THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1378 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. The appeal by the State under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’), is directed against the judgment dated 03.07.2008 made in Sessions Case No.64 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kavali, whereunder and whereby the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 4 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and accordingly, they had been acquitted. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal, may be stated as follows: The marriage of Tirumala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was performed with the first accused about nine years prior to the date of incident. After marriage they lived happily for sometime. On 08.02.2007, the deceased came to her parents house and informed that she was intending to go to Malakonda temple along with accused Nos.1 to 3, but she did not visit the temple on that day. It is alleged that the husband of the deceased i.e., accused No.1 was a drunkard and he sold away the gold ornaments presented to the deceased by her parents. After the marriage, all the accused were started harassing the deceased and humiliating her. Unable to bear the said harassment, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. Accused Nos.2 and 3 shifted the deceased to the Hospital of P.W.9. P.W.9 advised accused Nos.2 and 3 to shift her to another Hospital for better treatment and while she was being taken to another hospital, she died. Thereupon, P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the father and mother of the deceased, jointly lodged a report with P.W.11, who registered a case in Crime No.22 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. He visited the scene of occurrence, seized the empty poison bottle under the cover of mediators’ report in the presence of P.W.10 and another. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators under Ex.P5. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination by P.W.7, who, after conducting post mortem examination, opined that the deceased died due to consumption of poison. P.W.11, after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. 3. When the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 besides case property M.O.1. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against them and accordingly acquitted them. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. 6. Now the point for determination is: “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC?” 7. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is very clear that the deceased committed suicide unable to bear the harassment and due to the abetment of the accused and therefore, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 8. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal. Some of the compelling or substantial reasons are; (1) perverse finding is given (2) findings are not based upon any evidence (3) taking into consideration inadmissible evidence or (4) overlooking the admissible evidence. 9. For the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the conduct of the accused is wilful 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 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. So far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, there must be abetment to the deceased to commit suicide. What is abetment is defined under Section 107 IPC, which reads as under: “A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of the thing. Explanation 1: A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes of procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2: Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 10. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. They did not speak about the harassment meted out by the deceased in the hands of the accused. They did not speak about the contents of the common report given by them to the police, which is marked as Ex.P1. They simply stated that at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.15,000/-, six sovereigns of gold, gold ring and wrist watch were given to the accused. They did not speak about the subsequent events, which took place after the marriage. 11. P.Ws.3 to 5, who are the neighbours and direct witnesses to the alleged harassment meted out by the deceased in the hands of the accused, did not support the prosecution case. They have completely given a goby to their earlier version in their statements recorded under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C by the police during the course of investigation. Nothing has been elicited from these witnesses so as to connect the accused with the offences with which they stood charged. 12. There cannot be any dispute that the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C cannot be used for any other purpose except for contradicting the witness as provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. P.W.6 is one of the mediators who was present when P.W.11 conducted inquest. The opinion of the inquest witness is incorporated in Ex.P5, inquest report. From the evidence of P.W.6 and the recitals in Ex.P5, it is clear that the deceased died as a result of consuming poison. P.W.9 is the doctor, who gave first aid to the deceased and advised the attendants of the deceased to shift her to another Hospital for better treatment. P.W.7 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He gave his opinion, however, basing on the opinion expressed by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Guntur, Ex.P7, that the deceased died due to consumption of poison. 13. P.W.10 is one of the mediators, who was present when the police seized M.O.1 from the house of the deceased under Ex.P9, observation report. There is no dispute about the deceased consuming poison at the house of the accused. The only evidence available on record is the evidence of P.W.8, who is the junior paternal uncle of the deceased. Even according to this witness, the accused were picking up quarrels with the deceased demanding additional amount. But the same cannot be given much importance because he is not a direct witness to the alleged harassment or alleged demand of additional dowry by the accused. He only stated that about five years prior to the date of death of the deceased, he was informed that the accused were demanding additional dowry. Therefore, that alleged demand of additional dowry, which took place about five years prior to the date of incident, cannot be taken as a consequence of the deceased consuming poison resulting in her death. He is not a direct eye witness to the incident of the aiding of the accused to the deceased in committing the suicide. Therefore, the trial Court upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, rightly acquitted the accused. The said order of acquittal does not call for any inference by this Court. 14. The Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment dated 03.07.2008 in S.C. No.64 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kavali. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J Dated 5th November, 2009 vrn