THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2310 of 2004 BETWEEEN: The Public Prosecutor … Appellant AND 1. J.Mal Reddy & 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2310 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal against acquittal. A1 to A3/Respondents 1 to 3 were acquitted by the lower Court of the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. The deceased Ramulamma died in about five years of her marriage with A1. A2 and A3 are parents of A1. The deceased consumed poison and committed suicide on the night of 19/20-05-2000. It is alleged that A1 to A3 were harassing the deceased and asking her to go away from the house so that A1 would marry another girl and that when the deceased informed the same to her parents about two years back, they gave Rs.6,000/- to her, which amount was given by her to the accused for digging well and that inspite of the same, the accused did not change their attitude and continued to harass the deceased. 2. PW1 is Village Administrative Officer who gave Ex.P1 report to the Police about suicide committed by the deceased by consuming poison. PWs 2 and 3 are mother and elder brother of the deceased. PW4 is an elder in the village of the accused. He turned hostile to the prosecution. PW5 is brother-in-law of A1. The lower Court considered oral evidence of the witnesses and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not made out a case under Section 306 I.P.C. But the lower Court failed to advert to the legal presumption contained under Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act in favour of the prosecution in the case of suicide committed by a married woman within seven years of her marriage. 3. For application of presumption under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act, the prosecution is expected to prove that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or relative of her husband had subjected the deceased to cruelty. As per explanation to Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, the term ‘cruelty’ has the same meaning as contained in Section 498-A I.P.C. Though there is no dispute about the deceased committing suicide within five years of the marriage, it has to be seen whether there is proof of cruelty by the accused towards her. It is not the prosecution case that there is any demand for dowry or presents or additional dowry. PWs 2 and 3 were examined at the time of inquest. It is their version at the time of inquest that the deceased was harassed by the accused asking her to go away from their house so that they can perform another marriage for A1. It is not their case at the time of inquest that there was any harassment of the deceased for the sake of dowry or presents. The said version was given go by during trial before the lower Court by PWs 2 and 3. On the other hand, it is their evidence that the accused demanded for additional dowry of Rs.10,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,000/- was paid by them. This version of PWs 2 and 3 during trial has no basis in the investigation record. It is found to be improvement in their evidence during trial. Thus, there is no consistent case for the prosecution with regard to cruelty. In the absence of proof of cruelty by acceptable evidence, presumption under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act has no place herein. 4. In the absence of applicability of presumption under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has to prove ingredients of abetment as per Section 107 I.P.C. i.e. whether the abetment is by way of instigation or by way of intentional aid or by way of conspiracy. There is no case for the prosecution touching Section 107 I.P.C. 5. The lower Court observed that there is no evidence of harassment soon before commission of suicide by the deceased. Such requirement is not there under Section 306 I.P.C. and it is there only under Section 304-B I.P.C. There is no charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. against the accused. Therefore, there are no grounds to reverse finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court in this appeal. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:28.11.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2310 of 2004 Dt:28.11.2011 ysk