IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3 OF 2008 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.719 OF 2006 Between in Crl.A.No.3 of 2008: State of A.P. ... Appellant AND Gundavarapu Rajesh and others. ... Respondents Between in Crl.R.C.No.719 of 2006: Bitra Siva Nageswararao …Petitioner AND State of A.P. and others. …Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3 OF 2008 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.719 OF 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision Case arise out of the Judgment in S.C.No.84 of 2005, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chirala, dated 14.10.2005, by which all the seven accused, found not guilty of a charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), were acquitted. 2. The factual background is that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala Rural Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime No.108 of 2004 stating that B.Ganga Bhavani, aged about 18 years, is the sister of B.Siva Nageswara Rao and daughter of Subba Rao, who was approached by the first accused two months earlier to her death to marry him as he loved her. On 24.10.2004, the first accused and Ganga Bhavani had sexual intercourse in the backyard of the house of Ch.Devi due to the first accused convincing Ganga Bhavani that he will marry her. On knowing about the incident, Siva Nageswara Rao and his wife Sarada, Subba Rao, S.Venkatewarlu and B.Kanthaiah approached the accused 3 and 7 to consent for the marriage of the first accused with Ganga Bhavani. The first, third and seventh accused denied and threatened them if anybody approached them again. On 01.11.2004, Ganga Bhavani gave a report to Chirala Rural Police, who registered Crime No.105 of 2004, while the fourth accused gave a report stating that the first accused/his grand son was missing expressing suspicion against the relatives of Ganga Bhavani. Crime No.107 of 2004 was registered in respect of the same. On 02.11.2004 at about 8:00 PM, the accused 1 to 7 went to the house of B.Siva Nageswara Rao and abused Ganga Bhavani and Sarada in filthy language and intimidated them stating that if Ganga Bhavani does not die herself, they will set fire by pouring kerosene. The second accused was stated to have used insulting words calling Ganga Bhavani for sexual intercourse with him, for which he will pay Rs.100/-. Ch.Devi, S.Venkateswarlu, K.Venkateswarlu and A.Mohan Rao, witnessed the incident and sent away the accused. Due to the cheating and the nuisance and threats, Ganga Bhavani was driven to commit suicide by falling under a running train in the early hours of the same night and the dead body was traced on 03.11.2003 on the railway track. On the report of Siva Nageswara Rao, the crime was registered by the Railway Police Station and was investigated into by Sub-Inspector of Railway Police, who got observation report of the scene of offence drafted before mediators apart from preparing a rough sketch. The inquest and post- mortem examination were conducted over the dead body and the case was transferred to Chirala Rural Police Station where the Sub- Inspector of Police verified the investigation and also conducted fresh investigation and examined the scene and witnesses. The accused 1 to 7 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody and hence, they were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 3. On appearance of the accused after the offence was taken cognizance by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala, copies of the documents were furnished to them and on committal of the case to the Court of Session, the Sessions Court made over the case to the trial Court. The trial Court framed a charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC against all the accused, who pleaded not guilty and during trial, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 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, 1973 and Exs.D1 to D.3 were marked on their behalf in defence. 4. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment firstly wondering about the development of love between the boy and the girl so fast within two months and observing that there was no other person knowing about either the promise of the first accused to marry or the happening of the sexual intercourse between the first accused and the deceased. Ex.P.1 was noted to have not referred to any sexual intercourse and P.Ws.1 and 2 were opined to have improved their version in the evidence. The trial Court also noted that according to P.W.11- Investigating Officer, the deceased refused to be examined by the Medical Officer during the course of investigation in Crime No.105 of 2004, registered on the report of the deceased. The refusal by the deceased to be subjected to medical examination was taken adverse note of and it is also noted that the Medical Officer-P.W.9, who conducted post-mortem examination did not examine the dead body from the angle of any sexual intercourse or experience. P.W.6 denying the alleged sexual intercourse happening in her house as alleged by prosecution was also taken an adverse note of and hence, it was considered to be not proved. The trial Court also noted Ex.D.2-report given by the grand father of the first accused about the first accused missing and observed that the parties have given mutually offending reports and the report in Crime No.105 of 2004 was after deliberations and consultations. Use of filthy language and drunken brawls were considered to be part of the life of the deceased and P.W.1, who belong to working class. The alleged abuses, therefore, were disbelieved to have abetted the deceased to commit suicide and the trial Court referred to the precedents cited before it on the questions in issue. Opining that mere abuses do not amount to abetment and a higher degree of proof is required to convict the accused, the trial Court also considered the non-supply of the statements of the witnesses recorded by P.W.10 also to have prejudiced the cause of the accused. On the cumulative effect of the conclusions, the trial Court ultimately acquitted the accused. 5. The State, through the Learned Public Prosecutor, preferred Crl.A.No.3 of 2008 contending that the ingredients of the offence have been made out by the prosecution by the evidence, more particularly, P.Ws.1 and 2 and, hence, the accused could not have been acquitted. 6. P.W.1 filed Crl.R.C.No.719 of 2006 contending that the deceased was made to believe that the first accused will marry her leading to her participation in the sexual intercourse, which was clearly stated by P.Ws.1 and 2. The illiterate Ganga Bhavani cannot be presumed to know the consequences of her refusal to be medically examined and the very circumstances leading the unmarried girl to end her life were but natural. The misunderstandings between the families were evident from the mutual reports to the police and the prosecution did not rely on any statements recorded by the railway police i.e., P.W.10. The acquittal could not have been on surmises and conjectures and, hence, P.W.1 also desired the acquittal to be reversed. 7. Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the appellant and Sri A.Rama Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt V.Dyumani, learned counsel for the accused are heard. 8. The point for consideration is whether there are any strong and sufficient reasons to interfere with the acquittal of the accused on merits by the trial Court. 9. The prosecution alleged that for the incident on 02.11.2004 at the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2, six (6) named witnesses cited in the charge sheet were eye witnesses, who intervened and sent away the accused. Out of the said eye witnesses, P.W.6 in whose backyard the sexual intercourse between the deceased and the first accused appeared to have happened denied the same or the love affair between the accused and the deceased or stating to the police as in Ex.P.3 in support of the prosecution. P.W.5, the other eye witness examined only stated about himself, P.W.3 and A. Mohan Rao alone pacifying the accused and sending them away. He did not speak about the identity of any other witnesses though it is stated about many neighbours gathering at the scene. P.W.4, who was also cited as an eye witness, was speaking only about his intervention along with P.W.3 with a request to the seventh accused to permit the marriage of the accused and Ganga Bhavani which was repelled by the seventh accused. So far as the incident on 02.11.2004 is concerned, P.W.4 was only a hearsay witness having been allegedly informed about the same by P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.4 admitted figuring as a witness for the complainant even in Crime No.105 of 2004 and P.W.4 did not state about any sexual intimacy between the accused and Ganga Bhavani in his statement to the police. P.W.3, the other alleged eyewitness turned hostile and he was also speaking only about mediating about facilitating the marriage between the accused and Ganga Bhavani and did not speak anything about the incident on 02.11.2004. Thus, out of the independent witnesses, only P.W.5 corroborated the prosecution version and no other witness. The other person cited as an eyewitness to the incident was given up by the prosecution without assigning any reason and therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are obviously interested witnesses could not have been accepted at face value without independent satisfactory corroboration. 10. P.W.1 deposed about the deceased informing about her desire to marry the first accused whom she loved, on 26.10.2004 on which they approached the elders and then the seventh accused. He did not speak anything about the first accused persuading the deceased to have sexual intercourse with him on the promise to marry and on 27.10.2004, P.W.1 was allegedly informed by the deceased about the threats with death, if they visited the house of the accused again. Among the accused 1 to 7, the third accused alone was alleged to be carrying the kerosene tin and to have scolded the deceased to pour kerosene on her and set fire to the deceased during the incident on 02.11.2004 and the alleged scoldings by the other accused were not detailed to be by which accused, in what words. P.W.1 referred to P.Ws.3 and 5 and A.Mohan Rao, being neighbours who intervened and did not name the others relied on by the prosecution and P.W.1 also admitted that nothing happened in between the refusal by the accused to get the first accused married with the deceased and threatening them and the death of the deceased. 11. P.W.2, the wife of P.W.1 and sister-in-law of Ganga Bhavani claimed the first accused to have taken advantage of the deceased going to their house for Ganji for applying to yarn, for having sexual intercourse with a promise to marry. It was not the specific version at any time earlier of anybody else. The claim that the deceased informed P.Ws.1 and 2 about the same two days later was not specific claim of P.W.1 and her claim that Ganga Bhavani told them about the threats of the first accused in the street on 2.11.2004 was contradictory to the claim of P.W.1 that it was on 27.10.2004. P.W.2 did not name the neighbours, who intervened during the incident on 02.11.2004 and she admitted not stating to the relatives about Ganga Bhavani telling her about the threatening on 02.11.2004. She also conveniently did not remember whether Ganga Bhavani was sent for medical examination after registration of the case. 12. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 being tainted with interestedness, the contradictions and circumstances arising out of their evidence coupled with the hostility of P.W.3 and P.W.6, the silence of P.W.4 about the incident on 02.11.2004 and the absence of any other independent corroboration to the claim of P.W.5, make it difficult to draw any irresistible conclusion that the abuses and insults heaped by the accused on 02.11.2004 led the deceased to commit suicide as a natural and logical consequence. The evidence of the inquest mediators as P.W.7, the photographer as P.W.8, and the Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem examination as P.W.9 does not throw any further light on the possible involvement of the accused and the cause of death stated by P.W.9 on recovery of the dead body from the railway track cannot be in doubt nor is the death of Ganga Bhavani due to suicide in dispute. P.W.10 the railway police Sub Inspector, who conducted initial investigation stated that P.W.1 did not state to him about the mediation of P.W.4 and P.W.2 did not state to him about the sexual intercourse by the first accused when the deceased went to get some starch. P.W.11, the Investigating Officer stated that he did not supply the statements recorded by the railway police to the accused and though what specific prejudice by non-supply of specific statements of the witnesses occurred to the accused was not clear, the accused have the advantage of being permitted to rely on even such technical lapses in defence. P.W.11 stated that the deceased refused to be examined by a Doctor in Crime No.105 of 2004, which may be a circumstance to doubt the credibility of the alleged sexual intercourse, but, the alleged sexual intercourse between the first accused and the deceased itself was obviously not the cause for the death of the deceased who referred to an attempt by P.W.1 through elders to have her marriage with the first accused on the promise after which she herself gave a report in Crime No.105 of 2004. If the deceased was of such mental frame as to be unaffected by the breach of promise by the first accused after having sexual intercourse with her and was so firm as to prosecute the first accused in Crime No.105 of 2004, any abuses by accused 1 to 7 breaking her resolve leading to ending her own life also may not appear natural. The fact that crime No.107 of 2004 about the first accused missing was found to be false on investigation may not be of any relevance in proving the guilt of the accused for this offence and P.W.11 stated that the shift from Indira Nagar to NTR Colony was about three months earlier and the accused suggested some other reasons for such shift. 13. While this Court need not go into the allegations made by the accused against the character of the deceased, which would not have provided any justification for any accused to induce the deceased to kill herself, in Neelam V. State of A.P.[1], a learned Judge of this Court opined that humiliation caused by the accused cannot be said to be instigation to commit suicide or aid in committing suicide. The learned Judge referred to views of the Apex Court and this Court in this regard that even using of threatening words by the accused is not sufficient to be described as instigating the commission of the offence. Similarly, in V.Shankaraiah V. State of A.P.[2], another learned Judge of this Court considered the scope of abetment within the meaning of Sections 306 and 107 IPC and stated that the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the crime and mere proof that the crime could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107 IPC. The learned Judge referred to the consistent view taken that merely because a person committed suicide by feeling insulted or humiliated due to the comments or utterances made by the accused, the accused cannot be said to be guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC. The learned Judge, among the various decisions referred to, was also relying on V.Adinarayana V. State of A.P. (2000 Crl.L.J.1182) wherein a woman committed suicide when the accused threatened her that he would reveal her illicit connection to her husband. The learned judge also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Mahendra Singh V. State of M.P. (1996 Crl.L.J. 894) wherein even the dying declaration of the deceased about the harassment by the accused was held to be insufficient. The principles laid down therefore, are to the effect that the deceased feeling insulted or humiliated by threats or abuses by itself may not bring the acts of the accused within the scope of abetment under Section 107 IPC to lead to the proof of guilt under Section 306 IPC. While specific abuses and threats uttered by the accused were not part of the depositions of the witnesses, though part of the earlier versions and other documents, any probability of the deceased having reacted so sensitively to the alleged overt acts of the accused might not appear to be established. While the love of a young girl met with a tragic end due to reasons not proved beyond reasonable doubt before the Court, the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court under the circumstances does not appear to be such as could have been successfully interfered with in this appeal or revision. 14. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision Case are dismissed. ________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J DECEMBER 02, 2011 YVL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3 OF 2008 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.719 OF 2006 02.12.2011 YVL [1] 2002 (2) ALT (Crl.) 186 (A.P) [2] 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 470 (A.P.)