The State Of Telangana vs Peddrapally Sreenu
2023 Latest Caselaw 2574 Tel

                HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.512 OF 2022

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the

acquittal recorded by the Secretary-cum-Senior Civil Judge, DLSA,

Mahabubanagar, FAC:Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar, in SC.No.88 of 2014, dated 25.08.2014, whereby

the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that the

respondent/accused was not guilty of the offence punishable

under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard.

3. The wife of the accused committed suicide. The mother of

the deceased who was examined as PW1 lodged a complaint

alleging that the marriage of the accused with her daughter was

performed seven years prior to the incident. Thereafter, the

accused was ill-treating and harassing her daughter physically

and mentally. On the date of committing suicide she came to

know that the deceased was beaten by the accused, for which

reason she committed suicide.

4. The other witnesses PWs.2 and 3 who are cited as

independent witnesses did not state any incident regarding

harassment. PWs.4 and 5 who are panchas of scene of offence

declared hostile.

5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that in the

Dying Declaration, a statement was made by the deceased that

she was ill-treated, for which reason she committed suicide.

6. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that taking into

consideration the Dying Declaration would not suffice to infer

abetment by the accused. To attract an offence under Section 306

of the Indian Penal Code, there must be active role which can be

described as instigation or aiding or doing of a thing amounting to

abetting the commission of offence.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in the

case of M.Arjunan v. State rep. by its Inspector of Police 1 held

as follows:

"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC 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 the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC."

(2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 315

8. In Amalendupal v. State of West Bengal 2, the Supreme

Court held as under:-

"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable."

9. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that there are

no such instances that are narrated and in the absence of any

provocation, incitement, encouraging and the acts done by the

accused resulting in the deceased committing suicide, accused

cannot be punished under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

10. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)

and another 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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

(2010) 1 SCC 707

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the

appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of

the trial court rendering acquittal.

11. 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.

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.

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. In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme

Court in the aforesaid Judgments and in the facts and

circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the order of learned

Sessions Judge in acquitting the accused for the offence under

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:21.09.2023 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.512 OF 2022

Dt. 21.09.2023

tk