The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... vs Kukkadapu Somaiah
2021 Latest Caselaw 2923 Tel

          HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE C.SUMALATHA

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1853 of 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. Challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment dated

26.02.2008 rendered by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalguda, in

S.C.No.218 of 2007, the appellant, who is the complainant in the said

case, is before this Court by way of appeal.

2. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that the judgment of the

trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of

the case; that the learned judge ought to have seen that the prosecution

made out its case against the accused; that the learned judge erred in

disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which is cogent

and reliable; that the learned judge failed to observe that all the

respondents-accused levelled false allegations against the deceased-

Kalpana due to which she committed suicide; and therefore, the appeal

has to be allowed setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.

3. Reported to take it as heard by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and also by the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents-accused.

4. Now the points that arise for consideration are:

(1) Whether the appellant emerged successful

before the trial Court in establishing the guilt of the

respondents-accused beyond all reasonable doubt

for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C.

Dr.CSL , J

(2) Whether there exists any infirmity in the

judgment of the trial Court either in appreciating

the facts of the case or in applying the established

principles of law to the said facts, as contended by

the appellant herein, which in turn requires

interference of this Court exercising the appellate

jurisdiction.

5. Point No.1:

The case of the appellant, as projected in the charge sheet, is

that the respondents-accused laid an allegation against the deceased-

Kalpana that she committed theft of a gold chain at the house of

respondent No.2 and insulted her, due to which disgusted with life, the

deceased-Kalpana on 14.12.2006 set fire to herself, received burn

injuries and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment.

6. After framing a charge for the offence punishable under Section

306 I.P.C. for which the respondents-accused pleaded not guilty, the

learned judge of the trial Court proceeded with the trial of the case,

recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 13, marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 and

finally gave a verdict that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of

the accused for the charge levelled against them and thereby acquitted

them. The said finding is under challenge in this appeal.

7. As rightly projected in the impugned judgment, none of the

material witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. P.W-2 who

is the father of the deceased-Kalpana and P.W-3 who is the mother of

the deceased- Kalpana failed to support the version of the prosecution Dr.CSL , J

in toto. They denied the contents of Exs.P-2 and P-3 respectively

which are their alleged 161 Cr.P.C. statements given to Police. P.W-5

who is shown to be the circumstantial witness gave evidence to the

effect that the respondents-accused never harassed or abetted the

deceased-Kalpana to commit suicide.

8. Thus, the evidence that is left on record for consideration is only

of P.W-7-Civil Assistant Surgeon who stated that the deceased-

Kalpana was conscious and coherent while recording her statement

i.e., Ex.P-6, the evidence of P.W-8 who recorded the dying declaration

of the deceased-Kalpana and the evidence of P.W-10 who investigated

into the case.

9. No doubt, the dying declaration if found cogent and convincing

and without infirmities can be allowed to form sole basis for

convicting the accused. But when the dying declaration which is

marked as Ex.P-6 is meticulously perused, it is found that the

deceased-Kalpana has not stated that the respondents-accused have

abetted her to commit suicide. Her statement is only to the effect that

the respondents-accused blamed her that she had committed theft of a

gold chain for which she gave reply in negative and on that, they

stated that they would give a complaint and therefore, she poured

kerosene upon herself and set ablaze. Thus, the averments does not

themselves constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C.,

where the ingredients of abetment to commit suicide requires

establishment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant

failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt before the trial Dr.CSL , J

Court and therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents-

accused.

10. Point No.2:

The judgment of the trial Court is on proper lines in all aspects.

There requires no interference of the said well-reasoned judgment.

The learned judge of the trial Court has not erred in any aspects i.e.,

either in appreciating the facts or in applying the law laid down.

Therefore, the appeal lacks merits.

11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed confirming

the judgment dated 26.02.2008 rendered by the Assistant Sessions

Judge, Miryalguda, in S.C.No.218 of 2007.

_________________________ Dr. JUSTICE C.SUMALATHA 21.10.2021 dr