Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 1SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT
MAHABUBABAD
Thursday, this the 02nd day of April, 2026.
Present:- Smt.Shalini Shakelli, Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 268 OF 2022
(P.R.C.No.23/2019 in Cr.No.127/2018 of PS. Gudur on the file of Addl.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet)
1.Name and Description of The State of Telangana through the Complainant.Sub Inspector of Police, PS Gudur
2.Name and Description of A1. Maloth Venkanna, S/o Narsimha, the accused personsAge:32 years, Occ: Agriculture. A2. Maloth Jagan, S/o Narsimha, Age:28 years, Occ: Agriculture. A3. Maloth Eeri, W/o Venkanna, Age:28 years, Occ: Agriculture. A4. Maloth Lalitha, W/o Jagan, Age:25 years, Occ: Agriculture. All are R/o Chirrakunta thanda, H/o Ramulu thanda.
3. Offences with which U/S. 306, 323, 504 IPC charged 4Plea of the accusedNot guilty
5.Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty
6. Sentence or OrderThe accused persons are found not guilty for the offence under section 306, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, the accused persons are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the offence under section 306, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC. Bail bonds of the accused persons shall be in
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 2SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C.
7.Prosecution conducted by Sri.D.Ganesh Anand Addl. Public Prosecutors.
8.Defence counsel Sri. B.Rakesh Naik, Advocate for Accused.
This case is coming on 23.03.2026 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Addl.P.P for the State and in the presence of Sri. B.Rakesh Naik, Advocate for the accused 1 to 4 and after having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following.
::J U D G M E N T::
1. The Sub-Inspector of police, PS Gudur filed the charge sheet against the accused persons in Cr.No.127/2018 under section 306, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that :
On 02.07.2018 at 1300 hours, PW1 lodged a complaint stating that she has two sons and two daughters and that all of them are married and that her elder daughter by name Maloth Vinoda got married to one Dasru and that the husband of the said Maloth
Vinoda has two brothers and for the past one month disputes are going on between the said three brothers with regard to a house plot. That the son-in-law of PW1 and his brothers have equally divided their shares with regard to the ancestral property and that a road facing house fell to the share of the son inlaw of PW.1 and that the brothers of the Son-in-law of PW.1 are forcing the said Dasru to give pathway in front of his house. That the brothers of the said
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 3SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
Dasru used to abuse him and used held panchayats before elders.
That the son-in-law of PW.1 had stated to them that he will provide pathway to cattle shed which is in front of his house, however the brothers of the said Dasru continued their demand for pathway. That on 02.07.2018 at about 08:30 hours, the accused persons picked up quarrel with the daughter of PW.1 by name Vinoda and her son in law over the land issue and further beat the said Dasru, due to which her daughter by name Vinoda felt insulted and consumed poison and immediately her son in law and his brother Babu shifted her daughter to Government Hospital, Gudur on a motorcycle and admitted her in the said hospital for treatment and thereafter the said Vinoda was shifted to government hospital Narsampet for better treatment and while undergoing treatment at about 10:30 hours the said Vinoda died.
3.On receipt of the above complaint, PW.17 registered a case in
Cr.No. 127 of 2018 under section 306, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of PW.1 at the police station and thereafter handed over the CD file to PW.16. Thereafter PW.16 visited the Mortuary at
Government hospital, Narsampet and obtained photographs of the deceased with the help of photographer and conducted inquest
Panchanama over the body of the deceased in the presence of panch witnesses and sent the body of the deceased for PME and thereafter visited the first scene of offence which is the house of the deceased and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses and handed over the CD file to PW.18.
Thereafter PW.18 re-examined the witnesses and on 26.07.2018, he collected the PME report. Thereafter on 24.08.2018, A1 and A3 were
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 4SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
apprehended and produced before the concerned magistrate for judicial remand and on 12.09.2018, A2 and A4 obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad vide
Crl.M.P. No. 901 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018. That PW.18 collected the
expert opinion and basing on the expert opinion, the final opinion was furnished stating that the cause of death of the deceased is due to Organophosphate poisoning. That after completion of the investigation, PW.18 filed the charge sheet.
4. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 306, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC against the accused persons and on the appearance of the accused persons, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused persons as contemplated under section 207 of CrPC.
5. The charges under section 306, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC are framed against the accused persons and the contents of the charges are read over and explained to the accused persons for which they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to establish its case, the prosecution had examined
PW.1 to PW.18 and got marked Ex. P1 to P13. The prosecution reported no further evidence and hence the evidence of the prosecution was closed.
7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under section 313 CrPC. The incriminating evidence available on record against them was explained to them and they characterised the same to be false. The accused persons
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 5SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
reported no defence evidence and therefore the defence evidence was closed.
8. Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused persons.
9. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable under section 306, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
10. In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined
PW.1 to PW.18 and got marked Ex.P1 to P13. PW.1 is the complainant. PW.2, PW.3, PW.4, PW.6, PW.8 are the relatives of the deceased. PW.7 is the panch witness for the inquest panchanama.
PW.9 and PW.10 are the village elders. PW.5, PW.11, PW.12 are the panch witnesses inquest Panchanama. PW.13 and PW.14 are the panch witnesses for CDF. PW.15 is the doctor. PW.16, PW.17 and
PW.18 are the investigating officers.
11. PW.1/ Bhukya Kausalya during the course of her evidence deposed that, about six years ago on one day the accused disputed with her daughter by name Vinoda with regard to a passage and beat her, abused her and keeping the same in mind, Vinoda consumed pesticide and thereafter she was shifted to a hospital at
Gudur from where she was shifted to a hospital at Narsampet and that the said Vinodha died while undergoing treatment. She further deposed that the accused persons are responsible for the death of
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 6SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
the deceased as the accused often disputed with the deceased and abused her.
12.During the course of her cross examination, she stated that she is not an eyewitness to the incident of consumption of poison by her daughter and that the deceased did not inform her that due to the beating and abuse of the accused only she consumed poison.
She further stated that she had not mentioned in her complaint and also in her 161 statement the names of the elders in whose presence the panchayats were held. She further stated that the panchayats were held in the presence PW.9 and PW.10. She further stated that she had not witnessed the accused persons beat her daughter and her son in law. She further stated that no report was lodged against the accused persons prior to this case with regard to the physical abuse and the filthy language used by the accused persons against her daughter. She further stated that she placed the matter before the elders and the matter was settled.
13.When the witness was re-examined by the learned APP, she had stated that PW.3 had informed her that when the accused persons abused and beat the deceased, only then the deceased consumed pesticide.
14.PW.2/ Banoth Dasru during the course of his evidence stated that about 6 years ago at about 08:00 AM to 09:00 AM, while himself, his wife were present at their residence, all the accused persons came to their house and started disputing with them and beat them and further the accused persons beat his wife with a bucket and that his wife keeping in mind the insult she faced on account of the accused persons, had consumed poison which was
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 7SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
kept in the house for sprinkling on the cotton crop and that himself and PW.3 shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Gudur on his motorcycle from where she was shifted to Government
Hospital Narsampet for treatment and that his wife died on the same night while undergoing treatment. He further stated that the accused persons are responsible for the death of the deceased as they were continuously disputing with them with regard to the passage and further beat them and abused them.
15.During the course of his cross examination he stated there were no disputes between himself and his wife. He further stated that he had not stated before the police that the accused insulted his wife and that his wife was feeling insulted. He further stated that he had informed the same to the elders. He further stated that he had not stated before the police that due to the insult his wife faced on account of the accused persons, his wife committed suicide and that he was informed by his wife regarding the same. He further stated that his wife had informed him that due to the insult caused by the accused persons, she had consumed poison. He further stated that he had not mentioned the names of the eyewitnesses who were present at the scene at the time of the incident. He further stated that there are there were no civil disputes between his family and the accused persons with regard to the passage at the time of the offence and that as on date, a civil suit is pending with regard to the passage.
16.PW.3/ Maloth Balu during the course of his chief examination deposed that about six years ago on one day at about 8:30 AM at the house of PW2 the accused and PW2 and the deceased had an altercation with each other with regard to a passage and as the
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 8SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
dispute is not resolved and keeping in mind that the dispute is not settled, the deceased consumed poison and immediately himself,
PW6 took the deceased to Government Hospital, Gudur on his bike for better treatment and thereafter the deceased was shifted to
Government Hospital, Narsampet, where the deceased died while undergoing treatment. He further deposed that due to the disputes between the accused and PW2, the deceased committed suicide.
17.The learned APP had sought permission for declaring PW.3 as hostile and further cross examined PW.3 where PW.3 stated that the accused beat PW.2 and the deceased and thereafter the deceased consumed poison. He further stated that that the accused had stated to the deceased that only if the deceased died the matter would be settled. He further stated that he had witnessed the said incident.
18.During the course of his cross examination, he stated that the distance between his house and the house of PW.2 is about 50 to 100 metres. He further stated that PW.2 is his natural brother and that he was present in front of the house of PW.2 at the time of the incident. He further stated that one Lavudya Balu informed to PW.1 about the incident. He further stated that he had stopped Vinoda while she was consuming poison. He further stated that the deceased did not inform him that she was consuming poison due to the beating of the accused. He further stated that there was a dispute between A1, A2 and PW.2 with regard to the pathway.
19.PW.4/ B. Puriya during the course of his chief examination stated that, about six years ago on one day the deceased died by consuming poison which was kept at her house for agriculture
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 9SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
purpose and that PW.2 and PW.3 shifted her to Government Hospital,
Gudur at about 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM and on the advice of the doctors, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Narsampet and that at about 10:00 AM, while undergoing treatment, the deceased died. He further deposed that the accused persons and PW.2 disputed with regard a passage to the house of the accused and that
PW.2 had asked them to take way from the backside of his house and that the accused persons wanted a way from the front side of the house of PW.2 and that the accused persons beat PW.2, deceased with regard to the pathway near the house of PW.2 indiscriminately, due to which blood oozed out from the ears of the deceased. He further deposed that the deceased felt insulted due to the said beating and consumed poison. He further deposed that the accused persons are responsible for the death of the deceased wherein the deceased felt insulted due to the beating by the accused persons.
20. During the course of his cross-examination, he had stated that he had come to know about the incident through his brother in law.
He further stated that PW.2 did not lodge any complaint against the accused persons with regard to the said dispute of pathway. He further stated that her sister spoke two words and thereafter died.
He further stated that he is not the witness to the incident of the accused beating PW.2 and the deceased. He further stated that immediately after the incident, he visited the scene of offence. He further stated that he visited Gudur immediately after the incident as he was informed that Vinoda was being shifted to the hospital. He further stated that he cannot say the poison which was consumed by the deceased. He further stated that no civil cases are pending between PW.2 and his brothers before any court.
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 10SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
21.PW.5/ Vankudoth Susheela deposed that she does not know anything about the present case except that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. She further deposed that no panchanama was conducted in her presence.
22.PW.6/ Munavath Sharada deposed that the deceased is her cousin and that she does not know the reason for the death of the deceased. She further stated that on the date of consumption of poison, she took the deceased to a hospital at Gudur where she was asked to take the deceased to Narasampet for better treatment. She further stated that she does not know the reason for which the deceased had consumed poison.
23.PW.7/ N. Srinivas deposed that in the year 2018, he received a phone call from CI of police, PS Gudur, asking him to take photographs of the body of the deceased which was placed at
Mortuary, Government Hospital, Narsampet and that he had taken the photographs of the body of the deceased and handed over the photographs along with the CD and bills to the CI of police, PS
Gudur.
24.PW.8/ B. Gudi, PW.9/ B. Eerya and PW.10/ G. Narniya deposed that they do not know anything about the present case and that they do not know reason for the death of the deceased.
25.PW.11/ V. Jyothi deposed that the police never conducted any panchanama in her presence.
26.PW.12/ N. Bheemudu deposed that about seven years ago, the police conducted Inquest Panchanama over the body of the
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 11SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
deceased at Area Hospital, Narsampet in his presence and that the deceased died by consuming poison. He further stated that, he does not know the reason for which the deceased consumed poison. He further stated that at the time of the panchanama, PW.5 and PW.11 were also present and that he had put his signature on the
Panchanama after going through the contents.
27.PW.13/ J. Eerya and PW.14/ B. Ravi deposed that the police never conducted any panchanama in their presence and that they had signed on the panchanama at the instance of the police.
28.PW.15/ Dr.B. Vireen deposed that on 02.07.2018, he received the requisition from SHO, PS Gudur for conducting PME over the body of the deceased and that he commenced the PME at 04:45 PM and concluded the same at 05:50 PM. He further deposed that he had not found any external injuries on the body of the deceased and that he had preserved the viscera of the stomach and its contents, small intestine and its contents, sample of liver and kidneys and sent the same to RFSL, Warangal. He further deposed that he had received the report from RFSL, Warangal stating that the cause of death is organophosphate poisoning.
29.PW.16/ B. Bichya Naik during the course of his evidence deposed that, on the direction PW.18, he conducted inquest panchanama over the body of the deceased at Government
Hospital, Narasampet on 02.07.2018 at 14:30 hours. He further deposed that, he conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of the panch witnesses and further made a requisition to PW.15 for carrying out PME over the body of the deceased.
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 12SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
30.During the course of his cross examination, he stated that he does not know whether any document showing the direction of
PW.18 for carrying out inquest Panchanama was filed before this
hon’ble Court.
31.PW.17/ B. venkateshwarlu deposed that on 02.07.2018 at 1300 hours, he received a complaint from PW.1 and basing on the complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No. 137 of 2018 under section 306, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of PW.1 at the police station and thereafter handed over the CD file to PW.18.
32.During the course of his cross-examination, he stated that the contents of the complaint do not attract the offence under section 323 and 504 IPC. He further stated that PW.1 is not the eyewitness to the alleged incident. He further stated that he had recorded the statement of PW.1 at the police station.
33.PW.18/ Sk. Yaseen deposed that he received the CD file from
PW.17 and verified the investigation done by PW.17 and found the same to be on correct lines and thereafter proceeded to the scene of offence at Ramulu Thanda and verified the rough sketch drawn by
PW.17 and summoned all the witnesses and re-examined them. He further deposed that on 26.07.2018, he collected the PME report and as per the PME report, the reason for death is organophosphate poisoning. He further deposed that on 24.04.2018, on reliable information, he proceeded to Ramulu Thanda and apprehended A1 and A3 from the residence of A1 and thereafter produced them
before the concerned magistrate for judicial custody. He further
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 13SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
deposed that on 12.09.2018, A2 and A3 obtain anticipatory bail from the court of the Hon’ble VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad.
He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.
34.During the course of his cross examination, he stated that he had not mentioned the date on which he had re-examined the witnesses in the charge sheet. He further stated that he had not carried out any investigation with regard to the mental status and health conditions of the deceased. He further stated that he had not produced the poison bottle as the same has been sent to the FSL along with viscera for examination. He further stated that he had not mentioned the list of cases which have been filed against the accused persons prior to the present case in the charge sheet. He further stated that he had not submitted any document with regard to the depression suffered by the deceased. He further stated that there would be no documents to show depression suffered by a person.
35.Let us now examine section 306 IPC which lays down punishment for abetment for suicide. The said provision reads as follows: “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine”. Therefore, from the above the following ingredients can be deduced: (1) there must be abetment, (2) the intention of the accused is to aid, instigate or abet the individual to commit suicide.
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 14SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
36.Section 107 IPC defines abetment. The said provision reads as follows: “ A person abets the doing of a 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”. Therefore, from the above it can be said that the following are the elements of abetment (1) a person abetting or inciting another person, (2) a person engaging with one or more people in any conspiracy for abetting or instigating a person, (3) a person intentionally aiding by any act or illegal omission for abetting or instigating a person. It is held in catena of cases by the apex court that the prosecution must fulfil the requirements under section 107
IPC which deals with instigation, in order to establish an offence under section 306 IPC.
37.Instigation means to provoke or incite a person to commit an act which is abstained by law. In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of
Chattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, it was held by the apex court that instigation can be interpreted as a series of acts on the part of the accused that led to the establishment of such conditions where the deceased had no other alternative than to commit suicide. In order to prove that the accused abetted the act of suicide of a person, it must be established that: (1) the accused continued to irritate or annoy the deceased through words, deeds, or wilful omission or conduct until the deceased reacted and forced himself to commit suicide, (2) the accused intended to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, from the above, it can be
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 15SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
said that intention of the accused is an important condition for instigation.
38.Therefore, the prosecution must prove that the deceased must commit suicide, the accused had instigated the said suicide and that the accused had the intention. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons had beat the deceased due to which the deceased felt insulted and committed suicide by consuming poison.
From the contents of the charge sheet, it can be seen that the accused persons beat the deceased on 02.07.2018 at 08:30 AM and the accused committed suicide on the same day at 10:30 hours. This shows that after the alleged altercation had taken place, the deceased immediately consumed poison and died within a period of 2 hours.
39.From the contents of the charge sheet, it can be seen that there are disputes between the accused persons and the family of the deceased with regard to pathway. In the case at hand, except for
PW.1 to PW.4, none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Let us now carefully examine the evidence of each of these witnesses. From the charge sheet, it can be seen that at the time of the altercation, the accused persons beat PW.2 and the deceased. As such from the contents of the charge sheet and from the contents of the complaint, except for PW.2 and the deceased, none were present at the scene at the time of the altercation.
40.A careful perusal of the testimony of PW.2 shows that on the fateful day, all the accused persons came to the house of PW.2 and beat him and the deceased. It can be further seen that the accused persons had beat the deceased with a bucket. However the investigation officer had not seized the said bucket from the scene
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 16SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
which was used to beat the deceased. Further the contents of the complaint reveal that the accused persons had beat the deceased and PW.2. However, there is no mention as to the weapon which was used to beat the deceased and PW.2.
41.It is interesting to note that the testimony of PW.4 shows that the accused persons had beaten the deceased indiscriminately due to which blood oozed out of the ears of the deceased. However, the testimony of PW.15 who is the doctor who had conducted PME over the body of the deceased, does not mention about any external injuries on the body of the deceased. Further the testimony of PW.15 clearly reflects that no external injuries were found. As such the injury caused to the deceased which resulted in the oozing of the blood from the ear of the deceased is doubtful.
42.PW.2 who is the husband of the deceased in his evidence had stated that immediately after the incident, the deceased consumed poison. The testimony of PW.1 also reflects that the deceased had consumed poison due to the beating and abuse which she had faced at the hands of the accused.
43.It is the contention of the accused persons that the witnesses who have deposed that the accused persons beat the deceased are all closely related to the accused persons. In Mohd. Rojali Ali Vs.
State of Assam AIR 2019 SC 1128, it was held that as regards the contention that all the eye witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well settled that a related witness cannot be said to be an interested witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. This court has elucidated the difference between
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 17SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
interested and related witnesses in a plethora of cases stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the results of a litigation which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enemy or other reasons and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused.
44.In the case at hand, there is nothing on record to show that there were previous disputes between the accused persons and the deceased. Further the same is denied by PW.2 who is the husband of the deceased. The cross examination of PW.2 clearly shows that as on the date of the said incident, there were no civil disputes with the accused persons. From the evidence on record, it can be seen that
A1 and A2 are the brothers of PW.2 and brothers-in law of the deceased.
45.In Ude Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301, it was held that, if the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual facts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap shot of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways and impact of ones action on the mind of another
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 18SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons and so far a particular persons reaction to any other human’s action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same.
46.Therefore, from the above, it can be seen that to attract the ingredients of abetment, the acts of the accused must continue until the deceased was provoked to commit suicide. A mere act of the accused in anger or fit of rage cannot amount to abetment. In the case at hand, it can be seen that the accused persons had beat the deceased and that the deceased had felt insulted due to which the deceased had committed suicide.
47.From the cross examination of PW.2, it can be seen that PW.2 had denied any previous disputes with the accused persons. Except for the pathway dispute, there are no other disputes between the accused persons and the deceased.
48.In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, it was held that, The court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstance individual in a given society to commit suicide the conscience of the
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 19SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
49.In Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (2009) 16 SCC 605, it was held that, there should be intention to provoke insight or encourage the doing of an act by the latter each person’s suicidality pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight jacket formula in dealing with such cases each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
50.In Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others Vs. State of Gujarat 2024 INSC 960, it was held that, for a conviction under section 306 of IPC it is a well established legal principle that the presence of clear a mens rea - the intention to abide the act - is essential. Mere harassment by itself is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his or her own life. The element of mens rea
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 20SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
cannot simply be presumed or inferred, it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.
51.Therefore, from the above, it can be seen that a positive act of instigation is a crucial element of abetment. In Ramesh Kumar Vs.
State of Chattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, it was held that, instigation is to Goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
52.In the case at hand, it can be seen that except for the altercation between the accused persons and the deceased and
PW.2, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused persons have instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
53.A careful perusal of the testimony of PW.3 shows that PW.3 had stated that the accused persons had stated to the deceased that
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 21SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
only if she died, the matter would be settled. It is to be understood that except for this single statement, there is no evidence on record to show that
54.It has been held several times by the apex court in several of its judgments that in order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide the two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other so as to form a nexus or a chain with the act of suicide by the deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person. In Mohit Singhal and Anr Vs. State of
Uttarakand and Ors (2024) 1 SCC 417, it was held that the Act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which the person has no choice but to commit suicide.
55.In the case at hand, it can be seen that the accused had beaten the deceased. Further the cross examination of PW.1, PW.4,
PW.9 and PW.11 also reflects that there are no previous disputes between the accused persons and the deceased. Further there is a time gap of one and a half days between the physical assault and the commission of suicide by the deceased. The act of the accused persons can be said to done in a fit of rage or anger and cannot be given a colour of instigation, inciting the deceased to commit suicide. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused persons by their acts, pushed the deceased into such a position that he was left with no other option but to commit suicide.
56.As such, from the above discussion, it can be held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused persons have by
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 22SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
their acts, instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is a settled principle of law that the instigation must be continuous and a single act or word made in a fit of anger cannot constitute instigation.
There must be a continued course of conduct on the part of the accused persons, which must have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide.
In such instance instigation may be inferred.
57.As such in the case at hand, the prosecution had failed to prove mens rea on the part of the accused persons and further, there is no evidence on record as to which of the accused persons have instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
58.It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused persons have beat the deceased and PW.2 and thereby committed an offence under section 323 IPC. Section 323 IPC lays down punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. The said provision reads as follows: “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both”.
Therefore, from the above, it can be seen that, the following are the essential ingredients of section 323 IPC is that: (1) a person must voluntarily case hurt, (2) the act must cause bodily pain, disease or infirmity.
59.Section 319 IPC defines hurt. Hurt includes bodily pain, infirmity or disease. In the case at hand, it is the contention of the prosecution that the accused persons have beat PW.2 and the
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 23SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
deceased. The contents of the charge sheet reflect that the accused persons picked up quarrel and beat the deceased and PW.2. There is no mention as to the body part on which the deceased was beaten.
However, the testimony of PW.4 shows that the deceased was beaten by the accused persons indiscriminately and that blood oozed out of her ears. However, the PME report issued by PW.15, does not mention about any external injuries on the body of the deceased. As such the evidence of PW.4, with regard to the injury caused to the deceased cannot be believed in toto.
60.Further from the testimony of PW.2, who is the husband of the deceased, it can be seen that the accused persons beat the deceased with a bucket. However, there is no mention as to which of the accused had beaten the deceased with the bucket. Further the investigating officer had not seized the bucket which was used in beating the deceased. As such the version of PW.2 with regard to the beating of the deceased by the accused persons cannot be considered without a pinch of salt.
61.From the testimony of PW.3, it can be seen that the said incident had occurred infront of the house of the deceased. The rough sketch of scene of offence also shows that the scene of offence is in front of the house of the deceased. It can be further seen that the time at which the said incident occurred is around 08:30 AM. However, the investigating officer had not examined any of the neighbours who had witnessed the said altercation between the accused persons and the deceased and PW.2.
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 24SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
62.It can be further seen from the charge sheet that the accused persons had beaten PW.2 in addition to the deceased. The testimonies of PW.1 to PW.4 also reflect the same. However, PW.2 was not referred to the hospital by the investigating officer with regard to the injuries sustained by him. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused persons had beaten PW.2.
63.As such the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused persons had beaten PW.2 and the deceased and that PW.2 and the deceased have suffered bodily pain or infirmity due to the act of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
64.It is further the contention of the prosecution that the accused persons have insulted PW.2 and the deceased. Section 504 IPC lays down punishment for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. The said pri=ovision reads as follows: “whoever intentionally insults and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both”.
65.Therefore, from the above, the following can be said to be the ingredients of section 504: (1) the accused has insulted the other person intentionally, (2) the intention of the person should be such that it is likely to provoke the person who has been insulted, (3) the accused has the knowledge that such provocation would cause the person to break the public peace or under the influence of which he can commit some other offence.
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 25SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
66.The most important ingredient of the said provision is that there must be insult. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons have abused the deceased and PW.2 in filthy language. However, there is no mention as to the words which have been used by the accused persons due to which PW.2 had felt insulted.
67.There is no mention of any specific words which have been used by the accused persons either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. The testimonies of PW.1 to PW.4 doe not mention the specific words which were used by the accused persons towards PW.2 and the deceased. As such the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused persons have abused PW.2 thereby causing insult to him.
Further none of the independent witnesses who were present at the scene at the time of the said incident were examined by the investigating officer.
68.There is a mention that panchayats were held and that PW.9 and PW.10 have attended the said panchayats as elders. However the testimony of PW.9 and PW.10 shows that they have stated that they do not know anything about the case at hand.
69.In view of the above discussion and in view of the evidence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused persons for the offence under section 306, 323, 504
IPC.
70.In the result, the accused persons are found not guilty for the offence under section 306, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, the accused persons are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the offence under section 306, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC. Bail bonds of the
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 26SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C.
(Typed by me on my personal laptop and after corrections pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 02ND day of April, 2026. )
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAHABUBABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR Prosecution : For Defence: - Nil-
PW1/LW1 : Bhukya Kausalya PW2/LW2 : Banoth Dasru PW3/LW3 : Maloth Balu PW4/LW4 : B. Puriya PW5/LW10 : Vankudoth Sushila PW6/LW6 : Munavath Sharadha PW7/LW9 : N. Srinivas PW8/LW5 : B. Gudi PW9/LW7 : B. Eerya PW10/LW8 : G. Narniya PW11/LW11 : V. Jyothi PW12/LW12 : B. Bheemudu PW13/LW13 : J. Eerya PW14/LW14 : B. Ravi PW15/LW15 : Dr.B.Vireen PW16/LW17 : B. Bichya Naik PW17/LW16 : B. Venkateshwarlu PW18/LW18 : Sk. Yaseen
EXHIBITS MARKED::
For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is Report Ex.P2 is 3 photographs along with CD Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.c statement of LW5. Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.c statement of LW7. Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.P.c statement of LW8. Ex.P6 is signature of LW11 on inquest panchanama.
Assistant Sessions Judge,Mahabubabad. 27SC.No.268 of 2022
Dt: 02-04-2026.
Ex.P7 is inquest panchanama Ex.P8 is signature of LW13 on CDF. Ex.P9 is signature of LW14 on CDF. Ex.P10 is PME report. Ex.P11 is RFSL report. Ex.P12 is final report, dt.07.02.2019. Ex.P13 is FIR.
For Defence: Nil
Material Objects Marked
For Prosecution: Nil
For Defence: Nil
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
MAHABUBABAD