THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINALAPPEAL No.297 of 2005 Date:01.12.2009 Between: The Public Prosecutor. ..Appellant And Kunisetti Veerababu and others. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINALAPPEAL No.297 of 2005 JUDGMENT: Acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 8 in S.C.No.273 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, by the judgment dated 21.01.2003 led the State to approach this Court with this appeal through the Public Prosecutor. Accused Nos.1 to 8 were prosecuted for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the allegation that the first accused, who is the son of accused Nos.2 and 3, was married to Lakshmi Durga @ Lakshmi, daughter of Sunkara Lakshmikantham and that accused Nos.4 to 8 are closely related to the second accused. It was further alleged that the first accused and the deceased had a son and daughter born out of the wedlock and that at the time of the marriage, the parents of Lakshmi Durga presented Rs.80,000/- towards dowry and Rs.12,000/- towards expenses to accused Nos.1 to 3. The first accused invested the dowry amount in agriculture and Lakshmi Durga desired the money to be returned. Accused Nos.1 to 8 were ill-treating Lakshmi Durga and they took away gold chains, gold necklace and gold bangles from Lakshmi Durga. Lakshmi Durga quarrelled with her husband regarding the return of the amount of Rs.80,000/- and being vexed with her life committed suicide on the night of 11.09.2000. On the report to the Village Administrative Officer, a case was registered in Crime No.59 of 2000 and after five months, the mother of Lakshmi Durga – Sunkara Laxkshmikantham handed over a notebook found in the clothes of the deceased Lakshmi Durga in which the deceased Lakshmi Durga endorsed that she decided to end her life due to the harassment of the accused and the accused taking away her ornaments and chain. On this fresh complaint on 24.02.2001, the Section of law was altered into one under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code from Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and subsequently the mother of the deceased found another notebook also in the handwriting of deceased Lakshmi Durga which was seized by the Police for comparison. On completion of the investigation, the accused were arrested and remanded to the judicial custody. After the copies of the documents were furnished to the accused on their appearance before the learned Magistrate, the case was committed to the Court of Session and the Court of Session framed charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused for which they pleaded not guilty. P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-18, D-1 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked during the trial. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they did not produce any defence evidence. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment firstly finding that the death of Lakshmi Durga ex facie due to hanging was not a homicide but was a suicide as admitted. The trial Court further found that the inquest mediators did not speak about the alleged cause of death and that in Ex.P-6, P.W.7, one of the elders, who allegedly mediated the disputes did not state about the cause alleged by the prosecution as the reason for the deceased being vexed with her life. The trial Court further observed that even the brother of the deceased did not corroborate the prosecution, and referring to Ex.P-11 notebook used for comparison of the alleged handwriting of the deceased in Ex.P-9, the trial Court brought out various circumstances including the quantities of the clothes said to have been entrusted to the washerman for cleaning as improbablising the alleged maintenance of such notebook. Further observing that P.W.10 - mother, and P.W.13 - daughter-in-law of P.W.10 were unacquainted with the handwriting of Lakshmi Durga, the trial Court also referred to the abnormal delay in Ex.P-9 being admittedly detected and further unexplained delay in detection of Ex.P-11. In the absence of any other evidence and in the light of the unreliability of Exs.P-9 and P-11, the trial Court concluded that the alleged offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was not probablised beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court also observed that the investment of the money in question in agriculture can never be construed as a circumstance for instigating or abetting any suicide and in the absence of proof of the circumstances leading the deceased to end her life, the trial Court also concluded that the alleged offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The resultant acquittal of the accused is challenged herein on the ground that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 was consistent and the suicide note left by the deceased could not have been ignored by the trial Court when the mother and sister-in-law identified the signature of the deceased before the trial Court. Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, and Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent-accused are heard at length. The only point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the alleged guilt of accused Nos.1 to 8 or any of them for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. A close perusal and consideration of entire material on record shows that the death of Lakshmi Durga being due to suicide and not a homicide is admitted and after her death ex facie due to hanging, there appeared to be no suspicion in the mind of anybody including the family of the deceased about any culpable conduct of any of the accused leading Lakshmi Durga to commit suicide till the alleged detection of Ex.P-9 notebook and the consequential fresh complaint by P.W.10 under Ex.P-10 on 24.02.2001. If the conduct of the accused towards the deceased was what it was alleged to be, the same could not have gone undetected for such a length of time after the unfortunate demise of Lakshmi Durga. The evidence of P.W.10 – mother of the deceased also did not explain as to why all the articles and movables of the deceased were not checked soon after the death of Lakshmi Durga and as to why they were suddenly verified on the day when Ex.P-9 was detected. The said delay providing scope for deliberation and fabrication has to be necessarily kept in mind by the Court while appreciating the evidence and even at the time of Inquest Report – Ex.P-3, the dispute stated to be regarding the return of the dowry amount as demanded by the deceased was stated to have been placed before the elders and was decided and it was against the decision of the elders that Lakshmi Durga was still pressing her husband. If her demand was in violation of the decision of the mediators, the failure of the first accused to return the amount as demanded by his wife probably could not have amounted to a culpable circumstance abetting the deceased to commit suicide. At any rate, none of the inquest mediators examined before the Court was speaking about the cause of the death of the deceased and P.W.7 – one of the elders in the mediation also did not speak about any earlier disputes referred to him and other elders for settlement. Thus, any evidence about the alleged payment of Rs.80,000/- towards dowry at the time of marriage of Lakshmi Durga and any dispute about the return of such amount cannot be considered to have been probablised. The claims of P.W.11 - brother of the deceased, P.W.10 - mother of the deceased and P.W.13 - daughter-in-law of P.W.10 about either the demand made to the first accused for return of the dowry amount after the death of Lakshmi Durga in order to enable looking after the children of Laksmi Durga or the detection of Ex.P-9 with writings in it were not that the demand was made in the presence of mediators or that the writings were identified by P.W.10 and the circumstances spoken to by them do not throw any positive light on the alleged cruelty or harassment or abetment. How Ex.P-11 could be taken to be admittedly in the handwriting of the deceased so as to provide dependable material for comparison with Ex.P-9 is unexplained and admittedly, there was no other document containing the admitted handwriting of the deceased Lakshmi Durga. Even according to the prosecution, the dowry amount was invested by the first accused in agriculture, which could not have been considered as questionable by any person including the deceased and otherwise there was absolutely no evidence of any other ill-treatment or harassment of the deceased by any of the accused. Under the circumstances, the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court can never be considered to be divorced from broad human probabilities and ordinary and natural course of human events and conduct. The criminal liability of any of the accused has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and suspicion, however, strong it might be, can never be equal to such legal proof. The appeal has to therefore fail. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 01st December, 2009 GHN