A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.1S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
CHITTOOR.
Present: Ms. R. SREELATHA,
Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor.
FAC, Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor.
Monday, the 05th day of July, 2021.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 40 of 2017
P.R.C. No. 17 of 2016 ON THE FILE OF IV A.J.M.F.C. CHITTOOR. in Crime. No. 73 of 2015 of Gudipala PS.
BETWEEN:
The state represented by the Sub Inspector of police, Gudipala Police station, Chittoor District. … Complainant. AND:
1. Sri. V. Venkatesh, S/o Poli Naidu, aged 48 years, cultivation, residing at D. No. 1-108/1, Naragallu village, Gudipala mandal.
2. Sri K. Rajesh, S/o K. Pedabba Mandadi, aged 27 years, Business, residing at 4-178/1, Balaji Nagar, Greamspet, Chittoor.
3. Sri B. Jayaramulu, S/o Krishna Mandadi, aged 52 years, Cultivation, residing at 3-1, Vasanthapuram, Chinna Dalavaipalle, Vasanthapuram village and post, Gudipala Mandal.
4. Sri N. Jyothi Naidu, S/o Narasimjulu Naidu, aged 49 years, Cultivation, residing at 4-23, Chettithomgal, Ananthapuram post, Narasingarayanipet, Chittoor Mandal and District.
.... Accused Nos.1 to 4.
This case coming up on 28-06-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Udayasankar, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri. P. Vijayakrishna Reddy, the learned counsel for the accused No. 1 and Sri T. Balaji and Sri K. Sankar Naidu, the learned counsels for the accused Nos. 2 to 4 and having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G E M E N T
The Sub Inspector of police, Gudipala Police Station, Chittoor District has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 Indian Penal Code in Crime No.
73 of 2015 of Gudipala Police Station, Chittoor District.
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.2S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased
A. Jayaramulu is the husband of PW1 and in order to maintain his family, the deceased took loan from the accused no.1 and did not repay the same.
About two months back, the accused no.1 and his associates i.e., the accused nos. 2 to 4 went to the house of the deceased in as TATA SUMO
Vehicle, threatened the deceased with dire consequences and forcibly obtained the signatures of his father on some papers and went away.
Thereafter, on 12-09-2015 night at about 10.30 P.M., again the accused went to the house of the deceased and in the absence of the deceased and his father, made galata by standing on the road and threatened the inmates of the house that they would kill the deceased and his father (PW5) if the due amount is not repaid and went away. This incident was informed by the family members to the deceased and PW5 after they arrived home and on hearing the criminal activities of the accused, the deceased out of fear has decided to die. On the next day, at about 1.00 P.M. i.e., on 13-09-2015 (as per the charge sheet), the deceased has consumed pesticides poison and became unconscious. On hearing the cries of PW1, the witnesses have rushed there and shifted the deceased to C.M.C. Vellore for treatment, but he has died on the same day at about 2.30 P.M. The investigation has revealed that the accused are responsible for the suicide of the deceased Jayaramulu who has died due to consumption of the poison and thereby, the accused have committed the offence under section 306 read with 34 Indian Penal
Code.
3. After filing of the charge sheet before the learned IV Additional
Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Chittoor, the said Court has taken the case on
file for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 Indian Penal
Code against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 and registered it as P.R.C. No. 17 of 2016.
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.3S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
4. On appearance of the accused before the learned
IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Chittoor, the copies of the case documents submitted by the police were furnished to them and case was committed to Hon’ble Sessions Court under section 209 Cr.P.C. The said case was registered as S.C. No. 40/2017 and has been made over to this court for trial according to law.
5. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 4 before this court, they were enquired about their financial capacity to engage an advocate. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel on record for accused persons and on perusing the material available on record, the charge under sections 306 and 352 of Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos 1 to 4 were framed, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language. They have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W 1 to PW 12 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P12. No material objects are marked.
7. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused Nos.
1 to 4 were examined under section. 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They have denied the same and reported to have got defence evidence, but later reported no defence evidence. It is submitted by the accused are that they falsely implicated as there are ill-feelings in between them.
8. Arguments heard.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted the oral and written arguments to the effect that the prosecution has examined all the family members of the deceased and also, the relevant witnesses. He has reiterated their evidence in the written arguments. The accused have failed
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.4S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
to establish that the deceased had illegal intimacy with one Vijaya, wife of
Raja Naidu and so, this defence is not proved by the accused persons. When the suicide of Jaya Ramulu is admitted, the accused have to establish the role of said Vijaya and that the alleged illegal intimacy of Vijaya and
Jayaramulu is the cause of death of Raja Naidu and also, the cause of suicide by Jayaramulu. Since there is no defence evidence, this version is not proved and the learned A.P.P. has referred to section 105 of Indian Evidence Act. He has added that the deceased was in a serious condition while being shifted to C.M.C, Vellore and so, no report could be lodged at Gudipala police station on the way to C.M.C. Hospital at Vellore. He has sought to convict the accused severely who have assaulted the deceased and who have abetted the suicide of the deceased. He has also submitted the citations in support of his stand.
Per contra, the learned counsels for the accused persons have submitted hat there is no material regarding the alleged debt of the deceased to the accused no.1 and there is suppression of the earlier report.
As an after thought, the names of the accused no.1 and other accused are falsely added even though the original report was against the creditors of the deceased in general, not specifying the name of accused no.1 or any of the accused. They have pointed out the inconsistencies in the evidence of PW1,
PW2 and PW5 and the variations in the date of inquest as can be seen from the inquest report. Further, pointed out that there is delay in sending the
F.I.R. to the Court, which creates doubts about the present report being the only report or the 1st report lodged by the PW1. The investigation is defective and it is submitted that there are no ingredients of section 306 of Indian
Penal Code and by submitting the maxim Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit
Rea, it is submitted that there is no guilty mind established on the part of the accused. Also, there are no cases filed by the accused no.1 for the realization
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.5S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
of the alleged loan of the deceased from his L.Rs and there is no reason to give threats to the deceased or to instigate him to die. It is prayed to acquit the accused persons by extending the benefit of doubt.
9. Now the point for determination is “ Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences under sections 306 and 352 Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt? ”.
To prove the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that the deceased Jayaramulu has committed suicide and that the accused have abetted the commission of such suicide and thereby, the accused have committed the offence under section 306 of
Indian Penal Code.
To prove the offence under Section 352 Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that the accused have assaulted or used criminal force on the deceased Jayaramulu, otherwise than on grave provocation given by the deceased and thereby are liable for punishment under section 352 of Indian Penal Code.
10.PW1 is the wife of the deceased Jayaramulu, PW2 is the son of the deceased Jayaramulu and PW5 is father of the deceased Jayaramulu.
PW3 and PW4 have rushed to the spot on hearing the cries of the PW1 and have shifted the deceased to the hospital and they have spoken about the suicide of Sri Jayaramulu. PW6 is the Mahazardar for scene of offence cum seizure mahazarnama and PW7 is other mahazardar for the scene of offence mahazarnama. PW7 is also one of the inquestdars. The other inquestdars are
PW8 and PW9. PW10 is the Medical officer who has conducted the autopsy.
PW11 and PW12 are the Investigating Officers of this case.
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.6S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
10[a]. The perusal of Exhibit P1 report lodged on 14-09-2015 at 1.00 A.M., by the wife of the deceased Sri Jayaramulu at Gudipala police station discloses that her husband for the sake of the family expenses and also agricultural needs has borrowed some amount from the accused no.1.
Later, about two months prior to the Exhibit P1, the accused no.1 along with his followers i.e., the accused nos.2 to 4 came highhandedly to the house of the deceased in a sumo and took the deceased and his father in that sumo.
Later, they have physically assaulted them and obtained the signatures of
PW5 i.e., the father-in-law of PW1 on some stamped papers and left them. On 12-09-2015 at about 10.30 P.M., all the four accused came in a sumo when the deceased and his father were not at the house. They stood on the road in front of the house of the deceased and threatened to kill the deceased and his father if the due amount is not returned by the next day evening and threatened that no one can save them and went away. When the deceased and his father have returned home, this incident was intimated to them.
They felt sad and left the house on knowing this. On the next day at about 1.00 P.M., (noon) her husband was found in an unconscious state in their fields after consuming pesticides poison. With the help of PW3 and PW4, the deceased Jayaramulu was shifted to CMC, Vellore in a sumo and while undergoing the treatment, he has died at 2.30 P.M. (noon). Unable to bear the harassment of the accused persons who came highhandedly upon their house threatening to kill Jayaramulu if the due amount is not returned, Sri
Jayaramulu (deceased) has committed suicide by consuming the pesticide poison. So, it is prayed to take action against the four accused persons for being responsible for the death of Sri Jayaramulu.
11.In this context, if the evidence of PW1 who is the wife of the deceased and the informant is perused, she has deposed that in the year 2014, her husband has borrowed amount from the accused no.1 for
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.7S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
cultivation and education of her children. Her father-in-law (PW5) has executed a promissory note and her husband has paid the interest every month up to six months. Very significantly, Exhibit P1 does not disclose about the payment of interest regularly for six months by her husband nor the year of borrowal i.e., 2014. Further, there is specific mention by the PW1 that her father-in-law has executed the promissory note when her husband has borrowed the amount which version does not find place in Exhibit P1 at all.
She admits that she has not mentioned in Ex.P1 or stated to police that during the year 2014, her husband has borrowed amount from Accused No.1 and that her husband has paid interest regularly for 6 months.
11(a) Her specific evidence is that in the month of July, 2015, the accused no.1 along with his henchmen came to her house and beat her husband as he could not pay the interest for one month. Though it is put to
PW1 during the cross-examination that this version is omitted by her in her section 161 Criminal Procedure Code statement, the same is not proved through the investigating officer. However, this version is not seen in Exhibit
P1 that the deceased was beaten at his house in July, 2015 as he could not pay the interest for one month.
11(b) It is further stated by the PW1 that on 12-09-2015 at about 10.30
P.M., the accused no.1 and his followers came upon her house and threatened to kill her husband if the amount borrowed is not repaid by him and at that time, her husband and father-in-law were not in the house. This was informed to them on their arrival and on the next day at about 1.00 P.M.
(noon) she observed her husband who fell near their land having consumed the pesticides. He was shifted to CMC, Vellore by PW3 and PW4 who came there on hearing her cries. Her specific evidence is that by the time they went there, her husband has expired and after the postmortem examination, the dead body was shifted to her house. Her evidence is that as the accused
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.8S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
nos.1 to 4 beat her husband, he has committed suicide and they are responsible for his death. If this evidence is considered, according to her, in the month of July, 2015, her husband was beaten by the accused no.1 and his henchmen as one month interest was not paid. So,if her version is accepted, for the alleged beating in the month of July,2015, after 2 months, i.e. on 13-09-2015, at about 1.00 P.M., her husband has committed suicide.
She did not depose in her chief examination as to what has happened to her husband on coming to know about the threats given by the accused on the previous night of the suicide i.e., on 12-09-2015 at 10.30 A.M. i.e. how her husband has reacted to this etc is not found in her evidence.
12. In this context, if the evidence of her son who is another crucial witness is perused, in the year 2014, his father has borrowed some amount from the accused no.1 and has paid interest to Accused No.1 for three months and as admitted by him during cross examination, he has not stated this version in his earliest statement given to police. Significantly, PW1 states that the interest was paid for six months. The details relating to the alleged loan, payment of the interest etc are important since, the alleged loan transaction is the only nexus between the accused and the deceased and the alleged threats were given for repayment of that due amount and these demands led to the suicide of Jayaramulu as per the prosecution case. The version of Accused No.1 and his henchmen coming to their house in July 2015 and beating the deceased for non payment of interest as spoken by
Pw.1 is not stated by Pw.2 at all. This incident is important since it would have created fear in the mind of the deceased about the accused persons at that point of time itself. Also, PW.2 did not speak about PW.5 executing promissory note for the loan of the deceased which version is stated by Pw.1.
12(a) PW2 also states that on 12-09-2015, at about 10.30 P.M., all the accused came to his house and threatened to kill his father and grand father
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.9S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
if the interest is not paid within a day. Interestingly, PW1 states that the accused no.1 and his followers have asked for the repayment of the amount borrowed and the PW2 says that they have asked to repay the interest.
Furthermore, PW1 has only stated that the accused No.1 and his followers came upon their house at that time and she did not state that the accused no.2 to 4 came with accused no.1 who are his followers.
12(b) PW2 has further deposed that after the arrival of his father and grand father, they have informed the matter to them and on 13-09-2015, his father did not talk to any one and was dull and at about 1.00 P.M., they have searched for his father who was not available. His version is that his mother found his father in their land who has consumed pesticide by then. Very importantly, the PW1 did not state about the deceased being dull on that day, not talking to any one and also, searching for the deceased as he was not available. These are crucial aspects to know as to what transpired the deceased to commit suicide. So, this version spoken by PW2 is not corroborated by PW1 at all.
12(c) PW2’s further evidence is that they have shifted their father to
P.H.C. Gudipala and on the advise of the medical officer, shifted to C..M.C,
Vellore in a sumo and there, the medical officer has informed that his father has died. This version of deceased being taken to P.H.C. Gudipala before proceeding to C.M.C. Vellore is not stated by Pw.1 in her chief examination evidence, but elicited from PW1 by the accused themselves during the cross examination. PW1’s specific evidence is that they were at P.H.C for three minutes and she gave complaint to Gudipala police before departing from
P.H.C Gudipala to C.M.C. and Gudipala police came to C.M.C at about 3.00
P.M., and recorded her statement (on 13-9-2021 itself). Whereas, the son of
PW1 i.e., PW2 has stated that on the way to their house from C.M.C, Vellore, report was given at Gudipala police station when the dead body was with
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.10S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
them. This aspect is relevant since the complaint was lodged on 14-09-2015 at 1.00 A.M., in the mid night as seen from the Exhibit P1 and this F.I.R. was dispatched to Court at 4.00 P.M., i.e., nearly after 15 hours of lodging the report on 14-09-2015. so, the stand of the accused that there is earlier report lodged prior to Exhibit P1 appears to be probable if this evidence of the crucial witnesses i.e., PW1 and PW2 is taken into consideration.
13.In this context, if the evidence of the father of the deceased i.e.,
PW5 is examined, according to him, about three years back, himself and his son have borrowed Rs. 10 lakhs from the accused no.1. The accused no.1 to 3 forcibly took them in a sumo and obtained their signatures on blank stamped papers on the ground that the interest is not paid for three months and they were beaten with boot legs. As the accused beat Jayaramulu (deceased), he has consumed pesticide poison and Jayaramulu was shifted to
P.H.C. Gudipala and thereafter to C.M.C. Vellore and Jayaramulu has expired at C.M.C. Vellore while undergoing treatment.
13(a) If this testimony of PW5 is analyzed in the light of the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, PW1 has only stated that the accused no.1 along with his henchmen came to their house and beat her husband for not paying interest for one month and this happened in the month of July, 2015. But, PW5 states that the accused no.1 to 3 have forcibly took himself and his son in a sumo and obtained their signatures on blank stamped papers. So, according to
Pw.5, this has not happened at the house of deceased. This version of obtaining signatures on blank stamped papers by Accused is not spoken by
PW1 and PW1 states as if for the interest amount due for one month, the deceased alone was beaten at her house. Curiously, PW5 includes himself and states that his son and himself were taken in a sumo and beaten and their signatures were obtained on blank stamped papers and they were beat with boot legs. PW5 specifically states that for being beaten by the accused, his
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.11S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
son has consumed pesticide. He does not state about the alleged threats given by the accused no.1 and his followers on 12-09-2015 at 10.30 P.M. in their absence which led to the deceased committing suicide as stated by
Pw.2 specifically and also Pw.1 to some extent. PW5 not speaking this version creates doubt regarding the alleged threats given at 10.30 P.M. on the previous day night in the absence of deceased and PW5. As observed above, this incident is the root cause of the suicide of deceased as per his son PW2 who has stated that on hearing the threats, his father did not talk to any one and was dull on 13-09-2015 and later, he was found to have consumed pesticide at their fields. So, even assuming for a while that this version of the prosecution regarding the alleged borrowal by the deceased is true and that the deceased has paid the interest up to some months to the accused, if the alleged threats regarding the due amount on the previous day night did not compel the deceased to commit suicide, the alleged beating of the deceased and his father by the accused no.1 and henchmen about two months prior to the suicide cannot be said to be the proximate cause for the alleged suicide.
There is no instigation or abetment to commit suicide if the previous day night threats to kill Jayaramulu given by the accused no.1 and his followers are not proved by the prosecution.
13(b) PW5 who is the crucial witness being the father of deceased and having role in the alleged borrowal of the deceased not deposing this incident alleged to have taken place on the previous day night is fatal to the prosecution case. As already observed, PW1 has also not stated that on hearing this incident, the deceased got disturbed or this led to committing of suicide by the deceased and only PW2 has spoken to the effect that this threatening incident made his father not to talk to anybody and that his father was dull on that day. So, the alleged incident on 12-09-2015 at about 10.30 P.M. is not proved and even otherwise in the light of the above
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.12S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
discussed oral evidence, this incident cannot be considered as the root cause of the suicide by Sri Jayaramulu. Therefore, it cannot be held that the accused no.1 or accused nos. 1 to 4 have instigated the deceased to commit suicide by threatening him for sake of the due amount of Accused No.1.
14.It is the stand of the accused that the deceased has not borrowed any amount from accused no.1 and the deceased was indebted to others and due to pressure from those creditors, he has committed suicide.
So also, the other version put forth is that the deceased had illegal intimacy with the wife of one Raja Naidu and for this reason, the said Raja Naidu has committed suicide about one year prior to the incident. In this context, the relatives of Raja Naidu have quarreled with the deceased and so, there are several reasons for the suicide of Jayaramulu and the accused are not concerned with it. Infact, it is elicited from PW1 that in the year 2008, the father of PW1 sold landed property to the accused no.1. The accused no.1 contends that after the death of the father of PW1 in the year 2014, PW1, her sister and mother have pressurized the accused no.1 for the return of land and so, there is enmity in between them. PW1 admits to the extent of selling the land to the accused no.1 and has denied about the alleged demand for return of land and about the alleged illegal intimacy of her husband with
Vijaya wife of late Raja Naidu.
14(a) If the cross examination of PW1, PW2 and PW5 is perused, it is evident that the deceased was indebted to many persons and ofcourse, the very prosecution case is that the deceased was indebted to the accused no.1 also. Significantly, even though PW1 and PW2 does not state about the exact amount due by the deceased to accused no.1, PW5 who claims that he is also the joint borrower with his son says that the amount due is Rs. 10 lakhs.
So, there are huge loans incurred by the deceased and his father. Though,
PW1 contends that there is civil suit pertaining to this loan borrowed from the
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.13S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
accused no.1 by her husband, no such civil litigation details are furnished
before this court which creates doubt regarding the alleged loan transaction
between the accused no.1 and the deceased. PW1 admits that after the death of her husband, she has sold two house plots and discharged the debts of Radha Reddy, Jeenath Kumar and the relatives of Vijaya. She admits about
Subramanyam filing criminal case against PW5 for cheque dishonor which according to her is a false case and has pleaded ignorance about one
Parandama Naidu filing O.S. 115 of 2015 on the file of Hon’ble I Addl. District
Judge, Chittoor against PW5 for specific performance of agreement of sale. It
is suggested to PW1 that in the first complaint given to Gudipala police
before departing to CMC, Vellore, she has informed that the pressure from his
creditors lead to the suicide attempt by her husband and that at that time, she did not state against the accused no.1 and his henchmen and that only after due deliberations, the accused no.1 and others are falsely implicated.
As already observed, if the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is taken into consideration, there is earlier report given much prior to 1.00 A.M. on 14-09- 2015. It is the evidence of PW2 also during the cross examination that after the death of his father, they sold two plots and have discharged the debts of creditors and have compromised all the civil cases. However, the exact amount due to the accused no.1 by Jayaramulu is not stated by PW1 and
PW2 as already observed.
14(b). PW5 has categorically stated that they have incurred debts in the Jaggery business. Very surprisingly, he states that on the same day when the accused beat them, they have lodged police complaint. But, there is no such report before this court and Exhibit P1 cannot be construed as the said complaint considering the averments of the same. It is the evidence of PW5 that they have paid the debts to a tune of Rs. 70 lakhs to the creditors after the death of Jayaramulu by selling two plots. If that is so, the alleged Rs. 10
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.14S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
lakhs debt due to the accused no.1 is a minute one when compared to the other huge debts. Ofcourse, the accused are denying this version of the borrowal of the loan from the accused no.1 by the deceased. The crusial version of PW.5 about the accused beating them with boot legs is an exaggerated version not spoken by any other witness and during the cross examination, he states that he does not remember whether he has informed this version to the police or not.
15.From the analysis of the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW5 who are the crucial witnesses for the prosecution in establishing the alleged abetment of suicide by the deceased, it is evident that there is no consistency in their evidence and it is not clear if the alleged incident during the previous day night has got any nexus with the suicide of the deceased or not. Above all, PW5 does not state anything about this previous night incident at all and PW1 does not state about the impact of this alleged incident on the mind of the deceased.
16.Now moving on to the evidence of PW3 and PW4, they are the circumstantial witnesses who helped PW1 in shifting the Jayaramulu to hospital by a sumo and they have reached the spot on hearing the cries of
PW1 at her land. These two are the relatives of the deceased and are not the outsiders. They admit that they are related to PW1 and her husband.
16(a) It is the evidence of PW3 that at about 1.00 noon on 13-09-2015, he heard the cries of PW1 from her shed and himself, PW4 went there and found Jayaramulu in an unconscious state after consuming the pesticide poison and they shifted him to C.M.C., Vellore where he has expired. The inquest was held there. He states that the Jayaramulu did not repay the amount borrowed from accused no.1 and so, Accused No.1 made pressure
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.15S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
and due to that, Jayaramulu has committed suicide. He does not know the exact amount borrowed and has denied about the alleged illegal intimacy of the deceased with one Vijaya. If the evidence of PW3 is taken into consideration, Jayaramulu has survived for one hour at CMC, Vellore I.e from 1.30 P.M to 2.30 P.M. He corroborates the version of PW1 that the family members have discharged the debts of Jayaramulu after his death.
16(b). PW4 states that on hearing the cries of PW1 about three years back, at about 12.00 noon, he went there and his cousin was lying on the ground and was shifted to PHC, Gudipala. From there to C.M.C, Vellore. His evidence is that Jayaramulu has expired within five minutes of reaching
C.M.C, Vellore. So, there is contradictory evidence of PW3 and PW4 regarding the manner of shifting Jayaramulu to C.M.C, Vellore and the time for which Sri
Jayaramulu has survived at CMC, Vellore. Curiously, this witness states that 10 days prior to the death of the Jayaramulu, the accused no.1 took PW5 who is the father of Jayaramulu in a sumo and has obtained his signatures on some bonds as the accused no.1 has lent money to Jayaramulu. Due to this,
Jayaramulu got feared and did not come from the house for two days and committed suicide. This version is all together a new one which does not tally with the prosecution case at all and this is contradictory to what is stated by
Pws.1, 2 and 5. Pw.4 admits during the cross examination that he has omitted to state to the police that Jayaramulu did not come from out of the house for two days. So, this is an improved version and even this witness has not spoken the alleged incident of the accused no.1 and his followers giving threats to kill Jayaramulu and his father by coming to the house of deceased on the previous day night in their absence i.e. on 12-9-2015. This evidence of
PW4 creates serious doubt as to what has happened prior to the death of
Jayaramulu and what actually made him to commit suicide. Since this witness i.e. PW.4 is the cousin of the deceased (the father of the deceased
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.16S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
and father of PW4 are brothers), it cannot be said that this witness does not know the happenings at the house of deceased. His evidence is that before the death of Jayaramulu and also after the death, police have examined him at Gudipala police station on the same day of incident. This also creates doubt regarding the Exhibit P1 being the earliest complaint relating to the death of Jayaramulu and further probablises the stand of the accused regarding the suppression of the earlier report.
17. The death of Sri Jayaramulu by consuming the pesticide poison can safely be believed in the light of the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and the other material on record. The death has occurred on 13-09-2015 during the afternoon hours at C.M.C, Vellore and few hours prior to that, the deceased has consumed pesticide poison. PW10 is the Assistant Professor of Forensic
Department, Government college, Vellore and he did postmortem examination on 14-09-2015 in between 2.15 to 3.15 P.M. If this evidence of
PW10 is considered, the postmortem examination was conducted after the lodging of the report by PW1 and the report was lodged during the mid night of 14-09-2015 at about 1.00 A.M. It is opined that the death was due to effects of monocrotophos poison. Exhibit P6 is the postmortem examination report. PW8 and PW9 are the inquestdars who have stated only about putting their signatures in the inquest pertaining to the death of Jayaramulu. PW9 states that deceased has consumed pesticide poison, but has pleaded ignorance about the reasons for such consumption. The signatures of PW8 and PW9 are Exhibits P4 and P5 in the inquest. PW.7 is also one of the inquestdars and his signature in the inquest is Ex.P3. The panchayadars for the scene observation mahazarnama i.e., PW6 and PW7 are also examined by the prosecution. PW6 has not supported the prosecution case. Whereas,
PW7 has stated about the police seizing the plastic bottle from the scene of offence and has admitted his signature in the scene observation
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.17S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
panchanama, so also, his signature in inquest as stated above under Ex.P3.
Furthermore, PW.7 states that on 12-09-2015, the deceased made a call to him that he was at his house i.e. at the house of PW7 and that the accused no.1 and others came there. So the deceased was aware of the accused no.1 and others coming to his house even while he was at the house of PW7.
Since PW.7 is the inquestdar, it was specifically put to him and elicited from him that he is aware of contents of column no. 13 of inquest. The column no.
13 is to the effect that at 1.00 noon on 13-09-2015, the dead body was shifted to vellore Medical college by Gudipala police station HC 3061 through
PC 4314. If such is the thing, the inquest being conducted at 10.30 A.M., on 14-09-2015 as seen from the prosecution case is doubtful and so, the police had knowledge of this incident on the previous day after noon itself considering the recitals at the column 13 of the inquest. Interestingly, in
Ex.P9 scene observation cum seizure mahazarnama, in the first line, the date is kept blank by simply mentioning ‘2015 September’. Beneath the signature of the I.O conducting Ex.P9, the date is put as 14-9-2015 and the rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P10 discloses the date as 15-9-2015.
PW.10 says after conducting the scene observation mahazarnama, he has drawn the rough sketch. So, the dates appearing on Exs.P9 and P10 falsifies the version of I.O.
18.At this juncture, the evidence of investigating officer i.e., PW11 is very crucial considering the inconsistencies regarding the time of lodging the report, the time of inquest and the conducting of Exs.P9, P10 as pointed out above.
PW.11 gave the chronological events of his investigation and according to him, Exhibit P1 was lodged on 14-09-2015 and he has registered Exhibit
P7 F.I.R.. Later, he has proceeded to C.M.C, Vellore and has shifted the dead body of late Jayaramulu to Govt. Hospital, Vellore for inquest and Exhibit P8
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.18S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
is the inquest report. This witness also admits that there is mention at column no. 13 of the inquest to the effect that the dead body was shifted on 13-09-2015 to Vellore medical college through police constable. But he states during the cross examination that there is mistake in this date. Considering the variations in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and also other witnesses regarding these aspects, it cannot be said that this is a mistake and it is a serious irregularity on the part of the investigating agency and the investigation is perfunctory. The investigation is done in a callous and careless manner.
18(a) There is seizure of poison bottle from the scene of offence and
Exhibit P9 is the scene observation mahazarnama. After inquest, PW11 has proceeded to the scene of offence. PW11 says that he has recorded the statement of PW1 at Government Hospital, Vellore and according to him, the
PW1 came to the police station at 1.00 A.M., on 14-09-2015. But PW2 states that on the way to their house from C.M.C. Vellore, they lodged report at
Gudipala police station. If that is so, the recording of the statement of PW1 at
Government Hospital, Vellore is doubtful and Pw.2 states that the dead body of Jayaramulu was with them at that time i.e., at the time of giving report.
Contradictorily, PW.1 states that Gudipala police came to C.M.C, Vellore at 3.00 P.M and recorded her statement which is after departing from P.H.C,
Gudipala on 13-9-2015.
18(b) After recording the statements of witnesses at the scene, rough sketch of scene was drawn by PW.11 and the postmortem examination was got conducted after shifting the body to Government Hospital, Vellore.
Exhibit P11 is the final opinion and the accused have obtained anticipatory bail. After obtaining Exhibit P12 R.F.S.L report, the charge sheet was filed.
PW11 has denied about the suppression of earlier complaint and claims that there is confusion in the dates mentioned in the inquest. He states that one
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.19S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
has to cross the police station to reach C.M.C, Vellore from the village of the deceased. Since the condition of the deceased was critical, no report could be lodged at that time as per the submission of learned A.P.P. But the evidence of PW1 falsifies this submission since she has categorically stated that before departing from P.H.C, Gudipala to C.M.C, Vellore, she has given complaint and that the Gudipala police have recorded her statement by coming to C.M.C Vellore. This PW1 is not an uneducated lady and she has studied upto 10th class. In the light of the deceased being indebted to many persons and the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the stand of the accused regarding the suppression of the earlier report cannot be ruled out and it is probabilised by the evidence on record.
19.PW12, S.I has filed the charge sheet after verifying the investigation of head constable. He has received Exhibits P6 and P12. Basing on Exhibit P12, he took final opinion under Exhibit P11 regarding the cause of death and as already observed, it is convincingly established by the prosecution that the accused has died by consuming poison and it is not a natural death. For this reason, the cross examination of Pw.11 regarding the monostar label on the bottle and Pw.12 also on this aspect does not require much discussion. Also, the learned A.P.P has submitted the citation reported in 1988 AIR (SC) Page 1011 between Bhupinder Singh Vs State of
Punjab in support of his contention that in the light of the evidece of Pw.10, the Court has to infer that the death is due to poisoning.
19(a) In what way the accused are concerned with this suicide has to be established by the prosecution and then alone, the accused can be held liable for instigating the deceased to commit suicide. PW.12 admits about the variations in the inquest regarding the date and time of conducting it and denies about the suppression of earlier report lodged on 13-09-2015. There is no explanation for the delay in sending the F.I.R. to the court and as stated
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.20S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
above, the F.I.R was received at 4.00 P.M.., on 14-09-2015 by the concerned
Magistrate. Even though as per the prosecution case, the alleged borrowal is
the cause of instigation by the accused, the investigating officer (PW12) has stated that he did not make any enquiries regarding the civil or criminal disputes of the deceased with others and this creates doubts. So, the investigation is not on proper lines. It is not as if the deceased was indebted to the accused no.1 alone. There are huge debts incurred by the deceased as can be understood from the cross examination of PW1, PW2 and PW5. Under these circumstances, the burden on the prosecution is much more heavy to establish that the alleged debt of the deceased to Accused No.1 which is not specified by PW1 and PW2 is the root cause for this suicide and that for sake of payment of interest due for few months relating to this debt, the accused no.1 with his followers has threatened the deceased (that too, in his absence
before his family members) to kill him, due to which the deceased has
committed suicide on the next day afternoon. Such threats if at all given by the accused are to be established by the prosecution beyond every reasonable doubt and such threats should be sufficient to be described as instigating the commission of offence. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that there were any such compelling circumstances indicating that the deceased had no other remedy except to commit suicide. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a plethora of cases that the ingredients of the abetment should be satisfied and there should be instigation, engaging in any conspiracy or intentional aiding. Also, the words used in a fit of anger without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be held as instigation. From the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW5, it cannot be held that the accused have abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.21S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
20.The learned A.P.P. has submitted the following citations in support of his submission that the accused has to prove his innocence by leading circumstantial evidence and that the burden lies on accused to prove his innocence.
1. Between Paramjeet singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhan reported in 2011 AIR (SC) 200.
2. Between S.V. Muzumdar and others Vs. Gujarat State
Fertilizer Company Ltd., and another reportedin 2005 (2) MPJR 101.
3. Between State by Deputy Superintendent of police Trichy and others Vs. Sheik Dawood and others reported in 2012 (2) MLJ (Criminal) 725.
The citation No.2 relates to N.I. Act cases and citation No.3 relates to section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and there is discussion regarding the relevant presumptions relating to the dowry death. Both these citations have no application to the present set of facts. It is the prosecution duty to establish the guilt of the accused beyond every reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence as observed in the citation no.1 by the Hon'ble
Apex Court. The accused are not taking shelter under general exceptions in the I.P.C or any special exceptions. Hence, there is no burden of proof on the accused as specified under section 105 of Indian Evidence Act. So, the citations submitted by the prosecution are not helpful to the prosecution case at all.
20(a) Regarding the suppression of the earlier report and the contradictions, inconsistencies and the exaggerations pertaining to the suppression of earlier F.I.R and the delay in sending F.I.R to Court, the learned counsel for the accused have relied on the citations between
Dumpala Muralidhar Reddy Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2006 (2) ALD
(Crl.) 413 (A.P), citation between State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.22S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
Ratan Singh and others reported in 2020 (12) SCC 630 and citation between Bijoy Singh and another Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2002 (9) SCC 147.
Regarding the non examination of independent witnesses, the accused have submitted the citation reported in between Kanakarajan Vs. State of
Kerala reported in 2017 (13) SCC 597. But in this case on hand, all the probable witnesses are examined by the prosecution. However, they have spoken inconsistent versions and did not corroborate each other.
20(b) Regarding the essential ingredients of section 306 of Indian Penal
Code and the abetment as detailed under 107 of Indian Penal Code, the learned counsel for the accused has rightly relied on the citations between
M. Arjunan Vs. State Rep. by its Inspector of police reported in 2019
(3) SCC 315 and between Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh reported in AIR 2010 SCC 327. As observed above, there should be mensrea established to commit offence for convicting the offender under section 306 of Indian Penal Code.
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, no conviction can be given. So, clearly mensrea to commit the offence should also be present to convict a person under section 306 of Indian Penal Code (Actus non facit reum Nisi mens sit rea). It also requires an active act or direct act which leads the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he or she commits suicide.
21.The ingredients of section 306 of Indian Penal Code are definitely lacking in this case on hand and all the accused are therefore entitled for the benefit of doubt for the discussion made supra. As far as the other charge
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.23S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
under section 352 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no evidence as to when the accused have assaulted or used criminal force on the deceased
Jayaramulu and the detailed analysis of the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW5 for this charge is already made supra. Hence, the offence under section 352 of Indian Penal Code is also not established. Therefore, the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt for the charged offences. Also, there is no material placed establishing the nexus between the accused no.1 and the rest of the accused.
22. In the result, the accused nos. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 306 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted for the said offences under section 235 (1) of Criminal
Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code from the date of this judgment. No property order is passed since no property is exhibited in this case.
Dictated to the stenographer-III of P.S.C.J. Court, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05th day of July, 2021.
Sd/- R.Sreelatha,reelatha,
PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAC, Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge,
CHITTOOR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION:-
P.W.1: Smt. A. Bharathi- Informant
P.W.2: Sri A. Rajendra Kumar- witness
P.W.3: Sri G. Chitti Babu-witness
P.W.4: Sri A. Ravi-witness
P.W.5: Sri A. Balakrishna Mandadi-witness
P.W.6: Sri G. Dhanunjaya Naidu-Mediator for Ex.P9
P.W.7: Sri R. Govindan-Mediator for Ex.P9 and inquestdar
P.W.8: Sri O. Venkatesh-Inquestdar
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.24S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
P.W.9: Sri V.R. Devarajulu-Inquestdar
PW10: Dr. A. Nagendra Babu-Medical Officer
PW 11: Sri C. Viswanadhan-1st Investigating Officer
PW 12: Sri C. Lakshmi Kanth.-Investigating Officer.
DEFENCE: NONE.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION:-
Exhibit P1: Report given by PW1.
Exhibit P2: Signature of PW7 in scene observation cum seizure mahazar.
Exhibit P3: Signature of PW7 in Inquest report.
Exhibit P4: Signature of PW8 in Inquest report.
Exhibit P5: Signature of PW9 in Inquest report.
Exhibit P6: Postmortem certificate of deceased Jayaramulu.
Exhibit P7: Original F.I.R. in Cr.No. 73 / 2015 dated 14-09-2015.
Exhibit P8: Inquest report.
Exhibit P9: Scene observation mahazar dated 14-09-2015.
Exhibit P10: Rough sketch of scene of offence
Exhibit P11: Final Opinion Form regarding the death of Jayaramulu.
Exhibit P12: R.F.S.L. Report dated 14-12-2015.
DEFENCE:-Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS
-Nil-
Sd/- R.Sreelatha, a,
Prl. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
FAC, ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHITTOOR.
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.25S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
TABULAR FORM TO BE APPENDED FOR THE JUDGMENT AS PER RULE 67 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 40 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE’S COURT,
CHITTOOR.
1. Sessions Case No.: S.C.No. 40/2017 2. P.R.C.No.: P.R.C.No. 17/2016 on the file of the IV A. J.F.C.M., Chittoor.
3. Name of the Police Station : Crime No. 73 of 2015 of Gudipala police station.
4. Description of the accused:
1. Sri. V. Venkatesh, S/o Poli Naidu, aged 48 years, cultivation, residing at D. No. 1-108/1, Naragallu village, Gudipala mandal.
2. Sri K. Rajesh, S/o K. Pedabba Mandadi, aged 27 years, Business, residing at 4-178/1, Balaji Nagar, Greamspet, Chittoor.
3. Sri B. Jayaramulu, S/o Krishna Mandadi, aged 52 years, Cultivation, residing at 3-1, Vasanthapuram, Chinna Dalavaipalle, Vasanthapuram village and post, Gudipala Mandal.
4. Sri N. Jyothi Naidu, S/o Narasimjulu Naidu, aged 49 years, Cultivation, residing at 4-23, Chettithomgal, Ananthapuram post, Narasingarayanipet, Chittoor Mandal and District.
.... Accused Nos.1 to 4.
5.Dates of :
Offence: 13-09-2015
Complaint: 14-09-2015
Apprehension of accused: 27-10-2015 (Anticipatory bail is obtained by A1 to A4 as per orders in Crl.M.P. No. 2060/2015)
Commencement of trial: 20-01-2020
Close of trial: 07-04-2021
Sentence or order: 05-07-2021
6. Complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police,
Gudipala police station
7. Offence charged :Undersections 306 and 352
Indian Penal Code.
8. Plea of the accused :Accused have pleaded not guilty.
9. Finding of the Court :Accused are found not guilty.
A.A.S.J.C, Ctr.26S.C. No. 40 / 2017
Dt: 05-07-2021
10. Sentence of Order:-
In the result, the accused nos. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 306 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted for the said offences under section 235 (1) of Criminal
Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code from the date of this judgment. No property order is passed since no property is exhibited in this case.
Sd/- Ms. R. Sreelatha,
PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAC, Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge,
CHITTOOR.
Copies submitted to:
1) The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,) High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati through the Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor.
2) The Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor.
Copies to:
1. The IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor.
3. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge's Court, Chittoor.