Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Aleti Rathnam And Anr. vs State Of A.P. on 16 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: II(2005)DMC130
JUDGMENT P.S. Narayana, J.
1. The appellants A1 and A2 in Sessions Case No. 667 of 2000 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala, had preferred the present criminal appeal, aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence imposed by the judgment dated 19.4.2001.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W. 1 is the elder brother of the deceased. P.W. 6 is the mother of the deceased. A1 is the son of A2. The deceased is the 3rd daughter of P.W. 6. The deceased belonged to Telega community, whereas the accused belongs to Maduga community. It is also the version of the prosecution that about six months prior to 28.11.1999, A1 developed acquaintance with the deceased, and loved her, and on coming to know that P.Ws. 1 and 6 warned Al, and also informed the matter to A2. A2 requested P.Ws. 1 and 6 to celebrate the marriage of the deceased with her son A1. But, however, they refused. It is also the version of the prosecution that after four months, A1 eloped with the deceased, promising to marry her at the instigation of A2, and brought her to Thumurukota and lead conjugal life. Subsequent thereto, A1 refused to marry the deceased, and A1 and A2 demanded the deceased to go away. Thus, A1 and A2 abetted the deceased to commit suicide. On 28.11.1999, both the accused quarrelled with the deceased and went away, as a consequence of which, the deceased consumed insecticides poison. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala, recorded the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs. P1 to P9, and ultimately came to the conclusion that the appellants A1 and A2 are guilty of the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal had been preferred. .
3. Mr. K. Subbarao, Counsel representing the appellants would submit that even if the evidence available on record as such is taken into consideration, the ingredients of Section 306, I.P.C. are not attracted. The learned Counsel also would submit that in fact, A1 has been ready and willing to marry and a request also was made, but inasmuch as the parties belonged to different castes, the mother of the deceased was not willing party, and the evidence available on record, the evidence of P.W. 6 would clearly disclose the same. When that being so, the learned Counsel would submit that the version of the prosecution is that there was harassment and that the accused had driven away the deceased, refusing to marry, in consequences of which, she committed suicide, definitely, cannot be believed. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and would contend that the contents of Ex. P8 also would throw some suspicion about the version of the prosecution.
4. Per contra the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that since both the accused quarrelled with the deceased, as a consequence of the same, the deceased committed suicide, and hence, it would fall under Section 306, I.P.C. In the alternative, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that even if the marriage as such is not celebrated, since both of them lived as husband and wife for some time, in view of the harassment, the ingredients of Section 498-A, I.P.C. are attracted and hence, in the alternative, the accused can be punished under Section 498-A, I.P.C. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the evidence available on record to substantiate his submissions.
5. The facts in nutshell had been already referred to supra. The learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala had taken the case on file as P.R.C. No. 20 of 2000 and committed the same to the Court of Session by an order of committal, dated 2.6.2000 and the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, had taken the same as Sessions Case No. 667 of 2000 and made over the said case to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala, who had recorded the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs. P1 to P9, and ultimately, convicted and sentence the accused under Section 306, I.P.C., as already referred to supra.
Section 306, I.P.C. reads as hereunder:
306. Abetment of suicide--
"If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also be liable to fine."
6. P.W.1-brother of the deceased had deposed that A1 had taken his sister on the ground that he would marry her, and two months later, she died at the house of Al, as he refused to marry her and that A1 and A2 used to beat his sister. But in the cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot say what happened at Thumurukota and he came to know the reasons lead to the death of his sister from the villagers at the hospital.
7. P.W. 2 is a resident of Thumurukota, and he had deposed that she had seen Rani-deceased in the house of the accused and she reached the house of the deceased, after she came to know that the deceased consumed pesticides poison for committing suicide. She deposed that she had not affixed thumb mark in the complaint and police had not examined her. She also deposed that she had not given Ex. P1 to V.A.O., nor affixed her thumb mark, and police had not examined her and Ex. P2 statement was not recorded.
8. The evidence of P.W. 3 is only to the limited extent of A1 taking away the deceased, promising to marry and, subsequently, refusing to marry, because his mother did not agree for the marriage. In the cross-examination, there is an admission that he came to know that A1 and the deceased had loved each other, and the same is known to the entire locality and he came to know about it after A1 had taken away the deceased-Rani.
9. P.W. 4-V.A.O. had deposed that he attested Ex. P1 and P.W. 2 had affixed her thumb mark before him on Ex. P1. He deposed that he proceeded to the scene of offence and the same was not mentioned in the Ex. P1 statement.
10. P.W. 5-Revenue Inspector, had deposed about his presence at the time of the preparation of the scene of offence observation report. Ex. P4 was drafted by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police.
11. P.W. 6-mother of the deceased-Rani, had deposed in the cross-examination that until A2 revealed the love affair of A1 with her deceased daughter, she had no knowledge about it and A2 asked her to give her deceased-daughter in marriage to A1. This witness was cross-examined at length.
12. P.W. 7-doctor had conducted the post-mortem examination. Ex. P6 is the post-mortem certificate. Ex. P.7 is the RFSL Report.
13. P.W. 8 simply deposed about coming to know that the deceased had consumed pesticides poison and died. P.W. 9-Inspector of Police had deposed about the investigation and verification of the investigation and his successor filing the charge-sheet.
14. This is the evidence available on record. The evidence of P.W. 1 is as vague as vagueness can be. The evidence of P.W. 6 is very crucial. On facts, it is clear that the deceased and the accused belong to different castes and even as per the evidence of P.W. 6, it is clear that both the accused were ready and willing to get the marriage of A1 celebrated with the deceased-Rani, and evidently because of the fact that the deceased and A1 belong to different castes. P.W. 6 was an unwilling party.
15. It is pertinent to note that the version of the prosecution is that it is love affair, and A1 had taken away the deceased, had conjugal happiness, lived for quite some time and subsequent thereto, refused to marry, the accused asked her to go away, as a consequence of which, the deceased committed suicide. In nutshell the version of the prosecution is that because of the attitude of the accused, it was the direct result of the commission of suicide by the deceased, and hence, the ingredients of Section 306, I.P.C. are attracted. On the strength of the evidence of P.W. 6, this Court is not inclined to believe the version of the prosecution. It is clear and categorical that in view of the fact that these parties belong to different castes, P.W. 6 was an unwilling party to have the marriage celebrated, but on the contrary, now, the blame is thrown and shifted to the accused. This stand of the prosecution definitely, cannot be believed. Hence, the version of the prosecution is highly doubtful from the facts available on record. It is needless to say that none of the ingredients of Section 306, I.P.C. are hereby satisfied.
16. No doubt, a faint attempt was made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor making certain submissions that in the alternative the ingredients of Section 498-A, I.P.C. are attracted. Though the marriage as such was not celebrated between A1 and the deceased, but, in fact, they lived as husband and wife for some time, and had conjugal happiness and hence, the ingredients of Section 498-A, I.P.C. are attracted. It may be appropriate to have a look at Section 498-A, I.P.C., which reads as hereunder:
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman, to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."
It is needless to say that the provision deals with husband or relatives of the husband of a woman, subjecting her to cruelty. In the present case, the very version of the prosecution is that A1 eloped with the deceased Rani, and subsequent thereto, he refused to marry, as a consequence of which, she had committed suicide. This version of the prosecution, if taken into consideration, definitely, the ingredients of Section 498-A, I.P.C. also are not attracted, since there is no relationship of wife and husband in between A1 and the deceased. At the best, as persons being parties to a love affair, they lead conjugal life for some time and nothing more and nothing beyond. Viewed from any angle, this alternative submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also cannot be accepted for the reasons recorded supra.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused either under Section 306, I.P.C. or under Section 498-A, I.P.C. Hence, the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in this regard are hereby rejected, consequently, the appellants A1 and A2 are entitled to an acquittal, and accordingly, acquittal is hereby recorded.
18. In the result, the conviction and the sentenced imposed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala, on 19.4.2001 in Sessions Case No. 667 of 2000 against the appellant-accused are hereby set aside. Accordingly, acquittal is recorded and the criminal appeal is allowed. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith.