1
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT
SURYAPET.
(Dated this 2 nd day of August, 2019)
Present: Smt. V.Sharada Devi,
Assistant Sessions Judge.
SESSIONS CASE No.38 of 2017
1.Name of the Complainant:
The State of A.P. through Sub- Inspector of Police, Noothankal..
2.Name of the accused:
1. Palwai Rajashekar, S/o Ramanarsaiah, age: 25 years, Occ: Painting work, R/o Venkepally vilalge of Noothankal Mandal.
2. Palwai Venkanna, S/o Mallaiah: 25 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Venkepally vilalge of Noothankal Mandal.
3. Palwai Jayamma, W/o Venkanna: 35 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Venkepally vilalge of Noothankal Mandal.
4. Palwai Buchiramulu, S/o Mallaiah: 28 years, Occ: Coolie., R/o Venkepally vilalge of Noothankal Mandal.
5. Palwai Lachaiah @ katte latchaiah, S/o Guruvaiah, age: 65 years, Occ: Coolie., R/o Venkepally vilalge of Noothankal Mandal.
6. Mathangi Ramulu, S/o Mallaiah, aeg: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture., R/o Venkepally vilalge of Noothankal Mandal.
7. Mathangi Gowardhan, S/o Mallaiah, age: 29 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Venkepally vilalge of Noothankal Mandal.
8. Mathangi Janakamma @ Swathi, D/o Mallaiah, age: 25 years, Occ: Private school teacher at Kida grammar school, R/o Venkepally vilalge of Noothankal Mandal.
9. Palwai Saidulu, S/o Venkaiah, age: 56 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Mathangi Gowardhan, S/o Mallaiah, age: 29 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Venkepally vilalge of Noothankal Mandal.
3.Offence charged: under Section 306 of IPC
against
Accused Nos.1 to 9
4.Plea of the accused: Not guilty 5.Finding of the court: Found not guilty 2 6.Sentence: In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 9 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of
I.P.C., and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said of- fence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the ac- cused shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months from this day as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 violet colour saree shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Prosecution conducted by: G.Venkateshwarlu, Addl.P.P
Accused defended by: Sri Y.Venkata Bucheshwar Rao, Advocate for accused Nos.1 to 9.
This case is coming up before me for final hearing on dt.19.07.2019 in the presence of Learned Addl.P.P for State and of Sri. Y.Venkata Bucheshwar Rao, counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 9, and upon hearing arguments of both sides and on perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGEMENT
1.The station House Officer, Noothankal P.S has filed charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 9 in Cr.No.25/2016 for the offence U/Sec.306 of IPC.
2.The facts of the prosecution case in brief are :
L.w.1 P.Srinivas is the younger brother of the deceased
P.Amrutha. The deceased studied upto 10th class in ZPHS
Venkepally village and she has completed her intermediate from Triveni college, Suryapet. Thereafter she was studying
B.Sc second year in Sai Triveni College Suryapet and she got 3
TTC seat in Mother Teresa College of Palwancha, Khammam
District and the same was completed in the year 2013. In the year 2014, she wrote TET exam and started staying in her parent’s house at Venkepally village and was preparing for competitive exams. Accused No.1 is classmate of the de- ceased, in 10th class. Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 9 are the neigh- bours to the house of the deceased. The parents of the de- ceased are having agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts situated at outskirts of Venkepally village. Accused
Nos.1,2 and 4 are having agricultural lands towards Western side of land of the parents of the deceased. For the past five years, there are land disputes in between them in this regard
Accused Nos.1,2 and 4 abused deceased and her family members in most filthy language due to which the family members of the deceased banned agricultural work for two years. Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 9 quarreled with the deceased and her family relating to house border dispute and for the last one year, Accused Nos.1 to 9 quarreledand started mak- ing allegations that L.w.2-P.Mallamma is practicing sorcery and thereby made propaganda in the village and insulted the family of the deceased. They have also made allegations that the deceased is not capable of conceiving and they have abused her in filthy language with those allegations.
Accused No.1 frequently used to go to the house of the de- ceased when she was alone and was asking her that, he would marry her and thereby demanded her to fulfill his sex- 4 ual desire. Accused Nos.1 to 9 instigated the deceased to commit suicide. As such the deceased who got disgusted over her life committed suicide. Basing on the complaint given by L.w.1-P.Srinivas a case in Cr.No.25/2016 was regis- tered L.w.12 (G.Prabhakar) ASI for the offence under section 306 of IPC. During the course of investigation he had visited the house of the deceased at Venkepally observed the scene, took photographs of the same and later the sent the dead body for Postmortem Examination. He had also exam- ined L.ws.2 to 5 (P.Mallamma, P.Chinna Muthaiah, P.vijay and
K.Rajya Laxmi) and recorded their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements.
By securing L.ws.8 and 9 (P.Sujatha and T.Saidulu) as panch witnesses he had held inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased and later sent dead body to Post- mortem Examination. L.w.11 (Dr.Ezhil Arasi) had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He had col- lected relevant material i.e., saree, one note book containing 44 pages in which the deceased wrote about the harassment of the accused and another note containing 29 pages in which she wrote regarding the harassment made by the ac- cused and also one sample writing note book of the de- ceased, to compare her writings from the scene of offence and signed labels. The same were seized by him and he has also examined L.ws.6 and 7 (K.Venkanna and M.Kumara
Swamy) and recorded their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements.
L.w.13 (B.Abilash) Sub Inspector of police who collected 5 seized documents had sent them to FSL for examination. The uterus of the deceased was sent to Pathology Department.
On 31.03.2016 at 0810 hours, the Sub Inspector of Police along with his staff and WHG Nno.963 proceeded to
Venkepally village and apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 9. On enquiry they admitted their guilt as such accused were ar- rested and sent to the court for Judicial remand. He also col- lected the FSL report which opined that the enclosed writings which are marked as S1 to S20 are similar to red enclosed writings marked as Q1 to Q29.
3.L.w.11 (Dr.Ezhil Arasi) has furnished his report, opining that basing on the FSL of Hyoid bone and uterus, the cause of death as “Asphyxia, as a result of hanging.” On comple- tion of investigation, the Sub Inspector of police has filed the charge sheet against the accused nos.1 to 9 for the above said offence. Hence, the charge.
4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Thungathurthy took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 306 of Indian Penal Code against Accused
Nos.1 to 9 and by registering the case as PRC No.04 of 2017 and after following due procedure, by furnishing copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Nalgonda District under
Section 209 (a) of Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Court of Sessions having numbered the same as S.C.No.38 of 2017 made over 6 the same to this Court for trial and disposal in accordance with the law
5.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 9 before this court, charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code against
Accused Nos.1 to 9 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu as contemplated U/s. 228 (2) Cr.P.C. For which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.
6.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P15 and M.O.1 is marked.
7. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused
Nos.1 to 9 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by ex- plaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. For which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Ex.D1 marked during the cross examination of P.w.2
8.Heard arguments of both sides.
9.Learned APP contended that as per the evidence of
P.ws.1 to 3 the deceased died on 16.03.2016 by committing suicide and it is Accused No.1 who harassed the deceased to love him and to marry him and also asked her to kiss him.
Accused Nos.1 to 9 abused P.w.1 by alleging that she is in the habit of doing sorcery and thereby Accused Nos.2 and 3 did not beget children. The accused had also harassed the deceased by alleging that she is not having uterusand she is not capable of conceiving. Exs.P3 and P4 are the note books 7 containing the handwritings of the deceased and Ex.P2 is the writings of the deceased on white papers. It is contended by learned APP that the hand writings in Exs.P2 and P3 clearly reveals about the harassment made by the accused towards the deceased. It is further contended by him that though the alleged panch witnesses for the inquest panchanama and scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama turned hostile, the evidence of P.w.8 reveals that he has conducted inquest panchanama as in Ex.P14, in the presence of Pws.5 and 6 and the signatures of P.ws.5 and 6 on inquest panchanama were marked as Exs.P6 and P9 respectively.Itisalso contended by him that the evidence of P.w.7 clearly establishes the fact that the deceased died due to “Asphyxia” as a result of hanging. It is also contended by him that the evidence of P.w.9 who is the Scientific Officer clearly reveals that the questioned writings and standard writings are one and the same. Hence, by considering the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3 with that of Exs.P1 to P4, he prayed the court to convict the accused.
10.In support of his contentions the learned APP relied upon decision in Criminal Appeal No.775/2017 (Pawan
Kumar v/s State of Himachal Pradesh). In which “the
Lordship of our Hon’ble Apex court observed that Section 306 of Indian Penal Code seeks to punish those who abet the commission of suicide of others. Whether the person has abetted the commission of suicide of another or not is to be 8 gathered from facts and circumstances of each case and to be found out by continuous conduct of the accused, involving his mental element. Such requirement can be perceived from the reading of Sec.107 of Indian Penal Code.
“Abetment” means certain amount of active suggestion or support to do the act.”
11.It is contended by learned APP that Accused had created the situation that the deceased felt totally frustrated in this case and thereby committed suicide. He also relied upon another decision reported in 2018 (3 ALT) Crl. 63
(SC) ( Menoka Malik and others v/s state of West
Bengal and others ) in which the lordships of our Hon’ble
Hon’ble Apex Court held that “It is well settled preposition of
law that testimony of the witness cannot be discarded in toto merely, due to the presence of embellishments or exaggerations. It is not uncommon for the witnesses to make exaggerations during the course of evidence and by considering the same the entire prosecution case should not be doubted.”
12.The learned defence counsel on the other contended that there is no direct evidence on record regarding the alleged propaganda or the alleged harassment said to have been made by the accused towards the deceased. It is further contended by him that P.ws.1 to 3 are hear say witnesses who came to know about the alleged harassment 9 by Accused No.1 towards the deceased and the deceased during life time did not make any complaint to the police. It further contended by him that no incident took place immediately before the death of the deceased, because even according to P.w.1 the alleged harassments of the accused took place prior to six months from the date of incident. Whereas according to P.w.1, it is before one month and coming to P.w.3, it is one year from the date of incident.
It is further contended by him that the panch witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and except the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3, there is no evidence of other prosecution witnesses to prove the alleged harassment of the accused. It is further contended by him that police had not examined any of the neighbouring residents to the house of the accused to prove the alleged harassment of the accused towards the deceased. It is further contended by him that mere abuses does not satisfy the requirements of Sec.306 of
IPC and as per the Sec.107 IPC, ‘abetment’ coupled with aiding is an offence under section 306 of IPC. He further contended that there is one day delay in lodging the complaint and even though P.w.3 and L.ws.5 and 6 (K.Rajya laxmi and S.Venkanna) came to Suryapet on the alleged date of incident at 4.00 PM, no complaint was lodged by P.w.1 on the day but on the next day at 8.00 AM, P.w.1 lodged the complaint with the police as such the attitude of family 10 members of the deceased creates doubt regarding the alleged incident.
13.It is further contended by him that except the evidence of P.w.1, there is no evidence of any other independent witnesses to state that the deceased committed suicide by hanging and they have witnessed the same. He further contended that the Investigating Officer did not make any attempts to get authenticity of the records seized as such there is a doubt with regard to the handwritings contained in
Exs.P2 to P4 to establish whether those writings belongs to the deceased or not. It is further contended by him that there is no corroboration in the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3, regarding the person who have handed over Exs.P2 to P4 to the police and the prosecution case do not reveal as to how long ago Exs.P2 to P4, were written by the deceased. It is further contended by him that as per the questioned writings
No.39 and 40, it is evident that the deceased in the habit of the telling lies and as per the questioned writings No.4, 20 and 30, the deceased expressed that she hates others and also her intention to kill them. It is further contended by him that the hyoid bone of the deceased was not examined in the present case as such the same is fatal to the case of prosecution. It is also contended by him that during the cross examination of P.w.2, Ex.D1 was marked as per which the deceased is having suicidal tendency and thereby she has committed suicide out of her mental illness, but not due to 11 the alleged harassment of accused herein. Thus it is contended by him that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence prayed to acquit the accused.
14.In support of his contentions, he had also relied upon the decisions reported in 2000 (1) ALT Crl. 171 A.P
(V.Adinarayana and another v/s state of Andhra
Pradesh) in which the lordship of our Hon’ble High Court held that “the conviction of appellants under section 306 of
IPC merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased is not sustainable and thereby they deserves to be acquitted of the charge.” He also relied upon another decision reported in 2002 (2) ALT Crl.186 A.P (Neelam @ Bondila
Lachaiah and another v/s State of A.P through
Station House Officer of P.S Dharmaram, Karimnagar
District in which the lordship of our Hon’ble High Court held that “The deceased though died due to the humiliation given by the accused persons, the allegation alone is not sufficient to hold that the petitioners have abetted the deceased to commit suicide which is punishable under section 306 of
IPC.” In another decision reported in 2012 Crl.Law Journal 658 (Assoo v/s State of Madhya Pradesh), the lordships of our Hon’ble Apex Court held that “Every quarrel between husband and wife resulting in a suicide cannot be taken as an abetment by the husband and standard of reasonable and practical woman as compared to headstrong and over 12 sensitive, has to be applied.” In another decision reported in
2010 Crl.Law Journal 2110 (Gangula Mohan Reddy v/s
state of Andhra Pradesh). The lordships of our Hon’ble
Apex Court held that “The deceased undoubtedly is hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day to day life. Human sensitive of each individual differs from the other and different people behave differently in the same situation.
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.” Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.
15.Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt
of Accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offence punishable
under section 306 of IPC?
16.Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of record i.e., evidence of P.ws.1 to 10 coupled with Exs.P1 to P15 and
Ex.D1, is seen that the defacto-complainant who is the younger brother of the deceased namely P.Srinivas was examined as P.w.1 in the present case. The mother of the deceased P.Mallamma was examined as P.w.2 and the elder brother of the deceased viz., P.Vijay was examined as P.w.3.
The evidence of P.w.1 reveals that the deceased Amrutha who is his elder sister who is an educated lady, got qualified 13 in teacher training course at Palwancha i.e., in Mother Teresa
College. According to him, during the temporary absence of their family members when the deceased was present in their house alone, then Accused No.1 who was her classmate in 10th class by calling the deceased as “Akka” (elder sister) disclosed that he loves her and wants to kiss her. He further deposed that Accused No.1 told the deceased that he wants to test whether she is a lady or not and further stated that he would check, whether she is having uterus or not. The said news got spread in the village and later accused Nos.1 to 9 started harassing the deceased in the village on several occasions by alleging that she is not having uterusand thereby she felt insult and humiliated and informed the same to P.w.1.
17.P.w.1 further deposed that there are land disputes in between them and the accused for the last five years, as such they have stopped doing agriculture work for two years.
During his absence, Accused Nos.1 to 9 used to harass his mother i.e., P.w.2 by stating that she is in the habit of practicing sorcery, as such Accused Nos.2 and 3 were not blessed with children. According to P.w.1, Accused Nos.1 to 9 have also abused the deceased and commented that she is incapable of giving birth to children and she cannot go for marriage. According to him, the deceased and her mother i.e., P.w.2 informed him about the harassment made by the accused towards them. Even during his cross examination, 14 he deposed that in his presence, Accused Nos.1 to 9 never harassed the deceased or his mother i.e., P.w.2 but he has informed by them about the alleged harassment made by the accused. His evidence further reveals that the deceased was aged 24 years by the time of her death and he further admitted that as per the writings of the deceased in Ex.P3 at
Q11 and Q12, her mentality reveals that she is having anger and grudge over the behavior of villagers, their family members and relatives including their senior paternal uncle.
He further admitted that as per Ex.P3, Q39 and Q40, it was mentioned by the deceased that her mental condition was not good. He further admitted that the deceased took treatment for her mental illness, even as per her own handwritings and as per Q30, the deceased mentioned that she intended to commit suicide earlier on two occasions and her suicidal tendency continued even as on the date of her writings.
18.He further admitted that as per the writings of the deceased in Ex.P3, she has expressed her intention to kill the persons who disputed with her by stabbing and hacking them. P.w.1 further deposed in his cross examination that they have not lodged any police complaint prior to this case even though the accused harassed the deceased and his mother for the last five years. He further admitted that as per the writings of the deceased as per Q34, P.w.1 is not in the habit of listening to the words of the deceased and he 15 used to move closely with the accused as such the deceased stopped telling him about her grievances. Thus it is apparent from the evidence of P.w.1 that he is not only a hear say witness to the alleged harassment of the accused and he is also in habit of moving closely with the accused. Hence, his evidence cannot be given much credence.
19.It is one of the contentions of the defence counsel that
Ex.P2 are loose papers, which were torn from the note book as such they are not admissible in evidence. Even at the time of marking of Ex.P2, he objected for marking them as they are loose papers. P.w.1 in his cross examination admitted that Ex.P2 which are the loose papers were torn from the note book. The prosecution failed to explain as to why they could not produce the full note book from which the alleged loose papers as in Ex.P2, were extracted. P.w.1 further admitted that even in Exs.P3 and P4 (note books), some pages were torn but he denied the suggestion that as some of the pages contains the hand writings of deceased against them, as such they were torn. P.w.1 in his cross examination clearly admitted that the land disputes are existing in between them and the accused prior to five years from the date of incident herein and the alleged harassment of Accused no.1 towards the deceased took place prior to six months from the date of incident. Thus it can be seen, from his evidence that immediately prior to the date of alleged incident i.e., committing of suicide by the deceased on 16 16.03.2016, no harassment was made by the accused towards the deceased. If really the accused had harassed the deceased and made bad propaganda against her in the village, then definitely P.w’s.1 and 2 or at least the deceased would have lodged police complaint against the accused.
Even according to P.w.1, he is not an eyewitness to any of the alleged incidents which were mentioned in Exs.P2 to P4.
In such case his evidence is not much helpful to the case of prosecution.
20.Coming to the evidence of P.w.2, she has deposed that
Accused Nos.1 to 9 are their neighbours and about five years back, the accused made allegations against her by stating that she is in the habit of doing sorcery and thereby Accused
No.3 was not blessed with children. She further deposed that
Accused Nos.1 to 9 degraded her image in the public and defamed her. About two or three years back, when the deceased Amrutha was present alone then Accused No.1 went to her and commented that she is not having uterus and thereby stated to her that he wants to test her and further asked her to co-habit with him. She further deposed that Accused No.1 asked the deceased to marry him or to die and thereby abused her by stating that why she was alive.
But the alleged act of Accused No.1 demanding the deceased to marry him was not deposed by P.w.1 before this court. According to P.w.2 the deceased had complained about the alleged act of Accused No.1 towards her to P.w.1, 17 as such P.w.1 questioned Accused No.1 about his abuse and comments towards the deceased. To which Accused No.1 admitted that he had made those comments and further told
P.w.1 to do whatever he likes. Whereas the evidence of P.w.1 do not reveal that he has questioned Accused No.1 about his alleged acts and comments towards the deceased at that time. The evidence of P.w.2 reveals that after four days from the date of the alleged abuse and comments made by
Accused No.1, the deceased informed her about the same to her. Then P.w.2 told the deceased that, as the matter relates to their prestige in the society they would not discuss with others and they would talk to accused No.1, directly.
21.Coming to her cross examination, P.w.2 admitted that she has no knowledge relating to the visit of Accused No.1 to their house and regarding his alleged comments towards the deceased but only through the deceased, she came to know about the same. She further admitted that through the deceased she came to know that the deceased had informed
P.w.1 about the alleged acts of the Accused No.1 towards her.
P.w.2 further deposed that, the alleged visit of Accused No.1 to their house and making comments took place within one month from the date of death of the deceased herein.
Whereas P.w.1 deposed that the alleged harassment of
Accused No.1 took place prior to six months from the date of incident. The evidence of Pw.2 reveals that about five years back, the accused made allegations against her stating that 18 she is practicing sorcery but she has not given any police complaint against the accused for the alleged acts of the accused, towards her and the deceased.
22.The evidence of P.w.3 reveals that Accused No.1 harassed the deceased to love him and marry him and also asked her to kiss him and the same was informed by the deceased to P.ws.1 and 2. His evidence further reveals that through P.ws.1 and 2, he came to know about alleged harassment of accused towards the deceased. According to
P.w.3 at the time of the death of the deceased, he was working as security guard in Hyderabad and on the date of incident, L.w.6 (K.Venkanna) made phone call to him and informed about the death of the deceased. He further deposed that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to ceiling fan. During his cross examination, P.w.3 deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the harassment made by the accused towards the deceased and as well towards his mother. He came to know about the alleged harassment from P.ws.1 and 2. This itself clearly shows that P.w.3 is only a hearsay witness whose evidence is not much helpful to the case of prosecution.
23.According to P.w.1 the alleged harassment of the accused towards the deceased and his mother, took place one year prior to the death of the deceased and at that time they did not give any police complaint. The evidence of
P.ws1 to 3 are contradictory to each other regarding the 19 exact period of alleged harassment of the accused towards the deceased and also towards P.w.2. On perusal of Exs.P2 to
P4 i.e., alleged handwritings of the deceased in many pages it was mentioned that due to the acts of Accused Nos.1 to 9 towards her and as well as P.w.2, she has suffered mental illness and also approached the doctors for treatment and also took medicines. It is one of the contentions of the defence counsel that the alleged handwritings in EXs.P2 to
P4 do not belongs to the deceased, as such they cannot be taken into consideration. But to rebut the same, the prosecution has examined the Scientific officer (N.Krishna
Prasad) as P.w.9 whose evidence reveals that he is a trained officer to examine the documents sent to Telangana state
Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. From his evidence, it is apparent that he is having expertise in dealing with comparison of the documents as per his qualifications and also as per the training undergone by him. According to
P.w.9, their office has received three sealed covers from
SDPO, Suryapet on 23.04.2016 and they have marked them as M.Os.1 and 2 containing questioned writings i.e., Q1 to
Q29 and Q1 to Q44 and in M.O.3 standard writings were marked as S1 to S20. His evidence reveals that he has carefully examined all the documents with sophisticated instruments and opined that the questioned writings i.e., Q1 to Q29 and Q1 to Q44 are similar with the standard writings 20 i.e., S1 to S20. Ex.P15 is the Forensic Science Laboratory report, issued by him.
24.During the cross examination of P.w.9 though he admitted that in Ex.P15, under the nature of examination it was mentioned as “examination of signatures and not of handwritings,” on perusal of the entire contents of Ex.P15 it is evident that P.w.9 herein had compared the letters in
Telugu such as “Ne, AA, EE, Deergam, Maavathu, Vaavathu,
Naavathu.” This itself reveals that P.w.9 has examined the handwritings contained in Exs.P2 to P4 and thereby submitted his opinion. Moreover Exs.P2 to P4 do not contain the signatures of the deceased (Amrutha) except the handwritings which were written in many pages. P.w.9 deposed that he cannot say about the exact duration of questioned writings to that of standard writings sent to him.
The prosecution case do not reveal the period at which the deceased has written Ex.P2 (handwritings). In Ex.P3, it was mentioned as 17.06.2014 i.e., prior to three years from the date of the registration of the present case. Ex.P4 note book do not contain any date or year in which they were written.
P.w.8 (Investigating Officer) deposed that he has not collected any other documents in order to ascertain that the handwritings contained in the books seized by him belongs to the deceased Amrutha or not. He further admitted that some of the papers in those note books were torn. One of the contentions of the defence counsel that the handwritings 21 contained in Exs.P2 to P4, do not belongs to the deceased are quite unsustainable, because Ex.P4 contains the name of the deceased mentioned on it and moreover the evidence of
P.w.9 clearly reveals that handwritings contained in Ex.P4 tallies with the signatures contained in EXs.P2 and P3.
25.On perusal of Ex.P4, it is seen that it is the notebook of the deceased in which she has written about Telugu grammar and probably it might be her class notes. But Ex.P2 do not reveal the year in which she has written the same.
P.w.8 in his cross examination admitted that the deceased has written in her note books that she is suffering from mental illness, as such many times she has attempted to commit suicide and also mentioned about her treatment with (Dr.Prabhakar,Dr.Surender,Dr.VijayMohanand
Dr.Vijayalaxmi). He further deposed that he has not examined the above doctors in order to know about the mental illness of the deceased prior to her death. He further admitted that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged harassment said to have been made by the accused against
P.w.2 and as well as the deceased Amrutha. He further admitted that as per his investigation, the deceased committed suicide as she got vexed with her life. However he has further deposed that on account of the harassment made by the accused, the deceased got vexed with her life and committed suicide.
22
26.Undoubtedly it is evident from the record that P.w’s.1 to 3 herein are not the eyewitness to the alleged harassment said to have been made by the Accused No.1 towards the deceased. From their evidence it can be seen that they are only hearsay witness to the alleged harassment of Accused
No.1, towards the deceased. The evidence of P.w.2 clearly reveals that even though the accused made allegations against her that she is in the habit of sorcery, she did not lodge any police compliant against the accused till now.
Hence, the prosecution merely relied upon the handwritings contained in Exs.P2 to P4 to bring home the guilt of the accused. But in order to arrive at the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 306 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove not only the fact that the deceased committed suicide but it is on account of the direct involvement by the accused in “abetment” or “instigation” which is the necessary ingredient. In the present case there is no dispute regarding the death of the deceased. It is one of the contentions of the defence counsel that the deceased has not committed suicide but it is P.w.1 who has beat her on the ground that she was moving closely with one G.Rajashekar and on that the deceased committed suicide. Though it is contended by him that except P.w.1, no one has witnessed the hanging of dead body of the deceased to the ceiling fan in the house of
P.w.1, even from his suggestions made to P.w’s.1 to 3 it can be seen that the deceased committed suicide. Even though 23
Ex.P2 (writings) refer about one G.Rajashekar, they do not reveal that the deceased is having love affair with him.
Hence, contention of the defence counsel that the deceased is having love affair with G.Rajashekar, is quite unsustainable.
27.The evidence of P.w.7 who is Medical Officer clearly reveals that on 17.03.2016 at 1.00 PM, he has conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased (Amrutha) and opined the cause of death of the deceased as ‘Asyphixia’ as a result of hanging. Ex.P10 is the PME report and Ex.P11 is the Histopathalogical report. During his cross examination,
P.w.7 admitted that in case of strangulation of hanging, it is necessary to conduct flap dissection of neck in order to know the exact cause of death. He further admitted that he has not mentioned in his report about conducting of slap dissection over the dead body of the deceased. He further deposed that though he has conducted the slap dissection he has not specifically mentioned the same in his report. As per Ex.P10, at column-B in Sl.No.5, it was mentioned that careful slap dissection of the neck should be made always, and the neck structures should be carefully examined to investigate the possibility of death due to the strangulation, hanging etc. But P.w.7 failed to mention during his examination about slap dissection of the neck, which is fatal to the case of prosecution. However in Ex.P10 no other reasons are submitted, showing the cause of death of the 24 deceased, such as consuming of poison stab injuries etc., resulting in the death of the deceased. In such case it can be presumed that basing on the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3 coupled with the evidence of P.w.7, P.w.8 and P.w.10, the deceased died due to hanging.
28.According to P.w.8, on 17.03.2016 at 8.00 AM, P.w.1 came to the police station and presented Ex.P1. Basing on it he registered the case as in Ex.P12. On the same day at 10.00 AM, he proceeded to the scene of offence and observed the scene and in the presence of P.ws.5 and 6 as panch witnesses and prepared scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama as in Ex.P13. P.w’s.5 and 6 who were said to be the panch witnesses did not support the case of prosecution, as such their signatures on the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama were marked as Exs.P7 and P8 respectively.
From the evidence of P.w.8, it is evident that they have also seized M.O.1 which is violet colour saree from the scene of offence. As per the contents of Ex.P13 it is seen that by the time of visit of P.w.8 to the scene, the dead body was shifted to the floor from the ceiling in the room and they have found the foot prints of right foot of the deceased in the dust appearing on the T.V and thereby they have inferred that the deceased died due to hanging. Even otherwise, as per
Ex.P10 there are no other causes which resulted in the death of the deceased during the conducting of Postmortem
Examination of the dead body of the deceased. As such it 25 can be held that deceased died only due to hanging herself, to ceiling fan at her house. However the same itself is not sufficient to convict the accused, because the prosecution has got the burden of proving the abetment or instigation, on behalf of the accused nos.1 to 9 herein, resulting in the death of the deceased. The prosecution mainly relied upon writings of the deceased contained in Exs.P2 and P3. No doubt in Exs.P2 and P3, the deceased has written many things including the alleged acts of Accused No.1 against her and also the alleged propaganda made by Accused Nos.1 to 9 in their village. On perusal of the entire contents of Ex.P2 which are loose papers, it can be seen that the deceased has not only mentioned about the agony faced by her but she has also expressed her feelings about the attitude of her family members i.e., P.ws.1 to 3 herein.
29.Exs.P2 and P3 further reveals that Accused Nos.1 to 9 are neighbours to the house of the deceased and there were disputes in between them since long time and on account of the alleged disputes, the deceased developed hatred feelings towards the accused family and her writings further reveals that even though she has disclosed many of the acts of the accused to P.ws.1 and 2, they do not take them seriously as such the deceased has further mentioned in her writings that even her family members have no concern towards her and they are not considering her agony. It is evident from her writings that she is an educated woman but 26 in spite of it she has not lodged any police complaint against the accused and suffered humiliation which shows that the deceased is sensitive in nature and the alleged acts of the accused towards the family of the deceased were taken lightly by P.ws.1 and 2 whereas the deceased started treating, each alleged act of the family of the accused minutely and considered them as great problems and thereby suffered mental agony, without taking proper recourse to find solution to her alleged problems.
30.If really Accused No.1 had behaved in an indecent manner and Accused Nos.1 to 9 made propaganda against the deceased, affecting her dignity then she being an educated woman ought to have lodged police compliant against them, in order to protect her dignity in her village and as well in the society. But without resorting to any legal action, mere writings in the note books regarding the alleged harassment of the accused towards her including the alleged propaganda cannot be considered as a sufficient cause for abetment, without there being, the evidence of independent prosecution witnesses to prove that the accused Nos.1 to 9 had attempted to degrade the dignity of the deceased in the society, resulting in mental agony to her as such she being an unmarried woman, was left with no option except to end her life in order to protect her dignity in the society.
31.Unfortunately the prosecution has not examined any of the independent witnesses in this case to prove that the 27
Accused Nos.1 to 9 made bad propaganda in that village, that the deceased is not having uterus as such she is incapable of giving birth to children and also of the fact that
P.w.2 is practicing sorcery in their village. Even according to the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3, the alleged harassments or propaganda of the accused are not immediately before the death of the deceased herein. According to them, the alleged harassment took place prior to five years from the date of the incident. Even on perusal of Ex.P3, it is seen that the handwritings were written in the year 2014 which is prior to three years from the date of the death of the deceased. Even the evidence of P.w.2 reveals that i.e., in Ex.D1, the deceased is having suicidal tendency. Even it is presumed that the alleged acts of the accused lead to mental agony of the deceased resulting in her death, then the act of P.w’s.1 and 2 and as well as the father of the deceased, in not considering her alleged mental agony as contained in Exs.P2 and P3, are also to be considered equally. Because P.ws.1 and 2 and father of the deceased, being the family members of the deceased, are bound to show the required amount of consideration and also to respect the feelings of the deceased. If P.ws.1 to 3 and father of deceased had taken time to understand her feelings and tried to help her out to get out of her mental agony then definitely the deceased would not have committed suicide.
28
32.From her entire writings in Exs.P2 and P3, it can be seen that she is in the habit of over-thinking and she was living in an illusionary world by imagining every situation in her life, as a big problem and thereby developed grudge towards the accused and as well as her family members i.e., P.w’s1 and 2, her relatives and also of her villagers. No doubt in Ex.P2, the deceased has mentioned the name of the accused Nos.1 to 9 herein by imputing them as bad characters but the same cannot be considered as the ‘instigation’ or ‘abetment’ on behalf of accused, resulting in the death of the deceased.
Because prosecution failed to explain as to why they could not file the entire note book except some loose papers as in
Ex.P2. On perusal of Ex.P2, it is seen that only some of the pages were extracted from the note book Non-production of the entire note book, raises suspicion that the prosecution does not want to place the entire note book containing the hand writings of the deceased and thereby they want to suppress some material facts, which are against the accused. Hence, undoubtedly non production of the entire note book pertaining to Ex.P2 is fatal to the case of prosecution.
33.It is one of the contentions of the defence counsel that the delay of one day lodging of the compliant is fatal to the case of prosecution. But the said contention is unsustainable because the alleged incident took place during morning hours and according to P.w.1 after the arrival of his family 29 members and after discussion with them they have lodged police compliant on the next day i.e., 17.03.2016 at 8.00 AM.
According to P.w.3, he returned to his village at 4.30 PM on that day and by that time P.w.1 was found in possession of the note book of the deceased containing the material relating to harassment of the accused. As per the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3, after the death of the deceased they have verified the note books containing the handwritings of the deceased which disclosed about the harassment of Accused
No.1 and as well as other accused, as such they have handed over the same to the police. According to P.w.8 (Investigation Officer), P.w.1 brought one note book and P.w.2 brought another note book as such he has seized two note books and it is P.ws.1 and 2 who informed him that the handwritings in those two note books belongs to the deceased Amrutha. P.w.8 had moreover admitted that he has not collected any other documents in this case in order to ascertain whether, the handwritings contained in the books belongs to the deceased Amrutha or not. P.w.8 also failed to examine any of the friends of the deceased in that village, to know whether that they can identify the handwritings of the deceased, as in Exs.P2 to P4. As per the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3, even prior to the death of the deceased they are having knowledge about the alleged acts of the Accused No.1 towards the deceased, but they do not choose to give any police complaint or at-least placed the matter before elders 30 but after the lapse of more than five years basing on Exs.P2 and P3 (handwritings), they want to implicate the accused in this case by contending that the accused are responsible for the death of the deceased.
34.During the life time of the deceased, P.ws.1 to 3 who are her family members did not make any attempt to proceed against the accused in spite of having knowledge that Accused No.1 alleged to have misbehaved with the deceased, by coming to their house, which means that their inaction, also resulted in the death of the deceased. If really the accused are to be found fault with the death of the deceased, then P.ws.1 to 3 are also equally responsible for her death. But being the family members of the deceased they want to take advantage of the handwritings contained in Exs.P2 to P4 and they have lodged complaint against the accused, after the death of the deceased by projecting that only due to instigation made by the accused, the deceased had committed suicide.
35.The “instigation” or “abetment” has to be such that, there is a continued course of conduct creating circumstances and the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide. In the present case the alleged acts of accused No.1 and the other accused towards the deceased, took long back prior to the death of the deceased and it is not the continued conduct on behalf of the accused, which created the situation for the deceased, to commit 31 suicide. As there is no immediate ‘instigation’ or ‘abetment’ on behalf of the Accused Nos.1 to 9 towards the deceased resulting in her committing suicide, it can be clearly held that the essential ingredients for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC are not sufficiently made out by the prosecution against the accused. Even as per the decisions relied upon both sides, the ‘instigation’ or ‘abetment’ should have direct impact resulting in death of deceased. But that is the point which is missing in this case. As such Accused
Nos.1 to 9 are entitled for benefit of doubt for the above said ofence.
36.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 9 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C., and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offence un- der Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months from this date as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 (vio- let colour saree) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of August, 2019.
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
SURYAPET.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
PROSECUTION
32
PW.1(LW.01)Palwai Srinivas:Complainant & younger brother of the deceased.
PW.2(LW.02)Palwai Mallamma:Circumstantial witness and mother of the deceased
PW.3(LW.04)Palwai Vijay:Circumstantial witness and elder brother of the deceased
PW.4(LW.07)Mathangi Kumara :Circumstantial Swamywitness and took photographs of the deceased and panch witness for scene of offence.
PW.5(LW.08)Palwai Sujatha:Panch witness for inquest and scene of offence and seizure panchanama
PW.6(LW.09)Thonukunoor :Panch witness for Saiduluinquest and scene of offence and seizure panchanama
PW.7(LW.10)Dr.N.Rama Krishna :Medical Officer. Prasad
PW.8(LW.12)G.Prabhakar:Investigation Officer.
PW.9(LW.14)N.Krishna Prasad:Scientific Officer
PW.10(LW.13)B.Abilash:Investigation Officer
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
Ex.P.1:Complaint dated 17.03.2016
Ex.P.2:Writings of the deceased on white papers
Ex.P.3:Note Book
Ex.P.4:Note Book
Ex.P.5:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.w.4
Ex.P.6:Signature of P.w.5 on inquest panchanama
dated 17.03.2016 at 9.30 PM
33
Ex.P.7:Signature of P.w.5 on scene of offence-cum- seizure panchanama dated 17.03.2016 at 12.00 PM
Ex.P.8:Signature of P.w.6 on scene of offence-cum- seizure panchanama 17.03.2016 at 12.00 PM
Ex.P.9:Signature of P.w.6 on inquest panchanama 17.03.2016 at 9.30 AM
Ex.P.10:Postmortem Examination report
Ex.P.11:Histophathalogical report.
Ex.P.12:First Information Report
Ex.P.13:Scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama
dated 1703.2016 at 12.00 noon
Ex.P.14:Inquest panchanama dated 17.03.2016 at 9.30 AM
Ex.P.15:Forensic Science Laboratory report.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE :NIL.
Ex.D1: Line in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.w.2
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
M.O.1 : Violet colour saree
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
SURYAPET.