HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2495 of 2004 Between: Sunkara Srinivas @ Nani .. Appellant/Accused And The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2495 of 2004 JUDGMENT:- The appellant/A.1 was convicted by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsapur by judgment dated 08.11.2004 in Sessions Case No.326 of 2002 of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/-. The trial in the lower Court proceeded against A.1 to A.4 for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. Plea of A.1 to A.4 was that of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court recorded clean acquittal insofar as A.2 to A.4 are concerned. While finding A.1 not guilty of the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C., the lower Court found him guilty alternatively under Section 498-A I.P.C., in spite of the fact that there was no charge framed against him for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. In Smt. Shanti Vs. State of Haryana[1], the Supreme Court held that the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C are not mutually exclusive and that both the offences relate to cruelty towards the wife. The Supreme Court further held that even without framing specific charge against the accused under Section 498-A I.P.C., the accused can be found guilty of the said offence while holding that the accused was not guilty of the offence under Section 304- B I.P.C., for which charge was framed against him. 2. The lower Court based its conclusion against A.1 on evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 8 who are father, mother and brother of the deceased. Marriage of the deceased with A.1 took place on 21.02.1997. The deceased committed suicide by hanging to a fan in A.1’s house at Palakol on 18.12.2001. After the said information was received, P.W.1 rushed to A.1’s house from Doddipatla. P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1-report to the police alleging that he suspects foul play of the accused against the deceased and that they might have murdered the deceased Durga. Ultimately after investigation and post mortem of dead body of the deceased, it was concluded that it was a case of suicide by hanging and not a case of homicide. 3. From the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 8 the lower Court culled out four instances of harassment of the deceased by A.1. The first instance is demand by A.1 for Rs.10,000/- for development of his business, and the said demand was met by P.W.1 by paying Rs.5,000/- to A.1. It was long prior to death of the deceased and soon after marriage of the deceased with A.1. There was no further quarrel between the deceased and A.1 with regard to any demand for money for development of A.1’s business. Subsequently, the deceased gave birth to twins, a female child and a male child. After birth of the children in her parents’ house, the deceased was sent back to the house of A.1 along with two children. At that time, P.W.1 presented ‘sare’ worth Rs.15,000/-. After the deceased joined A.1’s house with children and with ‘sare’ worth Rs.15,000/-, there was no further quarrel in that regard. The lower Court found that the above two instances do not amount to demand for dowry or additional dowry as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The third and fourth instances of harassment pointed out by the lower Court are proclamation by A.1 that if he went for another marriage, he would have been given more dowry; and that A.1 was moving closely with divorced daughter of his landlord due to which the deceased suspected hindrance to her future family life. P.Ws.1, 2 and 8 were not personally aware of the incidents which happened in A.1’s house at Palakol. They only came to know about the alleged harassment of the deceased when the deceased was contacting them by phone through a neighbour’s telephone. The deceased is stated to have narrated the incidents to P.W.2 who is her mother. The deceased was not narrating any incidents to her father P.W.1 or her brother P.W.8. P.Ws.1 and 8 came to know about the details of phone call when P.W.2 narrated the same to them after ending of phone conversation. It is the prosecution case as per Ex.P.1 on this aspect that on 12.08.2000 the deceased telephoned and informed that A.1 to A.4 stated that they were not satisfied with her and asked her to go to her parents house so that A.1 would contact another marriage with Durga who is daughter of their house owner, and that Durga was coming to her bed room and A.1 speaks to her without any inhibition and moves freely. It is stated in Ex.P.1 that the deceased informed on phone that one month back A.2 to A.4 and house owner’s family including Durga necked out the deceased and her box was thrown and that she felt insulted. P.W.1 did not speak to the said information said to have been passed on by the deceased on phone. Whereas P.W.2 deposed that on one occasion there was quarrel between the deceased and the accused and that it was informed that the deceased felt insulted due to the said quarrel. P.W.2 further deposed that the deceased informed her through phone that A.1 had illicit connection with daughter of the house owner. P.W.2 did not disclose the information about A.1 having illicit connection with daughter of the house owner to P.W.1. If she had conveyed the said information to P.W.1, P.W.1 would have mentioned the same in Ex.P.1-report. The stray evidence of P.W.2 about A.1 having illicit intimacy with Durga does not find place anywhere during investigation. It is a new case developed by P.W.2 during trial in the lower court. It appears that P.W.2 thought that because Durga was moving closely inside A.1’s house and with A.1, it was understood as if Durga was having illicit intimacy with A.1. Moving closely with a tenant, cannot be either understood or mis-understood as having illicit connection between the tenant and house owner’s daughter. P.W.2 did not state that during the quarrel between the deceased and A.1, the deceased was necked out of the house and her box was thrown out. Contents of Ex.P.1 in that regard are left unproved. 5. The lower Court observed and it is also contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor that unless there was harassment, the deceased would not have taken the decision of committing suicide and that there would have been harassment of the deceased by A.1. In my opinion, this approach is not proper. It is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be found guilty on surmises and conjectures. There is no doubt about death of the deceased by committing suicide. The question is whether the suicide was preceded by harassment of such nature driving her to commit suicide, as contemplated under Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C. Simply from the end result of suicide, one cannot jump to the conclusion that there must have been harassment driving her to suicide. Commission of suicide depends upon several psychologies of several individuals. Psychology of each individual depends upon his or her approach to life and it is not common for all individuals. Suicide psychology is one such psychology. For even trivial matters one may take the decision of committing suicide. That does not mean that the Court has to presume from the suicide that there must have been such harassment driving the wife to commit suicide. It is a matter to be scrutinized in each and every case and it is for the Court to arrive at the conclusion on assessment of facts, evidence and circumstances in each case where clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C is satisfied to the effect that there was such harassment of the wife which drove the wife to commit suicide. If facts in this case and evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 8 are examined in this case, I am of the opinion that the deceased committed suicide on the mis-understanding that her husband A.1 was having illicit intimacy with Durga who is daughter of the house owner. But there is no material on record to support the basis for the mis-understanding or mis-apprehension on the part of the deceased. In my opinion, the prosecution in this case could not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that A.1 was guilty of such harassment which drive the deceased to commit suicide, rendering himself liable for cruelty under Section 498-A I.P.C. 6. Therefore, for all the above reasons, I find that the accused is not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court against the appellant/A.1 and acquitting him. _____________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt.26.08.2011 Vjl [1] A.I.R. 1991 S.C 1326