Elagandula Sadanandam vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 4210 Tel

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.114 of 2021

JUDGMENT:

Sole accused in Sessions Case No.37 of 2016 on the file of the

Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad, is the appellant herein. The

appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 306

of I.P.C. By its judgment, dated 16.03.2021, the learned trial Judge

convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section

306 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default,

to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.06.2015,

P.W.1 lodged a written complaint (Ex.P1) before the Police,

Chigurumamidi Police Station, stating that he is a resident of

Indurthi Village and eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work;

he had one daughter and one son; while his daughter, namely, Ande

Amala (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), aged 21 years,

was studying Degree final year in Shivani Degree College,

Karimnagar, his distant relative i.e., the appellant, used to go to the

college and harass his daughter under the pretext of love and the

deceased informed the same to him and that he warned the

appellant not to follow his daughter, however, the appellant did not

change his attitude and used to send messages to the mobile phone

of the deceased and as such the deceased mentally distressed.

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

Again on 24.06.2015, the deceased told to P.W.1 that the appellant

threatened her if she did not love him, he will put her photo in face-

book and on that P.W.1 informed the deceased that he will call the

appellant tomorrow and warn him. On 25.06.2015 P.W.1 and his

wife (P.W.4) went to his son Arjun at Bommanapalli, where he is

suffering from ill-health. On the same day at about 9.30 A.M., the

neighbour of P.W.1 i.e., Ande Pochaiah informed over telephone

that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging and that P.Ws.1

and 4 went to his house and found that the deceased has committed

suicide by hanging to a Beem with plastic rope and also found a

note book on the table in which the deceased wrote a suicide note.

Basing on the said report, P.W.11-Assistant Sub Inspector of Police,

Chigurumamidi, registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2015 for the

offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. and issued Ex.P16-

First Information Report; examined and recorded the statement of

PW.1; visited the scene of offence and found the hanging dead body

of the deceased, got photographed the dead body of the deceased

with the help of P.W.7 and examined P.Ws.2 to 4, who are the

relatives of the deceased; prepared Ex.P17-Crime Detail Form-cum-

seizure panchanama in the presence of P.W.9 and another; seized

Ex.P2-suicide note under a cover of panchanama and also drawn

rough sketch of the scene of offence. Thereafter, P.W.11 held inquest

over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.9 and

sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination and

P.W.13-Doctor, Government Hospital, Husnabad, conducted

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P20-

Post Mortem Examination Report and opined that the cause of death

was "due to asphyxia as a result of hanging". Subsequently,

P.W.12-Sub Inspector of Police examined P.Ws.5 and 6 and

apprehended the accused at Mulkanoor Bus stand; sent the suicide

note (Ex.P2) along with answer booklet (Ex.P14) containing the

handwriting of the deceased to the F.S.L. After completion of

investigation, PW.12 filed the charge sheet before the Court of

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, who in

turn committed the case to the Sessions Division and on committal,

the same came to be numbered as S.C.No.37 of 2016.

On appearance of the accused, a charge under Section 306 of

I.P.C. was framed against the accused, read over and explained to

him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to

13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20. After closure of prosecution

evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with

reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him

in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which he denied.

Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of

the accused.

On appraisal of the evidence both oral and documentary, the

learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant/accused for the

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

aforesaid offence and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved by

the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused preferred

the present appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant/accused emphatically

contended that the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant

without there being any clinching evidence to connect him with the

case; that the evidence on record does not furnish the ingredients of

abetment as envisaged in Section 306 of I.P.C.; that the trial Court

failed to appreciate properly with regard to P.L.C.No.870 of 2015,

filed by the appellant/accused before the District Legal Services

Authority, Karimnagar, against the deceased stating that the

deceased used to harass him to marry her and in the said case, no

counter has been filed by the deceased and, therefore, an adverse

inference under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act could have been

drawn in favour of the accused. It is further submitted that P.W.12-

Investigating Officer stated in his evidence that he did not collect the

photographs, did not seize the cell phone of the deceased and also

did not verify the conversation between the accused and deceased

through Face-book or WhatsApp and, therefore, it could have been

presumed that there was no chatting between the accused and

deceased at any point of time. It is further submitted that the trial

Court did not even appreciate properly Ex.P2-suicide note and that

there is absolutely no evidence available on record except Ex.P2 to

connect the accused with the commission of offence and, therefore,

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

basing on Ex.P2 only, conviction and sentence imposed against the

accused is unjustified. It is further submitted that there are

omissions and contradictions in the evidence of material witnesses

and that the entire prosecution case depends on the circumstantial

evidence, which is very weak piece of evidence and hence the

conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside in the interest of

justice. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the

appellant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Gurcharan

Singh v. State of Punjab1.

On the contrary, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent contended that the evidence on record

would clinchingly establish the case against the appellant and,

therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed against the

appellant/accused is justified and the Criminal Appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

A perusal of the evidence on record would show that the

deceased committed suicide by hanging. The point that arises for

consideration is whether the appellant is responsible for the said

suicide of the deceased or not.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many

as 13 witnesses. P.W.1 is the father, P.Ws.2 and 3 are the

neighbours, P.W.4 is the mother and P.W.5 is the classmate of the

deceased. P.W.6 is the elder, who accompanied the parents of the

(2017) 1 SCC 433

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

deceased to Karimnagar II-Town Police Station and gave complaint

against the appellant. P.W.7 is the photographer; P.Ws.8 and 9 are

panch witnesses for the inquest panchanama, P.W.10 is the Scientific

Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, who opined that the hand

writings on suicide note and answer booklet of the deceased are

pertains to the same person. P.Ws.11 and 12 are the Investigating

Officers and P.W.13 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem over

the dead body of the deceased.

The entire case of the prosecution rests solely on Ex.P2-suicide

note left by the deceased. A reading of Ex.P2-suicide note clearly

shows that due to the acts of the appellant/accused, the deceased

felt humiliated and committed suicide.

P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, deposed that the

appellant is his distant relative; about four years prior to the date of

his evidence, his deceased daughter committed suicide by hanging

as the appellant harassed her. He further stated that though the

appellant was already married, he followed the deceased and lured

her in the name of love and when the deceased informed the same,

they called the appellant and admonished him, for which he gave a

written undertaking, dated 05.04.2015, before the police, II Town

Police Station, Karimnagar, stating that he will not follow the

deceased in future in the name of love, however, again the appellant

followed the deceased in the name of love and threatened her that

he will keep her photographs in facebook and internet and he would

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

defame her. He further stated that since their son Raju was admitted

in Ayurvedic Hospital at Bommanapalli Village, they informed the

deceased that they will admonish the appellant once again and

thereafter they received a phone call from Ande Pochaiah stating

that the deceased committed suicide and immediately they went to

their home and by that time their neighbours broke open the doors

and that they found the dead body of the deceased and also a

suicide note written by the deceased narrating the entire incident

and that the appellant is responsible for the death of the deceased.

In the cross-examination, P.W.1 deposed that prior to Ex.P1-

complaint, they did not lodge any complaint against the appellant at

Chigurumamidi Police Station, but they gave a complaint at

Karimnagar II Town Police Station. He further deposed that they

did not give the cell phone of the deceased to police to show the text

messages received by the deceased from the appellant. They also

did not give the earlier copy of complaint given at Karimnagar II

Town Police Station along with Ex.P1-complaint to Police,

Chigurumamidi. He does not know whether the appellant gave a

complaint against the deceased before the District Legal Services

Authority, Karimnagar on 24.03.2015 stating that the deceased

demanded him to marry her and also threatened to defame him

before his wife stating that he was having illegal relation with the

deceased and that she will commit suicide by pouring kerosene on

her by writing a suicide note against the appellant. The suicide note

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

under Ex.P2 was seized by the police. He denied the suggestion that

the deceased fell in love with the appellant and since the appellant

refused to love her as he was already married, the deceased bore

grudge against him. He does not know which photos of the

deceased are in the custody of the appellant. He denied the

suggestion that photos of the deceased are in possession of the

appellant and that he never threatened the deceased to upload the

photos of the deceased in facebook or internet or any other place.

He admitted that the appellant never asked the deceased to commit

suicide. He also denied the suggestion that the alleged suicide note

under Ex.P2 was not written by the deceased.

P.W.2, who is the neighbour of the deceased, deposed that on

25.06.2015 at about 9.30 A.M., she went to the house of the deceased

for taking lemon, but the door was closed and then she called the

deceased, but in vain and since she got a doubt, she informed the

matter to P.W.3. Thereafter, P.W.3 came to the house of the

deceased and knocked the door, but in vain. P.W.3 also suspected

that something went wrong and then he broke open the door with

the help of a crowbar and entered into the house and noticed that

the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Thereafter, the

neighbours informed the matter to the parents of the deceased over

phone. P.W.2 further deposed that their village Sarpanch and other

villagers noticed the suicide note written by the deceased and by

that time their villagers also came to know that the deceased

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

committed suicide due to harassment, blackmailing and threatening

of the accused that he would upload the photos of the deceased in

facebook and internet so as to defame the deceased, due to which

the deceased committed suicide. In the cross-examination, P.W.2

deposed that she stated to the police that she noticed the suicide

note on a table in the house of the deceased. She does not know

whether the appellant gave a complaint against the deceased at

District Legal Services Authority, Karimnagar, on 24.03.2015 vide

P.L.C.No.870 of 2015 stating that the deceased demanded him to

marry her and also threatened to defame the appellant before his

wife stating that he was having illegal relation with the deceased

and that she would commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her

leaving a suicide note against the accused.

P.W.3, who is another neighbour of the deceased, also

deposed in similar lines as that of P.W.2.

P.W.4, who is the mother of the deceased, supported the

version of P.W.1 and also deposed on the same lines as that of

P.W.1.

P.W.5, who is the classmate of the deceased, deposed that on

25.06.2015 at about 9.30 A.M., she came to know that the deceased

committed suicide by hanging and immediately she went to the

house of the deceased and noticed the hanging dead body of the

deceased and also a suicidal note written by the deceased stating

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

that the appellant harassed her due to which she committed suicide.

She also deposed that prior to the incident, the deceased never

discussed anything regarding the appellant with her. She does not

know anything else about the facts of the case and that police never

examined and never recorded her statement. In the cross-

examination, she deposed that she never saw the appellant

harassing the deceased and she never saw while the deceased and

the appellant were talking with each other. She does not know

exactly what had happened in between the deceased and the

appellant and whether the deceased demanded the appellant to love

her and marry her for which the appellant filed a P.L.C.No.870 of

2015 stating that the deceased demanded him to marry her

otherwise she would defame the appellant before his wife stating

that he was having illegal relation with the deceased and she would

commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her leaving a suicide note

against the accused.

P.W.6 is the elder of the village. He deposed that on

25.06.2015 at about 9.30 A.M. while he was at his home, he came to

know through the villagers that the deceased committed suicide by

hanging and then he rushed to the house of the deceased, noticed

hanging dead body of the deceased and also a suicide note written

by the deceased stating that the appellant harassed her by calling

her over phone and demanded her to marry him and also threatened

her that he would upload her photos in WhatApp and facebook, due

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

to which she committed suicide. He further deposed that about two

months prior to the death of the deceased, her father informed him

that the appellant was following and harassing the deceased, on that

he, along with the parents of the deceased, went to Karimnagar II

Town Police Station and gave a complaint against the appellant and

the police called the appellant and admonished him and that the

appellant gave a written undertaking that he will not follow or

harass the deceased in future. In the cross-examination, P.W.6

deposed that at the time of incident, his wife was working as

Sarpanch of the said village. He further deposed that he had also

read the suicide note along with other villagers. He also deposed

that he has not seen the messages sent by the appellant to the

deceased. He does not know whether the appellant gave a

complaint against the deceased at District Legal Services Authority,

Karimnagar on 24.03.2015 vide P.L.C.No.870 of 2015 stating that the

deceased had demanded him to marry her, otherwise she would

defame and commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her leaving a

suicide note against the accused. He also deposed that P.W.1-father

of the deceased informed him that even after giving a complaint

against the appellant at Karimnagar II Town Police Station, the

appellant had again sent messages to the cell phone of the deceased.

He admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant never asked

the deceased to commit suicide.

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

P.W.7, is the photographer, deposed with regard to the

photographs taken by him under Exs.P3 to P10.

Since P.Ws.8 and 9, who are panch witnesses for inquest and

seizure panchanama, did not support the case of the prosecution,

they were declared hostile and nothing useful was elicited from

their cross-examination.

P.W.10 is the Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory,

Hyderabad, deposed that his office received cover containing the

suicide note and also one answer booklet of the deceased from the

Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Huzurabad and he had carefully and

thoroughly examined the questioned and standard writings with the

help of magnifiers and stereo microscope etc., and issued Ex.P15-

F.S.L. report opining that both the hand writings on Ex.P2 and

Ex.P14 were pertains to the same person.

P.Ws.11 and 12 are the Investigating Officers.

P.W.13 is the doctor, who conducted Post Mortem

Examination of the deceased deposed that he found a 'U' shape

ligature mark of size 10 x 1/2" circulating the neck of the deceased,

which is dark brown in colour and also a knot under the left ear of

the deceased and opined that the cause of death is asphyxia as a

result of hanging and accordingly he issued Ex.P20-Post Mortem

Report.

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 306 of I.P.C. In order to properly comprehend the

scope and ambit of Section 306 I.P.C., it is important to carefully

examine the basic ingredients of Section 306 of I.P.C. The said

Section is reproduced as under:-

"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."

The scope and ambit of Section 107 of I.P.C. and its co-relation

with Section 306 of I.P.C., has been discussed repeatedly by the

Apex Court. In S.Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another2 the

Apex Court observed as under:-

"Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of I.P.C. there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

In Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab3 in paragraph No.21 the Apex Court held as under:-

(2010) 12 SCC 190

(2017) 1 SCC 433

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

"21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 of I.P.C. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 of I.P.C., thus criminalizes the sustained incitement for suicide."

In M.Arjunan v. State rep. by its Inspector of Police4 the Apex

Court observed as under:-

"The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 of I.P.C."

(2019) 3 SCC 315

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

In Ude Singh and others v. State of Haryana5 the Apex

Court elucidated on the essential ingredients of the offence under

Section 306 of I.P.C. in the following words:-

"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a

(2019) 17 SCC 301

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."

In the instant case, the prosecution case mainly rests on two

factors, one is with regard to the phone calls made by the accused to

the deceased and another is the suicide note left by the deceased.

Insofar as the phone calls made by the accused to the deceased

and threatenings given to her to upload her photos in the facebook

or internet, no evidence has been produced by the prosecution.

P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, categorically admitted that

he does not know what photos of the deceased are in the custody of

the accused. P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased, also

admitted in her cross-examination that she does not know what

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

photos of the deceased are in the custody of the accused. Their

evidence was corroborated by the Investigating Officer, who was

examined as P.W.11. In the cross-examination, P.W.11 deposed that

he has not enquired with the college administration to know

whether the accused harassed the deceased in the college and

whether accused is having any face book account or not?. He also

admitted that he has not obtained particulars and call-data and

message data from the phone number of the accused and the

deceased. He also admitted that he has not seized the cell phone of

the deceased. Therefore, from the above, there is no evidence to

show that the accused was in possession of the photos of the

deceased and that he called the deceased and threatened her to

upload the said photos in the facebook and internet etc., if she

would not cater to his demand. Hence, the prosecution failed to

prove the first factor, which was relied upon by it.

Insofar as the second factor i.e., suicide note left by the

deceased is concerned, P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased;

P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the neighbours of P.W.1; P.W.4, who is the

mother of the deceased; P.W.6, who is the cousin brother of P.W.1,

have categorically admitted in their cross-examination that the

accused never asked the deceased to commit suicide. The defence

of the accused is that he filed a complaint against the deceased at

District Legal Services Authority, Karimnagar, on 24.03.2015, when

the deceased demanded the accused to marry her and threatened to

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

defame him before his wife stating that he was having illegal

relation with the deceased and that she would commit suicide by

pouring kerosene on her, leaving a suicide note against the accused,

and the same was numbered as P.L.C.No.870 of 2015. P.Ws.1 to 6

have categorically admitted in their cross-examination that they do

not know whether accused gave complaint against the deceased. A

perusal of the material on record would show that, admittedly, prior

to three months of the alleged suicide, the accused himself lodged a

complaint vide P.L.C.No.870 of 2015 before the District Legal

Services Authority, Karimnagar, stating that the deceased

demanded the accused to marry her otherwise she would commit

suicide by pouring kerosene on her and she would write a suicide

note against the accused. The complaint was filed by the accused

on 24.03.2015 and the deceased committed suicide on 25.06.2015.

From the above, it is clear that prior to the date of occurrence, the

accused lodged a complaint against the deceased and admittedly the

deceased has not given any reply to the said complaint or refuting

the allegations levelled against her.

Section 107 IPC defines abetment, according to which a person

abets the doing of a thing, who-

Firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or,

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

Thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1- A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

In order to attract the ingredients of abetment, there must be

some evidence regarding direct involvement of the accused to abet

the commission of suicide. Abetment involves a mental process of

instigating a person or intentional aiding that person in doing of a

thing. There must be active role of the accused for instigating the

deceased or aiding her to commit suicide, before he can be held

guilty of the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C.

Merely because a person, who has committed suicide, has left

a suicide note, one cannot come to a conclusion that it is enough to

mulct the accused with criminal liability under Section 306 IPC. The

contents of the suicide note have to be analyzed to find out whether

it contains any incriminating information in the nature of

instigation, provocation, forcing the victim to commit suicide.

In the instant case, P.Ws.1 to 6 have categorically admitted in

their cross-examination that the accused never asked the deceased to

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

commit suicide. Except the suicide note, there is no evidence in the

present case to show that there has been any act of omission or

commission on the part of the appellant before the death of the

deceased to demonstrate that the accused was responsible for the

same. In the absence of any direct evidence on this point, the

accused cannot be convicted and sentenced only on account of the

fact that the deceased left the suicide note naming the accused. In

the said circumstances and foregoing discussion, it can be inferred

that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence properly

and came to a wrong conclusion.

Further, the other incriminating circumstance, which the

prosecution has failed to prove, is that P.W.1 stated in his evidence

that prior to Ex.P1, they did not lodge any complaint against the

appellant at Chigurumamidi Police Station, but they gave a

complaint at Karimnagar II-Town Police Station. In his chief-

examination, P.W.1 stated that the accused had given a written

undertaking on 05.04.2015 before Karimnagar II Town Police Station

stating that he will not follow the deceased in future in the name of

love. However, during cross-examination, P.W.1 has categorically

stated that they have not enclosed the copy of the complaint, which

was given at Karimnagar II-Town Police Station, along with Ex.P1,

to the police at Chigurumamidi Police Station. In this regard, P.W.6

also stated that he accompanied the parents of the deceased to

Karimnagar II-Town Police Station and gave a complaint against the

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

accused and the police called the accused and admonished him and

accordingly the accused has given an undertaking that he will not

follow or harass the deceased in future.

But a perusal of the entire evidence available on record,

neither the police have taken any steps nor attempted to trace out

the earlier complaint lodged by P.W.1 against the accused with

regard to the harassment made by the accused to the deceased prior

to her death nor P.W.1 has filed any copy of the same before the

Court to substantiate his allegations levelled against the accused,

which proves that except the bald and oral statements, there was no

complaint whatsoever against the accused that he harassed the

deceased in the name of love during her life time and in this regard

any complaint was lodged against him.

For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the principles

of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, I am of the considered

view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the

appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the

impugned conviction and sentence imposed against the

appellant/accused are liable to be set aside.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the

conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused by

the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad, in S.C.No.37 of

2016, are hereby set aside and he is acquitted for the offence

GSD, J Crla_114_2021

punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C., and he shall be set at liberty

forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount, if

any, paid by the appellant/ accused, shall be refunded to him.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

09.12.2021 Gsn/gkv