Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Sidda Rajaiah Raju on 13 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.710 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State questioning
the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence under
Section 306 r/w. 34 of IPC.
2. Heard Dr.Surepalli Prashant, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-State and the learned counsel
for the respondents. Perused the entire material on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto
complainant/P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased. A-1 is
the PDS rice dealer and A-2 is his younger brother. On
27.02.2016, the deceased informed her husband/P.W.1 that
A-1 was not supplying PDS rice to them for the past one
month, even after several requests. When P.W.1 went and
questioned A-1 as to why he is not supplying PDS rice, A-1
replied rudely stating that P.W.1 can take rice only whenever
he supplies and he can do whatever he wants to. P.W.1
returned home and in the evening A-1 and A-2 went to the
house of P.W.1 and pushed P.W.1 and also the deceased and
threatened them not to come towards ration shop and
humiliated them. On account of the said incident, the
deceased got distressed, went into the house and slept in the
room. On 27.02.2016, the deceased committed suicide fed
up with the life and acts of A-1 and A-2.
4. On the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, Police
registered the case under Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC.
5. Learned Senior Civil Judge having examined the
relevant witnesses who are P.Ws.1 to 10 found that no
offence was made out against respondents/accused.
6. The reasons given by the learned Senior Civil Judge are
that there was no direct witness to the alleged act of A-1 and
A-2, pushing the deceased or P.W.1 or insulting them. In
fact, to attract an offence under Section 306 of IPC,
ingredients of Section 107 of IPC have to be fulfilled. Pushing
or abusing stating that rice will not be given, will not amount
to abetment.
7. Having gone through the record, even accepting that
A-1 and A-2 pushed the deceased and P.W.1, asking them
not to come to the ration shop that in itself would not
amount to abetting suicide.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurucharan Singh v.
State of Punjab 1 held that there must be existence of a live
link or nexus between the abetment and consequent suicide,
abetment being the propelling causative factor to the death.
9. It appears that when P.W.1 questioned A-1 for not
supplying rice, there was an altercation in between them,
even accepting that A-1 and A-2 pushed P.W.1 and the
deceased that in itself would not fall within any of the
ingredients of Section 107 of IPC.
10. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
another 2, 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 appellate court has to be relatively
2017(1) ALD(Crl.)343
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering
acquittal.
11. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 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.
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."
12. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the
findings of the learned Senior Civil Judge.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 13.11.2024
dv
