IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 28-04-2011. PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.80 of 2004 Between: Bodasu Eadaigh Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.80 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision case is preferred by the petitioner-accused challenging judgment dated 12.01.2004 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2003, whereby and whereunder conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.24 of 2001 dated 27.01.2003 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhongir, for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C was set aside while confirming conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.4.2000 morning at 01.00 a.m., while P.W.1-Orsu Yadagiri was at home, P.W.8- Rapolu Yadagiri went to him and informed that his daughter Anjamma/deceased was beaten by her husband Bodasu Eadaiah/accused on the same day morning due to which his(P.W.1) daughter consumed poison and died. Then P.W.1 rushed to Kurella village and found his daughter Anjamma died. ON enquiry from P.W.4-Rapolu Mallamma and P.W.5-Malla Chary, P.W.1 came to know about the harassment by the accused. Later he presented report and the case was registered against the petitioner-accused for the said offences. The petitioner-accused was tried for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C and was found guilty of committing the offences and was accordingly convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of it suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months with a further direction that both the sentences should run concurrently with a further direction to set of his remand period if any under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred the Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2003 whereby the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, on consideration of the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court sofaras the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 306 I.P.C are concerned while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused has preferred the present criminal revision case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed before the trial Court. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,3 and 7 who are father, mother and brothers of the deceased is only hearsay and the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 who are neighbours of the deceased provides that the accused used to beat the deceased and prior to her death also they heard quarrel between them and P.W.6 examined as circumstantial witness did not support the prosecution version and further D.W.1 daughter of the deceased and the accused deposed against the prosecution version and there is no evidence to the effect that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide as defined by Section 107 I.P.C and further the marriage between the accused and deceased took place about 20 years ago and as such there is no application of Section 113A of the Evidence Act and further their daughter also got married and further a motive was set up to the effect that as there were no children he wanted to marry again and in that connection he was harassing her mentally and physically and the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside respectively and the accused is to be set free. On the other hand learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argues that significantly the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 discloses that the accused used to beat the deceased and there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased prior to her death and on the other hand her post mortem examination report provides that she received two contusions over her left thigh, two contusions over her right thigh and one abrasion and it is nobodies case that she received self inflicted injuries and these circumstances are sufficient to establish that the accused instigated her to commit suicide and accordingly she committed suicide. Then it is argued by learned defense counsel that even though she received those injuries, it is not sufficient to hold that he instigated the deceased to commit suicide, in other words, there is no nexus between receiving the injuries and committing suicide and therefore in any case Section 306 I.P.C is not attracted and accordingly he is to be acquitted. Therefore it is to be examined as to (1) whether the prosecution placed sufficient evidence to the effect that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide one way or the other to attract Section 306 I.P.C; (2) whether the courts below examined the evidence available properly and arrived at correct conclusions and (3) whether the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below are sustainable or not? POINTS:- The Courts below elaborately examined the evidence available. P.W.4 deposed that the accused used to beat the deceased on the pretext that she got no second child and further he deposed that prior to her death the accused beat her at 7.00 p.m., on the previous day and also on the date of her death and on the same day she consumed poison and died. In his cross examination, P.W4 deposed that he saw the quarrel between both of them. He also deposed that prior to the death of the deceased both of them poured kerosene against each other. Further P.W.5 deposed similarly. He further deposed that the accused used to threaten the deceased that he would remarry and several times the local people intervened and separated them and on 10.04.2000 at about 7.30 p.m., the accused beat her infront of their house on the same grounds which was witnessed by several people of the locality who advised the accused not to beat her and further on 11.04.2000 at 06.00 a.m., also the accused beat her which was witnessed by him (P.W.5) . In his cross examination he deposed that he got no idea about the dispute between the accused and the deceased about begotting next child. There is no reason to disbelieve their evidence and accordingly it is accepted to be true and correct. Further D.w.1-daughter of the accused deposed that she got married in the year 1996 and was staying at Station Ganpur after her marriage. She further deposed that her father/accused and mother/deceased lived happily and her mother consumed poison and committed suicide as she used to suffer with stomach pain. She further deposed that there was enmity in between her father/accused and P.w.3 on the ground that her father refused to give money to P.W.3 prior to the death of her mother/deceased and they got no talking terms and P.W.3 along with P.Ws.1 and 2 foisted the case after the death of her mother. She finally deposed that her father/accused is not responsible for the death of her mother. Most importantly P.W.14 Doctor deposed with reference to the post mortem examination over the dead body which reveals that the deceased received the following injuries. (1) Two contusion injuries present over her left thigh of size 2 x ½” and 1x ½” respectively; (2) Contusion injury over her right thigh; and (3) abrasion injury 1 x 1/4 “ on either side of her (LT) wrist and her vicera was sent to RFSL for analysis and report. On receipt of the report from R.F.S.L., she opined that the death of the deceased- Bodasu Anjamma was due to consumption of Argan Phosphete insecticide poison. The overall circumstances of the case are to be taken into consideration in order to ascertain whether the deceased was instigated by the accused to commit suicide. It is very important that the deceased received antimortem injuries. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 implies that they got no personnel knowledge about causing the injuries to her by the accused. Therefore, it must be that at the culmination of the quarrel and before her death, she received the injuries. An issue can be established not only by means of direct evidence but also by means of circumstantial evidence. When the circumstances show that after receiving the injuries the deceased committed suicide, it ensues that instigated by it coupled with earlier circumstances she did so. There had been harassment of the deceased by the accused for long time as deposed to by P.Ws.4 and 5 till her death. There is no definite evidence as to whether the accused harassed on the ground that they did not beget second child whereas in the absence of that also the question of instigation of the deceased by the accused to commit suicide can be established. Taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, I do not have any hesitation to hold that as the harassment of the deceased by the accused lasted continuously for long period and ultimately as he is involved in causing several injuries to her, she decided to commit suicide unable to bear the harassment and accordingly she committed suicide eventually which therefore must be held to be due to the instigation of her(deceased) by him(accused) by his conduct. Further, the circumstances of the case show that having compromised with accused being his daughter D.W.1 gave false evidence. The Courts below examined the matter properly and there is no reason to interfere with the findings with reference to the conviction imposed against the accused is concerned. However with regards to the question of sentence, learned counsel for the defense has contended that a lenient view may be taken if the Court holds that the charge under Section 306 I.P.C is established. Taking into consideration the fact that the accused is a very poor fellow and he has been wandering around the Courts wasting lost of his valuable time and his money, and he also must have suffered to a great extent mentally in view of the consequences which followed subsequent to the death of the deceased and examining other relevant factors, I feel that it is a fit case where the sentence can be reduced. Accordingly the sentence imposed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is modified and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year while retaining the fine clause with a direction that the period of detention shall be given set off. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed subject to the above modification. ______________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 28th April, 2011 VJL