IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.678 of 2008 Between: The State represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Shaik Jamaal .. Respondent JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C.No.459 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal, dated 28-07-2006 by which the accused was found not guilty of the oﬀences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and was acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The factual background for the appeal is that the Additional Superintendent of Police, Nirmal ﬁled the charge sheet against the sole accused alleging that the deceased Aneesa Begum was married to the accused about 16 months prior to the case at which time Rs.11,000/- were paid as dowry. Aneesa Begum and the accused lived happily together for six months and as to the accused developed illegal intimacy with another lady, he started beating, abusing and harassing Aneesa Begum in a drunken state. The accused ultimately drove her out, but Syed Ghani and Salia Begum, parents of Aneesa Begum, sent her back to the house of the accused 15 to 20 days prior to her death. Unable to bear the harassment, Aneesa Begum consumed poison on 17- 09-2001 and on her way to the hospital, died. Syed Ghani gave a report to the police, which was investigated into, and the dead body was subjected to inquest and post mortem. The Forensic Science Laboratory found insecticide in the viscera and the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody during investigation. Hence, the charge. The Magistrate took cognizance of the oﬀence in PRC.No.14 of 2002 and after furnishing the copies of documents to the accused on his appearance, the case was committed to the Court of Session, which made it over to the trial Court. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, which were denied by the accused and during trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. 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. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment noting the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 about the deceased informing them about suﬀering with stomach pain and consuming poison and the evidence of PWs.8 to 10 throwing no light on the incident. PWs.1 and 2, the parents of the deceased, were noted to have not referred to any illegal intimacy of the accused with another lady in their evidence or the incident alleged by them in evidence about the accused kicking the deceased on her stomach causing abortion in the First Information Report. The evidence of PWs.6 and 7 was noted to have not referred to the identity of the lady with whom the accused developed intimacy and PW.5 admitted that he obtained no information on his enquiries. The claim of PW.2 about the accused demanding some money and their paying the same was noted to be not mentioned in the First Information Report and thus, the evidence on record was found to be totally insuﬃcient to prove the allegations against the accused and hence, the charges against him were found to have been not established. The judgment is challenged by the State through the learned Public Prosecutor in this appeal contending that the ingredients of the oﬀences have been made out by the prosecution through the evidence on record and in view of the death of Aneesa Begum within 16 months of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act ought to have been drawn. The evidence of PWs.1, 2, 6 and 7 could not have been rejected, and hence, the acquittal is requested to be reversed. Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri B. Jitender, learned counsel representing Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the accused are heard. The point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for interference with the judgment of the trial Court? The evidence of PW.11-the medical oﬃcer and Ex.P.10-Post Mortem report corroborated by Ex.P.11- ﬁnal opinion, Ex.P.12-report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and Ex.P.13-inquest Panchanama, of course, proved that the death of Aneesa Begum was an unnatural death probablised to have been caused by the consumption of an insecticide. While the evidence of the investigating oﬃcer about the manner of investigation throws no direct light on the issues involved, the evidence of the inquest mediators as PWs.9 and 10 was one of denial about their presence at the time of inquest over the dead body of Aneesa Begum. PW.8 turned hostile denying any knowledge about the case and the evidence of PWs.6 and 7 about the accused developing illicit intimacy with another woman is devoid of any details of the said woman. The evidence of PW.5 is equally deﬁcient and what remains for consideration is the evidence of PWs.1 to 4. PWs.1 and 2, the parents of the deceased Aneesa Begum, deposed about the earlier illtreatment by the accused, but the same was not stated to be in connection with any demand for dowry. As noted by the trial Court, the alleged incidents narrated by PWs.1 and 2 were not mentioned in the First Information Report, which also did not refer to payment of any money to the accused on demand as stated by PW.2. The illicit intimacy referred to in the First Information Report was not stated by PWs.1 and 2 and therefore, even the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, apart from being tainted with interestedness, cannot be considered to have projected any probability of the deceased being subjected to cruelty or harassment or being abetted to commit suicide by such conduct. PWs.3 and 4 were the only persons, who are admittedly the neighbours of the deceased and who immediately reached her on hearing her cries before her death. They positively stated that the deceased informed them that she consumed poison due to stomach pain and PWs.3 and 4 were not shown to be so interested in the accused as to resort to falsehood to save him. Even if there is any such suspicion due to their being the neighbours of the accused, the same cannot be equated to legal proof beyond reasonable doubt. Under the circumstances, the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court is not open to interference on any ground. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 15-11-2011 Ksn