HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Crl.A.No. 114 of 2010 DATED: 29.01.2010 Between:- The State of A.P., rep. by its P.P., .. Appellant And Dasoju Anjaneyulu .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment, dated 10.01.2008 in S.C. No.318 of 2005 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalguda, whereunder and whereby, the sole accused, who is the respondent herein, was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused, after deserting his first wife, married one Varamma, who is the sister of the de facto complainant, in the year 1997, and they were blessed with a baby-girl. They lived happily for four years, and subsequently, the accused suspected the fidelity of Varamma and harassed her. Unable to bear the harassment, she committed suicide by hanging herself to a wooden log with the help of her saree. On hearing the hue and cry by the accused, the de facto complainant and another, who were working at nearby house, rushed there and saw the dead-body of Varamma hanging. On 23.12.2004, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint to the Station House Officer, Miryalguda Police Station, who registered a case against the accused, and after completing investigation, filed charge sheet. 3) When a charge under Section 306 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4) To substantiate the case of the prosecution, it examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 besides the case property - M.O.1. 5) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. DWs.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were got marked on behalf of the defence. 6) The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused. Challenging the judgment of acquittal, State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 7) Now, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? 8) Counsel representing the learend Public Prosecutor for the appellant contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is very clear that Varamma committed suicide because of the abetment caused to her by the accused, and therefore, she prays to set aside the judgment of acquittal. 9) The learned counsel for the respondent-accused contended that there is no evidence to show that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide so as to convict him for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, and that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused, and hence, the judgment under appeal cannot be interfered with. 10) To constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, there must be abetment caused by the accused to Varamma to commit suicide. What is abetment is defined under Section 107 IPC, which reads as under: Section 107 IPC: Abetment of a thing:- A person abets the doing of thing, who First:- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly:- Engages with one or more other person or person 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 that thing. 11) As seen from this Section, there are three ingredients, which are required to be satisfied to constitute the offence punishable under Section 107 IPC. 12) When the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased-Varamma, in the presence of PW5, who is the panch witness, the inquestdar - mediators opined that Varamma died as a result of hanging. PW6, is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that Varamma died due to hanging and issued Ex.P4 – Postmortem Certificate. The incident took place in the house of the accused and there is no dispute about the scene of occurrence. The entire case rests upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, who are not direct witnesses. The case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. When the case rests solely on the circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogent and firmly established; and the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none-else; and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 13) PW1, who is none other than the brother of the deceased, rushed to the scene of offence on hearing cries and found the dead body of his sister. Except stating that there was dispute between the accused and the deceased, he did not say anything about the instigation made by the accused to the deceased to commit suicide or the acts of the accused facilitated the deceased to commit suicide. 14) PW3, who is no other than the mother of the deceased, simply stated that the accused used to harass her daughter, but nature of harassment has not been stated in her evidence. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that the accused was present at the time of the incident, and that he abetted Varamma to commit suicide. PWs.2 and 4 did not speak about the instigation of the accused and the commission of the suicide. Even though PWs.1 and 2 stated that on hearing cries of the accused, they rushed to the scene of occurrence and found the dead body hanging to the ceiling of the hut, there is no evidence to show that Varamma committed suicide due to instigation by the accused. Mere presence of the accused at the time of incident by itself cannot be ground to infer that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. At best it gives raise to a suspicion. The suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused abetted Varamma to commit suicide. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and the judgment impugned in this appeal does not call for interference by this Court. 15) Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 10.01.2008 in S.C. No.318 of 2005 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalguda. ​______________ K.C. BHANU, J. 29th January, 2010 bcj