HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE C.SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1853 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. Challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment dated 26.02.2008 rendered by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalguda, in S.C.No.218 of 2007, the appellant, who is the complainant in the said case, is before this Court by way of appeal.
2. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the learned judge ought to have seen that the prosecution made out its case against the accused; that the learned judge erred in disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which is cogent and reliable; that the learned judge failed to observe that all the respondents-accused levelled false allegations against the deceased- Kalpana due to which she committed suicide; and therefore, the appeal has to be allowed setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.
3. Reported to take it as heard by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused.
4. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
(1) Whether the appellant emerged successful before the trial Court in establishing the guilt of the respondents-accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C.
Dr.CSL , J 2 Crl.A.No.1853 of 2009 (2) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts, as contended by the appellant herein, which in turn requires interference of this Court exercising the appellate jurisdiction.
5. Point No.1:
The case of the appellant, as projected in the charge sheet, is that the respondents-accused laid an allegation against the deceased- Kalpana that she committed theft of a gold chain at the house of respondent No.2 and insulted her, due to which disgusted with life, the deceased-Kalpana on 14.12.2006 set fire to herself, received burn injuries and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment.
6. After framing a charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. for which the respondents-accused pleaded not guilty, the learned judge of the trial Court proceeded with the trial of the case, recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 13, marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 and finally gave a verdict that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge levelled against them and thereby acquitted them. The said finding is under challenge in this appeal.
7. As rightly projected in the impugned judgment, none of the material witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. P.W-2 who is the father of the deceased-Kalpana and P.W-3 who is the mother of the deceased- Kalpana failed to support the version of the prosecution Dr.CSL , J 3 Crl.A.No.1853 of 2009 in toto. They denied the contents of Exs.P-2 and P-3 respectively which are their alleged 161 Cr.P.C. statements given to Police. P.W-5 who is shown to be the circumstantial witness gave evidence to the effect that the respondents-accused never harassed or abetted the deceased-Kalpana to commit suicide.
8. Thus, the evidence that is left on record for consideration is only of P.W-7-Civil Assistant Surgeon who stated that the deceased- Kalpana was conscious and coherent while recording her statement i.e., Ex.P-6, the evidence of P.W-8 who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased-Kalpana and the evidence of P.W-10 who investigated into the case.
9. No doubt, the dying declaration if found cogent and convincing and without infirmities can be allowed to form sole basis for convicting the accused. But when the dying declaration which is marked as Ex.P-6 is meticulously perused, it is found that the deceased-Kalpana has not stated that the respondents-accused have abetted her to commit suicide. Her statement is only to the effect that the respondents-accused blamed her that she had committed theft of a gold chain for which she gave reply in negative and on that, they stated that they would give a complaint and therefore, she poured kerosene upon herself and set ablaze. Thus, the averments does not themselves constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C., where the ingredients of abetment to commit suicide requires establishment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt before the trial Dr.CSL , J 4 Crl.A.No.1853 of 2009 Court and therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents- accused.
10. Point No.2:
The judgment of the trial Court is on proper lines in all aspects. There requires no interference of the said well-reasoned judgment. The learned judge of the trial Court has not erred in any aspects i.e., either in appreciating the facts or in applying the law laid down. Therefore, the appeal lacks merits.
11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed confirming the judgment dated 26.02.2008 rendered by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalguda, in S.C.No.218 of 2007.
_________________________ Dr. JUSTICE C.SUMALATHA 21.10.2021 dr