THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1649 OF 2004 ORDER: This appeal is directed against the acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.226 of 2001 by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool on 18.11.2002. The respondent herein was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC alleging that he married the deceased Rangamma and having 3 children and after the marriage the accused ill- treating and harassing the deceased, beating her and abusing her in filthy language for silly reasons. She was being found fault for everything by the accused and he was not taking care of maintaining the family and the deceased was maintaining the family by her hard labour. The deceased was unable to bear the behaviour of the accused and committed suicide on 20.10.2001 at 6.30 P.M. in their onion garden at Ratnapalli by consuming pesticide poison. On the report given by P.W.1, mother of the deceased, P.W.9 registered the case under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and took up investigation and conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post-mortem. After completion of the investigation, P.W.9 filed the charge sheet against the accused. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 and M.Os.1 to 3. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but Ex.D.1 was marked, which is a portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found the accused not guilty for the said charges and acquitted him. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal. The Additional Public Prosecutor has pleaded that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the mother and brother of the deceased, establishes the harassment caused to the deceased by the accused prior to her death and which lead her to commit suicide by consuming pesticide poison and the said fact was established from the evidence of Doctor, P.W.8, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and the lower Court has erred in coming into conclusion that P.W.1 has given a go-bye to the complaint given by her and not supported the allegations made in the said complaint. She further pleaded that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly establishes the offence under Section 498-A IPC. As the deceased could not tolerate the harassment caused by the accused committed suicide, as such the accused is responsible for her committing suicide and he is liable for punishment under Section 306 IPC. Respondent’s counsel on the other hand has pleaded that P.Ws.1 and 2 have improved their version before the trial Court and P.W.1 even though has given the statement to the investigating officer, P.W.9 as in Ex.P.8, she dis-owned the said statement except identifying her thumb impression. He further pleaded that though the marriage between the accused and deceased has taken place 15 years prior to the incident, P.Ws.1 and 2 alleged that the deceased informed them about the beatings of the accused, but no complaint or mediation was taken place in that regard. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be relied upon and the lower Court has rightly found the accused not guilty and acquitted him. According to the prosecution that the accused used to ill-treat and harass the deceased for silly reasons from the date of marriage and as the deceased unable to bear the harassment, committed suicide on 20.10.2001 at 6.30 P.M in their onion garden at Ratnapalli by consuming pesticide poison. The factum of death of the deceased was established from the evidence of P.W.8 and Ex.P.6 postmortem report and Ex.P.5 F.S.L. report. Now, it has to be examined whether the evidence available on record establishes the offence under Section 498-A and 306 IPC against the accused. In order to establish the offence under Section 498-A IPC the prosecution has to establish cruelty on the part of the accused. As per explanation under Section 498-A IPC, the cruelty means (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. In the present case, the allegation made against the accused is that he used to beat and ill-treat the deceased for silly reasons, thereby she committed suicide. Now, it has to be examined whether the said acts of the accused will amounts willful conduct, which led the deceased to commit suicide. P.W.1 is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident occurred on 20.10.2001. According to her, she was informed by her deceased daughter about the beatings of the accused. P.W.2, who is brother of the deceased, has stated that he has gone to Ratnapalli to invite the deceased for Dasara festival and on the way he was informed by one Shepard that the accused beat her and after her death, he poured pesticide in her mouth in order to create as if she committed suicide. But whereas in the statement recorded by P.W.9, P.W.2 stated that prior to her death the accused beat her. In the cross- examination P.W.2 disowned the statement recorded by the police. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the other witnesses P.Ws.3 and 5 have turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W.4, who is the son of the deceased has also not supported the version of the prosecution, he stated that his mother and father, who are the deceased and accused, were living cordially. Even the mediators, P.Ws.6 and 7 for inquest also turned hostile to the prosecution and not supported the case of the prosecution. The investigating officer, P.W.9 has registered the case basing on the statement given by P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P.8. But P.W.1 has completely changed her version during the course of her evidence. Moreover, P.W.Nos.1 and 2 tried to put up a new case during the course of their examination before the lower Court. Therefore, the only allegation against the accused is that he has beaten the deceased prior to her death and also on the date of her death. With regard to beating of the deceased on the date of her death, there is no evidence on record. With regard to earlier beatings and harassment by the accused, P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that they were informed by the deceased about his beatings for silly reasons. Therefore, it cannot be said that the conduct of the accused in beating the deceased is a willful conduct, which is of such nature likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. Thus, in the above circumstances, the trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and there are no reasons to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 16th December, 2011 Ksp