Gaddameedi Mallaiah, Mahabubnagar ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2025 Latest Caselaw 2112 Tel

Telangana High Court

Gaddameedi Mallaiah, Mahabubnagar ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 13 February, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

      CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1655 OF 2016

O R D E R:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the

petitioner/accused against the judgment dated 08.06.2016 in

Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2015 passed by the Family Court -

Cum - VII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short,

"the appellate Court"), confirming the judgment dated 20.01.2013

in S.C.No.506 of 2013 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at

Shadnagar (for short, "the trial Court").

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the

petitioner/accused and the deceased-Padmamma took place

about 16 years back. After the marriage Padmamma joined the

company of the petitioner at Bairampally village and they lived

happily for 10 years and they were blessed with two children.

Later the petitioner was addicted to bad vices, like drinking and

used to harass Padmamma and beat her by suspecting her

fidelity. Though the same was pacified at that moment, the

petitioner did not change his attitude and started harassing the

deceased-Padmamma by beating her. Due to which, she

disgusted on her life and with a view committed suicide, she EVV,J CRLRC_1655_2016

poured kerosene on her body and lit fire. Immediately, she was

shifted CHC Shadnagar. Her statement was recorded by the ASI

of Police and case was registered in Crime No.100 of 2013. The

judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar recorded the

statement of Padmamma on 09.06.2013 in CHC Shadnagar and

while undergoing treatment she succumbed to injuries on

14.06.2013. Inquest and autopsy was conducted on dead body

of the deceased and finally the accused was arrested by the

Inspector of Police on 24.06.2013 and investigation revealed that

deceased Padmamma died due to committing suicide due to

harassment of the petitioner.

3. After taking cognizance, the trial Court committed this case

to the Court of Session, since the offence under Section 306 of

I.P.C is exclusively tribal by the Court of sessions.

4. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 14 and got marked Ex.P1 to P-16. M.O.No.1 was

marked. The evidence of Gaddamedi Mahesh and Sri V. Srinivasa

Rao respectively given up by Additional Public Prosecutor. The

inquest report was marked as Ex.P-12 through the evidence of

PW-12, but exhibits stamp affixed for the signature of PW-12 on

inquest only as Ex.P-12. Hence, the inquest report was marked EVV,J CRLRC_1655_2016

through PW-13 on 12.12.2014 as Ex.P.15. In defence, none were

examined and no documents were marked.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and

appreciation of evidence both the oral and documentary available

on record, the trial Court, vide judgment dated 20.01.215 in

S.C.No.506 of 2013, found the petitioner guilty and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also

directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable

under Section 306 I.P.C and in default of payment of fine he

would undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-

for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and in

default of payment of fine he would undergo rigorous

imprisonment of one month. Both sentences were directed to run

concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred

Crl.A.No.21 of 2015 on the file of Family Court - Cum - VII

Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and

also after re-appreciation of evidence available on record, the

appellate Court vide judgment dated 08.06.2016 dismissed the EVV,J CRLRC_1655_2016

appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.

Assailing the same, the present revision has been filed by the

petitioner/accused.

7. Heard Mr. L. Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner-

accused and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for respondent-State. Perused the material available on

record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that

both the Courts below ought not have convicted the petitioner on

the strength of dying declaration recorded by the Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, wherein the deceased stated that petitioner

was addicted to bad vices and used to beat her, suspecting her

character and the same does not amount to abetment, as defined

U/s.107 of I.P.C and also contended that both the Court ought

not to have convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A I.P.C, as the allegation made against him by

PW-1 and PW-2 and also by the deceased, through dying

declaration, is not satisfying explanation-A and Explanation B of

Section 498-A. EVV,J CRLRC_1655_2016

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal

Vs. Indrajit Kundu and others 1, which reads as follows:

...6. By the impugned order the High Court by recording a finding that terming the deceased as a call girl, there was no utterance which can be interpreted to be an act of instigating, goading or solicitation or insinuation to the deceased to commit suicide. By referring to cause law decided by this Court wherein similar utterances like, 'to go and die' does not constitute an offence for abetment, allowed the application filed by the respondents. It is observed in the order that the act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts, the consequence of suicide. By discussing the case law on the subject, the High Court allowed the application by setting aside the order of the trial Court and discharged the respondent-accused from the charge.

11. From the material placed on record, it is clear that the respondents are sought to be proceeded for charge under Sections 306/34 mainly relying on the suicide letters written by the deceased girl and the statements

(2019) 10 SCC 188 EVV,J CRLRC_1655_2016

recorded during the investigation. Even according to the case of de facto complainant, respondents 2 and 3 who are parents of the first respondent shouted at the deceased girl calling her a call girl. This happened on 05.03.2004 and the deceased girl committed suicide on 06.03.2004. By considering the material placed on record, we are also of the view that the parent case does not present any picture of abetment allegedly committed by the respondents. The suicide committed by the victim cannot be said to be the result of any action on the part of the respondents nor can it be said that commission of suicide by the victim was only course open to her due to action of the respondents.

There was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents to the victim to commit suicide.

10. In Swamy Prahaladds V. State of M.P 2, this Court while

considering utterances like 'to go and die' during the quarrel

between husband and wife, uttered by the husband held that

utterances of such words are not direct cause for the death of the

deceased".

Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the

1995 SUPP (3) SCC 438: 1955 SCC (Cri) 943 EVV,J CRLRC_1655_2016

requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. Besides the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he ultimately ended his life. It cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the words uttered by the appellant.

11. Therefore, having regard the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the respective parties and keeping in view of

the settled legal position of law, the impugned order dated

08.06.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2015 passed by the

Family Court - Cum - VII Additional Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar, confirming the judgment dated 20.01.2013 in

S.C.No.506 of 2013 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at

Shadnagar is hereby set aside.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The

bail bonds, if any shall stand cancelled.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 13.02.2025 FM