THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2456 of 2004 DATE: 15-03-2011 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Appellant And Allepu Chinna Venkati and 4 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2456 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal at the instance of the State against the acquittal of the accused in Sessions Case No.742 of 2000 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagtial on 04.03.2003. The brief facts of the prosecution is that on 01.11.1999 at about 9.30 hours P.W.1 lodged a complaint stating that on 31.10.1999 he along with his family members went to Maremma jathara and after function is over they left the place and while they were returning to their houses, P.W.2 the mother of the complainant fell down and in the meanwhile A2 came there to see her and he told that she fell down due to consuming of toddy and thereby A2 insulted her and A1 to A5 abused the complainant and his mother P.W.2 in filthy language. P.W.2 brought to the house of P.W.1. Later the father of the complainant i.e. the deceased brought A2 to his house to show his wife to him on which A1 to A3 abused in filthy language and insulted him stating that ‘why you are living, go and die by hanging’. Due to which the deceased vexed with his life and unable to bear the insult, committed suicide by hanging to a nearby a kanuga tree. Therefore, the accused 1 to 5 were charged for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagtial has framed the charge under Section 306 of IPC against all the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge. The prosecution in order to establish the said charge against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 and no defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused but Ex.D- 1 was marked during the cross-examination of P.W.4. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagtial by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, found the accused not guilty for the charge under Section 306 of IPC and thereby acquitted all the accused under Section 235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.). Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State preferred the present appeal. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the offence under Section 306 of IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? On behalf of the State the learned Public Prosecutor argued that P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 have categorically stated about the accused abusing the deceased in filthy language and asking him to go and die, as such taking insult seriously by the deceased committed suicide and as such the accused are liable for punishment under Section 306 of IPC. No representation on behalf of the respondents/accused. According to the prosecution on 31.10.1999 P.W.1 and his family members along with the deceased went to Maremma jathara and there P.W.2 has fell down stating that Goddess come on her but the A2 has laughed at her stating that she has fallen down due to consuming toddy and thereafter P.W.2 got shifted to her house and deceased brought the accused to his house to show his wife and thereby the accused abused him and asked him to go and die and as the deceased could not tolerate the insult committed suicide by hanging to a nearby a kanuga tree. P.W.1 is the complainant and son of the deceased and he has stated about his mother felling down near the temple due to weakness and the accused stated that his mother fell down due to consuming toddy and thereafter they shifted his mother to his house and he took all the accused to his house to show his mother, as she regained consciousness. The accused quarreled with his father and abused him. They kept quiet on that night. The accused asked his father to go and die and Goddess will come on his mother. His father felt insulted by the accused and committed suicide by hanging to kanuga tree, which is two furlongs away from his house. In the cross-examination, he denied about his father beating A2 with a stick on his mouth and he lost his three teeth and he also denied that A4 prepared to give a report to the police against his father and himself and his brother abused his father for beating A2 and he also denied that the accused did not abuse his father and because he was afraid of reporting the matter to police by the accused against him and already he has been facing trial in one case he died by committing suicide. P.W.2, mother of the complainant and wife of the deceased also supported the version of P.W.1 and she also denied about her husband beating the accused with stick on his mouth and lost his three teeth. P.W.3 Pallepu Chinna Narsaiah has stated that he along with the family members of P.W.1 went to Maremma jathara. His brother’s wife is the sister of the deceased. P.W.2 fallen on the ground while shifting to her house and A2 commented that P.W.2 fell down due to consuming toddy and that while the accused were going on the deceased beat A2 with stick, who fell down. The daughter-in-law of A2 rushed to the spot and he told them that the matter can be resolved on the next day and sent them away. Later on P.W.2 came to his house and told that the accused had been abusing them and at about 8.00 p.m. he has not heard the comment of A2 but deceased told him about the comment and on the next day morning he came to know that the deceased hanged himself to a tree. Therefore, P.W.3 has not supported the version of the prosecution but he only stated about the deceased beating the accused No.2 with stick. P.W.4, mother-in-law of P.W.1, is a witness to the incident has supported the version of P.Ws. 1 and 2 with regard to the accused abusing the deceased and asking to die by hanging. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer and he has registered the case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post mortem examination and arrested the accused and filed the charge sheet. Therefore, the only evidence available on record for the offence is P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and all of them have stated about the accused abusing the deceased to die. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagtial has also considered the said aspect as to whether the said abuses will amount to abetment of the accused to the deceased to commit suicide and he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in SANJU @ SANJAY SINGH SENGAR vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[1] and the ruling of this Court in BURA MANOHAR vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[2] held that the case of the prosecution does not fall under Section 107 of IPC i.e. definition of abetment. Therefore, even though the prosecution has able to establish that the accused abused the deceased to go and die and in view of the above decision it will not amount to abetment of the accused to the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, the said allegations made against the accused do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagtial has also rightly come to the conclusion that the charge has not proved by the prosecution and rightly acquitted all the accused and the said finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagtial does not warrant any interference by this Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ___________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 15-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD Crl.A.No. 2456 of 2004 DATE: 15-03-2011 MR [1] 2002 Crl.L.J. 2796 [2] 2002(4) Crimes 96