Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Konka Sundara Rao Sundaraiah on 21 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.911 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T:
1. The State is questioning the judgment of acquittal of
the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.157 of 2022
on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Sathupally, who were tried for the offence punishable under
Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
appellant-State and learned counsel for the
respondents/accused. Perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the
husband of PW.1 and father of PW.2. According to PW.1 her
husband took loan of Rs.5 thousand from accused No.1 and
could not repay the amount. Repeatedly, accused No.1
demanded the deceased for the payment to be made.
However, on 12.09.2019 accused Nos.1 to 3 went to the
house of the deceased. At that time PWs.1 and 2 were not
present in the house. The accused allegedly demanded for
repayment of loan. PWs.3 and 4 are the eye witnesses to the
demand of amount by accused Nos.1 to 3 from the
deceased. According to PW.3, the accused uttered that
"Nuvvu Dabbulisthava lekapothe Chasthava" (will you pay
the money or will you die) and according to PW.4, the
accused uttered that "Nuvvu Dabbulisthava lekapothe
mandu thagi chavu" (pay the money failing which you drive
poison and die). Unable to bear the insult, according to
prosecution case, deceased committed suicide.
4. In order to attract an offence under Section 306 of
Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the
ingredients under Section 107 of IPC to constitute
abetment. The intention and involvement of the accused to
aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Merely,
asking for outstanding amount or abusing for not paying
the outstanding amount will not in any manner come within
the definition of abetting suicide as required under Section
107 of Indian Penal Code. In 2017 1SCC 433 Gurucharan
Singh Vs State of Punjab, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
what constitutes abetment. Further, in 2019 3SCC 315 M.
Arjunan Vs The State Rep. by its Inspector of Police,
held that insulting the deceased by using abusive language
will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide.
5. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
another 1, 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 analyzed.
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 slow in reversing the
order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
6. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 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-
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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.
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."
7. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the
well reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
There are no grounds even to admit the appeal.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 21.10.2024
mmr
