THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1382 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(3) and (1) Cr.P.C. is directed against judgment, dated 24.02.2006 passed in S.C.No.260 of 2004 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, whereunder and whereby, the respondent/accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the case may be stated as follows: The deceased, Mamuduru Dhanalakshmi, is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2. The father of the accused and P.W.2 were working in Sri Penusila Narasimhaswamy Temple at Penchalakona as Musician and Attender respectively. They are close friends. Therefore, the accused used to go to the house of P.W.2 and developed close intimacy with the deceased since one year prior to the incident and they fell in love with each other. The accused made several attempts to take her away forcibly without the consent of the parents, but the parents of the deceased warned him. The accused used to make telephone calls to the deceased and the same was being informed to her parents. On 27.05.2003, at about 9.00 a.m., when the deceased was present in the house of Chinthalapati Adilakshmamma, the accused along with his friends made gestures towards her, for which, a warning was given. In that connection, a case in Crime No.55 of 2003 was registered against the accused by Podalakur Police. In view of the same, the accused threatened that he would kill her parents, if she does not oblige for marriage. Therefore, the deceased suffered agony and frightened with the utterances given by the accused. Unable to bear the said harassment and threats of the accused, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting fire to herself. Immediately, she was shifted to Government hospital for treatment and she succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 3.10 p.m. On receipt of information from the hospital, the outpost Police Constable received the statement of P.W.1 and registered the case. The dead body was subjected to inquest and thereafter, post mortem examination. The scene of occurrence was observed and the witnesses were examined. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet. 3. Charge under Section 306 IPC was framed against the accused. When it was read over and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. For proving the offence under Section 306 IPC, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for incriminating the circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, he was acquitted. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would clearly go to show that the deceased was subjected to continuous harassment and threats by the accused and unable to bear the said harassment, she committed suicide. 8. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under the law that the accused presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal. However, this Court has got full power to re-appreciate the evidence to know whether the findings are passed on proper appreciation of evidence on record or any perverse finding was recorded or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or admissible evidence has been overlooked. In short, there must be substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. 9. The death of the deceased is not in dispute. One of the inquest mediators, P.W.8, failed to give any reason as to the cause of death. The evidence of P.W.9 would clearly go to show that the deceased died as a result of burn injuries. No doubt, the post mortem certificate was not filed and the doctor, who certified the same, was also not examined. However, the fact remains that the deceased died due to burn injuries. Even the accused is not seriously disputing this fact. P.Ws.1 to 7, who were either direct or circumstantial witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution. They have given a complete go-by to the earlier statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Except marking Exs.P.2 to P.8 of P.Ws.1 to 7 respectively, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses to connect the accused with the crime. P.W.8 is the inquest mediator, who also did not support the case of the prosecution. Except the evidence of P.W.9, who is the investigating officer, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the crime or the offence that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. His evidence is only relating to the objective finding during the course of investigation. Those findings, which were found by the investigating officer, are not sufficient to connect the accused with the offence under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment so as to call for interference by this Court. 10. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 24.02.2006 in Sessions Case No.260 of 2004 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 2nd NOVEMBER, 2009. kvni