Sri PVS. Suryanarayana Murthy

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I.ADDl. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

MAHABUBNAGAR

This the 10th day of June, 2016

Present:- Sri P.V.S.Suryanarayana Murthy, Secretary, D.L.S.A, Mahabubnagar FAC.I.Addl.Asst.Sessions Court, Mahabubnagar

S.C.No. 28 of 2014.

Between:- The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Koilkonda P.S.

.. Complainant.

A N D

Manugani Buggamma, W/o. Sayanna, aged 54 years, Occ:

Coolie, R/o. Suraram village of Koilkonda Mandal.

..... Accused.

Section of Law.U/s. 306 IPC

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the courtFound not guilty

Sentence or order In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence under section 306 IPC and she is acquitted under section 235(1)Cr.P.C. Her bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months.

This case coming before me for final disposal on dt.10-6-2016 in the presence of Addl.Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri

K.Bhrahmaiah, Advocate for the accused and having been stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G M E N T

This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Koilkonda

P.S against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 306

IPC.

2.The prosecution case in brief are that the son of defacto-complainant fall in love with the daughter of accused and married her, since then the accused used to quarrel with the deceased Ramulamma and abused her. Four months prior to the incident a panchayath was held in the presence of elders and in the said panchayath elders advised both parties to live amicably and later on 5-9-2012 at about 8.00am while the deceased was proceeding towards market accused got quarrel with the deceased abused her and threatened to kill her infront of house of Krishna

Reddy and defacto-complainant brought back the deceased into his house and later she consumed pesticide poison at about 1.00pm. She was shifted to hospital while undergoing treatment at 4.00pm the said Ramulamma died. Basing on the complaint the

S.I of police registered a case. He has inspected the District Head

Quarters, hospital, Mahabubnagar held inquest over the dead body of Ramulamma and also visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. His investigation reveals that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

After taking cognizance, the learned Judicial Magistrate of 3.

First Class, Mahabubnagar has committed this case to the court

3 of sessions, since the offence u/Sec. 306 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of sessions.

4. After appearance of the accused she was examined under Sec.228 Cr.P.C and she denied the offence, then a charge u/Sec.306 IPC was framed read over and explained to her in

Telugu by the then Officer for which she has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Ex.D1 and D2 are marked. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of D.Kondaiah, R.K. Bheemappa, and R.Raju(LWs.3, 9 and 11) respectively.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material found against her, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which she has denied and reported no defense evidence.

7.Heard arguments.

4

8. Now the point for determination is that whether the

prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused beyond

all reasonable doubt for the offence u/Sec. 306 IPC?

9.The prosecution case in brief are that PW.2 fell in love with the daughter of accused and married her against wish of the accused and since then the accused used to quarrel with the mother of PW.2 and abused her and on 5-9-2012 at 8.00am the accused got quarrel with the mother of PW.2 in front of the house of Krishna Reddy and also threatened to kill her due to which

Ramulamma disgusted on her life consumed pesticide poison and while undergoing treatment she died at 4.00pm in district head quarters hospital, Mahabubnagar.

10.The accused was charged for the offence punishable under

Section 306 IPC.

To prove the offence under Sec.306 IPC the prosecution has to establish that the accused abetted/instigated the Ramulamma due to which the said Ramulamma committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison on 5-9-2012 at 1.00pm.

11. Sec.107 of IPC defines the abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly 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 5 an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing and thirdly intentionally aids by act or illegal omission the doing of that thing.

12. Keeping in mind the ingredients for the offence under

Sec.306 IPC, this court proceeds further. As per Ex.P1 report on 5-9-2012 the accused got quarrel with the deceased at about 8.00am and at about 1.00pm the deceased consumed poison and while undergoing treatment she died at about 4.00pm. PWs.1 to 5 and 9 have deposed that the deceased consumed poison and due to which she died. PW.10 doctor deposed that the death of

Ramulamma due to consumption of organophosphate an insecticide poison. Thus, the death of Ramulamma was occurred other than under normal circumstances.

13. The next aspect to be decided is that whether the prosecution could able to prove that accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. PW-1 and 2 are father and son.

Deceased Ramulamma is the wife of PW.1 and mother of PW.2.

Ex.P1 is the report submitted by PW.1 to PW.11 on 6-9-2012 to the effect that about two years back his son fell in love with

Santhamma and married her, since then the accused offently abused Ramulamma due to which a panchayath was convened four months prior to the incident in the presence of village elders 6

Prabhakar Reddy and others who advised the parties to live amicably. Again on 5-9-2012 at about 8.00am while the deceased was proceeding to purchase vegetables the accused abused her in front of the house of Krishna Reddy and also asked her to die.

Then PW.1 went there and brought Ramulamma into his house and at about 1.00pm she consumed poison and while undergoing treatment at about 4.00pm she died.

14.Admittedly PWs.1 and 2 are related to the accused. As per the Ex.P1 report the son of PW.1 i.e. PW.2 fell in love with the daughter of accused and got married the daughter of the accused and since then the disputes started. PW.1 in his cross- examination has stated that the marriage of his son Balakistaiah and Santhamma was not performed in his village and he does not know where they married. PW.4 who is none other than the brother of PW.1 deposed that the marriage between PW.2 and

Santhamma was performed in the village. Thus, there is no consistency between the evidence of PW.1 and 4 who are own brothers. Further more the prosecution has not produced any scarp of paper to show that PW.2 married the daughter of accused.

15.The defense of the accused is that PW.2 took away her daughter then they searched about her daughter Santhamma and brought her into her house within 7 days. PWs.1 to 3 have clearly and categorically admitted that PW.2 and his wife are not 7 living together and the daughter of accused Santhamma has been living with her. But the fact remains that, disputes arose between the parties from the date when PW.2 taken away the daughter of accused.

16.The specific version of the prosecution is that the accused used to quarrel with the mother of PW.2 and on 5-9-2012 at about 8.00am she got quarrel with the deceased Ramulamma in front of the house of Krishna Reddy. PWs.1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 clearly and categorically admitted that the accused along with her family were in Hyderabad to eke out their livelihood. Thus, the accused and her family members were doing coolie work at

Hyderabad and they are visiting the village often. Hence, the version of the prosecution that the accused frequently got quarrel with the deceased is doubtful.

17.The specific version of the prosecution in Ex.P1 report is that on 5-9-2012 at about 8.00am, when the deceased was proceeding to the market to purchase vegetables then the accused got quarrel with her and asked her to die in front of the house of Krishna Reddy. PW.1 has stated that the accused altercated with his wife in front of his house which is contra to

Ex.P1 recitals. PWs. 2 to 4, 5 and 9 did not say that the accused got quarrel with the deceased infront of the house of Krishna

Reddy. Further PW.5 stated that the accused abused Ramulamma as lanjadana, chavarade. PW.9 stated that accused abused the 8 deceased and asked her to die. PW.9 did not say the exact words alleged to have been uttered by accused.

18. PW.2 evidence shows that on the date of incident he went to coolie work and he has not witnessed the incident. Thus, he does not have any personal knowledge about the words alleged to have uttered by the accused. PW.3 in his cross- examination has stated that he did not state to the Investigating

Officer that he came to know the incident on 5-9-2012 in the night hours. Ex.D1 is the marked portion in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. PW.3 stated before PW.11 that on 5-9-2012 during night time he came to know that on 5-9-2012 at about 8.00am while the deceased was proceeding to market to purchase vegetables in front of the house of Krishna Reddy the accused abused her and asked her to die. The Ex.D1 is proved through the evidence of PW.11.

19.PW.4 deposed in his chief examination that when the deceased was going to market the accused altercated with her in front of the house of Krishna Reddy and also asked her to die.

Ex.D2 is the marked portion in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of the

PW.4. PW.4 stated before the PW.11 that on 5-9-2012 night he came to know that on that day at about 8.00am while his sister- in-law was proceeding to market to bring vegetables the accused got quarrel with her infront of the house of Krishna reddy and asked her to die and later Ramulamma consumed poision at 9 1.00pm and while undergoing treatment in the hospital she died at 4.00pm. Ex.D2 is proved through the evidence of PW.11. As per Ex.D1 and D2, PW.3 and 4 are not eye-witness to the incident and they came to know the incident. PW.3 and 4 have denied that they stated before PW.11 as in Ex.D1 and D2. Thus, PWs.3 and 4 are not the eye-witness to the incident. PW.1 who is none other than the husband of deceased did not say in his chief examination that the accused instigated his wife to commit suicide.

20.PW.5 and 9 did not say the accused abused the deceased in front of house of Krishna Reddy. PW.1 stated that accused abused his wife in front of his house. The prosecution neither cited Krishna Reddy as a witness nor examined him.

Hence there is a doubt with regard to exact place where the accused alleged to have abused the deceased.

21.The version of the prosecution is that four months prior to the incident the PW.1 and 2 convened a panchayath in the presence of village elders. PW.6 Prabhakar Reddy who is one of the village elders did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile. Thus, the version of the prosecution that PW.1 convened a panchayath before PW.6 is not believable. PW.5 has deposed that he is one of the elders, convened the panchayath and advised the parties not to quarrel each other. He did not state to the police that he is one of the elders of the village and advised the parties to live amicably.

10

22.PW.7 is the witness for inquest panchanama. PW.7 is resident of Shadnagar and she is not resident of Suraram where the incident took place. Further more the opinion given by panchas at the time of inquest is only hearsay. PW.8 is the witness of crime details form. After the incident on 6-9-2012 the police prepared crime details form in the presence of PW.8 and another. He has admitted that he did not personally witness the incident between accused and deceased. Hence, his evidence is not of much use to the prosecution.

23.PW.2 to 4 are not the eye-witness to the incident and hence they do not aware exact words used by the accused. PW.1 has not spoken that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. PW.5 and 9 though claiming that they have witnessed the incident their evidence is not consisting. PW.5 stated that the accused abused the deceased as “Lanjadana

Chavarade”. PW.9 has not spoken the exact words uttered by the accused. Further more PW.1 has not spoken that PW.5 and 9 were present at the time of incidnet. Hence, the presence of PW.5 and 9 is also doubtful. Further more the prosecution neither cited

Krishna Reddy as a witness nor examined him. The said Krishna

Reddy is material witness. Thus, absolutely there is no acceptable evidence to show that accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

11

24.Assuming but not conceding if the accused questioned the deceased about the taking of her daughter by PW.2 that question by any stretch of imagination cannot be termed as instigation to the deceased. Further more the words uttered in spur of the movement can not be taken into consideration. Thus, the evidence on record does not reveal that the accused had mens rea to abet the commission of suicide by deceased.

25. In the citation reported in

2002 Supreme Court Cases(Cri) 1088

In between

Ramesh Kumar

Vs

State of Chhattisgarh the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed similar issue and held at para-20 that:

“A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without

intending the consequences to actually follow cannot

be said to be instigation”.

26. In the citation reported in

2002(2) ALT(Crl) 186 (A.P)

In between

Neelam @ Bondila Lachaiah and another

Vs.

State of A.P through SHO of P.S. Dharmaram

Karimnagar Dist.

12 the Hon'ble High Court has discussed similar issue and held at para-8 that:

“ From a reading of Section 107, it is clear

that a person must have been instigated by

another person to do a particular thing.

Similarly, a person shall intentionally aid the

other person in doing of a thing”.

27. In the citation reported in

in 2011(2) ALT(Crl.) 1 (SC)

In between

M.Mohan

Vs.

State Tr.Dy.Supdt. of police

The Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed similar issue and held at para-45 that:

“ 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.”

28. In the citation reported in 2006(1) ALD(Crl.) 980 (A.P) 13

In between

Allaveni Rajeshwari

Vs

State of Andhra Pradesh.

The Hon'ble High Court has discussed similar issue and held at para-20 that:

“using of threatening words or causing certain

humiliation to certain extent would not constitute

abetment to commit suicide”.

The ratio laid down in all the above cases, clear that to convict a person under Sec.306 IPC the prosecution must establish that the accused have instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

29.The version of the prosecution is that on 5-9-2012 at about 1.00pm Ramulamma consumed poison and immediately she was shifted to Govt. Hospital and while undergoing treatment she died at 4.00pm. Ex.P1 report given by PWs.1 to PW.11 on 6-9-2012 at 8.00am. So, there is a delay of more than 18 hours in lodging the report for which there is no proper explanation.

In the citation reported in

2008(3) Law Summary 204 (SC)

In between

State of A.P. Vs. Madhusudhan Rao.

14 the Hon'ble Apex Court held at Para-18 that “..Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought.

A delayed report not only gets berefit of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained”.

Hence, for the forgoing reasons this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution.

In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence under section 306 IPC and she is acquitted under section 235(1)Cr.P.C. Her bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months.

Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by her, corrected and

Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of June, 2016.

SECRETARY, DLSA,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

FAC. I.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

(FTC), MAHABUBNAGAR.

15

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE.

PW.1 D.Bachappa-None- PW.2 D.Balakistaiah PW.3 M.Balappa, PW.4 D.Ramappa, PW.5 Laxmaiah, PW.6 Prabhakar Reddy, PW.7 Amurthamma, PW.8 G.Bannaiah, PW.9 M.Ananthamma, PW.10 Dr.G.Bala Srinivas, PW.11.M.Dhasharatha S.I of police,

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 is Report, Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6, Ex.P3 Inquest panchanama, Ex.P4 Crime details form Ex.P5 Post mortem report, Ex.P6 F.S.L Report, Ex.P7 First Information Report

For defense: Ex.D1 is marked portion 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.D2 is the marked portion 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4.

MO’s Marked.

-NIl-

SECRETARY, DLSA,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

FAC. I.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

(FTC), MAHABUBNAGAR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I. ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT

MAHABUBNAGAR

FRIDAY, THIS THE 4 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016

PRESENT: SRI P.V.S.SURYANARAYANA MURTHY,

SECRETARY, D.L.S.A,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

FAC I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

O.S.NO.144 OF 2008

Between: Myakala Venkataiah, S/o. Ramachandraiah, aged 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Dayapanthulapally, h/o.Yenmangandla village, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

....PLAINTIFF

And

1. Chenchu Chandraiah, S/o. Ramaiah, aged 28 years,

2. Chenchu Yellaiah, S/o. Rajanna, aged 45 years,

3. Chinna Ramaiah, S/o Yellaiah, aged 50 years,

4. Masamma, W/o. Chinna Ramaiah, aged 45 years,

5. Yellamma, W/o. Ramaiah, aged 45 years,

6. Pokala Veeraiah, S/o. Laxmaiah, aged 60 years,

7. Pokala Krishnaiah, S/o. Laxmaiah, aged 56 years,

8. Pokala Lingamaiah, S/o. Laxmaiah, aged 52 years,

All Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kondapur village, Nawabpet Mandal.

...DEFENDANTS

****

This suit coming on 19.02.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Vijaya Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri C.Rajender Kumar, learned counsel for

Defendants, and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood-over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men from ever interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment over the schedule property.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff had purchased an extent of Ac.3.30gts in

Sy.No.2 situated at Kondapur village, Mahabubnagar Mandal under a registered sale deed vide No.859/87. Since the date of purchase the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and his name entered into revenue records as owner of the schedule property. He had mortgaged the schedule property to the State Bank of Hyderabad, Nawabpet branch and obtained loan and raised Anjura fruit garden. The defendants are no manner of right in the suit property and on the intervening night of 13/14-6-2008 the defendants illegally trespassed into the suit land and damaged Anjura plants and damaged the drip irrigation pipe line. The plaintiff gave complaint to Nawabpet police who registered the same in crime

No.75 of 2008. On 16-7-2008 the defendants came to the schedule property tried to damage the bore motor but the plaintiff prevented the illegal acts. Hence this suit.

3

3. The defendant No.1 filed written statement which was adopted by other defendants. The brief averments are as follows:-

The land in Sy.No.2 in an extent of Ac.7.28gts belongs to

Laxmamma wife of Rami reddy of Kondapur village. Out of the said Ac.7.28gts of land, government has acquired Ac.3.25gts and allotted the said land to C.Pedda Ramaiah,C.Hanmaiah and

C.Rajaiah by way of proceedings in file No.B/2412/85. After allotment the above persons had been in possession of the said lands and after their demise, the defendants 1 and 2 and one

Chennaiah cultivating their respective shares. The defendants 1 and 2 submitted a requisition to the District Collector in the month of February, 2008 and the Tahasildar, Nawabpet had visited the lands in Sy.No.2 of Kondapur and directed the parties to maintain 'Status Quo' and also asked them to appear before him on 22-2-2008. In the month of July, 2008 plaintiff again try to obstruct the defendants 1 and 2 and their family members and then they filed application before District Collector,

Mahabubnagar and the Tahasildar, Nawabpet inspected the lands in the month of July, 2008 and prepared panchanama. The plaintiff is not in possessor of suit land. It is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the pleadings the following issues were settled on 25-10-2008 by the then officer.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

4

5.During trial, the plaintiff himself got examined as

PW.1, one Kosgi Jangaiah and B.Hanmaiah as PW.2 and 3. Exs.A1 to A32 marked. After closure of the plaintiffs side evidence the defendant No.1, 4 and 6 were examined as Dws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.B1 to B16.

6. Heard arguments.

7.Issue No.1:- This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men from ever interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the schedule land. So, the plaintiff is required to establish his law full possession over the suit schedule land by the date of suit and also threat of interference caused by the defendants.

(a)The claim of the plaintiff is that he had purchased

Ac.3.30gts of land situated in Kondapur village under Ex.A1 sale deed from Laxmamma and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The version of the defendants is that government has acquired Ac.3.25gts of land in Sy.No.2 of

Kondapur village and inturn allotted Ac.1.25 gts to C.Pedda

Ramaiah, one acre to C.Rajaiah and one acre to Ch. Hanamaiah and later the defendants 1 and 2 who are the legal heirs and one

Chennaiah have been in possession of the said land and the plaintiff is not in possession of the plaint schedule land.

5

(b).It is not in dispute that one Laxmamma owned

Ac.7.28gts of land in Sy.No.2 of Kondapur village of Nawabpet

Mandal. It is also not in dispute out of Ac.7.28gts., the government has acquired Ac.3.25gts of land and the government assigned the said land to C.Pedda Ramaiah, C.Hanmaiah and

C.Rajaiah vide provisional allotment in file No.B/2412/85. Ex.A1 is the copy of the sale deed vide No.859/87. This document discloses that plaintiff herein has purchased Ac.3.30gts of land in

Sy.No.2 of Kondapur village from Y.Laxmamma. Ex.A2 is the ROR.

Exs.A3 to A20 are the copies of pahanies. In Exs.A3 to A20 the name of the plaintiff is found place as pattedar and possessor for

Ac.3.30gts of land in Sy.No.2 of Kondapur. In some of the pahanies it is noted that plaintiff is in possession of land in

Sy.No.2/c.

(c).Exs.B1 to B3 are the copies of provisional allotment certificates in favour of C.Pedda Ramaiah, C.Rajaiah and

Ch.Hanmaiah. Exs.B1 to B3 reveals that the revenue people has assigned Ac.3.25gts of land in Sy.No.2 to the above said three persons. Ex.B4 is the copy of panchanama dated 3-6-1987. This document reveals that the M.R.I, Nawabpet has delivered possession of assigned land to the beneficiaries. Exs.B10 to B16 are copies of pahanies. Ex.B9 is C.C of ROR. The pahanies discloses that the land in Sy.No.2/A is Government land and assigned to chenchu people and plaintiff is owner and possession of land in Sy.No.2/c. Thus, the documentary evidence on record 6 discloses that both parties owned land in Sy.No.2 of Kondapur village.

(d). The plaintiff who approached the court seeking discretionary relief of injunction has to establish that he was in possession of schedule land by the date of suit. The boundaries of the land purchased by plaintiff as seen from Ex.A1 are as follows:-

East:Remaining land in Sy.No.2,

West:land of Pokala Eranna,

North: Sy.No.514,

South: Cart-track.

The boundaries for the plaint schedule land as mentioned in the plaint schedule are as follows:-

East:Remaining land in Sy.No.2,

West:land of Pokala Eranna,

North: Yanamagandla village limits and Sy.No.514,

South: land of Bandi Balaiah.

The southern boundary mentioned in Ex.A1 cart-track is permanent boundary. The southern boundary mentioned in

Ex.A1 is not tallies with the southern boundary mentioned in the plaint schedule. Further more it is not the case of the plaintiff that the southern boundary mentioned in Ex.A1 changed due to lapse of time and there is no cart-track exists on the ground.

(e).The plaintiff has filed plan along with the plaint and the red colour portion of plaint plan is the disputed land. Ex.A25 7 is the plan prepared by revenue people. In Ex.A25 it is noted that the government has acquired the land shown in red colour and which is northern half of Sy.No.2. As per Ex.A25 the government has acquired the northern half of Sy.No.2. In the plant plan the plaintiff claims western half of Sy.No.2. Thus, the features noted in plaint plan not tallies with the Ex.A25.

(f).The defendants have filed the written statement and plan. The land assigned to the Hanmaiah, Rajaiah and Ramaiah shown in red colour in the written statement plan which is western half portion of Sy.No.2. Ex.B7 is the C.C of plan for

Sy.No.2. In Ex.B7 also the western half portion of Sy.No.2 appears to be allotted to the beneficiaries and the eastern half portion shown to be in possession of plaintiff. Thus, the naked- eye examination of plaint plan, written statement plan, Ex.A25 and Ex.B7, there is a doubt with regard to existence of plaint schedule property whether it is northern half or western half or eastern half of the Sy.No.2.

(g).In Ex.A1 the survey number of the land is shown as '2'.

Now the plaintiff claims that his property is recorded as Sy.No.2/c in the revenue record. The plaintiff has failed to file the sub- division record and sketch prepared by the surveyor showing the

Sy.Nos.2(a), 2(b) and 2(c). As per the claim of plaintiff, he is in possession of Sy.No.2(c) in an extent Ac.3.30gts, but in Ex.B7,

Sy.Nos.2(b) in an extent of Ac.3.30gts and 2(c) in an extent of 0.13gts.

8

(h).Coming to the oral evidence, the PW.1 himself admitted in his cross-examination at page No.3 that the government has acquired northern part shown in Ex.A25 and he had purchased southern part in the year 1987. The relevant portion in the cross-examination of PW.1 is extracted as follows:- “As the government acquired the northern part shown in

Ex.A25 in 1986, I have purchased the southern part in 1987. It is true in the year 1986 southern part shown in Ex.A25 alone was available for sale”.

This admission of PW.1 goes to show that the southern part of land of Ex.A25 is the land purchased by PW.1 under Ex.A1. But the plaintiff filed this suit for western half of Sy.No.2 as seen from the plaint plan. Thus, the plaint schedule is in correct.

(i).PW.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the location of suit land shown in the sketch i.e. plaint plain filed by him is not correct. This admission of PW.1 falsifies the claim of the plaintiff. Further more the PW.1 has admitted that he is claiming northern portion of Ex.A25 and relevant portion in the cross-examination of PW.1 is extracted as follows;- “It is true the land belongs to the defendants is shown in

Ex.A25. It is true I am claiming the northern part of the land as per plaint plan as my property and in fact the northern part is in possession of the defendants”.

9

This admission of PW.1 clearly shows that the plaintiff was not in possession of the disputed land by the date of suit. Further more this admission of PW.1 shows that he is claiming the northern part of the land in Sy.No.2. Thus, the admission of PW.1 shows that he was out of possession of the disputed land by the date of suit and hence he is not entitled for discretionary relief of injunction.

(J).The evidence of PW.2 is to the effect that he is resident of

Kondapur village and worked as Upa-Surpanch. He has further deposed that plaintiff dug bore well in the suit land and raised

Anjura fruit garden. The PW.1 himself has admitted that the bore well situated in Sy.No.170. PW.2 in his cross-examination has admitted that he does not know the boundaries noted in the sale deed. PW.2 himself has submitted that the land of the plaintiff is situated in southern side. This admission of PW.2 falsifiles the claim of the plaintiff that the plaintiffs property is western half in

Sy.No.2.

(k).PW.3 has deposed that he does not know against whom this suit is filed and he does not know the extent of suit schedule property. No doubt PW.3 is the attestor of Ex.A1 sale deed but his evidence shows that in his presence possession of land was not delivered to the plaintiff. He has further stated that he has not seen the property and he does not know the land of plaintiff is situated on the southern side or northern side. Thus, the oral evidence PWs.2 and 3 do not helpful to the plaintiff.

10 (L).DW.1 has denied the suggestion that they tried to encroach the land of plaintiff. As per the admission of PW.1 he has purchased southern half portion and claiming northern half in Sy.No.2. The evidence of Dws.1 to 3 shows that the defendants have been in possession of the land assigned to their ancestors which is northern half in Sy.No.2. Thus, for the above reasons, it is crystal clear that the government acquired northern half portion in Sy.No.2 and assigned to Ch.Pedda Ramaiah,

Rajaiah and Hanmaiah and the PW.1 purchased southern half and he is claiming northern half. It appears that the northern half is fertile land and both parties are claiming northern half. Thus, the documents produced by both parties discloses that both the parties are in possession of land in Sy.No.2 of Kondapur village.

Some of the pahanies reveals that the plaintiff is in possession of

Sy.No.2/c and the defendants are in possession of land in

Sy.No.2/a. The plaintiff failed to produce any material i.e. the plan prepared by surveyor to show that Sy.No.2/c is the red marked portion shown in plaint plan i.e. western half in Sy.No.2.

On the other hand the plaintiff has admitted in his cross- examination that he has purchased southern half of Sy.No.2 of

Kondapur village and claiming northern half which is in possession of defendants and hence he is not entitled for permanent injunction.

(m). Ex.A21 discloses that prior to filing of the suit on the application of the plaintiff, the revenue inspector visited disputed property and prepared panchanama. This panchanama does not disclose the boundaries and also does not disclose that the 11 plaintiff was in possession of western half share. Ex.B5 discloses that in the month of February, 2008, the Tahasildar, Nawabpet mandal directed both parties to maintain 'Status Quo' in respect of Ac.3.20gts of land in Sy.No.2 of Kondapur village. Thus, long prior to filing of this suit, both parties approached the Tahasildar,

Nawabpet and also the revenue people visited the disputed property. The plaintiff has suppressed Ex.B5 and also inspection of revenue people prior to filing of the suit.

(n).In a suit for permanent injunction the plaintiff must plead and prove the threat of interference caused by the defendants. The PW.2 specifically deposed that the land of plaintiff is in southern side. There is no concrete material to show that the defendants caused interference to the plaintiff's enjoyment of southern side portion of Sy.No.2. Thus, for the above reasons this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts, he has filed the suit for northern portion in Sy.No.2 which is in possession of the defendants and hence he is not entitled for permanent injunction. This issue is answered against the plaintiff.

8. Issue No.2:

In view of the findings in Issue No.1, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 4th day of March, 2016.

Secretary, D.L.S.A, Mahabubnagar FAC I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar 12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1 M.Venkataiah, DW.1 Chandraiah,

PW.2 Kosgi Jangaiah, DW.2 C.Masamma,

PW.3 D.Hanumaiah. DW.3 P.Veeraiah.

Exhibits Marked on behalf of Plaintiffs

Ex.A1 C.C of Regd. Sale deed dt.1-4-1987,

Ex.A2 C.C of R.O.R

Ex.A3C.C of pahani for the year 1987-88,

Ex.A4C.C of pahani for the year 1988-89,

Ex.A5C.C of pahani for the year 1989-90,

Ex.A6 C.C of pahani for the year 1990-91,

Ex.A7 C.C of pahani for the year 1991-92,

Ex.A8 C.C of pahani for the year 1992-93,

Ex.A9 C.C of pahani for the year 1993-94,

Ex.A10 C.C of pahani for the year 1994-95,

Ex.A11 C.C of pahani for the year 1995-96,

Ex.A12C.C of pahani for the year 1996-97,

Ex.A13 C.C of pahani for the year 1997-98,

Ex.A14 C.C of pahani for the year 1998-99,

Ex.A15C.C of pahani for the year 2000-01,

Ex.A16C.C of pahani for the year 2001-02,

Ex.A17C.C of pahani for the year 2002-03,

Ex.A18C.C of pahani for the year 2003-04,

Ex.A19C.C of pahani for the year 2004-05,

Ex.A20C.C of pahani for the year 2005-06,

Ex.A21 C.C of panchanama dt.28-2-2008,

Ex.A22Statement of account of loan. of plaintiff

Ex.A23 Statement of account of loan of plaintiff

Ex.A24Copy of Panchanama dt.3-6-1987.

Ex.A25True extent of map/stkech

Ex.A26 C. C of Panchanama, dt.20-11-2008.

Ex.A27C.C of Tounch map

Ex.A28True copy of letter dt.24-8-2009

Ex.A29 C.C of F.I.R Cr.No.75/2008, dt.14-6-2008

Ex.A30 C.C of pahani for the year 2006-07, 13

Ex.A31C.C of pahani for year 2007-08,

EX.A32 C.C pahani for the year 2008-09,

Exhibits Marked on behalf of Defendants

Ex.B1 Copy of provisional allotment certificate, dt.14/8/1986,

Ex.B2Copy of allotment certificate(provisional), dt.14/8/1986.

Ex.B3Copy of provisional allotment certificate dated 14/8/1986.

Ex.B4Copy of panchanama, dt.3-6-1987.

Ex.B5 Copy of order, dt.24-2-2008.

Ex.B6Copy of panchanama, dt.29-7-2008.

Ex.B7Copy of Sketch map,

Ex.B8Copy of report in file No.B/431/2008, dt.30-7-2008.

Ex.B9Certified copy of R.O.R.

Ex.B10Certified copy of pahani for the year 1986-87.

Ex.B11Certified copy of pahani for the year 1987-88.

Ex.B12Certified copy of pahani for the year 1991-92.

Ex.B13Certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-96.

Ex.B14Certified copy of pahani for the year 1996-97.

Ex.B15Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-01.

Ex.B16Certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06.

Secretary, D.L.S.A, Mahabubnagar. FAC I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDl. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, this the 24th day of June, 2016

Present:- Sri P.V.S.Suryanarayana Murthy, Secretary, D.L.S.A, Mahabubnagar. FAC.II.Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, (FTC),Mahabubnagar

S.C.No. 14 of 2014.

Between:-

The State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Addakal.

.. Complainant.

A N D

A1:- Mandla Babu, S/o. Anjanna, aged 28 years, Occ:

Agriculture, R/o. Dasarpally village of Addakal Mandal.

A2:- Mandla Mogulaiah, S/o. Anjanna, aged 33 years, Occ:

Agriculture, R/o. Dasarpally village of Addakal Mandal.

A3:- Mandla Mohan, S/o. Anjanna, aged 29 years, Occ:

Agriculture, R/o. Dasarpally village of Addakal Mandal.

A4:- Mandla Shayam, S/o. Anjanna, aged 23 years, Occ:

Agriculture, R/o. Dasarpally village of Addakal Mandal.

A5:- Mandla Anjamma, W/o. Anjanna, aged 63 years, Occ:

Agriculture, R/o. Dasarpally village of Addakal Mandal.

.. Accused No.1 to 5.

Section of Law.U/s.498-A, 306 IPC.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the courtFound not guilty

Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec 498-A and306 IPC and they are acquitted u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months . The un marked property i.e., bottle deposited in CPR 13/2015 shall be destroyed of expiry of appeal time.

This case coming before me for final disposal i.e., 24.6.2016 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri G.K.Ramchandra Chary, advocate for the accused and having 2 been stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Kothakota has filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 5 for the offence punishable u/Sec. 498-A and 306 IPC.

2.The prosecution case in brief are that five years prior to 11-4-2013 the accused no.1 and the daughter of defacto-complainant by name Anjamma fall in love and as per advise of the elders the defacto-complainant performed their marriage. Soon after the marriage the said Anjamma joined with the accused No.1 and led marital life and also blessed with a child. Subsequently, the accused started harassment on Anjamma on the pretext that she did not bring

additional dowry due to which panchayath was convened but in vain.

On 11-4-2013 the said Anjamma return to the home after collecting firewood, then the accused harassed her and also abused her in filthy language due to which she discussed on her life and attampt to commit suicide by consuming pesticide poison. Immediately she was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Mahabubnagar and while undergoing treatment she died. Basing on the complaint the S.I of police, Addakal registered a case in Crl.No.77/13. The Tahsildhar, Addakal held inquest over the dead body of Anjamma and doctor held autopsy. On 16-4-2013 the accused 1 to 5 surrendered before S.I of police,

Addakal. Investigation of C.I of police, Kothakota reveals that due to harassment of the accused deceased committed suicide.

3

3. After taking cognizance, the learned Judl. First

Class Magistrate, Mahabubnagar committed this case to the court of

sessions, since the offence u/sec. 306 IPC is exclusively triable by the

court of sessions.

4. After appearance of the accused 1 to 5 they were examined u/s 228 Cr.P.C. and charge u/s 498-A and 306 IPC were framed read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined PWs1 to 11 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12. The learned Addl.P.P given up the evidence of V.Nagamma, P.Moni Ravi, P.Krishan Nayak and

P.Venkateshwarlu (Lws.2, 11, 15 and 16) respectively. The evidence of

S. Govindu (LW7) closed as the prosecution filed a memo stating that where abouts are not known.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 5 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied and reported no defense evidence.

7.Heard the arguments of Addl PP and accused in person.

8. Now the point for the determination is that whether the

prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused 1 to 5

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/sec. 498-A and

306 IPC?

4

9. The prosecution case in brief are that the accused no.1 married a\Anjamma about 8 years back and the said Anjamma joined with the accused No.1 and led marital life and blessed with a child.

Subsequently the accused harassed the Anjamma and unable to bear the harassment of the accused she attempt to commit suicide and consumed poison on 11.04.2013 and while under going treatment she died.

10.The accused was charged for the offence u/s 498-A and 306 IPC.

To prove the offence u/s 498-A, the prosecution has to establish that the accused No.1 being the husband of deceased

Anjamma, accused 2 to 5 being. The relatives of A1 subjecting her to cruelty with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security and the conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide.

To prove the offence u/s 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused Anjamma abetted Anjamma to commit suicide and due to that the Anjamma committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison.

11.Sec. 107 IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing, 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 doing of 5 that thing or thirdly intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

12.Keeping in mind the ingredients for the offence u/s 498-A and 306 IPC, this court scrutinizing the evidence. of prosecution witnesses. Pw1 has deposed that the deceased Anjamma is his daughter and he had performed her marriage with accused no.1 about 5 years ago and two years ago she went to their cotton filed spray pesticide and in the evening she fall on conscious and admitted in hospital. He has further deposed that his daughter him that after the spraying the pesticide she left the empty bottle by cleaning it superficially and later when she fall thrust she fetched bottle with the same bottle and drank resulting which she suffered.

13.It is not in dispute that the accused no.1 married the daughter of dafacto complainant by name Anjamma about 8 years back. It is also not in dispute that the accused no.5 is the mother of accused no.1 to 4. Thus there is no disputes regarding the relationship between the parties.

14.PW2 who is none other than the son of Pw1 has deposed in the same lines as spoken by Pw1. Pw3 and Pw4 also stated that Anjamma committed suicide by consuming poison. Pw11 Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Anjamma gave opinion stating that death of Anjamma is due to consumption of organophosphate an insecticide poison. Thus, the death of Anjamma was due to consumption of organophosphate poison which is other then under normal circumstances.

15.The next aspect to be decided is that whether the prosecution could able to prove that the accused harrased the 6 deceased and instigated her to commit suicide. Pw1 and Pw2 being father and brother of deceased Anjamma have not spoken that the accused harassed the deceased and also instigated her to commit suicide. Pws 3 to 5 did not say that the accused harassed the deceased and abated her to committed suicide. thus Pw1 and Pw2 who are the defecto complainant and brother of the deceased did not support there previous version and they turned hostile.

16.Pw10 who is the Thasildar Addakula conducted inquest over the dead body of Anjamma in the presence of Pw6 and Pw7 under Ex.P10.

Pw10 has deposed that the panchayathdars expressed their opinion that due to harassment of Anjamma and her sons i.e., accused 1 to 5 deceased committed suicide. Pw7 and Pw9 who are the panchayathdars stated that they do not know the contents of inquest and they turned hostile. Furthr more as seen from the inquest report one police constable scribed the said report, but not the Pw10. Hence the evidence of Pw10 is not of much use. Thus, there is no acceptable evidence to show that the accused harassed the deceased and abetted her to commit suicide. Thus, the evidence on record does not reveal that the accused had mens-rea to abet the commission of sucicide by the deceased.

17. In the citation reported in

2008 (3) Law summary 204 (SC)

in Between

State of A.P. Vs., M.Madhusudan Rao

the Hon'ble apex court has held that every harassment does not amount to cruelty within the meaning of

Sec. 498-A IPC. The relevant portion in para 11 of the above citation is extracted as follows.

7 "The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be

with a definite object of coercing the woman or any person

related to her to meet an unlawful demand. In other wards, for

the purpose of Section 498-A IPC harassment simplicity is not

"cruelty" and it is only when harassment is committed for the

purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to

her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc., that it

amounts to "cruelty" punishable under Section 498-A IPC".

In this case on hand the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused harassed the deceased by demanding any property. Hence the ratio laid down in the above citation is applicabel to the case on hadn.

18.In the citation reported in

AIR 2010 Acr 203

in Between

gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of AP.

The Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed about the abetment and Para 20 and 21of above citation is extracted as follows.

19. Abetment involves a mental proves 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 committed suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

20) The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases

decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person

U/Sec. 306IPC there has to be a clear mens red to commit the

offence. It also requires an active or direct act which led the

deceased to commit suicide seeking no option and this act

8

must have been intended to push the deceased into such a

position that he committed suicide".

20 The dictum laid down in the above citation is applicable to the case on hand. Hence, for the above reasons it can be safely concluded that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused 1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused1 to 5 are entitled for benefit of doubt. This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the acuused 1 to 5 are found

not guilty for the offence U/s 498-A and 306 IPC and

they are acquitted U/ 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the

said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall

remain in force for a period of 6 months. The un

marked property ie., bottle deposited in CPR 13/2015

shall be destroyed of expiry of appeal time .

Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by her, corrected and

Pronounced by me in the open court on this the day of June, 2016.

SECRETARY,

District Legal Service Authority , Mahabubnagar, FAC. II Addl. Asst. Session Judge,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE.

PW.1 Vakiti Ramu, -None-

PW.2 Vakiti Raju,

PW.3 G.Laxminarayana,

PW.4 P.Chandraiah,

PW.5 T.Chendra Shekar,

PW.6 Balanna,

PW.7 Buchanna, 9 PW.8 G.Shayam,

PW.9 Venkateshwarmma,

PW.10 Harilal, Tahsildhar,

PW.11 Somashakar, C.A.S.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1,

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2,

Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3,

Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4,

Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5,

Ex.P6 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6,

Ex.P7 is the signature of the PW.7 at Sl.no.1 of inquest panchanama

Ex.P8 is the signature of the PW.8 at Sl.no.2 of crime details form,

Ex.P9 is the Signature of PW.8 at Sl.No.2 of the slip affixed to the bottle.

Ex.P10 Inquest panchanama.

Ex.P11 Postmortem Examination report,

Ex.P12 F.S.L report.

For defense:

-Nil-

MO’s Marked.

-Nil-

SECRETARY,

District Legal Service Authority , Mahabubnagar, FAC. II Addl. Asst. Session Judge,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

10

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDl. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

MAHABUBNAGAR

This the 27th day of May, 2016

Present:- Sri P.V.S.Suryanarayana Murthy, Secretary-cum-Senior Civil Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Mahabubnagar. FAC.IAddl.Asst.SessionCourt Mahabubnagar

S.C.No. 643 of 2013.

Between:- The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Jadcherla

.. Complainant.

A N D

A1:- Porla Keshavulu, S/o. Shankaraiah, aged 30 years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Coolie.(died).

A2:- V.Shekar, S/o. Anjaneyulu, aged 21 years, Caste: Telugu, Occ: Coolie,

Both are R/o. Donur village of Midjil Mandal.

.. Accused 1 and 2.

Section of Law.U/s. 306 IPC

Plea of the accused No.2Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the courtFound not guilty.

Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused No.2 found not guilty for the offence under section 306 IPC and he is acquitted under section 235(1)

Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months.

2

This case coming before me for final disposal on dt.20-05-2016 and today in the presence of Addl.Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M.Chennaiah Goud, advocate for the accused No.2 and having been stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Jadcherla has filed charge 1.

sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 261 of 2010 of Jadcherla P.S.

for the offence under section 306 IPC.

2.The prosecution case in brief are that on 20-9-2010 the defacto-complainant went to the police station and submitted a report stating that on 18-9-2010 at about 6.15pm the accused 1 and 2 caught hold his son Srikanth at bus stand area of Donur village and beat him mercilessly alleging that he has committed theft of cell phone of accused No.1. Due to which the said

Srikanth felt insult went to Chinnaadirala village and attempt to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on his body and set ablaze and while undergoing treatment he died. Basing on the complaint the Inspector of police registered a case and after receipt of dying declaration he has altered the Section of Law. On 1-12-2011 the

S.I of police arrested the accused 1 and 2 at the house of A1. His investigation reveals that due to instigation of the accused

Srikanth committed suicide.

3

After taking cognizance, during pendency of PRC, the 3.

accused No.1 died and case against A1 abated. Later the learned

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Jadcherla committed this case to the court of sessions, since the offence u/s 306 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

4. The accused No.2 was examined and Charge under

Section 306 IPC was framed read over and explained to him in

Telugu by the then Officer for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-13. Yousuf Khan (LW.5) died and the prosecution filed his death certificate. The prosecution also filed a memo stating that V.Bhaskar(LW.6) is not residing in the village and his whereabouts are not known. Hence the evidence of LW.5 and 6 closed.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused

No.2 was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material found against him for which he has denied and reported no defense evidence.

4

7.Heard.

8. Now the point for determination is that whether the

prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused No.2 beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence u/s 306 IPC?

9. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused No.2 along with accused No.1 beat Srikanth on 18-9-2010 at 6.15pm. near bus stand Dhonuru, due to which the said Srikanth felt insult and committed suicide on 19-9-2010 at Chinnaadirala village.

10. The accused No.2 was charged for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC.

To prove the offence u/s 306 IPC the prosecution has to establish that Srikanth has committed suicide by pouring kerosene on his body and lit fire on 19.9.2010 at the instigation of accused.

Section 107 of IPC defines the abetment, to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing, if he firstly, 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, 5 intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

11. Keeping in mind the ingredients of the offence under section 306 IPC this court scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution witnesses. PW1 has deposed that he had four sons and his third son is Srikanth and about five years back on one day at about 7.00pm the maternal uncle of Srikanth by name Pandu brought him with burn injuries and admitted him in Govt. Hospital and he has visited the hospital and found the dead body. PW.2 who is the son of PW.1 has deposed that he received phone call from PW.1 and visited the hospital and found the dead body of Srikanth.

PW.3 has deposed that about five years back on one day at about 7.00pm his nephew Srikanth came to his house and attempt to commit suicide by setting himself ablaze. PW.4 who is the father of PW.3 deposed in the same lines as spoken by PW.3.

12.PW.6 doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Srikanth issued Ex.P8 certificate. PW.5 Judicial Magistrate of First Class who recorded the statement of Srikanth under

Ex.P7. In Ex.P7 the said Srikanth stated that he has poured kerosene on his body and set ablaze himself. Thus, evidence on record discloses that the death of Srikanth caused due to burns which is other than under normal circumstances.

6

13. The next to aspect be decided is that whether the prosecution proved that the accused No.2 instigated Srikanth to commit suicide. It is not in dispute that the PW.1 and 2 are the father and brother of deceased Srikanth. PW.3 is the maternal uncle of deceased Srikanth. PWs.1 to 4 did not say that the accused beat the said Srikanth on 18-9-2010. Thus, PWs.1 to 4 did not support the prosecution version that the accused beat the deceased on 18-9-2010 at 6.15pm.

14. Ex.P7 is the Dying Declaration. The admissibility of Dying declaration is based on the maxim “Nemo Moriturus Prasumitus

Mentire” i.e., a man will not meet his maker with a lie on his mouth. It is said that truth sits on the lips of a person who is about to die. On this premise the Dying Declaration is admissible.

Dying Declaration made before a Judicial Magistrate has higher evidential value.

Reliance is placed on the citation reported

In 2014 (1) ALD Crl.54 (SC)

In between

Rafique @ Rauf and others Vs. State of U.P.

15. The deceased Srikanth has stated before PW.5 that

Keshavulu and Shekar beat him on the allegation that he took their cell phone and hence he went to his uncle’s Pandu house and 7 attempt to commit suicide. The deceased has not specifically stated that the accused 1 and 2 abetted him to commit suicide.

He has not stated that when the accused beat him. He has not stated that whether the accused abused him or not. If the accused beat the deceased, he ought to have gave complaint to the police nor convene panchayath before elders. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, the evidence on record does not reveal that the accused had mens rea to abet the commission of suicide by deceased.

16. In the citation reported in

AIR 2010 SC 327

In between

Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhara Pradesh.

The Hon’ble Apex Court discussed similar issue and relevant para i.e., para Nos. 20 and 21 of the above citation is extracted as follows:

“20. 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.”

“21. 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 clear

mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active

or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide

8

seeing no option and this act must have been intended to

push the deceased into such a position that he committed

suicide.”

17. In the light of above discussion and in view of the principle enunciated in the above citation this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Hence for the above reasons this court is of the opinion that the accused No.2 is entitled for benefit of doubt. This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the accused No.2 found not guilty for the offence under section 306 IPC and he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant on the computer corrected and Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of May, 2015.

SECRETARY-cum-Senior Civil Judge,

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,

MAHABUBNAGAR

FAC.I.Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge,

(FTC),Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE.

PW.1 S.Nagendra, -None- PW.2 S.Veera Swamy, PW.3 V.Pandu 9

PW.4 V.Venkataiah, PW.5 Smt. M.Vani, J.F.C.M, PW.6 Dr.B.Motilal Nayak, C.A.S, PW.7 Sri B.Vittal Reddy, Inspector of police, PW.8 Sri P.Buggaiah, S.I of police,

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P-1 is the signature of PW1 on the repot, dt.20-9-2010, Ex.P-2 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1, Ex.P-3 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P-4 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3, Ex.P-5 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4, Ex.P-6 Requisition Ex.P-7 Dying Declaration Ex.P-8 Post Mortem Examination, Ex.P-9 Report, dt.20-9-2010, Ex.P-10 First Information Report, Ex.P-11 Inquest report, Ex.P-12 Crime Details Form, Ex.P-13 is the Section Alteration Memo.

MO’s marked.

-Nil-

SECRETARY-cum-Senior Civil Judge,

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,

MAHABUBNAGAR

FAC.I.Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge,

(FTC), Mahabubnagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDl. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, this the 17th day of June, 2016

Present:- Sri P.V.S.Suryanarayana Murthy, Secretary, D.L.S.A, Mahabubnagar FAC.II.Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, (FTC),Mahabubnagar

S.C.No. 9 of 2014.

Between:- The State represented by the Inspector of Police,II-town, Mahabubnagar.

.. Complainant.

A N D

Pothula Ravi Kumar, S/o. Ramulu, aged 28 years, Occ: Private

employee in Big-C, R/o. H.No.7-1-24/7, New Premnagar,

Mahabubnagar town.

.. Accused.

Section of Law.U/s. 366 IPC

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the courtFound not guilty.

Sentence or orderAccused is found not guilty for the offence under section 366 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.

This case coming before me for final disposal on dt.17-6-2016 in the presence of Addl.Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri N.P.Venkatesh, advocate for the accused and having been stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Mahabubnagar II-town P.S has 1.

filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 366 IPC.

2.The prosecution case in brief are that the victim was studying degree second year in the year 2013 in Sri Chaithanya

Degree College, Mahabubnagar by residing in the rented house at

New Premnagar, Mahabubnagar. The accused used to chit chat with the victim and after completion of examinations on 3-4-2013 the victim did not return to her father's house and hence her father gave complaint. Basing on the complaint, the Inspector of police registered a case. He has arrested the accused on 9-4-2013 at Railway station, Mahabubnagar. His investigation reveals that victim-girl along with her friends were residing in the house of accused as tenants and the accused used to chitchat with the victim-girl and enticed her on the promise that he would marry her and forcibly took her to Hyderabad and married victim-girl.

Hence, this case.

After taking cognizance, the learned Judl. First Class 3.

Magistrate, Mahabubnagar committed this case to the court of

sessions, since the offence u/s 366 IPC is exclusively triable by

the court of sessions.

3

4. After appearance of the accused he was examined under Sec.228 Cr.P.C and he denied the offence, then a charge u/Sec.366 IPC was framed read over and explained to him in

Telugu by the then Officer for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7. The learned Addl. P.P has given up the evidence of N.Chandrakala, N.Balakrishna Reddy,

M.Durgaiah and M.Appala Naidu (Lws.2, 3, 9 and 10) respectively.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

7.Heard arguments.

The learned Additional P.P and defense counsel have fairly submitted to delivery the Judgment basing on available material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is that whether the

prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offences u/s 366 IPC?

4

9.The prosecution case in brief are that the victim-girl along with her friends were studying degree in the year 2013 in

Sri Chaithanya Degree College at Mahabubnagar and they have lived in the house of accused as tenants and the accused after completion of final year examinations abducted the victim and took her to Hyderabad on 3-4-2013 and highhandedly married her.

10.To prove the offence u/Sec.366 IPC the prosecution has to establish that on 3-4-2013, the accused abducted victim and forcibly married her at Hyderabad.

11.PW.1 who is none other than the father of the victim- girl has deposed that his second daughter Madhavi studied degree first year at Mahabubnagar by residing in a rented house along with two others and after completion of the examinations she did not return to the home and hence he went to Mahabubnagar and asked the house owner who replied that he does not know. PW.2 who is victim-girl has deposed that in the year 2013 she has studied degree first year in Sri Chaithanya College, Mahabubnagar and lived in the house of Kamalamma. She has further stated that nothing was happened while she was residing in the house of

Kamalamma and she did not know the accused. PWs.3 to 6 did not support the prosecution version.

5

12. PWs.1 and 2 who are the defacto-complainant and victim respectively did not support the prosecution version and they did not say that the accused forcibly abducted the victim and married her. On the other hand PW.2 who is the victim has deposed that she does not know the accused. None of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the victim lived in the house of accused as tenant. None of the witnesses have stated that the accused forcibly abducted the victim. Hence, the evidence of

PWs.1 to 6 will not ameliorate the prosecution case. Hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 366 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.

Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by her, corrected and

Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of June, 2016.

SECRETARY, DLSA,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

FAC. II.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

(FTC), MAHABUBNAGAR.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE.

PW.1 N.Sombhupal Reddy, -None- 6

PW.2 Victim PW.3 Damodar Goud, PW.4 Krishnaiah, PW.5 M.Rajavardhan Reddy, PW.6 Panjaneyulu @ Anjaneyulu Reddy,

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 in the report,

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1, Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2, Ex.P4 is the signature of PW.3 on crime details form, Ex.P5 is the signature of PW.4 on crime details form, Ex.P6 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.5, Ex.P7 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.6,

For defense: -Nil-

MO’s Marked.

-NIl-

SECRETARY, D.L.S.A,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

FAC. II.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

(FTC), MAHABUBNAGAR.

7

Accused is present. The learned ADD.pP given up the evidence of Lws.9 and 10. Hence the prosecution evidence is closed. Examination of the accused u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material. Heard,

Docket order

Accused is present. Judgment pronounced vide separate

In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence under sections 498-A and 306 IPC and she is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Her bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months. MO No. 1 shell be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.