Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Banavath Siva Naik, S/O Latchi Ram Naik, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 19 September, 2025
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
1
KSR, J & VS, J
Crl.A.No.268 of 2018
APHC010031652018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3528]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 268/2018
Between:
1. BANAVATH SIVA NAIK, S/O LATCHI RAM NAIK,, AGED ABOUT
20YRS R/O SUGALI BY CASTE, R/O KOTHAPULLA REDDYGUDEM,
VELDURTHY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...APELLANT
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, COURT OF JUDICATURE AT, HYDERABAD
...RESPODENT
Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High
Court may be pleased to TO PRESENT THIS MEMORANDUM OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL IN THIS HONBLE COURT AGAINST THE
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AWARDED IN S.C NO.485 OF 2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
GURAZALA, DT.27-12-2017
IA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased
IA NO: 1 OF 2021
2
KSR, J & VS, J
Crl.A.No.268 of 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased pleased to release the petitioner on bail after suspending the
operation of the sentence imposed in S.C. No. 485/2010 dated 27-12- 2 0 17
on the file of the Hon'ble X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurajada,
pending disposal of the appeal in the internet of justice.
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased Pleased to release the petitioner on bail after suspending the
operation of the sentence imposed in S.C.No. 485/2010 dated 27-12-2017 on
the file of X Additional District and Sessions Judge Gurazala disposal of the
Crl.A.No. 268/2018 in the interest of justice
Counsel for the Apellant:
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respodent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
3
KSR, J & VS, J
Crl.A.No.268 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THIS THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
And
HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.268 of 2018
JUDGMENT:(per Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in S.C.No.485 of 2010 on the file of the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala under Section 305 IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 'LIFE' and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- out of which, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was directed to be paid to P.W.1 under Section 357-A Cr.P.C.
2. Substance of the charge is that, the accused used to follow one Gadiganti Pushpa (hereinafter referred to as deceased) who was aged about 14 years, on the pretext of love and threatened her to pour acid and eve teasing her and on 28.11.2009 at about 9.00 a.m., both the family members quarreled with each other and having felt humiliated, the deceased went into her house and committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 305 IPC.
3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: 4
KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.268 of 2018
i) The accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Kothapullareddygudem Village. The deceased was none other than the daughter of P.W.1. P.Ws 2 and 3 are brothers of the deceased.
P.W.4 is the relative of the deceased and P.W.7 is the grandmother of the deceased.
ii) The deceased was studying X Class and the accused was studying B-Pharmacy, at the time of incident. The accused used to follow the deceased on the pretext of love, for which the latter refused. She informed the same to her parents P.W.1 and L.W.2. This happened about 10 months prior to the date of incident. While so, on 28.11.2009 at about 9.00 a.m., the deceased and P.W.2 boarded RTC bus to go to school. The accused also boarded the same bus and teased her, threatened her that he will attack with acid, if she refuse to love him. Observing the same, P.W.2 chastised the accused.
iii) On the same day at about 2.30 p.m., the deceased along with her father P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a report Ex.P.1. P.W.12 S.I of police received Ex.P.1 report from P.W.1 at about 2.30 p.m. and registered a case in Crime No.106/2009 under Section 509 IPC and forwarded the same to Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Macherla. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P.9. Immediately, he went to the scene of offence situate at Bus stand, Kothapullareddygudem Village. He secured the presence of P.Ws 2 and 3 and their mother L.W.2 and recorded their statements. He prepared a rough 5 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.268 of 2018 sketch Ex.P.10 at the scene of offence. He tried to secure the neighbourers at the scene of offence, but nobody came forward to give their statement.
iv) On the same day, police came to the village and they found the accused left the village. At about 6.00 p.m, on the same day, after police left the village and while the accused was proceeding in front of the house of P.W.1, they tried to catch him with an intention to handover him to police. On seeing the same, the parents and relatives of the accused came there and altercated with the family members of P.W.1 and pelted stones on each other. On seeing the altercation, the deceased went inside the house and consumed pesticide. Immediately, the family members of the deceased, took her to Dr. P.Amareswara Rao, R.M.P. Doctor, who gave first aid and advised them to shift her to Government Hospital, Macherla. Immediately, she was shifted in 108 ambulance and on the way to Government Hospital, the deceased died.
v) On the same day evening, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave information about the death of the deceased. P.W.10 Head Constable, Veldurthy police station, on receipt of the said intimation, altered the F.I.R. to Section 306 IPC. He proceeded to the scene of offence i.e. house of P.W.1 and prepared an observation report Ex.P.4 in the presence of P.W.8 and another. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P.7. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.8 and another at Government Hospital, Macherla. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P.5. At the inquest P.W.10 recorded statements of P.Ws 1 and 3 and L.W.2. On the next day, he visited 6 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.268 of 2018 Kothapullareddygudem Village and recorded the statements of P.Ws 4 to 6 and R.M.P. doctor. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination.
vi) On 06.12.2009, he arrested the accused at ring road center, Macherla in the presence of P.W.8 and another.
vii) P.W.9 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Macherla conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to pesticide poison. He issued postmortem certificate Ex.P.6. He preserved vital organs and send the same to R.F.S.L. R.F.S.L. report was marked as Ex.P.8.
viii) After completion of investigation, P.W.11 filed charge sheet.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 12, marked Ex.P.1 to P.10. On behalf of defence, Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid.
5. Heard Sri G.Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have carefully perused and analyzed the entire evidence on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that according to P.W.1, the initial incident took place at about ten months prior to the date of incident. Even according to P.Ws 1 to 3, the accused never 7 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.268 of 2018 manhandled the deceased. He further contended that even accepting the entire case of prosecution, the ingredients of the offence under Section 305 IPC are not attracted. The allegation made against the accused is that, he used to follow the deceased on the pretext of love. The said act on the part of the accused can never be treated as abetment to commit suicide. There is no evidence adduced by the prosecution about the accused instigating the deceased to commit suicide. In support of his contention he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Gangula Mohan Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh 1 and Shabbir Hussain v State of Madhya Pradesh and others2
7. He further contended that the incident that took place on the evening of 28.11.2009 is only with regard to preventing P.W.1 and their family members from taking the accused into their custody and handing over him to police. It is not the intention of the accused and their family members to attack the family of P.W.1. As P.W.1 and his family members are trying to handover the appellant to the police, the family members of the accused prevented them. As such, he requested, this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge.
8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal contending that the accused used to follow the deceased for the last ten (10) months prior to the date of incident and he threatened her to pour 1 (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 750 2 (2021) 17 Supreme Court Cases 807 8 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.268 of 2018 acid, if she did not accept his love proposal. As such the act of the accused definitely amounts to instigating the deceased to commit suicide. As such, he requested this Court to dismiss the Appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence.
9. We have perused the entire evidence on record and carefully analyzed the same.
10. According to the prosecution, on 28.11.2009 at about 9.00 a.m, the deceased along with P.W.2 boarded bus to go to the school. At that juncture, the accused also boarded the same bus. At that time, the accused was teasing her with a demand to love him, otherwise, he would pour acid on her. Seeing the same, P.W.2 brother of the deceased questioned the accused and there was an altercation. Having come to know, P.W.1 and his wife went there and took the deceased to police station and gave Ex.P1 report. On the basis of which, the criminal law was set into motion.
11. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the same day evening, when the police visited the village, the accused was not found in the village. After the police leaving the village, the accused was found going in front of the house of P.W.1. Immediately, P.W.1 and his family members caught hold of the accused with an intention to hand over him to the police. P.Ws 1 to 3 have stated the same fact in their evidence also. At that juncture, the family members of the accused came there and altercated with the family members of P.W.1, preventing them from handing over the accused to the police.
9
KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.268 of 2018
12. During the course of said altercation, the deceased went inside the house and consumed pesticide poison. As such there was no abetment on the part of the accused in deceased committing suicide.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in between Gangula Mohan Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh (as recited supra) held as follows:
In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation.
This court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (11) SCALE 24 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v State of West Bengal3.
14. The evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 did not disclose as to how the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide on the evening of 28.11.2009. There is no intentional aiding on the part of the accused in deceased committing suicide. The intention on the part of the accused and their family members was only to prevent P.W.1 and his family members in handing over 3 (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 707 10 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.268 of 2018 the accused to police. As such the ingredients of Section 305 IPC are not attracted to the case on hand.
15. Having analyzed the entire evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, is liable to be set aside.
16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala in S.C.No.485 of 2010 under Section 305 IPC dated 27.12.2017, is hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted accordingly. The fine amount if any paid shall be refunded. As the appellant/accused was released on bail by order dated 28.01.2023 vide I.A.No.01 of 2022 in terms of Batchu Rangarao & Others v. State of A.P 4 , the appellant/accused herein is directed to surrender before the trial Court and complete the formalities.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 19.9.2025 RD 4 {2016(3) ALT (Criminal) 505 (AP)} 11 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.268 of 2018 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.268 of 2018 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 19.9.2025 RD