IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: NANDIGAMA
PRESENT: SRI SHAIK MADAR, B.Sc., B.L.,
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
NANDIGAMA.
FRIDAY, THIS THE 21st DAY OF APRIL, 2017
SESSIONS CASE No. 291 OF 2014
(P.R.C.No.25/2013 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jaggaiahpet connected with Crime No.151/2012 of Jaggaiahpet Police Station)
Between:
The State: being rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Jaggaiahpet P.S.
..COMPLAINANT.
A N D 1). Banothu Nagamani W/o. Biksham, 36 years, Sugali 2). Sk. Rasheed, S/o. Bademiya, 46 years, Muslim. 3). Thimmasarthi Guru Murthy S/o. Sundra Rao, 34 years, Vaddera. 4). Mathangi Biksham @ Kumar, S/o. Ramulu, 39 years, SC Madiga, Painter. 5). Gugulothu Lakshmi W/o. Srihari, 60 years, Sugali. 6). Bhukya Veeramma W/o. Ramoji, 42 years, Sugali. 7). Gugulothu Venkateswarlu, S/o. Hari, 38 years, Sugali.
All are R/o. Satyanaranapuram, Jaggaiahpet.
..ACCUSED
This Sessions case coming on 19.04.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V. Sravan Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri. Matta Prasad and Sri. E. Ranga Rao, Learned Advocates for the accused and after hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The Sub-Inspector of Jaggaiahpet Police Station laid the charge-sheet against the accused
Nos.1 to 7 in Cr.No:151/2012 for the offence punishable U/sec. 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short, I.P.C.).
2. Scene of offence and Jurisdiction:- It is located at the 13th Line Railway Track at KM
No.DY/81 in Vijayawada Railway Station and also at the house of the deceased by name
Karamgoyi Venkata Ramana in Satyanarayapuram locality in Jaggaiahpet of Jaggaiahpet Mandal, which is situated within the local limits of Jaggaiahpet Police Station and lies under the jurisdiction of the court of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Jaggaiahpet.
3. The gist of the allegations made in the charge sheet, is that:-(i). The deceased is the father of the P.W.1/Karamgoyi Jaganadh and P.W.2/Karamgoyi Sai Chaitanya and he is also the senior brother-in-law of P.W.3/Kanuguntla Maheswara Rao. The wife of the deceased died in the year, 1998. Later, in the year, 2002, he got intimacy with the accused No.1, who is a Lambadi woman resident of Budawada village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal and residing at Jaggaihapet and he continued his relationship and intimacy with her till his death. But, the accused No.1 also developed intimacy with the accused Nos. 2 to 4 and she is the sister of Accused No.6 and the accused No.7, and their mother is accused No.5. All the accused harassed the deceased and tried to kill him. Due to their harassment, the accused decided to commit suicide.
(ii). The accused committed suicide on 3.11.2012 prior to 02.35 PM on the 13th Line railway track at KM No. DY/81 at Central Railway Station, in Vijayawada by falling under a train. On the complaint lodged by the P.W.10/L. Pitchayya, the Dy. S.S., PF No: 6, S.C. Rly, Vijayawada, the
P.W.12/S. Veera Raju, RP HC, Vijayawada registered a case in Cr.No: 01/2012 U/sec. 174 of Cr.P.C., and conducted investigation partly. He visited the scene of offence and observed the same and got photographed it and seized the material objects under the cover of a mediators report duly attested by the mediators, P.W.11/Boppana Bhaskara Rao and L.W.11-S. Naga Raju. He also examined and recorded the statements of P.W.5 and P.W.10. Further, on 04.01.2012, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, which was lifted to the Mortury in Government
General Hospital, Vijayawada in the presence of the panchayatdars, P.W.3/Kanuguntala
Maheswara Rao, P.W.6/Maddala Ravi Babu and P.W.8/Appana Jaganmohan and also the blood relatives of the deceased i.e., the P.W.1 and P.W.2. During the course of investigation, the P.W.2 also examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.3. As the dead body of the deceased was sent to conduct autopsy, the P.W.15/Dr. Hemantha Rao conducted Post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued a Postmortem Certificate.
(iii). Subsequently, the P.W.13/S. Govinda Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, General Railway
Polilce Station, Vijayawada took up further investigation from the P.W.12 and verrified the record and examined and recorded the statement of P.W.4/Dasari Gaddaiah. On 18.03.2012, the P.W.13 came to know that the deceased addressed a suicide letter to the P.W.4 and also addressed its copy to the Circle Inspector of police, Jaggaiahept by speed post. The P.W.13 also re-examined the
P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.6. The P.W.13 addressed a letter to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, II
Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Court, Vijayawada seeking his opinion about the possibility of altering the Section of Law from 174 of Cr.P.C., to Sec. 306 of IPC. On 20.03.2012, the Asst., Public
Prosecutor, sent his legal opinion and suggested to send both hand writings to the FSL for Expert opinion to arrive to a conclusion. So, the P.W.13 sent the connected records to the F.S.L.,
Hyderabad for comparison of the Hand-writing in the suicide note written by the deceased with his admitted writings. Having had received the AP FSL Report, the P.W.13 altered the Section of
Law from 174 Cr.P.C., to 306 r/w 34 of IPC, as per the directions and instructions from the C.I., of
Railway Police on 25.6.2012 at 02.00 PM.
(iv). On the point of jurisdiction, the entire case record was sent to the Superintendent of
Police, Krishna District, which was in turn forwarded to the Jaggaiahpet Police Station on 03.11.2012 at 2.00 PM. Therefore, the P.W.14/J.V. Ramana, Sub-Inspector of police, Jaggaiahpet verified the entire case record and re-registered this case as a case in Cr.No; 151/2012 U/sec. 306 of IPC and took up the investigation.
(v). On 14.12.2012, he arrested the accused No.4 and sent him for Judicial remand. On 25.2.2013, he also arrested the accused Nos.1 and 6, and sent them for Judicial remand. The accused Nos.2 and 3, 5 and 7 were enlarged on bail by the Court of Hon'ble I Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam. All the accused are responsible for the suicide committed by the
deceased. Hence, the P.W.14 filed the charge-sheet against them for the offence U/sec. 306 r/w 34 of IPC.
4. Taking of cognizance and committal of the case U/sec. 209 of Cr.P.C:- The learned
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet took the cognizance of the case for the
offence Under section 306 r/w 34 of IPC, against the accused Nos.1 to 7. Since the offence U/s.306
IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, Krishna Division, the learned Magistrate registered it as PRC No.25/2013 and copies of all documents were furnished to the accused, on their appearance, as required U/sec., 208 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short, Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, the learned Magistrate committed this case U/sec., 209 of Cr.P.C., vide separate order, dated 05.12.2013 and therefore, the Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam made over this case to this court being the Assistant Sessions Court for trial and disposal according to law, after registering it as S.C. No.291/2014.
5. Appearance of accused and opening the case U/sec. 226 of Cr.P.C., and abetment of the case against the accused Nos.1 to 9 :- After receipt of the court summons, the accused had appeared before this court and engaged Sri. Matta Prasad and Sri. E. Ranga Rao, Learned
Advocates, Nandigama to defend them. Thereafter, the learned Addl. P. P., opened this case by describing the Charge brought against the accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offence punishable
U/sec.306 r/w 34 of IPC and also about the evidence going to be let-in to prove their guilt.
Subsequently, the death of the Accused No.5 was reported and the death certificate was also filed and so, the case against the accused No.5 was dismissed as abated on 06.02.2015.
6. Framing of Charges U/sec. 228 of Cr.P.C.:- Upon hearing the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor as well as the Defence Counsel and considering the entire material available on record, this court prima facie found that the accused had committed the offence U/sec. 306 of IPC. Hence, the Charge for the above offence was framed against the accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 and 7 U/sec., 228 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained to them in Telugu. For which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was stood posted for prosecution evidence, after fixing the schedule for Trial, as contemplated U/sec. 230 of Cr.P.C.
• Prosecution Evidence U/sec. 231 of Cr.P.C.:- To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.29.
During the course of trial, the death of the accused No.2 was reported and his death certificate was also filed and so, the case against the accused No.2 was also dismissed as abated on 21.3.2016.
Except P.W.6, all other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The prosecution evidence available on record reveals as follows:-
(i). The deceased by name, Karamgoyi Venakta Ramana is the father of the P.W.1 and P.W.2, and he is the senior brother-in-law of P.W.3/Kanuguntala Maheswara Rao and he is also the friend of P.W.4 and they are residents of Jaggaiahpet. The wife of the deceased died in the year, 1998.
So, the deceased kept the accused No.1 as his mistress at his house and she lived with for some time. The P.W.1 studied B.Tech and went to Hyderabad for searching a Job, and the P.W.2 is studying Chartered Account Course at Super-viz Institute, Vijayawada.
(ii). The deceased went to Hyderabad and stayed with the P.W.1 for 10 days and informed him about the bad character of the accused No.1. The deceased also wept before him and told his son that he would go to Shirdi of Maharastra State to live separately. Accordingly, he also went there, but came back, as he could not live there and stayed at their house in Jaggaiahpet for some time and went to Vijayawada and met his younger son (P.W.2), who was studying C.A. The deceased requested the P.W.1 over phone to look after the welfare of P.W.2 and thereafter, he went back to
Jaggaiahpet, and lived there.
(iii). On 02.01.2012, the deceased went to Vijayawada and met the P.W.2 and intimated him about the harassment and torture of the deceased and he told him that he would not willing to live. He also informed him that the accused No.1 pressurized him to pay money to her for constructing a house in her name and since, he did not give money, the accused harassed him.
He also informed to him that the accused No.1 threatened him that she would defame him in the society, if he failed to pay money to her as demanded. On the night of 02.01.2012, the deceased slept with the P.W.2 at his room and on the morning of 03.02.2012 at about 06.00 AM, he went out stating that he would go to Jaggaiahpet.
(iv). Thereafter, at about 04.00 PM, the P.W.1 came to know that his father committed suicide and the said information was received by him thorugh the cell phone of the P.W.1. The P.W.1 also rushed to the Government General Hospital Marturity room in Vijayawada along with the P.W.2 and relatives and identified the dead body of his father. Further, the P.W.2 also came to know that his deceased father addressed a letter to the Circle Inspector of police, Jaggaiahpet and also P.W.4, about the harassment of the accused and reasons for his suicide.
(v). The deceased told the P.W.4/Dasari Gaddaiah that the accused No.1 and other accused harassed him and ill-treated him. Prior to his death, the deceased went to P.W.3 on one day and told him that there were disputes between him and the accused No.1 and so, quarrels took place and that all the accused tortured him and so, he requested him to look-after the welfare of P.W.1 and P.W.2. He also told the P.W.3 that he also purchased a house site in the name of the accused
No.1 and he intended to construct a house thereon. He also informed him that the accused No.1 was having illegal contacts and extramarital relationship with the accused No.3 and so, he was facing mujch mental tention and went away. On coming to know about the suicide committed by the deceased, the P.W.3 rushed to Vijayawada and noticed the dead body of the deceased kept at the mortuary room in Vijayawada General Hospital and the Railway police took away the postal receipts from the dead body of the deceased.
(vi). On 04.01.2012, the P.W.4 received a letter and he read it. The deceased stated about the harassment of the accused and requested him to see that all the accused were punished. The deceased also stated that he addressed another letter to the C.I., of police, Jaggaiahpet Circle and requested him to hand over the copy of the suicide letter by the P.W.4 to the CI of police, if he did not receive the suicide letter addressed by him separately. The deceased also stated that he wanted to commit suicide and all the accused were responsible for his suicidal death. On 04.01.2012, the Railway police called him and took the suiticide letter of the deceased from him and requested him to come again, whenever there was a necessity. Thereafter, on 03.11.2012, the Jaggaiahpet police called him and examined him.
(vii). The P.W.5/S. Nagaraju is working as keyman at South Central Ralway, Vijayawada, and on 03.01.2012 at about 10.30 AM, he found the dead body of the deceased on the Railway Track No:
13 at a distance of Kilometer No. DY/81. Therefore, he informed the same to the Station Master - P.W.10 in writing. In turn, the P.W.10 gave information to the S.I., of police under Ex.P.15.
Therefore, the P.W.12/S. Veera Raju, R.P.F., of H.C., registered a case in Cr.No: 01/2012 U/sec. 174 of Cr.P.C., and took up the investigation. He examined the P.W.10 as he sent a message to him. He secured the presence of the L.W.11 and P.W.11 and in their presence, he observed the scene of offence, where the dead body of the deceased was noticed. He also got photographs of the same and prepared its rough-sketch. The observation report was prepared and it was duly attested by the said mediators under Ex.P.2. The original FIR is Ex.P.16 and the bunch of four phottos is Ex.P.17.
At the scene of offence, the P.W.12 also noticed the head and the remaining body of the deceased on the track and he also observed a paper near the dead body, which contained some phone numbers and so, he seized it. Therefore, the P.W.12 informed the death of the deceased to his relatives over phone and also gave a statement in the newspapers through the media, since it was the dead body of an unknown person.
(viii). On the next day morning, the second son of the deceased identified the dead body of the deceased as that of his father at the Mortury room in the Government General Hospital,
Vijayawada. On the same day i.e., on 04.01.2012, the P.W.12 also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Mortuary room and he handed over the dead body for postmortem examination. The inquest report is Ex.P.13. The P.W.15/Dr. Hemanth Rao conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 04.01.2012 from 11.05 AM to 12.10 PM and issued a report under Ex.P.26 and the cause of the death of the deceased was due to “Chromatic
De-capitation“. After conducting the postmortem examination, the P.W.12 handed over the dead body of the deceased to his relatives for conducting last rites.
(viii). On 06.01.2012, the Superior Officers of P.W.12 noticed a scrolling in a news channel that some persons were responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased and so, he went to
Jaggaiapet and enquired with the P.W.4, who told him that he had given information to the media and so, the P.W.12 took to him to his superior officers and thereafter, the P.W.13 took up the further investigation.
(ix). During his further investigation, the P.W.13 visited the scene of offence and inspected the same with the help of P.W.12. He also examined the P.W.1 to P.W.5 and P.W.10, who repeated the same, and so, he did not record their statements again. After getting the opinion of the Additional
Public Prosecutor of Railway Court, he continued further investigation. Thereafter, on 23.3.2012, he along with the P.W.12 went to the house of the deceased in Jaggaiahpet in the presence of the mediators, P.W.7 and P.W.13, and seized Ex.P.5, Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.12 from the P.W.2 under the cover of a mediators report marked as Ex.P.4. He also seized the suicide letter from the P.W.4. Further, he also seized the copy of the suicide letter addressed by the deceased to the Jaggaiahpet C.I, of police from the P.W.4 under the cover of a report. Thereafter, he re-examined P.W.2 and P.W.4 and recorded their statements. He also seized the original suicide letter of the deceased from the
Jaggaiahpet Circle Inspector of police and examined him. Further, the P.W.13 also seized the admission application of the P.W.2 from Super-viz Institution, Vijayawada, where he was studying and he also examined the Head of the said institution and she is L.W.9.
(x). The P.W.13 sent all the seized material to the Hand-writing Expert along with the letter of advice of their D.S.P., for verification of the signatures of the deceased and report. Again on 15.4.2012, he visited the house of the dececased in Jaggaiahpet and seized 8 pages of diary maintained by the deceased in the presence of same mediators under the cover of a report. The diary pages and the progress report marked as Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11 were sent to the R.F.S.L.,
Vijayawada. After receipt of the report form the F.S.L., and also the instructions of his superior officers, he altered the section of law from 174 of Cr.P.C., to Sec. 306 of IPC on 25.6.2012 at 2.00
PM. He submitted the altered FIR under Ex.P.18 along with the alteration memo under Ex.P.19 to the Court. The letter of advice of the DSP is Ex.P.21 and the letter of Director of F.S.L., Hyderabad is Ex.P.22 and the another letter is Ex.P.23. As per the instructions of Superior Officers, the P.W.13 indexed the entire record and transferred to the Jaggaiahpet police on the point of jurisdiction through the Superintendent of police of G.R.P., Vijayawada on 06.11.2012. The original F.S.L.
report is Ex.P.28 and original suicide letter containing 7 pages is Ex.P.29. The Ex.P.27 is the Original
FIR along with the alteration memo, dated 25.6.2012.
(xi). On 03.11.2012, the P.W.14 received a letter from the Superintendent of police, Krishna vide C.R. No 2507/CI/2012, dated 23.7.2012 directing him to register a fresh case, which was registered already by the Vijayawada Railway police. So, on the same day, the P.W.14 registered the same as a case in Cr.No: 151/2012 U/sec. 306 r/w of of IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P.24 and the letter of S.P., is Ex.P.25. He submitted the same to the Court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Jaggaiahpet and took up the further investigation of this case. He examined and
recorded the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.6 and P.W.10. On 14.12.2012 at 10.00 hours, he arrested the accused No.4 and sent him to the Court for remand. The other accused obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge's Court, Machilipatnam and thereafter, he surrendered
before him and he affected his arrest and released them after producing the sureties. After the
completion of investigation, the P.W.14 filed the charge-sheet.
8. Examination of accused Under Sec., 313 Cr.P.C.,:- For the above incriminating circumstances in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, and P.W.7 to P.W.15, the accused were examined
U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C., read over and explained the same to them in Telugu. For which, they denied and requested time for adducing their defence evidence. But, subsequently, they reported no defence evidence and so, it was closed.
•Arguments U/sec. 234 of Cr.P.C.:-The learned Addl. P.P., has vehemently argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case, as the
P.W.1 to P.W.5 and P.W.7 to P.W.15 have supported its case and the accused are responsible for the death of the deceased and hence, he has prayed to convict them, as per law. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has strenuously argued at length that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and there are several lapses in the prosecution case and the deceased was hypersensitivity and he was suffering from mental depression and so the accused are not responsible for his suicidal death and hence, he has prayed to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt. Written arguments are also filed on behalf of the accused.
10. The points for determination:
1). Whether the prosecution has proved that the deceased kept the accused No.1 at his house in Jaggaiahpet as his mistress from 2002 onwards, beyond reasonable doubt?
2). Whether the prosecution has proved that all the accused have harassed and tortured the deceased prior to his suicide, beyond reasonable doubt?
3). Whether the prosecution has proved the seizure of the suicide letter from the position of the P.W.4, beyond reasonable doubt?
4). Whether the suicide note is alone adequate to prove that the accused had abetted the deceased to commit suicide?
5).Whether the accused are entitled to be acquitted on benefit of doubt?
Discussion:
11. Point No.1:- Whether the prosecution has proved that the deceased kept the accused No.1 at his house in Jaggaiahpet as his mistress from 2002 onwards, beyond reasonable doubt?
(i). As per the prosecution case, after the death of his wife in the year, 1998, the deceased developed illicit intimacy with the accused No.1 in the year, 2002 and he kept her as his mistress at his house and both lived together. In their chief-examination also, the P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the sons of the deceased deposed before this court that after the death of their mother, in the year, 1998, their deceased father kept the accused No.1 at their house as his mistress and so, she lived with them for some time. The P.W.3, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, also deposed in his chief-examination that in the year, 1998, his sister, who is the wife of the deceased, died and thereafter, the deceased kept the accused No.1 as his mistress in the year, 2002 and they lived together at his house in Jaggaiahpet till the death of the deceased. But, however, the P.W.4 did not depose that the deceased kept the accused No.1 as his mistress at his house in the year, 2002 and lived with her, since his wife died in the year, 1998, though, he deposed that he knew the deceased for the last 30 years, since he was his friend. In his suicide letter under Ex.P.29 also, the deceased stated that about 13 years ago, his wife died due to heart disease and thereafter, he started living with the accused No.1 and he also married her. So, as per the said suicide letter, the accused No.1 is the second wife of the deceased. But, the P.W.1 to P.W.4 have no where deposed the deceased married the accused No.1 and so, she is his second wife.
(ii). If really, the deceased kept the accused No.1 as his mistress and lived with her at his house in Jaggaiahpet and he also married her subsequently, the P.W.4, who is his friend, must have deposed the same before this court, but it is not so.
More over, the P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not depose that the deceased married the accused No.1, after living with her for some time as his mistress. Further, there must be some documentary evidence available to prove that the deceased kept the accused No.1 as his mistress at his house and lived with her and he also married her. But, the prosecution has not produced even single scrap of paper to prove the same. The Investigating Officers should have examined atleast the neighbours of the deceased, but they did not examine any of the neighbours and the P.W.13 also admitted the same during his cross-examination, but he did not give any explanation.
(iii). During the 313 Cr.P.C., examination also, the accused No.1 denied the prosecution evidence in to-to and she also filed a copy of the Adhar card, ration card and LPG card, wherein the particulars of the P.W.1 are shown as C/o
Banath Haria, House NO: 5-31/5, Seetharampuram, Jaggaiahpet, whereas the house of the deceased is situated in Satyanarayanapuram in Jaggaiahpet.
Further, the Investigating Officer also deposed in his cross-examination that the house of the accused No.1 is situated at a distance of 1 KM from the house of the deceased in Jaggaiahpet. Thus, considering the entire evidence available on record, this court finds without any hesitation that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased kept the accused No.1 at his house as his mistress and lived with her and he also married her. Accordingly, this point is answered.
12. Point No.2:- Whether the prosecution has proved that all the accused have harassed and tortured the deceased prior to his suicidal death, beyond reasonable doubt?
(i) In this case, the suicide letter under Ex.P.29 is the important document and the entire prosecution is based on it. In the said suicide letter, the deceased stated that for the last 4 years, the accused No.1 was addicted to vices ( ) and her mother and sister (accused No.4 and 5) also supported her and though he tried to change her, she did not change her attitude and he also purchased a house site in her name and he also got constructed a house partly, but she did not leave his house and since 7 months, she harassed him and the other accused also harassed him, and all the accused also threatened him that they would kill him and his children and so, he was forced to commit suicide. Further, in the said suicide letter, the deceased also stated that the accused No.1 developed illicit intimacy with the accused No.2 and thereby, they harassed him. But, the P.W.1 to P.W.4 have no-where deposed that they witnessed the harassment of the accused personally. As per their evidence, they came to know about the same through the deceased only.
(ii). In his chief-examination, the P.W.3 deposed that prior to his death on one day, the deceased came to his house and informed him about the disputes took place between him and the accused No.1, and also the quarrels and that he also told him that the accused tortured him and so, he requested him to look after the welfare of the P.W.1 and P.W.2. But, the P.W.3 no-where deposed about any advice given to him to the deceased. Further, the P.W.4 did not depose any such harassment in his evidence, and during his cross-examination he deposed that the accused used to inform him about the disputes and the accused No.1 harassed him. If really, there is no such harassment by the accused No.1 and other accused and they tortured him severely, he should have taken necessary steps and more over, he would have informed the same to his other relatives also. But, there is no substantial evidence available on record that the accused harassed him and tortured him. The Investigating Officers have also not shown any interest to collect documentary evidence to show that the deceased purchased a house site in the name of the accused no.1 and also constructed a house therein and also to examine the neighbours, during their investigation.
More over, there are no specific incidents of harassment of the accused stated by the deceased in his suicide letter. Therefore, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was tortured and harassed by all the accused, beyond reasonable doubt.
13. Point No.3:- Whether the prosecution has proved the seizure of the suicide letter from the position of the P.W.4, beyond reasonable doubt?
(i). As per the prosecution case, the P.W.13 seized the suicide letter under Ex.P.29 from the possession of the P.W.4 under the cover of a mediators' report. The P.W.13 also deposed in his chief-examination that on 23.3.2012, he along with the P.W.12 went to the Jaggaiahpet and visited the house of the deceased and in the presence of mediators P.W.7 and P.W.13, he seized Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.12 from the
P.W.2 under the cover of a mediators report marked as Ex.P.4 and he also seized the suicide letter of the deceased from the P.W.4. The contents of the mediators report, dated 23.3.2012 under Ex.P.4 also categorically reveal that after seizure of the Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.12 from the possession of the P.W.2 at his house in
Jaggaiahpet, the P.W.13 also seized the suicide letter under Ex.P.29 from the
P.W.4, who is the friend of the deceased and it was written on 2.1.2012 and posted by the deceased to the P.W.4.
(ii). So, as per the evidence of P.W.13 and the contents of the mediators report under Ex.P.4, it can be said that the Investigating Officer (P.W.13) seized the suicide letter under Ex.P.29 from the P.W.4 on 23.3.2012, but not on 4.2.2012.
But, in his chief-examination itself, the P.W.4 categorically deposed before this court that on 4.1.2012, the Railway police called him to Vijayawada and took the suicide letter of the deceased from him and requested him to come again, whenever there was a necessity. Further, the P.W.4 has no-where deposed that it was seized by the Railway police at the house of the deceased from him on 23.3.2012. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.4, it is obvious that on 4.2.2012 itself, the railway police seized the suicide letter from the P.W.4 in Vijayawada.
(iii). More over, during his cross-examination, the P.W.4 categorically deposed that as the Railway police requested him, he went to Vijayawada and after receiving the suicide letter from him, the Railway police gave him an acknowledgment on a copy of the said suicide letter by putting the signature of the Railway police S.I. (P.W.13) with the Station seal and it is available with him and he also showed the same during his cross-examination. Therefore, it is obvious that as per the evidence of P.W.4, the Railway police (P.W.13) seized the suicide letter of the deceased from him in Vijayawada on 04.1.2012 itself, but not on 23.3.2012 as per the mediators report under Ex.P.4. If the evidence of
P.W.4, is taken into consideration, it can be said indubitably that the mediators' report showing the seizure of the suicide letter of the deceased from the P.W.4 was created subsequently and as such, it is fatal to the prosecution case.
Therefore, this court finds that the prosecution has failed prove the same beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Point No.4:- Whether the suicide note alone is adequate to prove that the accused had harassed the deceased to commit suicide?
(i). The prosecution has not produced any direct evidence to show that the accused had harassed the deceased and so, he was forced to commit suicide.
Since the P.W.1 to P.W.4 are only hear say witnesses, their evidence is not sufficient to prove the alleged harassment. As stated above, the entire prosecution case is rested on the suicide letter under Ex.P.29. As per the report of the F.S.L., it was in the hand-writing of the deceased and it also contains his signature. But, the said fact by itself does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was harassed by the accused and he was abetted by them to commit suicide. It is for the prosecution to prove the ingredients for the offence of abetment to commit suicide to punish them U/sec. 306 of IPC. The Sec. 107 of IPC deals with the offence of abetement and so, it is just and necessary for this court to decide whether the prosecution has successfully adduced subtantial evidence establishing the ingredients for the offence of abatement to commit suicide for the offence U/sec. 306 of IPC or not. The Sec. 107 of Cr.P.C., reads thus:-
107. Abetment of a thing:
A person abets the doing of thing, who -
First :- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly: - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act, or illegal omission takes
place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing;
or
Thirdly: - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that
thing.
Thus, it is obvious that to constitute the offence of abetment under the
provisions of Sec. 107 of IPC., one must instigate any person to do a particular thing or intentionally aids by doing any act or illegally omission in doing of that thing, or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing.
But, there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the accused
intentionally aided or did any act or illegal omission driving the deceased to commit suicide and more over, there is no such allegation also. Further, it is also not the case
of the prosecution that the accused engaged anybody in any conspiracy for the
suicide committed by the deceased. The only ingredient available for the
prosecution is that if anybody instigated the deceased to commit suicide, it amounts to abetment of a thing. But, in the suicide letter under Ex.P.29, the deceased did not allege that he was instigated by the accused persons to commit suicide. Even, it does not reveal that the accused No.1 uttered at him or shouted at him to commit suicide and instigated him to do so. Thus, it is obvious that absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that the accused Nos.1 to 7 had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, this court finds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide, as rightly argued by the
learned defene counsel.
(iii). The learned defence consel has submitted a decision reported in 2008 (1) ALD
(Crl.) 941 SC (Sohan Raj Sharma V. State of Haryana (Supreme Court) wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that “The prosecution must prove that the accused
directly or indirectly incited the deceased to commit suicide and mere fact that the deceased treated his wife with cruelty is not enough. Further, the Hon'ble Apex
Court also observed at para No. 8 of the said decision that “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing
of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of
entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can
be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a
person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of
IPC”. Further, the Hon'ble High Court also observed at Para No.8 that “Victim
committing suicide, if hypersensitive to ordinary, petulance, discord and
differences in domestic life quite common to society to which the victim belonged
and such petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, which are quite
common to society, and not expected to induce an individual to commit suicide,
accused could not be found guilty of abetting suicide” and held that “Conviction
cannot be sustained.” In the present case also, it appears that the deceased
committed suicide, since he was under deep depression, which is not sufficient to prove any ingredients for the offence of abetement. It also appears that the deceased was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in the domestic
life, which are quite common to the society, and not expected to induce him to
commit suicide. So, basing on the above decision, this court finds that the
prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the abetement against the accused and so, accused can not be convicted for the offence of abetment to commit suicide
U/sec. 306 of IPC.
(iv). The learned defence counsel has also submitted another decision reported in
2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 573 (S. Rajitha V. Narahari Laxmi Reddy and others),
wherein our Hon'ble High Court observed at para No. 8 that “ Even if it is assumed
that the deceased had taken such presence or absusive words seriously, he had
enough time in between to think over and reflect and therefore, it can not be said
that the pressure, which had been made by the accused on 16.01.2014 driven the
deceased to commit suicide. It is not alleged that the accused had told the deceased
to die. It is not the case, where the accused had by their acts created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option, except to commit
suicide. Therefore, the pressure caused by the accused cannot be construed as
instigation. In the present case also, the evidence of the P.W.1 reveals that his deceased father came to Hyderabad and met him and he stayed with him for 10 days
and informed him about the bad character of the accused No.1 and he also wept
before him and wanted to live separately at Shiridi of Maharastra State and he also
went there and came back, as he could not live there and thereafter, he went back to
Jaggaiahpet and lived there for some time and went to Vijayawada to meet his
brother (P.W.2), who was studying C.A. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 also goes to show that his deceased father went to Hyderabad and stayed with the P.W.1 for 10 days prior to his death and on 02.01.2012 their deceased father came and met him in
Vijayawada and he intimated him about the harassment and torture of the accused
and he also informed him that the accused No.1 pressurized him to pay money for
construction of the house in her name and since he was not giving money, all the accused were harassing him and the accused No.1 also threatened him that she would defame him in the society, if he failed to pay the money as demanded and on that night, the deceased slept with him and on the next day morning, he went out stating that he would go to Jaggaihpet. Thus, it is clear that the deceased had sufficient time to think over and reflect before his suicide death. Further, as per the evidence of
P.W.2, the accused No.1 mounted pressurized on the deceased to pay the money to
her for construction of a house and also threatened him that if he failed to pay the money as demanded to her, she would defame him in the society and so, it cannot be said that the harassment and pressure of the accused No.1 and other accused can not be construed as instigation, which is a necessary ingredient to attract the provisions of Sec. 306 of IPC. In the cited also, there is a suicide note of the deceased alleging harassment and insult against the accused. In the present case also, there is a suicide note, wherein the deceased alleged that the accused had harassed him. Therefore, basing on the above decision, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove
that the accused had abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
(vi). The learned defence counsel has also submitted another decision reported in
2006 (1) ALD (Crl.) 252 (AP) (T. Brahmanandam V. State of A.P.) wherein our
Hon'ble High Court observed and held at para No.7 that “In the suicide note except
stating that the accused No.1 filed cases and harassed the deceased, no other
specific incident or willful act was pointed out, due to which he committed
suicide”. The Hon'ble High Court also held at para No.8 that “Since suicide note of
the decased does not indicate the petitioners' committing any willful act or
omission intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide, they can not be charged for the offence U/sec. 306 of IPC. Except omnibus allegation against the accused No.2 that he helped the accused No.1 in harassing,
no other allegations are made against them. In view of the same, these two
criminal petitions are liable to be allowed”. The Hon'ble High Court quashed the
proceedings in Cr.No: 21/2005 of Markapur Rural Police Station. The above
decision of the Hon'ble High Court was relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in 2005 AIR SCW 1326 (Netai Dutta V. State of West
Bengal, 2005), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “ In the absence of
any willful act or incident or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the
deceased in committing the act of suicide and in the absence of any contents in
the suicide note to make out the offence against the accused, which ultimately
instigated or resulted in the committal of the suicide by the accused, registration of a crime only on the basis of suicide note without any actual foundation and the prosecution initiated against the accused are liable to be squashed”. Thus, from the above decisions, it is obvious that there must be some specific incident or willful act of the accused, which instigated the deceased to commit suicide and since in the suicide note, there is no such specific incident or willful act, and so, it cannot be said that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In the present case also, except the omnibus allegations made by the deceased in the suicide letter that the accused had harassed him, there is no any wilful act or incidence or omission or intentionally aided or instigatged the deceased in committing suicide. Since the suicide letter under Ex.P.29 does not indicate that the accused committed any willful act or omission, intentionally aided or instigated the dececased to commit suicide, except the omnibus allegations against them, basing on the above decisions, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients for the offence
U/sec. 306 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt.
(vii). Further, as stated above, as per the evidence of P.W.2, the deceased told him that the accused No.1 pressurized him to pay money for construction of the house and she also threatened him that she would defame him in the society, if he failed to pay money to her, but in the suicide note under Ex.P.29, the deceased did not state the same and on the other hand, he made other allegations attributing the illegal intimacy to the accused No.1 with the accused Nos.2 to 4. Therefore, this court finds that the suicide note of the deceased does not inspire confidence to say that the deceased was instigated or engaged any other person in conspiracy by the accused,
to commit suicide, to come to a conclusion that they abetted the suicide of the
deceased.
(viii). In the light of above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the accused
are entitled to be acquitted on benefit of doubt.
18. Result:- In the result, the accused No.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are found not guilty for the offence
U/sec. 306 of IPC. Hence, they are acquitted U/sec. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the above offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be continued for a period of six (6) months.
(Dictated to Stenographer of this Court, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 21th day of April, 2017.)
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
NANDIGAMA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTIONDEFENCE
P.W.1: K. Jaganadh P.W.2: K. Sai Chaitanya P.W.3: K. Maheswara Rao P.W.4: D. Gaddaiah P.W.5: S. Nagaraju. P.W.6: M. Ravi Babu P.W.7: G. Chakravarthi P.W.8: A. Jaganmohan None.
P.W.9: M. Kishore Babu P.W.10: L. Pitchayya P.W.11: B. Bhaskara Rao P.W.12: S. Veera Raju P.W.13: S. Govinda Reddy P.W.14: J.V. Ramana. SI of police. P.W.15: Dr. Hemantha Rao.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Postal cover Ex.P.2: Observation report Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.4: Mediators report, dated 23.3.2012 Ex.P.5: Mediators report, dated, 15.4.2012 Ex.P.6: Identity card of deceased Ex.P.7: Deceased suicide letter signature 5 pages Ex.P.8: Three Diary pages of the deceased Ex.P.9: Signature of the deceased Ex.P.10: Progress report of P.W.1. Ex.P.11: Progress report of P.W.2. Ex.P12: Bunch of the 12 pages of the deceased. Nil. Ex.P.13: Inquest report Ex.P.14: Postal cover Ex.P.15: Information letter Ex.P.16: FIR Ex.P.17: Bunch of four photographs Ex.P.18: Altered FIR Ex.P.19: Alteration memo Ex.P.20: DSP letters Ex.P.21: Letter of RFSL, Vijayawada Ex.P.22: Letter of Director, FSL, datred 7.4.2012 Ex.P.23: Letter of address, dated 26.4.2012 Ex.P.24: FIR, dated 3.11.2012 Ex.P.25: Letter of SP., dated 23.7.2012 Ex.P.26: P.M., report Ex.P.27: Original Alteration FIR with memo Ex.P.28: Original FSL report
Ex.P.29: Original Suicide seven pages.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-NIL-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
NANDIGAMA.
TABULAR FORM TO BE APPENDED FOR THE JUDGEMENT AS PER RULE 67 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE IN SESSIONS CASE No. 291 of 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE’S COURT, NANDIGAMA.
1. Sessions Case No : S.C.No. 291/2014
2. P.R.C.No. : P.R.C.No.25/2013 on the file of the A.J.F.C.M, Nandigama
3. Name of the Police Station : Crime No. 151 of 2012 of Jaggaiahpet Police Station.
4.Description of the accused : 1). Banothu Nagamani W/o. Biksham, 36 years, Sugali 2). Sk. Rasheed, S/o. Bademiya, 46 years, Muslim.
3). Thimmasarthi Guru Murthy S/o. Sundra Rao, 34 years, Vaddera.
4). Mathangi Biksham @ Kumar, S/o. Ramulu, 39 years, SC Madiga, Painter.
5). Gugulothu Lakshmi W/o. Srihari, 60 years, Sugali.
6). Bhukya Veeramma W/o. Ramoji, 42 years, Sugali.
7). Gugulothu Venkateswarlu, S/o. Hari, 38 years, Sugali.
All are R/o. Satyanaranapuram, Jaggaiahpet.
5. Dates of
a) Offence : 03.01.2012
b) Complaint : 03.01.2012
c) Apprehension : 14.12.2012 & 25.02.2013
d) In this Court : 05.12.2013
6. Released on bail : ---
a) Commencement of Trial : 02.11.2015
b) Closure of trial : 17.03.2017
c) Sentence or Order : 21.04.2017
7. Result:- In the result, the accused No.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 306 of IPC. Hence, they are acquitted U/sec. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the above offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be continued for a period of six (6) months.
8. Explanation for delay in the Court:- The case was received on 15.12.2014 by made over from the Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Court, Krishna,
Machilipatnam. On 01.10.2015 charge was framed. On 02.11.2015 the prosecution evidence commenced and closed on 17.03.2017. The accused were examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 25.03.2017. On 19-04-2017 arguments were heard. On 21.04.2017 Judgment pronounced in open Court. Hence the delay.
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
NANDIGAMA.
Co pies submitted to:
1) The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, through the Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
2) The Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
Copies to:
1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jaggaiahpet.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
3. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Nandigama.`