THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.225 OF 2010. DATED: 10-02-2010. Between: State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. … Appellant/Complainant and S.Sudhakar … Respondent/Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.225 OF 2010. JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal by the State under Section 378 (1) and (3) Cr.P.C., is preferred against the judgment, dated 14-11-2008, in S.C.No.176 of 2007, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhongir, in acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: V.Shyamala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) is the daughter of P.W.1. On 02-12-2006 when P.W.1 was on duty, he received telephone information about the serious condition of the deceased. When he went to the house, he found that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. On enquiry, it came to light that the accused used to eve tease the deceased everyday on the pretext of co-operating for intercourse and promising to marry her. On the complaint given by P.W.1, police registered a case under Section 306 IPC, recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. When a charge under Section 306 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 besides case property, M.O.1. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court upon consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, State preferred this appeal. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused of the charge under Section 306 IPC and whether the judgment of the trial Court is legal, correct and proper? 8. Counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.2 is very clear that the deceased informed him that the accused was harassing her everyday on the pretext of co-operating for intercourse and promissing to marry her, that therefore, the offence under Section 306 IPC is made out and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. While dealing with the order of acquittal, though the appellate Court has got full power to re-appreciate the evidence, but it will be slow in interfering with the same in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved and that presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless the findings are improper or illegal or incorrect, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. 10. To prove the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., there must be abetment. Abetment is defined under Section 107 I.P.C., which reads thus: “107 Abetment of a thing:- A person abets in doing of a thing, who- Firstly-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, in doing of that thing. 11. The entire case rests upon the solitary testimony of P.W.2, who is said to be the eyewitness to whom the deceased informed about the harassment and eve teasing made to her by the accused. P.W.4 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found legature mark on the neck and issued Ex.P5-postmortem certificate stating that the deceased died as a result of hanging. The death of the deceased is not in dispute. P.W.1 who is the father of the deceased only came to know that the deceased died due to hanging. He is not a witness to the eve teasing made by the accused to the deceased. The evidence of P.W.1 would reveal that he does not know the reason for the death of his daughter. The only evidence on record is the evidence of P.W.2. He stated that on 02-12-2006 when he went to the house of P.W.1, he found the accused talking with the deceased. On seeing him, the accused ran away. At that time, the deceased informed him that the accused was harassing her everyday on the pretext of co-operating for intercourse and promising to marry her. But, that cannot be said to be instigation to the deceased to commit suicide. Even assuming that the deceased and the accused were talking together, that cannot be said to be one of the circumstances resulting in her death. Therefore, the trial Court after elaborate consideration of evidence on record rightly acquitted the accused and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 14-11-2008, in S.C.No.176 of 2007, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhongir, --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:10-02-2010 Hsd