Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kondisetti Srinivsa Rao vs The State Of A.P. on 2 January, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.828 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated
24.07.2009, in Sessions Case No.413 of 2008, on the file of the
Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court) Guntur at Tenali (for short, 'the learned Additional Sessions
Judge'), where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge found
the appellant/accused No.1 (A-1) guilty of the alternative charge
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the
IPC'), convicted him under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C') and, after questioning him
about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in
default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months. However,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge found accused Nos.1 to 3
not guilty of the charge under Section 304-B IPC and accused
Nos.2 and 3 not guilty of the charge under Section 306 IPC as
such acquitted them under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
AVRB,J
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be
referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of
convenience.
3. The Sessions Case No.413 of 2008 arose out of PRC No.3 of
2008 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Tenali (for short, 'the learned Magistrate') pertaining to
Crime No.100 of 2007 of Tenali I Town Police Station.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the
averments in the charge sheet, filed by the Sub-Divisional Police
Officer (SDPO), Tenali in the above Crime, is as follows:
A-1 is the only son of A-2 and A-3. Previously, A-1 married
LW.15 - Kondisetty Sailaja Rani of Nagaram village and she got
divorce from A-1 through Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali vide
HMOP No.232 of 1997, dated 17.02.1998. Subsequently, A-1 loved
another woman by name Lakshmi of Nagayalanka Village, Krishna
District and married her. Suppressing the aforesaid two
marriages, he married another woman third time by name
Lakshmi of Chebrole. After some time, Lakshmi of Chebrole died
under suspicious circumstances. Basing on the report given by the
parents of Lakshmi, a case in Crime No.57 of 1999 for the offence
under Section 304-B IPC was registered against A-1 and his
AVRB,J
parents and investigated into. As material witnesses turned
hostile, it was ended in acquittal. While the matter stood thus, A-1
to A-3 suppressed the factum of previous marriages of A-1, except
the marriage of A-1 with Lakshmi of Chebrole, and A-2 and A-3
contacted LW.12 - Pulivarthi Sitharamaiah and with his
mediation, they could secure alliance of Kondisetti Durga Bhavani
(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') by convincing her
parents i.e., LW.1 and LW.2 namely Manipakam Durga Prasad and
Manipakam Padmavathi and believing the gullible words of
accused, they performed the marriage of their eldest daughter -
deceased with A-1 on 25.05.2002 at Guduru Village of Krishna
District. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased
presented Rs.50,000/- towards Pasupu Kumkuma. After some
time, A-1 and the deceased led happy marital life and they were
blessed with a daughter by name Prizee and son by name
Immanuel. Later, A-1 to A-3 began harassing the deceased to
cruelty both mentally and physically so as to get additional dowry.
A-1 was addicted to bad vices and used to beat the deceased to
bring money from her parents. Deceased used to inform the same
to her parents. LW.1, though adjusted some amount, initially,
disclosed his inability to meet the demands of accused later.
However, at the compulsion of accused and in order to avert
AVRB,J
cruelty against her daughter, LW.1 executed a promissory note in
favour of the accused for Rs.30,000/- 3 years ago and was paying
monthly interest but the accused continued to harass the
deceased. Recently, 20 days prior to 17.09.2007, when the
accused sent the deceased to her parents house, LW.1 sent back
her with Rs.5,000/-. Even on 17.09.2007 also A-1 quarreled with
the deceased for petty issue, beat her and went away. The
deceased got disgusted with her life, decided to put an end to her
life at the noon, bolted the doors of the room from inside and
committed suicide by hanging herself with a saree to the ceiling
fan. At 03:00 p.m. after returning from school LW.8 - Kondisetti
Sai Kiran and LW.9 - Kondisetti Prizee knocked the doors. As they
did not receive any response, they reported the same to A-2, who
informed the same to LW.10 - A. Venkata Ramaseshagiri Rao and
LW.11 - Pamulapati Dhanunjaya Rao, who knocked the doors,
peeped through window and found the deceased hanging to the
ceiling fan. On coming to know about the information, LW.26 - SI
of Police, Tenali I Town Police Station, rushed to the house of
accused along with LW.22 - Revenue Inspector, Tenali and broke
open the doors and got the dead body of the deceased removed
from hanging. On receiving the information about the occurrence,
LW.1 on 17.09.2007 at 10:00 p.m. came to Tenali I Town Police
AVRB,J
Station and presented a report explaining the cause of death of the
deceased. Basing on the report of LW.1, LW.26 - SI of Police
registered a case in Crime No.100 of 2007 against the accused for
the offence under Section 304-B R/w.34 IPC. Subsequently,
LW.27 - Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Tenali, took up
investigation and examined all the witnesses. On 18.09.2007, he
visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and
observed the same. LW.21 - Tahsildar, Tenali held inquest over
the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars
and prepared inquest report accordingly. Photographs of the scene
of offence were also taken. The Medical Officer, who conducted
post-mortem examination over the dead body of deceased opined
that the deceased appears to have died of asphyxia due to
hanging. Hence, the charge sheet.
5. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the
charge sheet and numbered it as PRC No.3 of 2008. After
appearance of the accused and after completing the necessary
formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, PRC No.3 of 2008 was
committed to the Court of Session and thereafter it was numbered
as S.C.No.413 of 2008 and made over to the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law.
AVRB,J
6. After appearance of the accused before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Tenali, a charge under Section 304-B
IPC alternatively a charge under Section 306 IPC and a charge
under Section 498-A IPC were framed and explained to the
accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
7. During the course of trial, before the Court below, on behalf
of the prosecution, PWs.1 to PW.10 were examined and Exs.P-1 to
P-13 and Ex.C-1 were marked. Accused got marked Ex.D-1 -
promissory note during the course of cross-examination of PW.1.
Further, prosecution got marked MO.1 and Mo.2.
8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused
were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the
incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by
the prosecution, for which they denied the same and did not
adduce any defence evidence.
9. The learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Guntur FAC XI Additional District
and Sessions Judge (FTC), Tenali, on hearing both sides and after
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found
AVRB,J
appellant/A-1 guilty of the charge under Section 306 IPC,
convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning
him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him as above. As
pointed out earlier, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
exonerated A-1 to A-3 of the charge under Section 304-B IPC and
A-2 and A-3 of the charge under Section 306 IPC and acquitted
them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
10. Felt aggrieved of the same, the un-successful accused (A-1)
filed the present Appeal challenging the judgment of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in convicting and sentencing him under
Section 306 IPC.
11. Though the prosecution has alleged the offences under
Sections 304-B and 306 IPC against the accused but there is no
Appeal filed by the prosecution as against the findings of the trial
Court that the charge under Section 304-B IPC was not
established by the prosecution against A-1 to A-3 and charge
under Section 306 IPC was not established against A-2 and A-3.
Hence, the scope of this Appeal is confined only to decide whether
the prosecution before the trial Court proved the offence under
Section 306 IPC against the appellant/A-1.
AVRB,J
12. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise
for consideration are:
1) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court
proved that A-1 abetted the commission of suicide by
the deceased by putting her to physical and mental
harassment, in the manner as alleged by the
prosecution?
2) Whether the judgment, dated 24.07.2009, in
Sessions Case No.413 of 2008 in convicting A-1 under
Section 306 IPC is sustainable under law and facts
and whether are any grounds to interfere with the
same?
POINT Nos.1 & 2:
13. PW.1 was the father of the deceased. His evidence in
substance was that on 24.05.2002, the marriage of the deceased
was performed with A-1 at Gudur Village of Krishna District. They
paid Rs.50,000/- to A-1 towards pasupu kumkuma. He was told
that the first wife of A-1 died. Later, he came to know that his
daughter was his 4th wife. He came to know that his first wife, who
is native of Nagaram of Repalle deserted A-1 and took divorce from
him. His second wife died and third wife was killed. About one and
AVRB,J
half years ago, deceased and A-1 lived happily. Later, A-1 started
harassing his daughter to bring additional dowry. She intimated
the same to him. He used to go and request them to look after his
daughter properly and to live amicably but there was no change in
the attitude of A-1 even after she gave birth to one son and one
daughter. 20 days prior to her death, she came to him and
informed that they are demanding additional dowry and they are
beating her. He convinced her and gave Rs.5,000/- and sent away.
On 14.09.2007, his daughter again phoned to him and informed
that she was again beaten and harassed for additional dowry. Next
day also she telephoned to him and stated that she is
apprehending danger in the hands of accused. He informed that
he will make arrangements for money. On 17.09.2007 at about
03:00 or 03:30 p.m. his depot officials informed him that his
daughter committed suicide. Then, they reached to the house of
accused. He found the dead body hanging to the ceiling fan. By
the time he reached there, police were there. When he went and
informed to the Police, Ex.P-1 written report was given by him.
Police examined and recorded his statement. Next day inquest was
conducted over the dead body of deceased. This is the substance
of the evidence of PW.1.
AVRB,J
14. Prosecution examined PW.2 - mother of the deceased and
she spoke of the marriage between A-1 and deceased on
24.05.2002 and presentations at the time of marriage. For about
one and half years they lived amicably. Later, the deceased
daughter was informing her that she was beaten as the dowry
amount said to be paid was not sufficient. Couple of times they
went to the accused and requested A-1 not to harass the deceased.
Even after birth of two children, A-1 continued the harassment
and they requested him not to harass the deceased. Ultimately,
about one year eight months ago, they received a phone call that
her daughter died by hanging herself. They reached the house of
accused at 07:30 or 08:00 p.m. By then, the Police were already
there. Police asked as to who are the parents of deceased.
Thereafter, her husband went and gave a report. They learnt that
the marriage of the accused with deceased was his fourth one.
15. Prosecution examined PW.3, who was neighbour, and his
evidence was that on the date of offence at 12:30 or 01:00 p.m.,
when he was taking food, A-1 and his father A-3 came and stated
that the deceased bolted the door from inside and was not
responding to their calls. He went and knocked the door. She did
not respond. They suspected that the deceased committed suicide
AVRB,J
and asked A-1 to complain to Police. Then Vijaya Krishna Murthy
(A-3) gave two telephone numbers one belonged to Avanigadda
RTC depot and another number belongs to the relative of the
accused. He advised A-1 to give a complaint to Police. He does not
know whether A-1 gave complaint or not. Police came there and
examined him. According to him, the girl was found dead by
hanging.
16. Prosecution examined PW.4 - mediator who mediated the
marriage between the accused and the deceased and he spoke of
the fact that A-3 asked him about the girl i.e., the deceased and
requested him to make alliance to perform the marriage of A-1
with the girl and he told him that the parents of the deceased were
not in a position to give any dowry to which A-3 stated that he is
not interested in dowry as such he mediated the issue. Accordingly
the marriage between the deceased and A-1 was performed.
17. PW.5 was a neighbour and his evidence is that Police asked
him to act as a mediator and he broke upon the doors and they
found one lady hanging under the ceiling fan and she was found
dead. The saree with which the deceased hanging was cut and the
dead body was brought to ground. MO.1 is the saree piece. MO.2
AVRB,J
was the broken bolt. He and LW.16 - P. Lakhmi Narayana were
present at the time of observation of the scene of offence.
18. Prosecution examined the Tahsildar as PW.6 to speak that
he conducted inquest. According to him, on 18.09.2007 at the
request of Police, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the
deceased. Ex.P-2 is the inquest report. During inquest, as per the
statements of the witnesses, they were of the view that the
deceased was harassed by her husband to bring additional dowry
as such she committed suicide.
19. Prosecution examined PW.7 - Medical Officer and he was
the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Tenali. At the
request of MRO, he along with one Dr. M. Saradabai jointly
conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of
deceased on 18.09.2007 at 03:30 p.m. They found the following
external injuries:
1) An old scar of abrasion seen on the left thigh
anterior aspect.
2) An induration on right side back of chest and right
side hip.
3) An old scar of abrasion seen on left wrist.
AVRB,J
4) A ligature mark is seen in front of neck between
chin and Larynx. The base is pale and hard.
5) Post-mortem apothecial (spots) haemorrhage are
seen in lower extremities.
6) Congestion of conjunctiva are seen.
Ex.P-4 is the post-mortem certificate and Exs.P-5 and P-6
are the final opinions from Forensic Department. Ex.P-7 is the
final opinion of the post-mortem, as per which the deceased
appears to have died of asphyxia due to hanging.
20. PW.8 was the photographer who took photographs of the
dead body of the deceased. Ex.P-8 is 16 photoes. Ex.P-9 is the CD.
21. PW.9 was the D.S.P., Tenali who spoke of his investigation
in this case.
22. PW.10 was the SI of Police. According to him on 17.09.2007
at about 09:00 p.m. while he was on rounds, he had news about
the death of a girl in suspicious circumstances. He instructed the
staff and Revenue Inspector to be present at the scene of offence.
He went to the scene of offence. Parents of the deceased and
public were there. They found the door was locked inside and
people were peeping through the window. He broke open the door
AVRB,J
and entered into the house. He got the photographs taken and the
saree through which the dead body was hanging was cut and dead
body was brought down. He asked his constable to come back to
police station. Within 5 minutes, PW.1 came and presented Ex.P-1
report. He registered the same as a case in Crime No.100 of 2007
for the offence under Section 304-B R/w.34 IPC and sent the FIR
to all the concerned. Ex.P-13 is the FIR sent to Court along with
the original complaint.
23. Sri D. Balakrishnaiah, learned counsel for the appellant,
would strenuously contend that the learned Additional Sessions
Judge having recorded an order of acquittal under Section 304-B
IPC proceeded to convict the appellant/A-1 under Section 306 IPC.
A-2 and A-3 were exonerated of the charge under Section 306 IPC
and all the accused were exonerated of Section 304-B IPC. The
case of the prosecution is that the deceased died by hanging
herself. According to the post-mortem report, there were other
injuries and there were injuries caused to her during course of
hanging with saree and injury Nos.1 and 2 are older than injury
No.2. When the learned Additional Sessions Judge exonerated A-1
under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC but erroneously convicted
him under Section 306 IPC. Absolutely, there was no abetment of
AVRB,J
suicide of deceased by A-1 within the meaning of Section 306 IPC.
In fact, there was no question of A-1 or his parents making any
demands on the deceased to get additional amounts for the reason
that in fact A-2 lent an amount of Rs.30,000/- under Ex.D-1 to
PW.1 at the time of marriage of second daughter of PW.1. Ex.D-1
was admitted during the course of his cross-examination. So,
when PW.1 was unable to meet the marriage expenditure of his
second daughter, he took the amount from the accused, it is
rather surprising that accused would make a demand to the
deceased to get additional amounts. PW.1 had no financial
capacity to pay any amounts to A-1 even at the time of marriage.
Absolutely, there was no abetment of suicide. Prosecution did not
establish the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC and, in
support his contention, he would rely upon the decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Punjab1
and Mariano Anto Bruno and another v. The Inspector of
Police2. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that
absolutely there was no basis for prosecution to allege that A-1
caused any cruelty so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide
and when the learned Additional Sessions Judge exonerated him
1 LAWS (SC)-2020-10-9
2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834
AVRB,J
under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC convicting A-1 under Section
306 IPC is not sustainable.
24. Sri N. Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant,
representing learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the
respondent-State, would contend that the prosecution did not
prefer any Appeal as against the judgment of learned Additional
Sessions Judge in acquitting A-1 to A-3 for the offence under
Section 304-B IPC and further against acquittal of A-2 and A-3 for
the offence under Section 306 IPC but the evidence on record is
quietly sufficient to convict the accused under Section 306 IPC. It
appears that though the learned Additional Sessions Judge
believed the allegations under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC but
conviction was not recorded under Section 498-A IPC and in fact
when the conviction was recorded under Section 306 IPC, there
was no need to record any conviction under Section 498-A IPC.
Absolutely, there was no order at all exonerating A-1 under
Section 498-A IPC. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions
Judge was of the view that the conviction of A-1 under Section 306
IPC is sufficient because it also contains the ingredients of Section
498-A IPC. The contention of the appellant that A-1 was acquitted
for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not sustainable. He
AVRB,J
would further submit that though the prosecution did not
establish the allegations of demand for dowry, as observed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, but on account of the fact that
there is no appeal filed by the prosecution he would confine his
arguments to the extent of allegations under Section 306 IPC.
Ex.P-1 report and the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 would reveal
that A-1 used to beat the deceased. So, it is a case of physical
violence. The evidence of the Medical Officer coupled with the post-
mortem findings would disclose that there were injuries on the
person of the deceased though they were not fresh in nature but
they were tallied with the evidence of PW.1 that 20 days prior to
the death of deceased she complained that the accused beat her
by demanding additional dowry. Further on 14.09.2007 also she
complained the same against the accused and on the next day the
deceased informed him that she was apprehending danger in the
hands of the accused. So, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
looking into the post-mortem examination regarding the physical
violence done against the deceased was of the considered view that
the case would fall under the cover of Section 306 IPC. The
findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge were
based on the over all evidence as such the conviction under
AVRB,J
Section 306 IPC is sustainable under law and facts and the Appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
25. It is to be noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge
did not believe the allegations of demand for dowry etc., In that
view of the matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
exonerated A-1 to A-3 under Section 304-B IPC and further
exonerated A-2 and A-3 for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
There was no finding that the learned Additional Session Judge
exonerated A-1 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC but his
conviction was not recorded under Section 498-A IPC. There were
findings by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the
ingredients of Section 498-A IPC will always be present in a case of
offence under Section 304-B IPC and if the offence is falling short
under Section 304-B IPC, the Court has to see whether the offence
under Section 306 and 498-A IPC is made out and came to the
conclusion that the offence under Section 306 IPC is proved
against A-1. There is no finding in the judgment as to the
conviction and sentence of accused under Section 498-A IPC. It is
to be noted that the prosecution did not come up with any Appeal
for a separate conviction under Section 498-A IPC.
AVRB,J
26. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer here Sections 306 and
498-A IPC, which runs as follows:
"306. Abetment of suicide -- If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine".
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty--Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation --For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means--
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely
to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury
or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical)
of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with
a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet
any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security
or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her
to meet such demand."
27. So, in view of Section 498-A IPC, cruelty means any willful
conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive a married woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
AVRB,J
health. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge
thought of to convict and sentence A-1 under Section 306 IPC.
Under the circumstances, simply because the learned Additional
Sessions Judge did not convict and sentence A-1 under Section
498-A IPC, his conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be said to
be erroneous. So, the proper course now is to see as to whether
the evidence on record proves that A-1 abetted the deceased to
commit suicide in the manner as alleged.
28. Now, this Court has to see as to whether the evidence on
record is sufficient to say that the deceased was subjected to
mental and physical harassment. As seen from Ex.P-1 report
lodged by PW.1, there is a clear whisper that A-1 used to beat the
deceased and subjected her to physical violence. This statement
was also made by PW.1 in his evidence. During the course of
evidence, he put forth two instances i.e., 20 days prior to incident
the accused demanded additional dowry and beat the deceased
and another episode was on 14.09.2007 the deceased expressed
danger in the hands of accused. There is evidence of PW.3 -
mother of the deceased also complaining that accused used to
beat the deceased. As seen from the evidence of Medical Officer
i.e., PW.7, injury No.1 is old scar of abrasion on the left thigh of
AVRB,J
anterior aspect, injury No.2 is an induration on right side back of
chest and right side hip and injury No.3 is old scar of abrasion on
left wrist.
29. During the course of cross-examination, he deposed that
injury No.3 might be due to struggle. Injury Nos.1 and 3 are older
than injury No.2. It is to be noted that injury No.4 was a ligature
mark in front of neck between chin and larynx and injury No.5 is
post-mortem petechial hemorrhages in the lower extremities.
Injury No.6 is congestion of conjunctiva. By virtue of the evidence
of PW.7 coupled with the post-mortem report, the prosecution was
able to establish that some days prior to the death the deceased
received three injuries i.e., injury Nos.1 to 3. It is to be noted that
both the deceased and A-1 were residing together. Though the
evidence of PW.1 in cross-examination reveals that with regard to
the previous harassment since 4 years they did not give any
complaint under the Dowry Prohibition Act and they did not give
any other complaint when her daughter was harassed, it is not
going to affect the case of prosecution in any way. In a case of this
nature, the report would come into picture when the alleged
harassment reaches to the un-bearable extent. Hence, though
there was no report lodged by PW.1 or the deceased prior to her
AVRB,J
death with regard to the so called acts alleged against A-1 but on
this ground the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. The
prosecution was able to prove the physical violence against the
deceased by virtue of injury Nos.1 to 3 noted in the post-mortem
examination. Those injuries were corresponding to the episodes
which occurred 20 days prior to the incident and on 14.09.2007
as spoken to by PW.1. So, the prosecution was able to prove before
the learned Additional Sessions Judge the factum of physical
violence against the deceased. The kith and kin of the deceased
were the proper persons to speak about the physical violence
meted out by the deceased in the hands of accused. PW.1 and
PW.2 were no other than the parents of the deceased. It is to be
noted that the place of death was in the house of A-1. The cause of
death was by hanging. It was a case of suicide undoubtedly. There
was evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 to speak to the fact that A-1 used
to beat the deceased. The death of the deceased was within 7 years
from the date of her marriage.
30. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer here Section 113-A of
the Indian Evidence Act relating to presumption in case of suicide
by a married woman:
AVRB,J
"113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
married woman -- When the question is whether the
commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her
husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that
she had committed suicide within a period of seven years
from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such
relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the
Court may presume, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been
abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation -- For the purposes of this section,
"cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code."
31. The evidence on record would prove that the deceased was
subjected to physical violence in the company of A-1. She died
within a period of 7 years in the house of A-1 by hanging herself.
So, it enables this Court to draw a presumption under Section
113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that A-1 abetted the
commission of suicide.
32. This Court has gone through the aforesaid two decisions
cited by learned counsel for the Appellant. In Gurcharan Singh
(1st supra), the facts were that originally charges were framed
under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. Though there was no charge
under Section 306 IPC, on the ground that the evidence on record
AVRB,J
would prove that the deceased was driven to commit suicide by the
circumstances or atmosphere in the matrimonial home A-1 was
convicted by the trial Court and the same was confirmed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana. On Appeal to the Hon'ble Apex
Court, Hon'ble Apex Court, considering the essential ingredients of
Section 306 IPC, was of the view that the evidence on record would
not prove the offence under Section 306 IPC. In my considered
view the facts in the above decision stand on a different footing.
33. Here is a case that the deceased was subjected to physical
violence and there were external injuries on her body. A-1 and the
deceased were residing together. The incident was happened in the
house of A-1. There was evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 about the
physical violence against the deceased in the hands of A-1. The
facts in Gurcharan Singh (1st supra) are distinguishable from the
case on hand.
34. Turning to the other decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Mariano Anto Bruno (2nd supra), when the charges were under
Section 498-A and 306 IPC and looking into the evidence available
on record, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the prosecution did
not prove the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.
AVRB,J
35. Coming to the present case on hand, the evidence on record
is sufficient to say that the deceased was subjected to physical
violence as such there were three injuries which were prior to her
death. The prosecution need not prove that those injuries were
caused to the deceased on the date of offence. It is sufficient on
the part of prosecution to prove that A-1 caused injuries to the
deceased while subjecting her to cruelty. Having regard to the
above, even the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mariano
Anto Bruno (2nd supra), is distinguishable from the present case
on hand.
36. The simple question in this case is whether A-1 abetted the
deceased in commission of her suicide. As this Court already
pointed out, the prosecution could succeed by proving the cruelty
in the form of causing any injury or danger to life, limb or health
of the deceased. In fact, explanation to Section 498-A reveals that
any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
life, limb or health of a woman would amount to cruelty. In my
considered view, the evidence on record proves the acts of violence
against the deceased by A-1. A-1 had no probable say during the
course of cross-examination of Medical Officer explaining the
AVRB,J
circumstances in which injury Nos.1 to 3 were found on the
person of the deceased, which is within the exclusive knowledge of
A-1 being the husband of the deceased to put forth a probable say
or plausible cause as to how the deceased received such injuries.
In my considered view, though the learned Additional Sessions
Judge extended an order of acquittal under Section 304-B IPC
against A-1 to A-3 and further acquitted A-2 and A-3 under
Section 306 IPC but the learned Additional Sessions Judge
appreciated the evidence in proper perspective looking into the
injuries sustained by the deceased and came to a right conclusion
that the evidence on record proved the offence under Section 306
IPC against A-1.
37. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view that the prosecution proved the charge under Section 306
IPC against A-1 beyond reasonable doubt as such I do not see any
ground to interfere with the same.
38. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming
the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/A-1 for
the offence under Section 306 IPC in Sessions Case No.413 of
2008, dated 24.07.2009, on the file of the Court of XI Additional
District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur at Tenali.
AVRB,J
39. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under
Section 388 Cr.P.C to certify the judgment of this Court to the
learned XI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur at
Tenali and on such certification, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge shall take necessary steps to carry out the remaining
sentence imposed against the appellant/accused No.1 in Sessions
Case No.413 of 2008, dated 24.07.2009, and to report compliance
to this Court. Registry is directed to dispatch a copy of this
judgment along with the trial Court record, if any, to the learned
Additional Sessions Judge on or before 09.01.2024. A copy of this
judgment be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for
giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the
Registry.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 02.01.2024
DSH
