THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2305 OF 2004 ORDER: The Public Prosecutor filed this appeal on behalf of the State questioning acquittal of the respondent Nos.1 to 3/A1 to A3 of the offence under Section 306 IPC. A1 is husband of the deceased Padmavathi. A2 and A3 are parents-in-law of the deceased, they being parents of A1. Marriage of the deceased with A1 took place in the year 1991. They have three children. In the year 1994 there were disputes between the parties and there was a case instituted by the deceased under Section 498A IPC against A1 to A3. Ultimately that case ended in compromise and it was referred. In 1994, prior to giving of report to the police, there was separation of the deceased from the house of the accused. After compromise the deceased joined her husband A1 and they set up separate residence at Tanuku. Thereafter they shifted their residence from Tanuku to Pekeru and resided there till death of the deceased in the year 2000. The deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting fire to herself. After the incident, the deceased was admitted in P.W10’s private hospital where she underwent treatment for her 85% burns and later succumbed to the burn injuries after few days. The deceased was admitted in the hospital. After receiving hospital intimation, P.W.16 head constable went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P14 statement. P.W.15, who was the Magistrate at Tanuku, also went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P12 dying declaration of the deceased. 2 . P.Ws.1 to 4 are father, mother, brother and sister of the deceased. P.Ws.5 to 7 who are neighbours, turned hostile to the prosecution and stated that they do not know the reason why the deceased committed suicide. P.Ws.1 to 4 also did not know the final reason as to why the deceased committed suicide. They speak of giving of dowry by way of Kisan Vikas Patras and Lanchanas and also money for purchase of motor cycle at the time of marriage. Their evidence is to the effect that Kisan Vikas Patras which were given to the deceased were encashed subsequently and that when questioned A1 stated that the said Kisan Vikas Patras were encashed for the purpose of his business. That was not the reason for the deceased to commit suicide. The lower court noticed that most of oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is a subsequent development during trial and does not find place in the investigation record and in the statements recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. 3. In my opinion, Ex.P12 dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate/P.W.15 assumes greater importance in this case. In Ex.P12-dying declaration, the deceased gave a clean chit to her husband/A1. The deceased stated that A1 was not at all responsible for the suicide attempted by her. She further says that A1 is a good person. She only alleges harassment against her in-laws. It is contended by the respondent’s counsel that when A1 and the deceased were living separately since the year 1994 or 1995, there is no question of A2 and A3 being in-laws of the deceased subjecting her to cruelty or any harassment. In Ex.P12-dying declaration, the deceased alleges an incident of her mother-in-law taking away her gold chain and necking her out of the house. The question of necking the deceased out of the house in the year 2000 will not arise at all because the deceased along with her husband had been living separately from A2 and A3 at least since 1995 i.e., after one year of their separation in the year 1994. It appears that the deceased was referring to the incident of snatching her gold chain and necking her out of the house by recollecting an event which took place in the year 1994. It was not the immediate reason for the deceased to commit suicide. Since marriage of the deceased with A1 took place more than seven years of her suicide, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act is not available to the prosecution in order to find any of the accused guilty under Section 306 IPC. It is for the prosecution to prove that there was either instigation or intentional aid or conspiracy as contemplated under Section 107 IPC for the suicide committed by the deceased. In the absence of any such evidence before the court, I am of the opinion that the lower court rightly found the accused not guilty of the charge under Section 306 IPC. Further, it has to be noted that the lower court did not frame any specific charge under Section 498A IPC in order to bring the case within clause (a) of explanation to that section. Since the deceased herself gave clean certificate to A1 and since the deceased was living separately from A2 and A3, atleast since several years prior to the offence, it cannot be said that either A2 or A3 were responsible for the deceased to commit suicide. I do not find any reasons or grounds to come to a different conclusion from that of the lower court. 4. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 25, 2011. LMV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2305 OF 2004 25-11-2011 LMV