HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.114 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
Sole accused in Sessions Case No.37 of 2016 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad, is the appellant herein. The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. By its judgment, dated 16.03.2021, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.06.2015, P.W.1 lodged a written complaint (Ex.P1) before the Police, Chigurumamidi Police Station, stating that he is a resident of Indurthi Village and eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work; he had one daughter and one son; while his daughter, namely, Ande Amala (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), aged 21 years, was studying Degree final year in Shivani Degree College, Karimnagar, his distant relative i.e., the appellant, used to go to the college and harass his daughter under the pretext of love and the deceased informed the same to him and that he warned the appellant not to follow his daughter, however, the appellant did not change his attitude and used to send messages to the mobile phone of the deceased and as such the deceased mentally distressed. 2
GSD, J Crla_114_2021 Again on 24.06.2015, the deceased told to P.W.1 that the appellant threatened her if she did not love him, he will put her photo in face- book and on that P.W.1 informed the deceased that he will call the appellant tomorrow and warn him. On 25.06.2015 P.W.1 and his wife (P.W.4) went to his son Arjun at Bommanapalli, where he is suffering from ill-health. On the same day at about 9.30 A.M., the neighbour of P.W.1 i.e., Ande Pochaiah informed over telephone that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging and that P.Ws.1 and 4 went to his house and found that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging to a Beem with plastic rope and also found a note book on the table in which the deceased wrote a suicide note. Basing on the said report, P.W.11-Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Chigurumamidi, registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. and issued Ex.P16- First Information Report; examined and recorded the statement of PW.1; visited the scene of offence and found the hanging dead body of the deceased, got photographed the dead body of the deceased with the help of P.W.7 and examined P.Ws.2 to 4, who are the relatives of the deceased; prepared Ex.P17-Crime Detail Form-cum- seizure panchanama in the presence of P.W.9 and another; seized Ex.P2-suicide note under a cover of panchanama and also drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. Thereafter, P.W.11 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.9 and sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination and P.W.13-Doctor, Government Hospital, Husnabad, conducted 3 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P20- Post Mortem Examination Report and opined that the cause of death was "due to asphyxia as a result of hanging". Subsequently, P.W.12-Sub Inspector of Police examined P.Ws.5 and 6 and apprehended the accused at Mulkanoor Bus stand; sent the suicide note (Ex.P2) along with answer booklet (Ex.P14) containing the handwriting of the deceased to the F.S.L. After completion of investigation, PW.12 filed the charge sheet before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Division and on committal, the same came to be numbered as S.C.No.37 of 2016.
On appearance of the accused, a charge under Section 306 of I.P.C. was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appraisal of the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant/accused for the 4 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 aforesaid offence and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused preferred the present appeal.
Learned Counsel for the appellant/accused emphatically contended that the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant without there being any clinching evidence to connect him with the case; that the evidence on record does not furnish the ingredients of abetment as envisaged in Section 306 of I.P.C.; that the trial Court failed to appreciate properly with regard to P.L.C.No.870 of 2015, filed by the appellant/accused before the District Legal Services Authority, Karimnagar, against the deceased stating that the deceased used to harass him to marry her and in the said case, no counter has been filed by the deceased and, therefore, an adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act could have been drawn in favour of the accused. It is further submitted that P.W.12- Investigating Officer stated in his evidence that he did not collect the photographs, did not seize the cell phone of the deceased and also did not verify the conversation between the accused and deceased through Face-book or WhatsApp and, therefore, it could have been presumed that there was no chatting between the accused and deceased at any point of time. It is further submitted that the trial Court did not even appreciate properly Ex.P2-suicide note and that there is absolutely no evidence available on record except Ex.P2 to connect the accused with the commission of offence and, therefore, 5 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 basing on Ex.P2 only, conviction and sentence imposed against the accused is unjustified. It is further submitted that there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of material witnesses and that the entire prosecution case depends on the circumstantial evidence, which is very weak piece of evidence and hence the conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab1.
On the contrary, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent contended that the evidence on record would clinchingly establish the case against the appellant and, therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused is justified and the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the evidence on record would show that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. The point that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is responsible for the said suicide of the deceased or not.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. P.W.1 is the father, P.Ws.2 and 3 are the neighbours, P.W.4 is the mother and P.W.5 is the classmate of the deceased. P.W.6 is the elder, who accompanied the parents of the 1 (2017) 1 SCC 433 6 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 deceased to Karimnagar II-Town Police Station and gave complaint against the appellant. P.W.7 is the photographer; P.Ws.8 and 9 are panch witnesses for the inquest panchanama, P.W.10 is the Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, who opined that the hand writings on suicide note and answer booklet of the deceased are pertains to the same person. P.Ws.11 and 12 are the Investigating Officers and P.W.13 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem over the dead body of the deceased.
The entire case of the prosecution rests solely on Ex.P2-suicide note left by the deceased. A reading of Ex.P2-suicide note clearly shows that due to the acts of the appellant/accused, the deceased felt humiliated and committed suicide.
P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, deposed that the appellant is his distant relative; about four years prior to the date of his evidence, his deceased daughter committed suicide by hanging as the appellant harassed her. He further stated that though the appellant was already married, he followed the deceased and lured her in the name of love and when the deceased informed the same, they called the appellant and admonished him, for which he gave a written undertaking, dated 05.04.2015, before the police, II Town Police Station, Karimnagar, stating that he will not follow the deceased in future in the name of love, however, again the appellant followed the deceased in the name of love and threatened her that he will keep her photographs in facebook and internet and he would 7 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 defame her. He further stated that since their son Raju was admitted in Ayurvedic Hospital at Bommanapalli Village, they informed the deceased that they will admonish the appellant once again and thereafter they received a phone call from Ande Pochaiah stating that the deceased committed suicide and immediately they went to their home and by that time their neighbours broke open the doors and that they found the dead body of the deceased and also a suicide note written by the deceased narrating the entire incident and that the appellant is responsible for the death of the deceased.
In the cross-examination, P.W.1 deposed that prior to Ex.P1- complaint, they did not lodge any complaint against the appellant at Chigurumamidi Police Station, but they gave a complaint at Karimnagar II Town Police Station. He further deposed that they did not give the cell phone of the deceased to police to show the text messages received by the deceased from the appellant. They also did not give the earlier copy of complaint given at Karimnagar II Town Police Station along with Ex.P1-complaint to Police, Chigurumamidi. He does not know whether the appellant gave a complaint against the deceased before the District Legal Services Authority, Karimnagar on 24.03.2015 stating that the deceased demanded him to marry her and also threatened to defame him before his wife stating that he was having illegal relation with the deceased and that she will commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her by writing a suicide note against the appellant. The suicide note 8 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 under Ex.P2 was seized by the police. He denied the suggestion that the deceased fell in love with the appellant and since the appellant refused to love her as he was already married, the deceased bore grudge against him. He does not know which photos of the deceased are in the custody of the appellant. He denied the suggestion that photos of the deceased are in possession of the appellant and that he never threatened the deceased to upload the photos of the deceased in facebook or internet or any other place. He admitted that the appellant never asked the deceased to commit suicide. He also denied the suggestion that the alleged suicide note under Ex.P2 was not written by the deceased.
P.W.2, who is the neighbour of the deceased, deposed that on 25.06.2015 at about 9.30 A.M., she went to the house of the deceased for taking lemon, but the door was closed and then she called the deceased, but in vain and since she got a doubt, she informed the matter to P.W.3. Thereafter, P.W.3 came to the house of the deceased and knocked the door, but in vain. P.W.3 also suspected that something went wrong and then he broke open the door with the help of a crowbar and entered into the house and noticed that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Thereafter, the neighbours informed the matter to the parents of the deceased over phone. P.W.2 further deposed that their village Sarpanch and other villagers noticed the suicide note written by the deceased and by that time their villagers also came to know that the deceased 9 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 committed suicide due to harassment, blackmailing and threatening of the accused that he would upload the photos of the deceased in facebook and internet so as to defame the deceased, due to which the deceased committed suicide. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 deposed that she stated to the police that she noticed the suicide note on a table in the house of the deceased. She does not know whether the appellant gave a complaint against the deceased at District Legal Services Authority, Karimnagar, on 24.03.2015 vide P.L.C.No.870 of 2015 stating that the deceased demanded him to marry her and also threatened to defame the appellant before his wife stating that he was having illegal relation with the deceased and that she would commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her leaving a suicide note against the accused.
P.W.3, who is another neighbour of the deceased, also deposed in similar lines as that of P.W.2.
P.W.4, who is the mother of the deceased, supported the version of P.W.1 and also deposed on the same lines as that of P.W.1.
P.W.5, who is the classmate of the deceased, deposed that on 25.06.2015 at about 9.30 A.M., she came to know that the deceased committed suicide by hanging and immediately she went to the house of the deceased and noticed the hanging dead body of the deceased and also a suicidal note written by the deceased stating 10 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 that the appellant harassed her due to which she committed suicide. She also deposed that prior to the incident, the deceased never discussed anything regarding the appellant with her. She does not know anything else about the facts of the case and that police never examined and never recorded her statement. In the cross- examination, she deposed that she never saw the appellant harassing the deceased and she never saw while the deceased and the appellant were talking with each other. She does not know exactly what had happened in between the deceased and the appellant and whether the deceased demanded the appellant to love her and marry her for which the appellant filed a P.L.C.No.870 of 2015 stating that the deceased demanded him to marry her otherwise she would defame the appellant before his wife stating that he was having illegal relation with the deceased and she would commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her leaving a suicide note against the accused.
P.W.6 is the elder of the village. He deposed that on 25.06.2015 at about 9.30 A.M. while he was at his home, he came to know through the villagers that the deceased committed suicide by hanging and then he rushed to the house of the deceased, noticed hanging dead body of the deceased and also a suicide note written by the deceased stating that the appellant harassed her by calling her over phone and demanded her to marry him and also threatened her that he would upload her photos in WhatApp and facebook, due 11 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 to which she committed suicide. He further deposed that about two months prior to the death of the deceased, her father informed him that the appellant was following and harassing the deceased, on that he, along with the parents of the deceased, went to Karimnagar II Town Police Station and gave a complaint against the appellant and the police called the appellant and admonished him and that the appellant gave a written undertaking that he will not follow or harass the deceased in future. In the cross-examination, P.W.6 deposed that at the time of incident, his wife was working as Sarpanch of the said village. He further deposed that he had also read the suicide note along with other villagers. He also deposed that he has not seen the messages sent by the appellant to the deceased. He does not know whether the appellant gave a complaint against the deceased at District Legal Services Authority, Karimnagar on 24.03.2015 vide P.L.C.No.870 of 2015 stating that the deceased had demanded him to marry her, otherwise she would defame and commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her leaving a suicide note against the accused. He also deposed that P.W.1-father of the deceased informed him that even after giving a complaint against the appellant at Karimnagar II Town Police Station, the appellant had again sent messages to the cell phone of the deceased. He admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant never asked the deceased to commit suicide.
12
GSD, J Crla_114_2021 P.W.7, is the photographer, deposed with regard to the photographs taken by him under Exs.P3 to P10.
Since P.Ws.8 and 9, who are panch witnesses for inquest and seizure panchanama, did not support the case of the prosecution, they were declared hostile and nothing useful was elicited from their cross-examination.
P.W.10 is the Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, deposed that his office received cover containing the suicide note and also one answer booklet of the deceased from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Huzurabad and he had carefully and thoroughly examined the questioned and standard writings with the help of magnifiers and stereo microscope etc., and issued Ex.P15- F.S.L. report opining that both the hand writings on Ex.P2 and Ex.P14 were pertains to the same person.
P.Ws.11 and 12 are the Investigating Officers. P.W.13 is the doctor, who conducted Post Mortem Examination of the deceased deposed that he found a 'U' shape ligature mark of size 10 x 1/2" circulating the neck of the deceased, which is dark brown in colour and also a knot under the left ear of the deceased and opined that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of hanging and accordingly he issued Ex.P20-Post Mortem Report.
13
GSD, J Crla_114_2021 The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. In order to properly comprehend the scope and ambit of Section 306 I.P.C., it is important to carefully examine the basic ingredients of Section 306 of I.P.C. The said Section is reproduced as under:-
"306. Abetment of suicide.--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."
The scope and ambit of Section 107 of I.P.C. and its co-relation with Section 306 of I.P.C., has been discussed repeatedly by the Apex Court. In S.Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another2 the Apex Court observed as under:-
"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 the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of I.P.C. 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."
In Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab3 in paragraph No.21 the Apex Court held as under:-
2
(2010) 12 SCC 190 3 (2017) 1 SCC 433 14 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 "21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 of I.P.C. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 of I.P.C., thus criminalizes the sustained incitement for suicide."
In M.Arjunan v. State rep. by its Inspector of Police4 the Apex Court observed as under:-
"The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 of I.P.C."
4 (2019) 3 SCC 315 15 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 In Ude Singh and others v. State of Haryana5 the Apex Court elucidated on the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. in the following words:-
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a 5 (2019) 17 SCC 301 16 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. 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 acts 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 show 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. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."
In the instant case, the prosecution case mainly rests on two factors, one is with regard to the phone calls made by the accused to the deceased and another is the suicide note left by the deceased.
Insofar as the phone calls made by the accused to the deceased and threatenings given to her to upload her photos in the facebook or internet, no evidence has been produced by the prosecution. P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, categorically admitted that he does not know what photos of the deceased are in the custody of the accused. P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased, also admitted in her cross-examination that she does not know what 17 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 photos of the deceased are in the custody of the accused. Their evidence was corroborated by the Investigating Officer, who was examined as P.W.11. In the cross-examination, P.W.11 deposed that he has not enquired with the college administration to know whether the accused harassed the deceased in the college and whether accused is having any face book account or not?. He also admitted that he has not obtained particulars and call-data and message data from the phone number of the accused and the deceased. He also admitted that he has not seized the cell phone of the deceased. Therefore, from the above, there is no evidence to show that the accused was in possession of the photos of the deceased and that he called the deceased and threatened her to upload the said photos in the facebook and internet etc., if she would not cater to his demand. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the first factor, which was relied upon by it.
Insofar as the second factor i.e., suicide note left by the deceased is concerned, P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased; P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the neighbours of P.W.1; P.W.4, who is the mother of the deceased; P.W.6, who is the cousin brother of P.W.1, have categorically admitted in their cross-examination that the accused never asked the deceased to commit suicide. The defence of the accused is that he filed a complaint against the deceased at District Legal Services Authority, Karimnagar, on 24.03.2015, when the deceased demanded the accused to marry her and threatened to 18 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 defame him before his wife stating that he was having illegal relation with the deceased and that she would commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her, leaving a suicide note against the accused, and the same was numbered as P.L.C.No.870 of 2015. P.Ws.1 to 6 have categorically admitted in their cross-examination that they do not know whether accused gave complaint against the deceased. A perusal of the material on record would show that, admittedly, prior to three months of the alleged suicide, the accused himself lodged a complaint vide P.L.C.No.870 of 2015 before the District Legal Services Authority, Karimnagar, stating that the deceased demanded the accused to marry her otherwise she would commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her and she would write a suicide note against the accused. The complaint was filed by the accused on 24.03.2015 and the deceased committed suicide on 25.06.2015. From the above, it is clear that prior to the date of occurrence, the accused lodged a complaint against the deceased and admittedly the deceased has not given any reply to the said complaint or refuting the allegations levelled against her.
Section 107 IPC defines abetment, according to which a person abets the doing of a thing, who-
Firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or, 19 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 Thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1- A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
In order to attract the ingredients of abetment, there must be some evidence regarding direct involvement of the accused to abet the commission of suicide. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentional aiding that person in doing of a thing. There must be active role of the accused for instigating the deceased or aiding her to commit suicide, before he can be held guilty of the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C.
Merely because a person, who has committed suicide, has left a suicide note, one cannot come to a conclusion that it is enough to mulct the accused with criminal liability under Section 306 IPC. The contents of the suicide note have to be analyzed to find out whether it contains any incriminating information in the nature of instigation, provocation, forcing the victim to commit suicide.
In the instant case, P.Ws.1 to 6 have categorically admitted in their cross-examination that the accused never asked the deceased to 20 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 commit suicide. Except the suicide note, there is no evidence in the present case to show that there has been any act of omission or commission on the part of the appellant before the death of the deceased to demonstrate that the accused was responsible for the same. In the absence of any direct evidence on this point, the accused cannot be convicted and sentenced only on account of the fact that the deceased left the suicide note naming the accused. In the said circumstances and foregoing discussion, it can be inferred that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence properly and came to a wrong conclusion.
Further, the other incriminating circumstance, which the prosecution has failed to prove, is that P.W.1 stated in his evidence that prior to Ex.P1, they did not lodge any complaint against the appellant at Chigurumamidi Police Station, but they gave a complaint at Karimnagar II-Town Police Station. In his chief- examination, P.W.1 stated that the accused had given a written undertaking on 05.04.2015 before Karimnagar II Town Police Station stating that he will not follow the deceased in future in the name of love. However, during cross-examination, P.W.1 has categorically stated that they have not enclosed the copy of the complaint, which was given at Karimnagar II-Town Police Station, along with Ex.P1, to the police at Chigurumamidi Police Station. In this regard, P.W.6 also stated that he accompanied the parents of the deceased to Karimnagar II-Town Police Station and gave a complaint against the 21 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 accused and the police called the accused and admonished him and accordingly the accused has given an undertaking that he will not follow or harass the deceased in future.
But a perusal of the entire evidence available on record, neither the police have taken any steps nor attempted to trace out the earlier complaint lodged by P.W.1 against the accused with regard to the harassment made by the accused to the deceased prior to her death nor P.W.1 has filed any copy of the same before the Court to substantiate his allegations levelled against the accused, which proves that except the bald and oral statements, there was no complaint whatsoever against the accused that he harassed the deceased in the name of love during her life time and in this regard any complaint was lodged against him.
For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused are liable to be set aside.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad, in S.C.No.37 of 2016, are hereby set aside and he is acquitted for the offence 22 GSD, J Crla_114_2021 punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C., and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/ accused, shall be refunded to him.
____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 09.12.2021 Gsn/gkv