Telangana High Court
Kavali Ravi Kumar vs Kavali Yadaiah on 22 November, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1303 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/de-facto complainant who was examined as P.W.2 in the Court below, questioning the acquittal of respondent Nos.1 to 4 who were arrayed as A-1 to A-4, for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ de-facto complainant, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 4/A-1 to A-4 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that deceased Ramulamma is the wife of the complainant. The complainant had purchased land admeasuring Ac.4-20 gts from Habeeb Hussain. As there was shortage of sale consideration, Accused No.1 who is one of the son of the complainant adjusted the deficit amount and obtained sale deed in the name of Accused No.2 who is his wife. Three months prior to the complaint, A-1 to A-4 went to the disputed land for ploughing, the deceased when demanded them for partition, A-1 to A-4 pushed her and beat with hands. Unable to bear 2 the acts of the accused, the deceased committed suicide on the midnight of 13.11.2013.
4. Basing on the complaint of the complainant, Police registered the case under Section 306 of IPC and arrested A-1 to A-4.
5. Learned Sessions Judge having concluded the trial, acquitted the accused on the following grounds:-
1. The incident of suicide happened three months after the alleged beating by A-1 and A-2. There is no proximity in between the incident of beating and the suicide. It cannot be said that A-1 to A-4 abeted suicide.
2. None of the witnesses or the accused met the deceased on 13.11.2013, as such the question of abetment to commit suicide does not arise.
3. The complaint/Ex.P.1 was received in the Court on 24.06.2014, though the complaint was filed on 14.11.2013. The said inordinate delay of more than 8 months was not explained.
6. To attract an offence under Section 306 of IPC, prosecution has to establish that there was active abetment 3 by the accused in order to facilitate or aid the person to end life. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Arjunan v. State 1 held that insulting or using abusive language would not suggest that it amounted to abetting suicide. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdishraj Khatta vs. State of H.P., 2 held that prosecution has to establish that there is intentional aiding, facilitating the deceased to commit suicide.
7. In any stretch of imagination, the alleged assault by A-1 to A-4 3 months prior to suicide, would not amount to abetment to suicide.
8. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 3, held that 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 1 (2019) 3 SCC 315 2 (2019) 9 SCC 248 3 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 4 appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
9. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 4 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.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court. 4 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 5
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."
10. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 22.11.2024 dv