Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Sidda Rajaiah Raju on 13 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.710 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State questioning the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 306 r/w. 34 of IPC.
2. Heard Dr.Surepalli Prashant, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased. A-1 is the PDS rice dealer and A-2 is his younger brother. On 27.02.2016, the deceased informed her husband/P.W.1 that A-1 was not supplying PDS rice to them for the past one month, even after several requests. When P.W.1 went and questioned A-1 as to why he is not supplying PDS rice, A-1 replied rudely stating that P.W.1 can take rice only whenever he supplies and he can do whatever he wants to. P.W.1 returned home and in the evening A-1 and A-2 went to the house of P.W.1 and pushed P.W.1 and also the deceased and 2 threatened them not to come towards ration shop and humiliated them. On account of the said incident, the deceased got distressed, went into the house and slept in the room. On 27.02.2016, the deceased committed suicide fed up with the life and acts of A-1 and A-2.
4. On the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, Police registered the case under Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC.
5. Learned Senior Civil Judge having examined the relevant witnesses who are P.Ws.1 to 10 found that no offence was made out against respondents/accused.
6. The reasons given by the learned Senior Civil Judge are that there was no direct witness to the alleged act of A-1 and A-2, pushing the deceased or P.W.1 or insulting them. In fact, to attract an offence under Section 306 of IPC, ingredients of Section 107 of IPC have to be fulfilled. Pushing or abusing stating that rice will not be given, will not amount to abetment.
7. Having gone through the record, even accepting that A-1 and A-2 pushed the deceased and P.W.1, asking them 3 not to come to the ration shop that in itself would not amount to abetting suicide.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab 1 held that there must be existence of a live link or nexus between the abetment and consequent suicide, abetment being the propelling causative factor to the death.
9. It appears that when P.W.1 questioned A-1 for not supplying rice, there was an altercation in between them, even accepting that A-1 and A-2 pushed P.W.1 and the deceased that in itself would not fall within any of the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC.
10. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 2, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively 1 2017(1) ALD(Crl.)343 2 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 4 slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
11. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.3
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 5
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
12. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Senior Civil Judge.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 13.11.2024 dv