposed that, the A3 asked the deceased to give Rs.20,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle and accordingly, the deceased brought Rs.20,000/- from PW6 and gave it to the A3. However, she categorically admitted in her cross- examination that she was not present at the time of lending money to A3 by the deceased and that she has no personal knowledge about the incidents occurred in the house of in-laws of deceased and that she came to know the same through her mother/PW1 only. Be that as it may, even the PW2 also specifically admitted in her cross-examination that the police did not examine her and record her statement at any time. Her above admission erases her entire evidence.
7
15. The PW3 who is the another younger sister of deceased and daughter of PW1, did not say anything with regard to the loan amount given to A3 and she also specifically admitted in her cross-examination that the police did not examine her. She further admitted that she has no personal knowledge about the incidents occurred in the house of in-laws of deceased and even the deceased also never informed her the same, prior to her setting ablaze.
So the evidence of PW3 is no way helpful to the prosecution case, in proving the giving of hand loan to A3. The PW4 who is circumstantial witness and maternal uncle to PWs.2 and 3 and elder brother to PW1, deposed that the
A3 obtained loan of Rs.20,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle. However, he admitted in cross-examination that he was not at all present when the PW1 lent Rs.20,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle. Since the PW4 is not an eye witness to the said money lending transaction, his evidence is also did not prove the said aspect of lending money to A3.
16. The PW5 is another circumstantial witness and the PW1 is wife of his brother-in-law. But his evidence did not disclose anything about giving or taking loan amounts in between deceased and A3. He further admitted in his cross-examination in page no.2 that, he does not know anything about this case facts. So the evidence of PW5 is also did not disclose any whisper in giving the hand loan to A3. PW6 is another circumstantial witness and paternal aunt to the deceased and sister-in-law to PW1. Her evidence in chief-examination categorically shows that deceased took Rs.20,000/- from
PW6 and gave it to A3 for purchasing a motorbike and later on she recovered the said amount from PW1. During the cross-examination she admitted that she gave only hand loan to the deceased and did not tell her when she lent amount to A3 and that she did not see as to whether the deceased handed over Rs.20,000/- to A3 or not and that she only came to know about it.
8
17. When the testimonies of PWs.1 to 6 are cumulatively and carefully scrutinised, it is noticed that they are not corroborating with each other with regard to money lending transaction to A3 and by whom it is lent to A3. The
PW1 says that she personally lent Rs.20,000/- to A3 at his request, at her house for purchasing a motorcycle and on the other hand, PW2 says that firstly the A3 asked the deceased to give Rs.20,000/- for purchasing motorcycle and accordingly the deceased brought from PW6 and gave it to
A3. However, the evidence of PWs.3 and 5 did not disclose anything about such money lending transaction. Contradicting the same, the PW4 says that the A3 directly obtained the loan of Rs.20,000/- from PW1 from purchasing the motorcycle. Further contradicting the said versions, the PW3 says that the deceased only threatened the PW6, took Rs.20,000/- and gave it to the
A3 for purchasing a motorcycle. All the PWs.2,4 and 6 categorically admitted that they are not personally present at the time of said money lending transaction to the A3 and that they only came to know about it through others. Even the PW1 who is said to be lent such loan amount, subsequently admitted that she did not obtain any document in token of lending money of Rs.20,000/- to A3. The investigation officer also did not collect any documentary evidence with regard to such money lending transaction. In view of above discussion, it can be said that the prosecution is unable to prove the giving of loan amount to A3 by the deceased.
b) PROVING THE OVERT ACTS OF ACCUSED.:
18. As already stated supra, the reason for suicidal death of deceased, as per the prosecution story is that, the A1 to A3 harassed her suspecting her character, whenever she talked over phone and also threatened her not to demand for repayment of loan amount of Rs.20,000/- given to the A3. As discussed in the foregoing paras, the prosecution is failed to prove money 9 lending transaction in between A3 and others. It is the say of PW1 in her evidence that after lending amount by her to A3 directly, she demanded A3 for repayment of said amount of Rs.20,000/-, for which she told her that she would repay the same by bringing loan in a finance company. However, she did not repay the said loan amount to her. However the said aspects were not at all mentioned in Ex.P1 and Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement before the police, which are material omissions. Further, it is admitted by PW1 in her cross-examination that nobody was present when she paid Rs.20,000/- to
A3 and that she also not obtained any document from A3 in token of borrowing the said amount and that it is only an oral transaction.
19. She also specifically admitted that she did not give any legal notice to A3 about repayment of loan amount, nor she gave any police report about harassing the deceased by all accused, on the said aspects. The PW2 also said that upon asking by A3, the deceased only gave Rs.20,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle and the said amount was brought from the PW6.
Thus the versions of PWs.1 and 2 who are mother and daughter, are not at all tallying with each other with regard to lending amount to A3 either by
PW1 or by deceased and from whom the said loan amount was brought. On the other hand, the admission of PW6 shows that the deceased took
Rs.20,000/- from her and subsequently in her absence, gave it to A3 for purchasing motorcycle. She also admitted in cross-examination that she does not know whether the deceased actually paid the said amount of
Rs.20,000/- to A3 or not. On the other hand, the PW4 says that the A3 directly borrowed loan of Rs.20,000/- from PW1. So the said aspect of lending amount either by PW1 or PW6, was not at all proved by the prosecution through its witnesses in a convincing manner.
10
20. The another allegation against the accused as per the version of PW1 is that, the A1 to A3 started harassing the deceased by suspecting her fidelity whenever she talked in cell phone. However, the PW1 specifically admitted in her cross-examination that she did not witness personally when the A1 to A3 actually harassed her. It is also admitted by PW1 in her cross- examination that for about 3 times, she visited the house of A1 and that once in 15 days, the deceased used to come to her house and stayed for 2 or 3 days at once. But the deceased did not inform her through she went to her in-laws' house for 3 times, about harassing her by the A1 to A3. She also admitted that she did not give any information to the elders of the village or also not called for any panchayat before the elders and also not gave any police report about harassing the deceased by all accused. It is also the further admission of PW1 that since she did not come to the house of A1, she does not know the manner of setting ablaze of the deceased.
She also admitted that the A1 resides separately from that of A2 and A3 and the distance in between their two houses is 2 K.Ms.
21. The contention of defence at this juncture is that, when the deceased resided separately in the same house with A1,whereas the A2 and A3 resided separately in another house at a distance of 2 K.Ms., the question of harassing the deceased by A2 and A3 does not arise at all. As stated supra, the PW1 clearly admitted that the A1 resided separately from that of
A2 and A3 at a distance of 2 K.Ms. It is the further contention of defence that there is a dispute in between deceased and other accused pertains to providing maintenance to the A1 and there was an agreement as decided by the elders that the husband of deceased and A2 who are sons of A1, have to provide monthly maintenance to A1, for which the husband of A2 has been sending the amounts to A1, whereas the deceased refused to pay any amount towards maintenance of A1 though her husband sent amounts from 11 gulf country and in that connection, the deceased was called before the elders who in turn admonished her for non-payment of any amounts to A1 for her maintenance and since then the deceased stopped talking with A1 to
A3 and due to such acts of the panchayat elders only, she committed suicide. To substantiate the aforesaid defence contentions, several suggestions were posed to PW1, for which she pleaded ignorance, but not denied the same in toto. Admittedly, the deceased is none other than the daughter of PW1 and the even PW1 also several times visited the house of deceased and even the deceased also visited several times, the house of
PW1 and in those circumstances, if at all the panchayat was held wherein the elders admonished the deceased, definitely the PW1 could know the same through the deceased. But it appears that the PW1 intentionally suppressed those facts and pleaded ignorance.
22. The another contention of defence is that, the deceased suffered from epilepsy and frequently she fell down and becomes unconscious and even on the date of incident also, she fell down unconscious while preparing food at the fire wood kiln, so that the fire was contacted to her clothes and thus she sustained burn injuries and that the accused are not responsible for her death. However, suggestions to the above effect were denied by PW1. But it is surprising to note that though the PW1 stated several aspects in chief- examination as well as cross-examination, but in the last page of cross- examination, she categorically admitted that the police did not examine her and record her statement. The above said single line admission of PW1 erases her entire evidence since when the police not at all recorded her statement, there is no case at all. Whatever it may be, through the evidence of PW1, the prosecution could not prove any of the overt acts of either of accused.
12
23. Admittedly, the PW2 is also another circumstantial witness and she only came to know all the case facts through the PW1 only and she also admitted the same in cross-examination. The PW2 deposed that when the deceased demanded the A3 for repayment of loan amount of Rs.20,000/- as she brought the said amount from PW6 and then the A1 to A3 harassed her by way of abusing her attributing extra-marital relationship with others and asked her to die by consuming pesticide poison. However, the statement of
PW2 given before the police is silent with regard to abusing the deceased by accused to die by consuming pesticide poison. As that of PW1, this witness/PW2 also specifically admitted in her cross-examination that the A1 resided separately from that of A2 and A3, whereas the deceased also resided separately from A1 to A3 and there are 5 or 6 houses in between their houses. She also admitted in her cross-examination that only for one time, she went to the in-laws' house of deceased and that she does not know the incidents occurred in the house of in-laws of deceased/accused and that she only came to know the same through the PW1. She also admitted specifically that she has no personal knowledge about the incidents occurred in the house of in-laws' house and that she only came to know about it through the mother of PW1. It is also admitted by PW2 that she was not at all present at the time of lending money to A3 by the deceased. It is further admitted by PW2 that prior to the death of deceased, the PW1 did not inform to PW2 about the incidents occurred in the house of in-laws of deceased. So the above discussion goes to show that after knowing the case facts from
PW1 only, she came to know the same and thus her evidence is purely a hearsay and also an after thought and the same appears to be developed after the death of deceased only.
13
24. Further, several material omissions and contradictions are found in the evidence of PW2. In Ex.D1, which was marked in the statement of PW2, it is mentioned that upon coming to know about the death of deceased, she along with others, went to government hospital,Jagtial and found the deceased as dead. Contrary to it, the PW2 mentioned in her chief- examination that immediately after receiving phone call about setting ablaze by the deceased,she went to government area hospital,Jagtial found the deceased alive and she also talked with the deceased wherein the deceased told her that A1 to A3 only tortured her, so that she poured kerosene and set ablaze. But the said aspects were not at all mentioned by PW2 in her statement before the police which are material omissions. In the last few lines of her chief-examination, it is stated by PW2 that the A1 to A3 are only responsible for the suicidal death of his sister/deceased. However, the
PW2 did not mention the same in her statement before the police which is a material omission and a suggestion to that effect was denied by her. It is surprising to note that though the PW2 deposed in chief-examination that police examined her and recorded her statement, but during the cross- examination, she specifically admitted that the police did not examine her and record her statement at any time. The above discussion categorically shows that the evidence of PW2 is no way helpful in proving the overt acts of accused.
25. PW3 is another circumstantial witness and younger sister of deceased and her evidence is silent with regard to lending any loan amount either by
PW1 or PW6 to the A3 and her evidence is only confined to the extent that quarrels took place in in-laws' house of deceased alleging that she had been making phone calls to others and the PW3 came to know the same through the phone call of deceased to the PW1, who in turn informed the same to
PW3. Though the PW3 stated before the police in her statement along with 14 others that, by the time she reached hospital, the deceased already succumbed to injuries. But surprisingly, PW3 stated that she along with
PWs.1,2 and 4 to 6 found the deceased in hospital as alive and undergoing treatment. Though the PW3 deposed in chief-examination that she also talked with the deceased over phone wherein she informed about the harassment, but the same was not at all mentioned by her in her statement
before the police and a suggestion to that effect was also denied by her
which is a material omission. Further, though the PW3 stated that she received phone call from the deceased, but during the cross-examination, she admitted that she cannot say the phone number from which the deceased made phone call to the cell phone of PW1, so also the cell phone number of PW1 and that she did not advise the deceased to call for a panchayat or to make a report in police station.
26. Similarly, though the PW3 mentioned in her statement before the police as in Ex.D2 that by that time they reached the hospital, the deceased already dead, but she denied the Ex.D3 and stated that the deceased was alive and they found her in the hospital, which is against the story of prosecution. Whatever it may be, the PW3 admitted in her cross- examination specifically that she has no personal knowledge about the incidents occurred in the house of deceased and that the deceased never informed her prior to setting ablaze though she visited the house of deceased for two times and that she also does not know about the panchayats occurred among the deceased,A2 and the daughter-in-law and with regard to maintenance of A1. She further admitted that the police did not examine her. In view of the several material omissions and contradictions and as she admitted that the police did not examine her at all in this case, the evidence of PW3 is also not in corroboration with the prosecution case.
15
27. Coming to the evidence of PW4 who is the maternal uncle of deceased and elder brother of PW1, he also deposed that the A3 obtained loan of
Rs.20,000/- from PW1 for purchasing a motor cycle. But in cross- examination, he admitted that he was not at all present when the PW1 lent
Rs.20,000/-to the A3 for purchasing motor cycle. As per the evidence of
PW4, the PW1 informed him that one year after obtaining loan, quarrels took place in the in-laws' house of deceased alleging that she had been making phone calls to others and that she was unable to stay there. Then the PW1 advised to take others and go to the house of A1 to have talks.
Accordingly, the PW1,LW6 and her elder sister went to the house of A1 and requested the accused that the deceased is not of such a nature in making phone calls to others and requested them not to harass the deceased.
However, during the cross-examination, the PW1 stated that he did not witness the said incident of talking the PW1 with others and that he did not go to the house of A1 to have talks and that she also did not advise the PW1 to call for panchayat or to make a report when the deceased informed her about the harassing of accused. It is also admitted by PW4 that though he visited the house of deceased thrice, but the deceased did not inform him the harassment of the accused, once the deceased and her husband also came to his house even at that time also, the deceased did not inform him about the harassment of accused. PW4 admits that he has no personal knowledge about the incidents occurred in the house of PW1 and that he only came to know them through the PW1. So the entire evidence of PW4 is also based on hearsay evidence of PW1 only, which was already proved to be untrustworthy. As such the evidence of PW4 seems to be not believable.
28. The PW5 is another relative of deceased and PW1 and he stated about the marriage in between the deceased and her husband. But during the 16 cross-examination, he admitted that he did not attend the said marriage.
The evidence of PW5 appears to be only confined to the extent of receiving a phone call about setting ablaze by deceased and joining her in hospital and thereafter, he straight away went to hospital and upon asking, the deceased informed him and his wife that the A1 to A3 made her to commit suicide and that after some time, she died. However, the PW5 did not mention in his statement to police, the above said aspects which are the material omissions. As per the evidence of PW5, himself and his wife were only present in the house along with the deceased and it continued till the time of death of deceased and his evidence is very much clear that except himself, his wife, PWs.1 to 4 and 6 reached the hospital and also talked with the deceased. As per the story of prosecution, by the time of reaching the
PWs.1 to 4 and 6 to hospital, the deceased already succumbed to injuries and that only the PW2 and his wife looked after the deceased till the time of her death. But all the PWs.1 to 4 and 6 categorically stated that they found the deceased alive in the hospital while undergoing treatment and they also talked with her and the deceased also informed them about the reason for her committing suicide.
29. On one hand, the evidence of PW5 and prosecution story shows that only the PW5 and his wife were present at the time of death of deceased and none of the PWs1.to 4 and 6 were present in the hospital at the time of death of deceased and on the other hand, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and 6 clearly shows that they reached the hospital soon after the receipt of phone call from A2 about setting ablaze by deceased, found the deceased alive and also talked with her. But the entire statements of PWs.1 to 4 and 6 clearly show that by the time PWs.1 to 4 and 6 reached hospital, the deceased already succumbed to injuries. In the said manner, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and 6, as well as the prosecution case are not at all corroborating with 17 each other pertains to the finding the deceased, deceased alive by PWs.1 to 4 and 6. However, though the PW5 stated that the deceased informed him that the A1 to A3 made her to commit suicide, but his evidence is silent about the overt acts of accused which lead her to commit suicide and further during the cross-examination, the PW5 specifically admitted that he does not know anything about this case. The above admission of PW5 shows that he does not know anything about this case facts and it erases his entire evidence and makes his testimony as un-trustworthy.
30. PW6 is another circumstantial witness and paternal aunt of deceased and sister-in-law of PW1. Her evidence shows that, the deceased only took
Rs.20,000/- from PW6 and gave it to the A3. But during the cross- examination, she specifically admitted that she was not at all present when the deceased paid the said amount to the A3 or she does not know whether the deceased actually paid the said loan amount to A3 or not. Further, it is stated by PW6 that, upon making a phone call by the deceased to PW1 only, the PW1 came to know about the incident occurred in the house of in-laws of deceased and the PW2 in turn informed the said harassment to the PW6 and accordingly, the PWs.1,4 and 6 went to the house of accused, questioned them for harassing the deceased and came back to their houses and 15 days thereafter, when she found the PW1 while escaping upon asking her, the
PW1 only informed the deceased about pouring kerosene on her body and set ablaze. However, the PW6 did not mention in her chief-examination that the PW4 also accompanied them to the house of accused.
31. Further, she admitted in her cross-examination that the PW1 and others went to the house of accused as relatives and simply asked them for harassing the deceased. Thus the evidence of PW1 with regard to questioning the accused for harassing the deceased, is self-contradictory 18 from her chief-examination to cross-examination. When the PW6 is being paternal aunt of deceased, came to know about the quarrels and harassment of deceased by accused, she could have called for a panchayat before the village elders and advised the deceased to make a report in police station etc., But the conduct of PW6 appears to be different as she admitted that they did not call the accused to the grampanchayat or before the elders for harassing the deceased, after their visit to the house of accused and she simply stated that since there were no disputes between the deceased and accused, they casually went to the accused and simply asked not to harass her. The PW6 also admitted categorically that the A1 resided separately from A2 and A3 and there is 1 K.M., distance from their house and that she did not see the house of A2 and A3 at all. In such case, the hearsay evidence of PW6 about harassing the deceased by the accused, appears to be not believable.
32. As stated supra, soon after receipt of phone call, the PW6 along with
PW1 and her sister Narsavva, went to government area hospital,Jagtial and found the deceased while undergoing treatment, scolded the deceased for setting ablaze where the deceased informed them that in the early morning hours of date of incident, while she was attending her household works infront of her house, the A1 to A3 abused her alleging that as to for whom she was waiting there. Contradicting the above said version, the PW6 admitted in her cross-examination that by the time herself, PW1 and PW4 reached the hospital, the A2 and A3 were only present with the deceased.
On one hand, the PW5 says that till the death of deceased, himself and his wife were only present and none others were present. On the other hand, the PW6 says that except the A2 and A3, none others were present and that the deceased was alive and that the deceased also talked with them. The above said versions of PWs.5 and 6, when compared with PWs.1 to 4, are 19 not at all corroborating with each other. Further, though the PW6 mentioned several aspects in her evidence, but during the cross- examination, she specifically admitted that the police did not ask her anything with regard to the case facts since she was in weeping in the said hospital. The said single line admission of PW6, makes her evidence as inadmissible. In view of the above discussion, it can be said that the prosecution is unable to prove the overt acts of accused through its witnesses.
b)Proving the crime details form:
33. The prosecution examined PWs.9 and 10 as crime details form panch witnesses. But both of them turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. They both specifically and similarly deposed in their respective chief-examinations itself that about one year ago on one day at 6-00 P.M.,police called them to the grampanchayat office of their village and obtained their signatures/Exs.P3 and P4 on a written paper, whose contents they do not know and that the police did not conduct any panchanama in their presence. Except their signatures, the PWs.9 and 10 denied the entire contents of the crime details form when confronted by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor during their cross-examination. On the other hand, the first investigation officer/PW13 who conducted major part of investigation, specifically deposed that he visited the scene of offence, noted the scene particulars in crime details form/Ex.P7 in the presence of two mediators/PWs.9 and 10 only. On one hand, the evidence of investigation officer shows about conducting the scene of offence under Ex.P7 and on the other hand, the panch witnesses deposed contra. If the evidence of investigation officer is believed to be true and correct about conducting the scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P7, then the evidence of independent panch witnesses/PWs.9 and 10 about non-conducting of any 20 such panchanama and simply obtaining of their signatures on written papers, would become false. Whatever it may be, due to turning hostile of independent panch witnesses and non-corroboration of evidence of investigation officer/PW3 about conducting the scene of offence panchanama, it can be said that the prosecution is failed to prove the Ex.P7 through its witnesses.
c) Proving the inquest and post death occurrence:
34. Out of all the 3 panch witnesses for inquest, only one panch witness was examined by the prosecution as PW7. As per the evidence of PW7, on 16-10-2015 at 12-00 noon, an inquest over the dead body of deceased was conducted in the presence of herself, LWs.8 and 10 in government area hospital,Jagtial and during the said panchanama, she came to know that the
A1 to A3 are responsible for the death of deceased. According to the evidence of PW7, though the inquest under Ex.P2 was conducted by the police official, but she does not know the rank of such police official who conducted the inquest. He specifically admitted in her cross-examination that she does not know the rank of police official who called the panch witnesses for conducting inquest, so also who conducted the said inquest.
She also admitted that the deceased is her niece. However, as per the record, the inquest under Ex.P2 was not at all conducted by any police official and in fact, it was conducted by the PW11/Tahsildar and Executive
Magistrate of Kodimial only. So the version of PW7, that the police official
who conducted the inquest is a blatant lie. Admittedly, the deceased is niece of PW7 and in such case, the interested testimony of PW7 cannot be ruled out.
35. Be that as it may, though the PW7 was only cited as a panch witness for inquest, but it appears that,with over enthusiasm and exaggeration, the
PW7 deposed some more case facts stating that 15 to 20 days prior to such 21 inquest, she along with PW6 and one Boyapolu Mallavva went to the house of A1 and admonished the A1 to A3 for harassing the deceased without paying Rs.20,000/- as loan for purchasing a motor cycle. However, as per the evidence of other witnesses, there is no whisper in their evidence about the presence of PW7 also, when they visited the house of accused. Further, the version of PW7 shows that one Boyapolu Mallavva also accompanied them to the house of A1, is also not corroborated by any other witnesses.
However, the PW1 admitted specifically, several aspects in her cross- examination that she was not at all present when the amount of Rs.20,000/- was given to A3 and when the deceased asked her mother/PW1 who in turn obtained the said amount for PW6 and gave it to the deceased and in turn gave it to A3. But the PW7 did not see the same.
36. As already stated supra, the PW1 says that the A3 directly obtained loan from her and on the other hand, the PW6 stated that the deceased obtained Rs.20,000/- to her and in turn gave it to A3, whereas the PW7 says that the deceased asked Rs.20,000/- to PW1 who in turn obtained the said amount from PW6 and gave it to the deceased who in turn gave it to A3.
The above said two versions of PW7 on one hand, whereas the PWs.1 and 6 on the other hand, pertains to lending amount to A3, are not at all tallying with each other. Whatever it may be, though the PW7 specifically deposed about the conducting inquest over the dead body of deceased in his presence, she specifically admitted in her cross-examination that she does not know as to who scribed Ex.P2 and that she also does not know the contents of Ex.P2 and that she is an illiterate and that she also does not remember as to how many signatures, she put on Ex.P2 and also did not observe as to how many persons put their signatures on Ex.P2, in addition to the panch witnesses and that she signed on blank papers as per the 22 request of police and whenever they sought. The above admissions of PW7 makes her entire remaining evidence as un-trustworthy.
37. There is no dispute with regard to taking the photographs of the dead body of deceased by the photographer/PW8, but his admission shows that he is a regular photographer to the police stations and used to give evidence in court. It is admitted by PW8 that he gave 3 photographs to the police.
However, no CD was given pertains to the photographs to the police, so that they were not marked as exhibits and thus the same cannot be considered at all. Similarly, the PW11/Tahsildar who actually conducted the inquest, specifically admitted in his cross-examination that by the time, he reached the hospital about 20 to 30 persons were present at the mortuary room in addition to the police officials and that PW7 who is one of the paternal aunt of deceased and that she has no idea about whether the other panch witnesses/the LWs.8 and 10 are also relatives of deceased. He admitted in cross-examination that his assistant whose name he does not remember, scribed the Ex.P2,but not obtained her signature on it.
38. In the same way, the PW12/government doctor who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased, deposed that the deceased sustained burn injuries of 85 to 95% and also about conducting of post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased and opined the cause of death is shock due to several burns. However, during her cross- examination, the PW12 admitted that all the injuries sustained by the deceased are possible if she accidentally falls on a fire wood kiln and flames might have touched to her sari. The admission of PW12 substantiate the defence contention that while preparing food at the fire wood kiln, the deceased fell down unconscious due to epilepsy and due to contact of fire to her clothes, she sustained burn injuries.
23
39. Even the investigation officer/PW13 also admitted that, as per the statements of witnesses recorded by him, the deceased already dead by the time the witnesses reached the hospital and that he did not examine and record the statements of neighbouring house owners to the house of deceased, though he visited the scene of offence and that he also did not investigate into the aspect of disputes in between the deceased and remaining accused pertains to providing maintenance to A1 and that he did not seize any property at the place of offence. The investigation officer also specifically admitted about the omissions and contradictions found in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. It is also categorically admitted by the investigation officer/PW13 that, all the witnesses examined by him, except the CDF panch witnesses, are relatives of deceased. It shows that except the relatives, the investigation officer did not take any other persons as witnesses to prove the prosecution case. He also did not seize the material used for setting ablaze by the deceased, to prove the said fact. Under those circumstances, the prosecution case said to be suffers from many more material irregularities and procedural lapses.
d) Conclusion:
40.Therefore, in view of above detailed discussion in the foregoing paras on different heads, on close scrutiny of the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, exhibits marked and basing on the other material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution is failed to prove the essential ingredients of the charge U/Sec.306 I.P.C, beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the A1 to A3 are liable to be acquitted for the said charges, under benefit of doubt.
24
41.IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.306 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of all accused shall remain in force for six months from the date of this judgment, in compliance of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of May, 2017.
F.A.C: ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
JAGTIAL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1: Pendala Gangavva. PW-2: Regula Aruna @Varuna. PW-3: Pendala Sherisha. PW-4: Ganaboina Narsaiah. PW-5: Janga Peddulu. PW-6: Basaravena Pochavva. PW-7: Janga Narsamma. PW-8: Ravula Narsinga Rao. PW-9: Shamirishetti Suresh. PW-10:Ganga Narsaiah. PW-11:N.Srinivas. PW-12: Dr.B.Padmini Soujanya PW-13: N.Ravi/ Investigation Officer.
FOR DEFENCE: - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Report given by PW1 to police. Ex.P.2: Signature of PW7 on Inquest report. Ex.P.3: Signature of PW9 on Crime Details Form. Ex.P.4: Signature of PW10 on Crime Details Form. Ex.P.5: Post mortem examination report. Ex.P.6: First Information Report. Ex.P.7: Crime Details Form.
FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D1 Marked portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.D2 Marked portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -NIL-
F.A.C:ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
JAGTIAL.
25 26 27