THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1383 OF 2004 ORDER: This appeal at the instance of the State is directed against the acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.138 of 2001 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad. According to the prosecution, that the deceased Prameela was given in marriage to accused No.1 about 4 ½ years back. They lived happily for about 2 years. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 4 started harassing the deceased to get T.V. and other articles or money in lieu there of from her parents. When the deceased expressed her helplessness to meet with their demands, accused Nos.1 to 4 increased their demand and harassed her severely. Accused No.1 used to cause burns on the body of the deceased with a cigarette butt. The deceased narrated about her vows of suffering at the hands of accused Nos.1 to 4 to her parents and they tried to set right the marital life of the deceased with the help of mediators, but they could not succeed. As the harassment of the deceased by accused Nos.1 to 4 became unbearable, she committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison on 21.01.1997 at about 11.00 hours and died while undergoing treatment in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC against all the accused. All the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and thereby acquitted the accused. Aggrieved against the said acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pleaded that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 establishes the demand made by the accused and as P.W.1 failed to fulfill their demand, they started harassing the deceased and as the deceased could not tolerate the harassment caused by the accused, committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison. Therefore, the prosecution could able to establish the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC against the accused. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. According to the prosecution that the marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased was performed about 4 ½ years back and they lived happily for two years. Thereafter, accused started harassing her to get T.V. and other articles or money in lieu thereof from her parents. When she expressed her helplessness to meet with their demand, accused increased their demand and harassed her severely and accused No.1 caused burn injuries on the body of the deceased with a cigarette butt and the efforts made by the parents of the deceased to set right the family of the deceased fail. As the deceased could not tolerate the harassment caused by the accused, committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison. To establish the demand made by the accused and also harassment caused by them to the deceased, the prosecution has examined P.W.Nos.1 to 3. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. According to him, about 4 years prior to the death of his daughter she was given in marriage to accused No.1. They lived happily for 2 years. Thereafter, the accused used to abuse and beat his daughter very frequently and used to send her to his house with a demand to bring T.V. and money. His daughter gave birth to one male child, who is aged about 11 months at the time of death of his daughter. His daughter was in his house one week prior to her death and she used to tell him about the demand made by the accused for T.V. and money and also harassment by beating and abusing. After coming to know about the admission of his daughter in Osmania General Hospital, himself, his brothers, and his wife went to Osmania General Hospital and found her dead. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint Ex.P.1. In the cross-examination he has stated that for the first time 2 or 3 years after her marriage, his daughter told him that the accused were demanding her to bring T.V. Once a panchayat was conducted in their village regarding the demand and harassment by the accused and all the accused attended the said panchayat and 2 or 3 times he called the village elders to his house and they advised the accused not to harass his daughter. At the time of marriage he has not agreed to give any T.V. and the accused never demanded for T.V. at the time of marriage. Therefore, according to P.W.1, the accused demanded T.V. and money 2 or 3 years after the marriage for the first time. P.W.2, who is the brother of P.W.1, also supported the version of P.W.1 with regard to his daughter telling him about the demand made by the accused and also harassing her. According to him, one day prior to the death of the deceased, accused No.1 came to the house of P.W.1 and took the deceased along with him to his house. In the cross-examination, he has stated that no panchayat was conducted in the village against the accused. P.W.3, who is residing opposite to the house of P.W.1 has stated that the deceased used to complain to her parents that her husband and brother-in-law and her parents-in-law are harassing her for want of T.V. and money and he heard the same from the deceased when she told the same to her parents. For the last time the deceased told them about the harassment during her stay for week days in the house of P.W.1 before her death. In the cross- examination, he admitted that the deceased Prameela never came to their house and informed him about the harassment caused by the accused. Therefore, the version of P.W.3 that he heard when the deceased telling her parents about the harassment caused by the accused cannot be believed. Simply because he is residing opposite to the house of P.W.1, it cannot be presumed that whatever is going on in the house of P.W.1 would be heard by P.W.3. Moreover, he has not stated anything about his going to the house of P.W.1 when the deceased informing her parents about the harassment caused by the accused and demand made by them. Thus, the lower Court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.W.3. In Ex.P.1 complaint given by P.W.1, it is only alleged that the accused has demanded the deceased to bring T.V. and other articles from her parents and harassing her both physically and mentally and as she could not tolerate the said harassment committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison. Therefore, as per Ex.P.1 complaint the accused has not demanded the deceased to get money from her parents, but whereas P.Ws.1 and 2 have specifically stated that the accused demanded for getting T.V. and money from her parents. P.W.Nos.1 and 2 have not specified about the manner of the alleged harassment caused by the accused to the deceased. But in the charge sheet, it was mentioned that accused No.1 used to cause burn injuries on the body of the deceased with cigarette butt, but the said fact was not spoken by any of the witnesses. Even if P.W.1 has stated about conducting of the panchayat with regard to the harassment caused to the deceased by the accused, none were examined in that regard to establish the same. Thus, except the interested evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no other evidence to establish the demand made by the accused or harassment caused by them. P.W.4 is the then Mandal Revenue Officer, has conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.2 is the inquest report. In the cross-examination, he admitted that in the inquest report there is no mention about the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased harassed the deceased and demanded her to bring T.V. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined at the time of inquest, but the inquest report only discloses that the accused has demanded the deceased to get money from her parents, but whereas the Ex.P.1 complaint, which was given 2 or 3 hours prior to conducting inquest, does not disclose about the accused demanding the deceased to get money from her parents. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the demand made by the accused either for money or T.V. or harassment in connection with fulfillment of their demand. Thus, as rightly observed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and rightly acquitted them. Hence, the appeal fails and the finding of the learned Assistant Sessions does not warrant any interference by this Court. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 16th September, 2011 Ksp