APHC010401942008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1108 OF 2008 Between: The State of AP, Rep. by its PP. ...APPELLANT AND Angeri Munisekhar Reddy ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. J UGRANARASIMHA The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 04.04.2007 passed in SC No.233 of 2005 by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupati, whereby and whereunder the respondent herein/accused was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, accordingly, he was acquitted of the said charges. 2 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 2. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows. i) Marriage between the accused and one Munichandrakala (the deceased), who is daughter of PWs.1 and 2, was performed on 18.10.2001. After the marriage, the deceased lived happily with the accused for about 20 days. Thereafter, the accused, who was addicted to vices, started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally by demanding more dowry and used to beat her by suspecting her character. On coming to know about the harassment being meted out by the accused towards the deceased, mediation was held, but as the accused did not change his attitude, PW.1 took the deceased to his house. In the month of January, 2003, during Sankranthi festival, the accused went to Chandragiri and started living in the house of PWs.1 and 2, along with the deceased. About 20 days thereafter, the accused again started harassing the deceased by consuming liquor and beating her by suspecting her character. While so, on 19.04.2003, at about 01.30 pm, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased for serving bad food and beat her. When PW.4, brother of the deceased, intervened, the accused sent him out. Having vexed with the behavior of the accused, on that day, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to the zink 3 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 sheeted roof of the house. When PW.4 went into the house at 03.00 pm, he found the deceased died due to hanging in the house to the roof by tying with rope. ii) Based on the report given by PW.1, PW.11 - the Sub- Inspector of Police, Chandragiri Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.42 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and took up investigation. PW.10 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chandragiri held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.9 and others under Ex.P5 inquest report. The Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, SV Medical College, Tirupati, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia as a result of hanging. After completion of investigation, PW.11 filed charge sheet. 3. Learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and registered the case in PRC No.34 of 2005. As the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with the 4 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 due procedure prescribed under law, committed the said PRC No.34 of 2005 to the Court of Session, Chittoor. The said case was numbered as SC No.233 of 2005 and thereafter the same was made over to the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupati for disposal according to law. 4. On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC were framed against him, contents of the charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and exhibited MOs.1 to 8. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied. 7. On behalf of the accused, DW.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked. 5 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 8. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498- A and 306 IPC, accordingly, acquitted him of the said charges, vide impugned judgment dated 04.04.2007 on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove by any independent evidence that the accused lived with the deceased in her parents‟ house and harassed and beat her there, to consider that because of that harassment the deceased committed suicide. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on a bare reading of the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4, it can safely be inferred that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the respondent/accused and unable to bear the harassment meted out to her by the respondent/accused, the deceased committed suicide. He emphasized that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who are parents of the deceased, cannot be brushed aside solely on the ground that they are interested witnesses. He further submitted that the evidence of PW.4, who is the brother of the 6 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 deceased, clearly shows that on the date of the incident, the accused quarreled with the deceased and beat her and thereafter the deceased committed suicide. Basing on the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4, he submits that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge failed to appreciate their evidence in proper perspective and erred in acquitting the accused of the aforesaid charges. 10. On the other hand, Sri J. Ugranarasimha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/accused, submits that in order to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC, it is essential that all the ingredients of Section 107 IPC have to be satisfied. According to him, there should be intentional aiding and instigation to drive the woman to commit suicide, but going by the record, the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC have not been satisfied. He emphasized that there is any amount of ambiguity with regard to the alleged harassment said to have been meted out to the deceased by the accused. He submitted that according to the prosecution, a quarrel took place within 20 days of the marriage, but it is not the version of PW.2 at earliest point of time, because the Sub-Inspector of Police, who investigated the case, categorically stated in his evidence that at 7 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 earliest point of time, PW.2 never stated that the deceased was either harassed or beaten by the accused in a drunken condition. He further submitted that mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband, does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. He submits that the cruelty as mentioned in Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act is the same as explained in Section 498-A IPC. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision reported in Hans Raj v. State of Haryana1, and submitted that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 11. Heard. Perused the record. 12. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption available under law that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, 1 (2004) 12 SCC 257 8 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because presumption available under law is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 13. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab2, wherein it was held as follows: (para 8) “The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on „compelling and substantial reasons‟ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are 2 AIR 1962 SC 439 9 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193: (AIR 1952 SC 52); Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418: (AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, „compelling reasons‟ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words „compelling reasons‟. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on „compelling reasons‟ but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable.” 14. PWs.1 and 2 are the parents, and PW.4 is the brother, of the deceased. PWs.3, 5 and 6 did not support the case of the prosecution and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. PW.1 deposed that marriage between the deceased and the accused was performed on 18.10.2001 and they lived happily for about 20 days in the house of the accused. Thereafter, the accused started harassing the deceased by beating her demanding to get more money, gold, etc. He further deposed that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased. On the information of the neighbours of the accused, when PW.1, along with his wife PW.2 and one Kumar, went to the house of the 10 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 accused and enquired the deceased, she stated about the harassment meted out to her by the accused and further expressed that the accused would kill her, if she was with him. PW.1 questioned the accused, but he went away. Thereafter, PW.1 took the deceased to his house. PW.1 further deposed that they waited for about two or three days. When the accused did not turn up to visit his wife, PW.1 took the deceased to his mother-in-law‟s house at Samireddypalle and held mediation in the presence of PW.7 and other elders. In the mediation, both the accused and the deceased agreed to live amicably. Thereafter, the accused came to his house along with the deceased. They lived happily for about two or three days. Later, the accused started demanding the deceased to get money and gold and was beating her. He further deposed that on the date of the incident, the accused beat the deceased and unable to bear the harassment the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide. 15. The evidence of PW.2 is on par with the evidence of PW.1. However, when PW.1 stated that after mediation, the accused and the deceased came to his house and lived together, PW.2 11 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 categorically stated to the extent that after mediation, the deceased and the accused were sent to the house of the accused. PW.4, who is the brother of the deceased, narrates with regard to the incident that had taken place on the date of death of the deceased. 16. A perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that except the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4, who are closely related to the deceased and highly interested witnesses, there is no other independent evidence against the accused, for the reason that all other witnesses who were examined by the prosecution did not support the case of the prosecution and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. 17. In order to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC, it is essential that all the ingredients of Section 107 IPC have to be satisfied. A perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that there were misunderstandings between the accused and the deceased and in connection with that a mediation was held, wherein the deceased had categorically admitted that there were misunderstandings between them and they entered into an agreement, which was signed by both the deceased and the 12 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 accused and the mediators. When the deceased had categorically admitted before the mediators that there were misunderstandings between her and the accused, by virtue of the same, there is any amount of ambiguity whether the accused harassed the deceased. 18. Further more, PW.11 - the Sub-Inspector of Police, in his cross-examination categorically stated that PW.2, the mother of the deceased, did not state before him that the deceased informed her through telephone about the accused harassing and beating her in a drunken state demanding money. If really the accused harassed the deceased on earlier point of time, it is not known as to why PW.2 has not given any complaint against the accused to the police. At a belated stage, PWs.1 and 2 came up with the version that the accused harassed the deceased. PW.1 too, in his cross-examination, admitted that in the mediation, the deceased signed a document stating that there were misunderstandings between her and the accused regarding petty things and she would live with the accused amicably thereafter. When the father of the deceased categorically admitted to that extent in his cross-examination, it adds further strength that the 13 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 deceased was not harassed by the accused in order to drive her to commit suicide. 19. A suggestion was made to PW.1 to the extent that since marriage, himself, PW.2 and the deceased were insisting the accused to be an illatam son-in-law, for which the accused refused and so PW.1 took the deceased with him. It is further suggested to PW.1 in the cross-examination that when the accused gave report in the police station that his wife was taken away by PW.1 after beating him, PW.1 went to the police station and informed to police that he would not send his daughter (the deceased) as the accused was harassing her, but surprisingly there was no report given by the father of the deceased to the police. It is pertinent to mention here that PW.1 categorically admitted the fact that the accused had sent a legal notice to him as well as to the deceased for restitution of conjugal rights. 20. Going by the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, there were misunderstandings between the accused and the deceased and when they were living separately, a mediation was conducted, wherein it was agreed that they would live amicably. Thereafter, it is alleged that the deceased was taken by PW.1 and later the 14 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 accused joined the deceased and they were staying near by the house of PW.1. On the contrary, PW.2 categorically stated that after mediation, the deceased was sent along with the accused to his house. There is contradiction on this aspect in the evidence of material prosecution witnesses. It is not known as to where the accused and the deceased lived together lastly after mediation. 21. A perusal of the entire material on record goes to show that the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC have not been satisfied in order to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC. 22. In Hans Raj’s case (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held in paras 13 to 15 as follows. “13. Unlike Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, a statutory presumption does not arise by operation of law merely on proof of the circumstances enumerated in Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has first to establish that the woman concerned committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband (in this case) had subjected her to cruelty. Even if these facts are established the Court is not bound to presume that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. Section 113-A gives a discretion to the Court to raise such a presumption, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, which means that where the allegation is of cruelty it 15 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 must consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected, having regard to the meaning of word “cruelty” in Section 498-A I.P.C. The mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband, does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. The Court is required to look into all the other circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which has to be considered by the Court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. The law has been succinctly stated in RameshKumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, ((2001) 9 SCC 618), wherein this Court observed : (SCC pp.626-27, para 12) "12. This provision was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26-12-1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available within the four corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not available to anyone outside the occupants of the house. However, still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section 113-A shows that to attract applicability of Section 113-A, it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged 16 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the above said circumstances, the court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression "may presume" suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability of the above said three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the court shall have to have regard to "all the other circumstances of the case". A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression -"the other circumstances of the case" used in Section 113-A suggests the need to reach a cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least, the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase "may presume" used in Section 113-A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says - "Whenever it is provided by this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it". 14. The same principle has been reiterated in Sanju v. State of M.P., ((2002) 5 SCC 371). 15. In State of W.B v. Orilal Jaiswal, ((1994) 1 SCC 73), this Court observed : (SCC pp.89-90, para 15) 17 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 "15. We are not oblivious that in a criminal trial the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceedings. In a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act. Although, the court's conscience must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of the offences alleged, it should be borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidences adduced in the case and the materials placed on record. Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater [(1950) 2 All ER 458) (All ER at p.459] has observed that the doubt must be of a reasonable man and the standard adopted must be a standard adopted by a reasonable and just man for coming to a conclusion considering the particular subject- matter". 23. Coming to the case on hand, marriage between the accused and the deceased was said to have taken place in the year 2001. Thereafter, death of the deceased occurred within a period of seven years. Under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has first to establish that the 18 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 woman concerned committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband had subjected her to cruelty. Even if these facts are established, the Court is not bound to presume that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. In the case on hand, immediately after the mediation, it is not known as to whether both the accused and the deceased lived together or not and there is no allegation that the accused is alleged to have demanded dowry or harassed the deceased on the ground of suspecting her fidelity. Going by the evidence of PW.4, on the date of the incident, a quarrel ensued between the accused and the deceased with regard to serving of food to the accused. It is alleged that the accused beat the deceased and thereafter the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide. Going by the record, there appears to be two versions in the prosecution case. Since the accused refused to join the deceased as illatam son-in-law, he lodged a report in the police station and thereafter got issued a legal notice to PW.1, but surprisingly there is no any reference with regard to the said aspects by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution failed to prove by any independent evidence that the accused lived with the deceased in her parents‟ house and harassed and 19 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 beat her there, to consider that because of that harassment the deceased committed suicide. 24. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is on correct lines and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the impugned Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 25. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 04.04.2007 passed in SC No.233 of 2005 by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupati. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Dated:09.04.2025. Nsr 20 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1108 of 2008 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2008 Dated:09.04.2025 Nsr