THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.606 of 2004 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case is directed by the petitioner/accused No.1 against the order of conviction passed by the V Additional District and Assistant Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), West Godavari at Eluru, vide judgment dated 25.03.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2000. The brief facts of the case are as follows: A-1 married Jhansi Rani (deceased) daughter of B.Krishna Murthy, on 21.5.1994 and at the time of marriage father of the deceased Sri B.Krishna Murthy (PW.1) gave Ac.1.50 cents of land and cash of Rs.20,000/- to the first accused. The deceased joined the society of A.1 and started living in a portion of the house of B.Srirama Chandra Murthy (PW.5) on rent at Mandapaka. During the course of marital life, A.1 ill treated her mentally and physically, and also harassed her with cruelty. Prior to her death the said Jhansi Rani wrote a letter to her father stating that she was given to an useless man and she could not bear the difficulties and she gained experience of 10 years within a period of one year of her marriage. That harassment abetted her to commit suicide. On 19.5.1995, during morning hours the deceased took one litre of milk from Bathina Venkata Lakshmi (PW.6). A.1 left the house to attend his duty at 7.00 A.M. Then the deceased bolted the door from inside and committed suicide by hanging with a saree to a fan ring. Since the deceased has not come out from the house till 9.00 A.M., PW.6 called the deceased but there was no response. Then the said P.W.6 peeped through the window and noticed the deceased hanging with a saree to the fan ring. PW.6 raised cries, on that Kudapa Ramu (PW.7) and others gathered and broke open the doors and brought out the dead body of the deceased. The said K.Ramu went to the sugar factory of the A.1 and informed the same. On that A.1 came back to his house and noticed his wife committed suicide. A.1 issued Telegrams to his parents ie., A.2 and A.3 and to the parents of the deceased B.Krishna Murthy, and B.Padmavathi (PWs 1 and 2). On arrival of A.2 and A.3 the dead body of Jhansi Rani was shifted to Badampudi village and cremated the dead body even before the arrival of PWs. 1 and 2 and LW.3 B.Srinivas and PWs 3 and 4. On that PWs 1 and 2, B.Srinivas, PWs 3 and 4 went to Yerramalla village. Then PWs 1 and 2 gave a report at Chebrole Police and as well as to Tadepalligudem Rural Police but no avail. On that 10.4.1997 PW.1 filed a private complaint (Ex.P.1) before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, the same was forwarded by the said Court to the Chebrole Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On that the Sub- Inspector of Police, Chebrole Sri P.Bharat Matheji (PW.9) registered a case in Crime No.33 of 1997 under Section 302 IPC and Sec.211, 129(b) and 109 IPC r/w 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Inspector of Police Sri C.V.B.S.Murthy, (PW.10) conducted investigation and laid the charge sheet under Section 306 and 201 IPC. When a charge under Section 306 IPC was framed against the accused No.1 and a charge under Section 201 IPC was framed against the accused Nos.1 to 3, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. Challenging the same, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. The trial Court and the first appellate Court considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the material placed, convicted the petitioner/accused No.1 for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 submitted the following facts for consideration. 1) There is inordinate delay of two years in lodging the complaint 2) Ex.P.2 suicide note written by the deceased has not disclosed any offence committed by the petitioner herein. Now, the point for determination is whether the finding of the trial Court is correct, legal or proper? This Court perused the entire evidence and also the records placed by the prosecution. It is evident from the records that the present complaint and the follow up investigation by the investigating agency started after two years. It is not properly explained by the prosecution. There is no evidence to show that the present complaint was lodged at the first instance and the same was not investigated by the police and also there is no evidence to show that PW.1 lodged a complaint at the first instance itself. So, the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint in the present case cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution and on the sole ground itself the case of the prosecution can be discarded and further even in Ex.P.2 written by the deceased, nothing has been shown that because of the inducement of the petitioner herein she committed suicide and further the ample evidence adduced by the defence to show that after filing of a Civil Suit by the present petitioner, the present complaint is lodged by PW.1. In view of the above said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the present conviction by the trial Court, confirmation by the appellate Court against the petitioner/accused No.1 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 30th June, 2010. PNV