APHC010031652018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY. THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 268 OF 2018 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment, dated 27-12-2017 passed in S.C.No.485 of 2010 on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District. Between; Banavath Siva Naik, S/o.Latchi Ram Naik, aged about 20 years, Sugali by Caste, R/o.Kothapulla Reddygudem, Veldurthy Mandal, Guntur District. ...Appellant/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Amaravati. ...Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail after suspending the operation of the sentence imposed in S.C.No.485 of 2010 dated 27-12-2017 on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurajala, pending disposal of the appeal. Counsel for Appellant: Sri G.Siva Prasad Reddy, representing Sri P.Nagendra Reddy Counsel for Respondent: Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: n I 1 KSR, J&VS, J Crl.A.No.268 of 2018 the high court of ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THIS THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH IN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA r.RIMINAL APPEAL No.268 of 2018 JUDGMENT: {per Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala is the appellant. He was 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 directed to be paid to P.W.1 under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. S.C.No.485 of 2010 on the file of the Court of X tried and Rs. 10,000/- was 2. Substance of the charge is that, the accused used to follow one Gadiganti Pushpa (hereinafter referred to as deceased) who was aged about 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 house and committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 305 IPC. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows; 14 years, on her 3. 2 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.268 of 2018 i) The accused as well as the material residents of Kothapullareddygudem Village. The deceased than the daughter of P.W.1. P.Ws 2 and 3 P.W.4 is the relative of the deceased deceased. prosecution witnesses are was none other are brothers of the deceased, and P.W.7 is the grandmother of the ii) The deceased B-Pharmacy, at the time was studying X Class and the of incident. accused was studying The accused used to follow the deceased on the pretext of love, for which the latter refused, the same to her parents P.W.1 She informed months a.m., the accused also her, threatened her that he will attack Observing the same. P.W.2 chastised and L.W.2. This happened about 10 on 28.11.2009 at about 9.00 bus to go to school. The prior to the date of incident. While deceased and P.W.2 boarded RTC boarded the same bus and teased acid, if she refuse to love him. so with the accused. iii) On the same day at about 2.30 father P.W.1 went to the police station of police received Ex.P.1 p m., the deceased along with her and gave a report Ex.P,1. P.W.12 S.l report from P.W.1 at about 2.30 p.m. and registered 509 IPC and forwarded the Macherla. F.I.R. js marked as a case in Crime No. 106/2009 under Section same to Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ex.P.9. Immediately, he went to Kothapullareddygudem Village. He secured the and their mother L.W.2 and the scene of offence situate at Bus stand, presence of P.Ws 2 and 3 He prepared a rough recorded their statements. 3 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.I, 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.I 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 shifted in 108 ambulance and on the way to Government Hospital, the deceased died. was v) On the same day evening, P.W.I 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.I 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 1 4 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. was marked as Ex.P.8, viii) After completion of investigation, P.W.11 filed charge sheet. 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. R.F.S.L. report 4. 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 KSR, J&VS, J Crl.A.No.268 of 2018 further contended that even accepting the of the offence under Section 305 made against the accused is that, he manhandled the deceased. He entire case of prosecution, the ingredients IPC are not attracted. The allegation follow the deceased on the pretext of love. The said act on the part abetment to commit suicide. There is used to of the accused can never be treated as evidence adduced by the prosecution about the accused instigating the of his contention he relied on the no deceased to commit suicide. In support Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Gangula Mohan judgments of the Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh and Shabbir Hussain v State of Madhya Pradesh and others^ He further contended that the incident that took place on the evening of P.W.1 and their family members 7. 28.11.2009 is only with regard to preventing from taking the accused into their custody and handing over him to police. It accused and their family members to attack the is not the intention of the As P.W.1 and his family members are trying to handover the members of the accused prevented them. family of P.W.1. appellant to the police, the family set aside the conviction and sentence As such, he requested^ this Court to passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the used to follow the deceased for the last On the other hand, learned appeal contending that the accused ten (10) months prior to the 8. date of incident and he threatened her to pour ^ (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 750 ^ (2021) 17 Supreme Court Cases 807 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. V ' 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 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.PI report. On the basis of which, the criminal law was set into motion. 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. was 11. 7 KSRJ&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. 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: 13. 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 Bengali 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 14. over ^ (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 707 8 ksr, j & vs, j ^ Crl.A.No.268of2018 the accused to police. As attracted to the case on hand. such the ingredients of Section 305 IPC are not 15. Having analyzed the entire evidence come to the conclusion that the learned Additional District and Sessions In the result, the Criminal Appeal i carefully, we have no hesitation to conviction and sentence passed by the Judge, is liable to be set aside 16. IS allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned X Additional Gurazala in S.C.No.485 of 2010 hereby set aside and the iT any paid shall be refunded. District and Sessions Judge, under Section 305 IPC dated 27 .12.2017, is accused is acquitted accordingly. The fine amount As the appellant/accused was released on bail by order dated 28.01,2023 vide I.A.No.01 of 2022 i Rangarao & Others ^ m terms of Batchu V. state of A.P\ the appellanl/accused herein is Court and complete the formalities, petitions, if directed to surrender before the trial Consequently, miscellaneous any, pending shall stand closed. 4 {2016(3) ALT (Criminal) 505 (AP)} Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR // //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The X Additional District and Sessions (With records if any) 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District. Macherla, Guntur District. , Guntur District. Prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari 3. The Station House Officer, Veldurthy Police Station 4. The Superintendent, Central District. 5. One CC to Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati [OUT] 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 8. Two CD Copies BSV vna at HIGH COURT V' DATED: 19/09/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA NO. 268 OF 2018 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL