HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1150 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, in S.C.No.424 of 2005 dt.06.01.2006, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard and perused the record.
3. Briefly, the allegations against the respondents/accused are that the deceased married Accused No.4 which was an inter-caste marriage. Thereafter, they started staying at Karimnagar. When the parents of the deceased PWs.1 and 2 went to the house of their daughter-deceased, they saw that they were living happily. However, it was noticed by PW1 that respondents were harassing his daughter, for the reason of Accused No.4 being blind and not able to look after the deceased. She was asked to go to her house and since Accused No.4 went away 10 days prior to the incident, the deceased consumed poison.
4. On the basis of the complaint, the Police filed charge sheet for the said offences under Sections 498-A, 306 of the Indian 2 Penal code. Though charges were framed accordingly and after examination of PWs.1 to 11 and Exs.P1 to P12, the learned Sessions Judge found that the respondents were not guilty of the offences alleged for the following reasons;
a) Except the bald allegation of PW1 and PW2 that she was subjected to harassment, there is no other evidence.
b) The question of demanding additional dowry would not arise since the marriage of deceased and Accused No.4 was love marriage.
c) In Ex.P7-Dying Declaration, the deceased did not state anything about the accused harassing her.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the extract of the Dying Declaration would go to show that she was harassed, as such, the acquittal has to be reversed.
6. The relevant para of the Dying Declaration reads as follows;
"My marriage had been performed about 2 months back. The parents' of my husband asked me to go my parents' house as my husband is a blind man and he could not maintain me. I stated that I would maintain 3 my husband by doing coolie work and demanded my in-laws to give the share of my husband in the properties and in their presence my husband's brother Hari Krishna beat my husband. Week days there after my in-laws and my brother-in-law confined my husband somewhere and my husband is missing for the last 10 days. I questioned my in-laws and brother-in-law and they stated that they do not know the where-abouts of my husband and on the other hand they demanded me stay where I kept my husband. I reported the matter to the S.P. over phone, but the phone was dis-connected as wrong number. My in-laws and brother-in-law used to harass me and due to their harassment I consumed poison."
7. In the Dying Declaration, the deceased stated that her husband Accused No.4 left the house on account of his brother beating him. When questioned regarding her husband, they asked the deceased to stay where she kept her husband. When she tried to call Superintendent of Police, over phone, the phone was disconnected as 'wrong number'. There was an allegation stating that the in-laws and brother-in-law of the deceased used to harass her.
8. There are no instances which are narrated except stating that her husband was ill-treated by other accused, there is 4 nothing in the Dying Declaration to infer any acts which amounts to abetting the commission of suicide by the deceased.
9. In order to attract the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it has to be proved that there was instigation by the accused to commit suicide. The said instigation can be gathered by any events or instances that are narrated by the witnesses.
10. Admittedly, the parents of the deceased PWs.1 and 2, on the basis of suspicion, after the death of the deceased state that she was harassed. In the entire Dying Declaration, except stating that she was harassed and the reasons given are regarding Accused no.4, who is the husband of the deceased not being looked after by other accused.
11. In Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala1 and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and another2, the Hon'ble Supreme 1 (2022) 8 SCC 440 2 (2022) 3 SCC 471 5 Court held that in case of acquittal, presumption is in favour of the accused. Unless there are glaring mistakes or any erroneous view of law is taken, the appellate Courts cannot interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that it has to be shown that there was miscarriage of justice and while dealing with the evidence, the Court committed an error and improperly considered and adjudicated the case.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there are no grounds in the appeal.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:14.11.2022 tk 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1150 OF 2009 Dt. 14.11.2022 tk