HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.1036 OF 2006 DATED: 15.09.2011 BETWEEN: Sri Ugapally Venkataiah .. Appellant/A1 And The State of A.P. Rep.by its Public Prosecutor .. Respondent HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.1036 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 06.07.2006 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad in S.C.No.243 of 2005. 2. In all, three accused were put up for trial before the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge on the allegation of committing offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at the conclusion of the trial, on hearing either side, convicted A1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, and sentenced him to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under each count. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the first accused preferred the present appeal. 4. Shortly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased Jayamma was married to the appellant/A1, 8 years prior to her death. She had no children and according to the prosecution, A1 to A3 were harassing her physically and mentally on the ground that she was not begetting children. Several times panchayats were said to be convened before the elders and the deceased was sent to the house of the appellant on the assurance given by the elders. Ultimately, 15 days prior to the incident, a panchayat was convened by the elders and the deceased was sent to the house of A1. Subsequently, on 25.02.2004, the deceased committed suicide by hanging in Plot No.103, First Floor, Hasthinapuram North, L.B.Nagar, which is her matrimonial home. 5. On coming to know about the incident, PW.1, the brother of the deceased lodged a report with L.B.Nagar Police on the same day at 5.15 PM., basing on which, the Sub-Inspector of police registered a case in Crime No. 157 of 2004 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, PW.7, the Head Constable, who took up investigation, conducted inquest and examined some witnesses. Thereafter, PW.9, the Sub-Inspector of Police examined the witnesses and altered the section of law from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, investigated into the offences and filed charge sheet against the appellant/A1, A2 and A3, who are the parents of the accused No.1. 6. In the course of the trial before the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused, examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. The learned trial Court upon considering the evidence on record acquitted A2 and A3 of the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and convicted A1 for the said charges and sentenced him to punishment as stated above. 7. Now the point for determination in this appeal is: Whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant can be sustained? 8. I have heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 9. It is to be seen that according to the prosecution, all the accused were harassing and ill-treating the deceased as she was not begetting the children. The learned trial Court acquitted A2 and A3 and convicted the appellant for the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC basing on the same evidence. Perusal of Ex.P.1-report lodged by PW.1 does not disclose about any harassment caused by the appellant or any of the accused on the ground that the deceased was not begetting children. It is only mentioned in Ex.P.1 that PW.1 was suspecting about the death of the deceased. In the evidence, however, PW.1, the brother of the deceased and PW.2 the mother of the deceased have stated about the accused harassing the deceased and ill-treating her on the ground that she was not begetting children. PWs.1 and 2 also stated about the panchayat convened before the elders on several times and specifically about the panchayat convened 15 days prior to the death of the deceased in the presence of elders at B.N.Reddy Nagar. 10. If really any such panchayat was held just 15 days prior to the deceased committing suicide, this fact ought to have been mentioned by PW.1 in the report lodged by him with the police. The defence version is that taking advantage of the unnatural death of the deceased, PW.1 demanded Ac.4.00 of land from the prosecution party and on their failure to agree for the same, he lodged a false report. In this context, it is required to be noticed that the sister of A1 was also given in marriage to PW.1 and the evidence on record show that there were disputes between PW.1 and his wife leading to filing of criminal case by the wife. It is true that each and every detail need not be mentioned in the first information report, but omission to mention material facts shall be taken into consideration by the Court while evaluating the evidence of witnesses, more particularly when the witnesses are interested witnesses. 11. PWs.4 and 5 are said to be the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. According to the prosecution, both the witnesses i.e. PWs. 4 and 5 were present at the panchayat which was convened 15 days prior to the incident. PW.4 stated in his evidence that he was not present at the said panchayat convened. Whereas, PW.5 stated in his evidence that he and PW.4 were present at the panchayat which was held 15 days prior to the incident. PW.5 further admitted in his evidence that he is related to the deceased. In the statements of PWs.1 and 2 recorded by the police there is no whisper about the harassment meted out by the accused on the ground that the deceased was not begetting children. 12. From the above, it is obvious that there are material omissions in the first information report as well as in 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs.1 and 2. The prosecution tried to develop the case from time to time. It seems that a report has been lodged by PW-1 due to the sudden unnatural death of his sister. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 does not inspire any confidence and the learned trial Court ought not to have recorded a conviction basing on their evidence. Further, even if the entire evidence is taken as true, the evidence does not warrant conviction either for the offence under Section 498-A IPC or for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The appellant is therefore, found not guilty of the said offences. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad in S.C.No.243 of 2005 against the appellant for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC are set aside. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the said offences. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. The appeal is allowed. __________________ Date: 15.09.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J Kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.1036 OF 2006 DATE: 15.09.2011