IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.1270 of 2011 Between: The State represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Darshan Narsinga Rao and 4 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C.No.443 of 2008 on the ﬁle of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad, dated 09-03-2009, by which accused 1 to 5 were found not guilty of the oﬀences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and were acquitted. The factual background for the appeal is that the 1st accused gave a report to the police on 30-07-2007 alleging that his wife, who was always feeling bad for not begetting children, hanged herself to the ceiling fan in the absence of any other inmates of the house and committed suicide. The crime was registered in Crime No.193 of 2007 and a scene of oﬀence panchanama was conducted. The father of the deceased gave his statement to the police alleging that they suspected that somebody might have killed his daughter and created the scene as if it was suicide in view of the earlier events between the couple due to the deceased not begetting any children and the 1st accused becoming a drunkard. After completion of investigation, the accused 1 to 5 were alleged to have committed the oﬀences with which they were charged. The accused appeared before VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, after the oﬀence was taken cognizance and they were furnished with the copies of documents. The case was committed in PRC.No.43 of 2008 to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, who in turn made over the same to the trial Court. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC") against accused 1 to 5, who pleaded not guilty and during trial, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 and Ex.D.1 were marked. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them, when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they did not produce any other defence evidence. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment, ﬁrstly observing that the marriage between the deceased and the 1st accused was beyond 7 years before the death of the deceased, and therefore, no statutory presumption operated in favour of the prosecution. The trial Court then referred to the evidence of witnesses and observed that the evidence of PW.4 contained many improvements in comparison with her statement to the police, which were confronted to her during her evidence. The trial Court also found that any instigation or abetment by the accused for the deceased to commit suicide was not disclosed by the evidence of the witnesses. Even concerning the oﬀence under Section 498-A IPC, the trial Court found that the mere position of the dead body creating suspicion about the truth or otherwise of the theory of suicide without any other supporting circumstances cannot be equated to proving the complicity of the accused. The admission of PW.1 that all the accused looked after the deceased with love and aﬀection, though there were trivial disputes now and then between them was also noted to improbablise the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC. PW.3 also was noted to have stated that the deceased never revealed to him any disputes and the absence of corroboration between PWs.1 and 3 with regard to the two incidents alleged by PW.3 was also noted. Therefore, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the oﬀences and hence, acquitted them. The State through the learned Public Prosecutor preferred the appeal contending that the necessary ingredients to constitute both the oﬀences were made out by the prosecution and the cogent evidence of PW.4 regarding the contents of her telephonic call to PW.1 ought to have been accepted to conclude the guilt of the accused and therefore, it desired the acquittal of the accused to be reversed. Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor/appellant and Sri P. Ramachandram, learned counsel representing respondents 3 to 5. The 1st respondent is represented by Sri Jagirdar Krishna, learned counsel and the 2nd respondent is reported dead. The point for consideration is whether there were any strong grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal of the accused 1 to 5? The fact that the death of the deceased wife of the 1st accused was the result of the suicide is admitted as the prosecution of all the accused itself is only for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC coupled with any cruelty or harassment behind such happening which amounts to an oﬀence under Section 498-A IPC. In order to prove such circumstances as would make out either oﬀence, admittedly there was no direct evidence. PW.1, the father of the deceased at whose instance the investigation of the case took a turn towards the prosecution of the accused, himself has admitted during his cross-examination that the deceased was looked after with all love and aﬀection by all the accused though there were some trivial disputes now and then between them. Such trivialities in the course of family life need to be ignored and even the earliest version of PW.1 to the police seems to have admitted that the couple lived happily in the initial stage of their marital life. The drunkenness of the 1st accused and the failure of the deceased to conceive children were claimed to be the causes for the friction between the deceased and the accused, but even then, there was absolutely no cause alleged speciﬁcally for the accused 2 to 5 to bear any animosity towards the deceased or to treat her improperly due to any such cause. The trial Court had analyzed the factual background for the allegations and the evidence on record in its reasoned judgment and as rightly stated by it, no statutory presumption comes to the aid of the prosecution in view of the death being beyond 7 years from the marriage. PW.1 was not an eye-witness to the incident and the alleged information from the deceased about harassment or torture was not corroborated by any other circumstantial evidence. PW.2 only came to know about the incident after she woke up at 3.00 P.M. on that day and PW.3 was positive about the couple living together happily for two years. In fact, he was not revealed by the deceased about the disputes that allegedly arose after the said period and assuming that PW.3 and his wife went to their house on one occasion and found the deceased bleeding from her nose due to the alleged beating by the 1st accused on one occasion, the same cannot be considered to be proof of any harassment or cruelty. The statement by PW.3 about the deceased being found weeping on one occasion when they went to their house and when they questioned the deceased, she was hiding her face etc., will not indicate any consistent acts of harassment by the 1st accused or other accused as would amount to cruelty or harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC or abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC. PWs.4 and 5 also were speaking about the alleged information from the deceased to them about the diﬀerences, but the evidence of the witnesses-PWs.1 and 3 to 5 in this regard has to be considered as hearsay and cannot be taken as proof of any of the allegations. In the absence of any substantial evidence to prove the complicity of the accused in the alleged oﬀence, the conclusions of the trial Court cannot be found fault with and the Criminal Appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17-11-2011 Ksn