HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1405 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
The appellant-State filed the present appeal by invoking the provision under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 28.07.2007 in S.C.No.419 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Nalgonda, wherein and whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents/A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of A1 with the deceased Shyamala Manga was performed at about 5 years prior to the date of occurrence i.e., 10.5.2006, and after some time, A1 along with A2 and A3 used to harass the deceased mentally and physically on the ground that she was not conceiving, for which she attempted to commit suicide once, and after the panchayat conducted by the elders, she joined with the company of A1 and later, she gave birth to a female child. Since then, all the accused used to harass the deceased on the ground that she gave birth to a female child. On 10.05.2006, during morning hours, A1 to A3 quarreled with the deceased on the ground that she did not properly stitch the petty coat of A3 and they instigated her to die, thereupon, she went inside the house, set herself ablaze at 7.00 AM., and sustained burn injuries and immediately, she was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, and on the way, she told her parents about the harassment of the accused and later, she died near Ramoji Film City. Based on the report of P.W.1-father of the deceased, a case in GSD, J Crl.A.No.1405 of 2009 2 Cr.No.25 of 2006 was registered under Section 306 IPC against the accused.
3. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the appellant- State, Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/A1 to A3 and perused the record.
4. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that in Ex.P1- report given by P.W.1 immediately after the death of the deceased, he stated that the accused used to harass the deceased immediately after the marriage on the ground that she was not conceived and in that connection, a panchayat was conducted and on the advice of the elders, the deceased again joined the society of A1. If that allegation is true, one of the strong circumstances for the prosecution is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws. But the investigating Officer did not examine those elders, who conducted the panchayat and that there is no explanation for non-examination of those elders as witnesses. Therefore, non-examination of the material witnesses to support the case of the prosecution is fatal to the case of the prosecution and it also belies the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, in this case, the version of the prosecution is that A1 to A3 used to harass the deceased on the ground that she has not given birth to a male child. But, how many occasions she was harassed by her husband and in-laws, whether she had informed to her parents while she was being taken to Osmania General Hospital or on previous occasions also she had stated to her parents, if so, on how many occasions and what steps had taken GSD, J Crl.A.No.1405 of 2009 3 regarding the harassment, there is absolutely no evidence on record. It was not the specific case of the prosecution that on the date of the alleged occurrence, because the deceased could not stitch the petty coat properly, A3 quarreled with her, for which she committed suicide. The trial Court has rightly pointed out that any abetment to commit suicide shall be soon before the suicide attempt and in all probabilities, the alleged harassment shall be for an ordinary prudent human being to commit suicide. Simple abuses by somebody or an isolated incident are not sufficient to constitute the abetment.
5. The other important aspect in this case is that the deceased, on the way to Osmania General Hospital, told her parents and others about the harassment made by the accused on 10.05.2006 and also their harassment on earlier occasions. In this regard, P.W.1 stated in his statement to police that on the way to Hyderabad, the deceased told them that A1 to A3 were responsible for her death and later, she died in the hospital at 10.00 AM. P.W.2 stated in her statement that the deceased told her parents in the hospital itself that her husband and her mother-in-law were responsible for her death. However, P.Ws.3 and 4 in their statements to the police have stated that on the way to the hospital only, the deceased told them about the harassment. But during the course of evidence, P.W.s.1 and 2 have stated contrary to their earlier statements made to the police. In this regard, they stated that when they were shifting the deceased to Osmania General Hospital in the car, on the way, their daughter did not speak about any harassment and later, she died in the hospital. Thus, as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the GSD, J Crl.A.No.1405 of 2009 4 deceased was not in a fit state of mind to reveal anything about the harassment of accused on the way to the hospital or in the hospital. However, P.W.2 stated in her evidence that the deceased, on the way of Osmania General Hopsital, told them about the harassment, which is quite contrary to the statement of her husband before the Court. Even before the Court, the statements of P.Ws 1 and 2 is that their son also accompanied them to the hospital in a car, but in his statement to the police he denied to have gone to the hospital in the car. Thus, the contradictory statements of these prosecution witnesses create in high degree of suspicion about the allegation of the prosecution that the deceased, on the way to Osmania General Hospital, told about the harassment caused by the accused on the date of the alleged occurrence and it is apparent on the face of record that such allegation is only the creation of prosecution for the purpose of this case.
6. In this case, P.Ws.3 and 4 are neighbors and independent witnesses. They have categorically stated that after coming to know that Shyamala Manga received burn injuries, they rushed to the house of the accused, extinguished the flames and shifted her to Osmania General Hospital. There was nothing on record to prove that these witnesses have deposed falsehood in order to save the accused. Another important factor in this case is that P.W.10, who is the investigating officer, had issued express FIR, which reached the Court on 16.05.2006 at 4.30 PM through post along with the inquest report-Ex.P4. Since the offence is grave in nature, it is the duty of the investigating officer to send the First Information Report and the GSD, J Crl.A.No.1405 of 2009 5 written complaint through a special messenger to the Court immediately. However, those reports were sent through post, from which, a presumption can be drawn that after conducting inquest over the dead body only, the complaint was received by the investigating officer and thereafter, the case was registered and that is the reason why P.W.10 send Ex.P1-report and FIR along with the inquest report to the Court, which creates doubt about the veracity of Ex.P1. Moreover, in this case, no GD entry number was mentioned at Col.No.3 of the CC in Ex.P-10, which also creates doubt about lodging of FIR at the relevant point of time as narrated by the prosecution. Thus, the investigation conducted by the investigating officer creates strong suspicion and also perfunctory nature. Thus, the trial Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that all the accused had harassed the deceased on 10.05.2006 and also prior to the said date for not giving birth to a male child and due to that harassment, she committed suicide and accordingly, found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of the trial Court.
7. In Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura1 the Apex Court held as under:
"It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate 1 (2011) 9 SCC 479 GSD, J Crl.A.No.1405 of 2009 6 court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re- appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed."
8. In Maloth Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh2 the Apex Court held that there can be no two opinions that merely because the acquittal is found to be wrong and another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has more and serious responsibility while dealing with the judgment of acquittal and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all supportable and where the appellate Court comes to the conclusion 2 (2011) 8 SCC 635 GSD, J Crl.A.No.1405 of 2009 7 that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has to examine as to whether the trial Court, while upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care.
9. In view of the judgments referred to above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 28.07.2007 in S.C.No.419 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
11. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
_____________ G. SRI DEVI, J 16th March, 2021 sj