IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2406 of 2004 DATE: 11.08.2011 Between: The State rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. …… Petitioner And Harijan Krishnaiah. Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2406 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The Public Prosecutor filed this appeal questioning acquittal of the accused recorded by the lower Court of the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. It is alleged that the accused developed illicit intimacy with the deceased Balamani after promising to marry her and that on 26.10.1999 when relations of the deceased and villagers asked the accused to marry the deceased, the accused demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/- and that on hearing the same, the deceased became disgusted with her life and committed suicide by consuming poison and that the deceased died on 27.10.1999 while undergoing treatment in Government Hospital, Mahaboobnagar. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty and one of total denial. 2. In support of the prosecution case, several relations of the deceased were examined as P.Ws.1 to 5. P.W.1 is mother, P.Ws.2 and 3 are sisters and P.Ws.4 and 5 are brothers- in-law of the deceased. They spoke to the prosecution allegations. It is contended by the respondent’s counsel that in the absence of any instigation by the accused to the deceased to commit suicide, the accused is not liable to be punished for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 3. In order to attract liability under Section 306 I.P.C., the prosecution has to allege and prove abetment as contemplated under Section 107 I.P.C. in the sense that there is either instigation or intentional aid or conspiracy on the part of the accused towards the goal. In this case, the prosecution did not make any such allegation against the accused. Wilfully, the deceased had illicit intimacy with the accused and had cohabitation with him to the knowledge of one and all including her relations as well as the villagers. There is no direct evidence on behalf of the prosecution to show that the accused made any promise to the deceased to marry her and on the basis of the said promise, the deceased began to cohabitate with the accused. It is not the prosecution case that the accused refused to marry the deceased. It is the prosecution case and the evidence of prosecution witnesses that when relations of the deceased and villagers asked the accused to marry the deceased, the accused demanded for dowry of Rs.50,000/-. The accused did not refuse to marry the deceased, but he is stated to have demanded the formality of having dowry of Rs.50,000/-. It is not the prosecution case that before developing an illicit intimacy with the deceased, the accused promised to marry the deceased without any dowry. In any event, in the absence of proof of the statutory facts constituting abetment under Section 107 I.P.C., the lower Court rightly came to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to make out the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. There are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the said finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 4. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 11, 2011 dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2406 of 2004 DATE: 11.08.2011