IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.334 of 2009 Between: The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Jonnada Chinnappadu .. Respondent JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal is directed against the acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498- A of the Indian Penal Code by the judgment dated 09-07-2007 in Sessions Case No.44 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bondapalli police station filed charge-sheet in crime No.110 of 2006 alleging that Jonnada Gowramma is the wife of the accused and daughter of P. Guramma who is the sister of the accused. After marriage about 25 years earlier, they begot a daughter and two sons. The accused was suspecting the character of Gowramma and was beating, abusing and harassing her. A panchayat by caste elders Jonnada China Ramu and others was in vain. About 20 days prior to the death of Gowramma, Saripalli Appanna and the deceased were coming on the same way, which was seen by the accused and her son Pydiraju and from that day, the accused was harassing Gowramma suspecting illicit intimacy. On 29-10-2006 at about 11 A.M. Gowramma consumed insecticide and the accused took her in an auto-rikshaw to Gajapathinagaram hospital and from there to Government headquarters hospital, Vizianagaram. Gowramma expired at about 3.30 P.M. on the same day. The empty insecticide tin was seized from the house of the deceased under an observation report in the presence of K. Satyam and N. Ramesh. The accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The medical officer, who conducted post-mortem, opined Gowramma to have died of poison. Hence, the charge under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajapathinagaram took cognizance of the offences and furnished copies of documents to the accused when he entered appearance. On committal of the case in P.R.C. No.1 of 2007 to the Court of Session, the case was made over to the trial Court. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no defence evidence was produced. 4. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment noting that P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, admittedly never placed the difficulties of her daughter before elders and P.W.2, the son of the accused and the deceased, was noted to have deposed about his mother and other family members shifting to Vijayawada about six years earlier, while the accused was staying at Devupalli. The marriage of P.W.2’s sister was performed by the deceased and others according to P.W.2, which the accused did not attend. The evidence was, thus, observed to be about the accused living separately for five and half years and the deceased and her children returning to the accused only six months earlier to the death of Gowramma on the accused promising to get the younger brother of P.W.2 treated for tuberculosis if they shifted to Devupalli. P.W.3 did not know the reasons of quarrel between Gowramma and the accused, while P.W.4 deposed about others telling him about the accused suspecting him and Gowramma. P.W.5 also did not know anything about the disputes between the accused and his wife and he only advised his younger brother, the accused, not to quarrel. P.W.6 claimed to have chastised the accused when he made a galata at their house in a drunken state. From this evidence, the trial Court found that except P.W.2 what all the others alleged was only about the accused suspecting the character of Gowramma. P.W.2 only stated about the beatings and abuses meted out to Gowramma. The claim of P.W.1 about Gowramma telephoning to her thrice about the suspicion of the accused, was considered unbelievable and there was absolutely no instigation or encouragement or aid by the accused to the deceased to commit suicide. The trial Court noted that in fact the accused rushed to get the deceased treated and attempted to save her. The trial Court also found no ill-treatment or harassment to her from the evidence, more so, when what were available on the relevant aspects were only suggestions to the witnesses. The trial Court observed that mere suspicion of the accused against Gowramma cannot be considered to be cruelty, more so, such cruelty as would drive Gowramma to commit suicide. The social and economic background of the parties was also referred to and the evidence for the prosecution was found to have not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 5. The consequent acquittal led the State represented by the learned public prosecutor to prefer the present appeal contending that the ingredients of all the offences have been satisfactorily made out and the cogent evidence should have led to conviction. 6. Heard Sri K. Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor/appellant. The accused is represented by a counsel Sri E. Peddanna. 7. The point for consideration is whether there is any justifying material to interfere with the acquittal of the accused ? 8. Point: P.W.11, the investigating officer, himself stated that the accused accompanied the deceased to the hospital and was with the deceased till her death, which would not have been the natural conduct of the accused, had his harassment to the deceased been the cause for her consuming insecticide. The accused during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not conceal his suspicion against P.W.4 and the deceased and the brutal frankness of the illiterate labourer may make acceptable the claim that there was no other dispute between him and his wife. The evidence of P.W.10 and Ex.P.8 inquest report were only about the death of Gowramma due to consumption of pesticide, which was confirmed by the medical evidence of P.W.9 and Exs.P.5 to P.7. The evidence of P.W.8 about the seizure of insecticide tin M.O.1 under Ex.P.4 by the police or Ex.P.3 photographs taken by P.W.7 or the caste elder P.W.6 coming to know about the death of Gowramma on consuming pesticide, are of no relevance concerning the guilt of the accused and P.W.6 was speaking about the galata by the accused in a drunken state, which had nothing to do with the prosecution allegations. P.W.5 does not know about the disputes between the accused and his wife who were living separately till four months prior to the death of Gowramma. P.W.5, the elder brother of the accused, does not know how Gowramma died and P.W.4, who was told about the suspicion of the accused against him and Gowramma, did not know anything about the marital life of Gowramma. P.W.3, cited as a caste elder, was declared hostile, as he claimed not to know the reasons for the quarrels between the accused and the deceased. 9. That leaves the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 alone who are the mother and son of the deceased Gowramma. The marriage between the accused and Gowramma was 25 years earlier and they had three children through the marriage. P.W.1 claimed that her daughter phoned to her about the ill-treatment by the accused due to suspicion from Vijayawada thrice and if the deceased and her children were staying at Vijayawada only since six years prior to the death, the marital relations of Gowramma with the accused were not the subject of any complaint for 19 years. If the accused had three children through Gowramma and lived happily with her for 19 years, his harassing Gowramma due to suspicion of her character belatedly does not appear natural. The matter was never placed before any elders even according to P.W.1 and the alleged physical violence against Gowramma was never the subject of any complaint or any treatment. The absence of any reaction by P.W.1 in spite of the deceased telephoning her thrice is also unnatural and the charge sheet stated that P.W.1 and the accused are sister and brother. 10. P.W.2, who is the eldest son of the accused and the deceased, was speaking about the suspicion of his father against his mother and his claim about the matter being placed before elders thrice was not corroborated by any other evidence. The alleged beatings by the accused and abuses by him were not corroborated by any other witness and the claim of P.W.2 that Gowramma committed suicide being unable to bear the attitude of the accused was uncorroborated by any other evidence. His evidence as noted by the trial Court disclosed the husband and the wife to have been separately living for more than five and half years before Gowramma and children returned to Devupalli. The offer by the accused as stated by P.W.2 to get the younger son treated for tuberculosis may indicate the accused to be not so harsh as is sought to be projected and at any rate, even the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not indicate the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences. Though the death of Gowramma by consuming an insecticide may raise strong suspicions about the conduct of her husband, suspicion cannot be equated to legal proof and the evidence of the witnesses, even if accepted at face value, does not disclose any abetment by the accused for Gowramma to commit suicide or any cruelty by the accused within the meaning of the Explanation under Section 498- A of the Indian Penal Code towards Gowramma. The acquittal of the accused, hence, cannot be interfered with in this appeal. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20-12-2011 Svv