THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.438 OF 2005 DATED 15th JULY, 2011. BETWEEN : K.Rajashekher … Revision Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.438 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence dated 21.07.2005 passed in Sessions Case No.292 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2003 by judgment dated 16.03.2005 by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, by modifying the sentence to three years rigorous imprisonment. Heard both sides and perused the record. The case of the Prosecution is that the accused married the deceased on 08.03.2000 against the wishes of the parents of the deceased and they started living in Moulali. One month after the marriage, the accused insisted the deceased to prosecute her further studies. Accused also used to say daily that he made enquiries about her past college life and suspect her character. The deceased used to bear the mental torture of the husband with a fond hope that he will change his attitude, but in vain. Further, the accused intensified the harassment on the deceased by suspecting the character. On 20.11.2000 in the morning while leaving the house, the accused insisted the deceased to commit suicide and directed her to write a note that nobody is responsible for her suicide and he will return to home four months thereafter. Having vexed with the attitude of the accused, the deceased decided to put an end to her life. Accordingly, on 21.11.2000 around 11.00 a.m. she poured kerosene on her body and set ablaze to herself and sustained burn injuries. While undergoing treatment, on 22.11.2000 the deceased succumbed to burn injuries in the hospital. Basing on the statement of the deceased recorded by the Head Constable in the hospital, a case in crime No.287 of 2000 was registered and after the death of the deceased, the section of law has been altered to 306 IPC. Further, after completion of entire investigation, Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.17 apart from marking MOs 1 and 2. After the closure of Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating evidence put to him available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. But, he did not choose to adduce any oral and documentary evidence on his behalf. After carefully going through the entire evidence available on record, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused and the same was confirmed by the learned Appellate Judge as stated above. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court erroneously believed the contents in Exs.P.13 and P.15. Admittedly, Ex.P.13 is recorded by P.W.7, the Magistrate, and Ex.P.15 is recorded by P.W.9, the Head Constable. Both the declarations were recorded almost at the same time. Based on the statement recorded by P.W.9 under Ex.P.15 a case is registered for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. The learned counsel further submitted that the reading of the entire suicide note nothing is there to attract an offence under Section 306 IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no material discrepancies in Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.15 and it is specifically stated by the deceased that she committed suicide due to the inducement of the petitioner-accused and hence the conviction recorded by the Courts below is sustained. PWs 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased, who turned hostile to the Prosecution case. P.W.3, who shifted the deceased to hospital, deposed that he knew both the deceased and accused and they lived happily. According to him, there was no harassment by the accused on the deceased. He also deposed that the deceased never made any complaint against the accused and made any galata during stay in the apartment and he is not aware whether the deceased left any letter with his wife. P.W.4 is the person who accompanied P.W.3 while shifting the deceased to hospital. He deposed that on information from P.W.3 that the deceased caught fire and sustained injuries, he went to the scene and shifted the deceased to Gandhi Hospital. P.W.5 is the panch witness for scene of offence. P.W.6 is the photographer, who took photographs of the scene of offence. P.W.7 is the Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased under Ex.P.13. He deposed that on requisition from the SHO, Malkajgiri P.S., he proceeded to Gandhi Hospital on 21.11.2000 and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased after ascertaining the condition of the deceased to give statement. P.W.8 is the then Mandal Revenue Officer, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PWs 9 and 10 are the investigation officers and P.W.11 is the Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. In dying declaration marked as Ex.P.13 recorded by P.W.7- Magistrate, the deceased has stated reasons for committing suicide. The said dying declaration reveals that the deceased committed suicide mainly for the reason that she was forced to prosecute her studies, which she does not like. It is also stated in the said statement that the accused directed her to commit suicide and in the same house both of them were sleeping in different rooms and the accused was also not taking food in the house. The deceased also deposed in the same lines before the Head Constable-P.W.9, who registered the First Information Report basing on such statement of the deceased. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused contends that Ex.P.13 reveals that the deceased left a suicide note with L.W.5, wife of one Narsimha Rao (P.W.3), as per the direction of the petitioner, but the same was suppressed by the investigation agency. But, this Court is of the view that there is no need to say that the said suicide note was suppressed because it is evident from the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate under Ex.P.13 that the accused directed her to leave the suicide note stating that on her own accord she committed suicide. There is no investigation in connection with the said suicide note. Certainly the said suicide note is prior to the present dying declaration. The suppression of the said suicide note certainly shatters the case of the prosecution, which relied on subsequent statements. Even perusal of Exs.P.13 and P.15 the most relevant portion states as follows: “I had no other way out and that my parents would not accept me as I had married Rajashekar against the wish of all my family members”. The said contention clearly indicates that the parents also against the wishes of the deceased. Hence, she could not separate herself from the petitioner herein. Due to the above said reasons earlier recorded, the deceased committed suicide, which certainly does attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. The parents of the deceased also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. It is true that basing on the dying declaration, the conviction can be sustained but at the same time, when there is a reasonable doubt regarding the contents of the dying declaration that too when the deceased stated that she already left a suicide note, the present documents which are later in time cannot be totally considered in the absence of any corroboration by other witnesses. Hence, this Court is of the view that the conviction passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 15.07.2011 sur