THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2062 of 2004 BETWEEEN: The Public Prosecutor … Appellant AND 1. Amalapurapau Appalanarasayya & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2062 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The respondents 1 and 2/A1 and A2 who are husband and wife, were acquitted by the lower Court of the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. The State ﬁled this appeal questioning the said finding of acquittal. 2. A1 and PW1 are brothers and have been residing in two separate portions out of three portions of their family house. PW2 is wife of PW1. The deceased Uma Maheswari is their unmarried daughter who was residing with them. PWs 3 to 5 are married daughters of PWs 1 and 2 and they were residents of Tadiparthi and Tuni respectively. On the date of incident, they claim to be present at Korukonda in their house. PWs 6 to 9 are neighbours of the scene of offence. PWs 6 to 9 did not throw any light in this case in support of the prosecution. There were quarrels between PW1 and A1 with regard to their properties. It is alleged that during the said quarrels, A1 and A2 were abusing the deceased and were uttering that the deceased should die so that the disputes would come to an end. The oﬀence took place on 27.10.2001. It is alleged that when the deceased interfered in the quarrel between PWs 1 and 2 on one hand and A1 and A2 on the other hand, the accused beat the deceased and when the deceased was weeping, the accused threatened to beat her again if she weeps so that nobody would protect her and that the deceased went inside the house and committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting fire to herself. 3. While undergoing treatment in the hospital, the Head Constable recorded Ex.P11 statement from the deceased/injured and on that basis, Ex.P13- FIR was issued. Though originally case was registered under Section 309 I.P.C., the case was altered to one under Section 306 I.P.C. In the hospital, Ex.P7- Dying declaration of the deceased was also recorded by the Magistrate/PW13. Ex.P1 is stated to be death note left by the deceased. 4. The lower Court did not place reliance on Ex.P1-suicide note on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the same. Ex.P4-note book was ﬁled to make comparison of handwritings in Ex.P1 with the handwriting contained in Ex.P4. PW12 who was the teacher of the deceased was examined to identify the handwriting. The prosecution did not take any steps to obtain scientiﬁc comparison of handwritings in Exs. P1 and P4. In any event, the lower Court commented that Ex.P4 does not contain standard handwritings of the deceased. At many places, including at the speciﬁed place for writing the name on Ex.P4 notebook, name of brother of the deceased, Karunakar was written denoting that it is the notebook of Karunakar. Since there are two statements- Exs. P7 and P11 recorded by the Magistrate and the Head Constable from the deceased in the hospital, Ex.P1 may not assume much importance in this case. Neither in Ex.P7 nor in Ex.P11, the deceased disclosed about she preparing Ex.P1 suicide note prior to attempting to commit suicide. The lower Court did not place any reliance on Exs P11 and P7 on the ground that there was every likelihood of tutoring of the deceased by her parents PWs 1 and 2, who took her to the hospital and attended on her in the hospital. The lower Court further held that even if the contents of Exs.P7 and P11 are taken as true and correct, they do not amount to instigating the deceased in commission of suicide, by the accused. In Ex.P11 statement recorded by the Head Constable, it was stated that previously, A1 and A2 were uttering during the course of quarrel that the deceased should die. But in Ex.P11, the deceased did not state that on 27.10.2001, such utterances were made by the accused during the course of quarrel before the deceased attempting to commit suicide. On the other hand, in Ex.P7- Dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, the deceased stated as if the accused repeated the said utterances that the deceased should die, even on the date of oﬀence. The statements of the deceased contained in Exs. P11 and P7 are not consistent. 5. In order to constitute abetment as deﬁned in Section 107 I.P.C., the prosecution is expected to prove either instigation or intentional aid or conspiracy for commission of the oﬀence. It is nobody’s case that the accused intentionally aided or conspired for the offence. Even if A1 and A2 uttered that the deceased should die, taking said statement for the sake of arguments as true, it may not amount to instigation of the deceased by the accused to commit suicide. Intention of the accused at any rate was not securing death of the deceased, but settlement of disputes between them and PWs 1 and 2. 6. At this stage, it may be noted that questioning Judgment of acquittal of A1 and A2 passed by the lower Court, PW1 ﬁled Criminal Revision Case No.1555 of 2002 in this Court. This Court by order dated 04.06.2010, dismissed the said Criminal Revision Case on merits upholding acquittal of A1 and A2. In these circumstances, I do not ﬁnd any valid or legal reasons to reverse ﬁnding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 7. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:03.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2062 of 2004 Dt:03.12.2011 ysk