APHC010501752009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY, THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:763/2009 Between: 1. BODHAVARAPU NAGI REDDY,, S/O VENKATA REDDY, R/O RAPARTHI (V), PITHAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD ANOTHER, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD, THROUGH SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PITHAPURAM PS., EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. OLETI THAMMIREDDY, S/O APPALA RAJU, R/O NARASINGAPURAM, PITHAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present the above Crl.R.C., questioning the Judgment in S.C. No.403 of 2007, dt.24-07-2008 on the file of the court of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 443 OF 2009 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 to condone the delay of ''121'' days in filing the Crl.R.C., Counsel for the Petitioner: -2- Crl.R.C. No.763 OF 2009 1. Sri Turaga Sai Surya Counsel for the Respondents: 1. Sri Panini Somayaji Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor For the 1st respondent-State 2. Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, Ld. counsel for the 2nd respondent. The Court made the following order: 1. The instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the judgment, dated 24.07.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.403 of 2007 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, whereby and whereunder the 2nd respondent-accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of acquittal is illegal and improper in the attending facts and circumstances as well as evidences on record. He further submits that learned trial court ought to have framed proper charges while dealing with Crime No.109 of 2007. He submits that the deceased, being the wife of the 2nd respondent, committed suicide at her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage. Though the Sub-Inspector of Police has submitted a charge sheet for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, but learned trial court framed charge only under Section 306 of IPC. He further submits that the prosecution examined nine witnesses, who categorically stated about the torture meted out to -3- Crl.R.C. No.763 OF 2009 the deceased by the 2nd respondent-accused, due to which she committed suicide. However, learned trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge of abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC. He submits that the order of acquittal is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that learned trial court has properly appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly decided the case. He further submits that learned trial court has specifically observed that the Investigating Officer also did not disclose in his evidence any material regarding the commission of abetment of suicide by the accused. He submits that the impugned judgment is a well-reasoned order and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and also learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. It appears that the wife of the 2nd respondent committed suicide by hanging on 10.05.2007. P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, lodged a report before the police. On the basis of the said report, Crime No.109 of 2007 was registered. After completion of investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. However, after hearing both sides and perusing material available on record, learned -4- Crl.R.C. No.763 OF 2009 trial court framed a charge under Section 306 of IPC alone. Thereafter, trial was commenced. During course of trial, prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses, including close relatives of the deceased, namely, her father, mother and uncle, etc. Several documents were also marked as Exs.P.1 to P.18. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial court opined that prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused under Section 306 of IPC. 6. I have perused the observations of learned trial court in paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the impugned judgment. It appears that, to establish an offence under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove two essential ingredients, namely, (i) the commission of suicide by the deceased and (ii) the abetment of such commission of suicide by the accused. 7. In the present case, though the materials were available for framing a charge under Section 498-A of IPC, such charge was not framed by learned trial court. The legality or illegality of non-framing of the charge was not challenged before any court. Accordingly, at this stage, this Court cannot interfere with the charge framed by learned trial court. However, in considering other materials available on record, it is necessary to examine whether the prosecution has established ingredients of abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of the IPC, which defines the abetment as follows: -5- Crl.R.C. No.763 OF 2009 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 wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 8. In the present case, though the prosecution witnesses have testified about the alleged torture inflicted by the accused upon the deceased, the nature of such torture, the specific instances thereof, the time at which such incidents of torture occurred and the intensity of such alleged torture have not been stated with sufficient particulars by any of the witnesses. The prosecution has also not examined any witness who could specifically speak about any act of instigation, intentional aid or other conduct on the part of the accused which directly led the deceased to commit suicide. Learned trial court has categorically considered the said legal aspect in paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment. -6- Crl.R.C. No.763 OF 2009 9. On a careful consideration of evidences available on record, I find that prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC in this case so as to attract offence under Section 306 of IPC. 10. In view of the above discussion, I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court. The findings recorded by learned trial court are based upon the attending facts and the evidence available on record. Therefore, I find no justification to interfere with the order of acquittal. 11. Under the above circumstances, the instant criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of merit. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.17.08.2026 BV