APHC010205092024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3082/2024 Between: 1. MADIBOINA SURYANARAYANA @ VEERAIAH, S/O. KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. D.NO 1-139, KORLAMANDA VILLAGE VISSANNAPETA MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. 2. MADIBOINA USHARANI, W/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-139, KORLAMANDAVILLAGE, VISSANNAPETA MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2. RAMAVATH VENKATESWARLU, S/O SANKARIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.7-14, KRISHNAVENI SCHOOL ROAD, PORANKI VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to call for the records in S.C.No.32 of 2023 dated 05-08-2023 on the file of Hon'ble III Additional District Sessions Judge Cum ACB Court Cum Spl. Court for SC & ST (POA) ACT, Vijayawada and consequently quash the same as against the petitioners/Accused No.2 & 3 and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of S.C.No.32 of 2023, dated 05-08-2023 on the file of Hon'ble III Additional District Sessions Judge Cum ACB Court Cum Spl. Court for SC & ST (POA) ACT, Vijayawada before this Hon‟ble Court and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in S.C.No.32 of 2023 dated 05-08-2023 on the file of Hon'ble III Additional District Sessions Judge Cum ACB Court Cum Spl. Court for SC & ST (POA) ACT, Vijayawada as against the petitioners/Accused No.2 and 3 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3082/2024 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short „Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short „BNSS‟) has been filed by the Petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in S.C.No.32 of 2023 dated 05.08.2023 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional District Sessions Judge-cum-ACB Court- cum-Spl. Court for SC & ST (POA) Act, Vijayawada registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC‟s & ST‟s (POA) Act, 2015. 2. Heard Sri P.Kasi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, Sri J.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutoron behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for Petitioners would submit that the Petitionersherein are Accused Nos. 2 & 3. Accused No.2 is the elder brother of Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 is the wife of Accused No.2.Learned counsel for Petitioners would further submit that the deceased in this matter is the wife of Accused No.1. Learned counsel for Petitioners would further submit that the deceased used to work in Pollution Control Board in Vijayawada. The Petitioners never resided in the same house along with Accused No.1 and the deceased at any 4 point of time. The entire material gathered during the courseof investigation as mentioned in the charge sheet and also the statements of the witnesses would show that as and when the deceased visits their house, Accused No.2 and 3, used to harass her by passing some comments. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would further submit that the evidence of the witnesses referred in the charge sheet, the witness Nos.1 to 3 did not disclose anything against Accused No.2 and 3. The witness No.3is the son of the deceased through her first marriage and he was staying with his grandparents during the lifetime of his mother. 5. Learned counsel for Petitioners would further submit that the deceased just before committing suicide, called her colleague/LW.4 and informed the reasons for committing suicide. Learned counsel for Petitioners would further submit that absolutely there are no ingredients to attract under Section 306 of I.P.C., against Accused No.2 and 3 in this matter. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2opposed the petition and wouldsubmit that the evidence of witness No.4 who is the colleague of the deceased would disclose the allegations against these Petitioners regarding their harassment andbecause of them only the disputes arose between Accused No.1 and the deceased. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that thereis verifiable material against the Petitioners. The case cannot be quashed against them since there are ingredients to attract the offence under Section 498-A of IPC against the petitioners. 5 8. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material placedon record, the marriage between Accused No.1 and the deceased is a love marriage. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 neverresided in the same house along with accused No.1 and the deceased at any point of time. It is also not the case of the prosecution that in the presenceof Accused Nos.2 and 3, the deceased committed suicide in the same house. The deceased committed suicide in Vijayawada at her residence, whereas, the Accused Nos.2 and 3 are residents of Vissannapeta. 9. At this juncture, it is needful to refer Section 306 IPCwhich makes abetment to commit suicide an offence, and Section 107 I.P.C., defines “abetment of thing”. The provisions read thus; “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 shall also be liable to fine. 107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, 6 voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 10. This Court in Chakali Lakshmi Devi v. State of A.P.,1while quashing a Section 306 IPC case, had reiterated the settled position in the context of the offence as follows; “11. In Shabbir Hussain v. State of M.P. the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the ingredients essential for prosecution under Section 306 as follows; “4. In order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. ******** 6. Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367].]” (Emphasis supplied) 12024 SCC OnLine AP 383 7 11. So far as the first clause in Section 107 is concerned, it is essential to refer to the decision rendered in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh2, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court expounded the various meanings of “instigation” as follows; “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation” (Emphasis supplied) 12. In Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. 3,the Hon‟ble Apex Court considered various judgments and held in Para's 20and 21 that to attract the offence that there should be clear mensreaonthe part of the accused and should intentionally aid in doing of a thing.The said paragraphs are extracted here under: 22001 (9) SCC 618 32010 (1) SCC 750 8 “(20) 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. (21) "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." (emphasis supplied) 13. A bare reading of the decisions supra and the provisions would make it clear that to charge a person under Section 306, it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused played a role in the suicide. Such role must fall into either of the criteria mentioned in Section 107. In simple words, the accused must either encourage/instigate the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure that the individual commits suicide or act/fail to act, which directly results in the individual's suicide. 14. In the light of the aforementioned premises, absolutely there is no material to show that the petitionershave abettedthe deceased to commit suicide. In such a case, the offence under Section 3(2)(V) of SC ST (POA) Act would not be applicable to the petitioners herein. As rightly put by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, of course, there are some allegations against the Accused Nos.2 and 3 in the statement of the deceased just before committing suicide which was alleged to have been shared to witness No.4 in the charge 9 sheet, prima facie,which may attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC which requires investigation at the full length of trial. 15. In the result, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed by the quashing the proceedings pending against the Petitioners herein with regard to the Section 306 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 2015. However, the Criminal Petition is dismissed with regard to the Section 498-A of IPC against the Petitioners herein.Learned Trial Judge may proceed against these Petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and conclude the Trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 17.11.2025 UPS/RMR 10 128 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO:3082/2024 Dt.17.11.2025 UPS/RMR