Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 196 (AP)

Dammu Sreenu v. State Of A. P.

2003-02-05

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2003
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Section 401 Cr. P. C. , filed by the accused in SC No. 451/96 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tenali. The accused were tried for offence under Section 306 of IPC. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts presented by the prosecution are as under : a2 is the wife of the deceased Bitra Nagarjuna Rao. A1 developed illicit intimacy with A2. On the night of 31-12-1995, A2 went out of her house and returned only on the next day. The deceased questioned about her behaviour and a quarrel ensued. A2 is no other than the daughter of his sister. He called for the father of A2 and asked him to take her away. Accordingly, she was taken away by her father. After that, A1 came to the house of the deceased. When he was questioned by the inmates of the house, he stated that he had relationship with A2 and as long as the deceased does not object, he will keep coming. After taking A2 to his house, her father left her at the house of her brother, PW5 at Tsunduru on 2-1-1996. On that day itself, A1 came and took away A2 despite the protest by PW. 5. It was only on 6-1-1996 that he dropped A2 at her parent s house. The deceased came to know about this. Having felt humiliated by the nefarious activities indulged in by A1 and A2, he committed suicide by hanging himself in the intervening night of 7/ 8/01/1996. A1 and A2 were charged with the offence of abetting suicide by the deceased. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 13. Exs. P1 to P11 and M. Os. 1 and 2 were marked. For the defence, Ex. D1 was marked. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the brothers of the deceased, P. W. 3 is his sister in law. PW. 4 is his mother. PW. 5 is the brother of A2. PW. 6 is a tenant in one of the portions nearby the residence of the deceased. PW. 8 is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem, PW. 9, 10 and 11 are the punch witnesses at various stages, PW. 12 is the photographer and PW. 13 is the Investigating Officer. PW. 5 is the brother of A2. PW. 6 is a tenant in one of the portions nearby the residence of the deceased. PW. 8 is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem, PW. 9, 10 and 11 are the punch witnesses at various stages, PW. 12 is the photographer and PW. 13 is the Investigating Officer. ( 4 ) ON appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court had convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (R1) for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100, through its judgment dated 26-2-1998. The accused preferred Crl. A. No. 52 of 1998 in the Court of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur. The lower appellate Court, through its judgment dated 31-7-2000, had affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence against the accused to SI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 100/ -. Hence, this revision. ( 5 ) SRI J. Venugopal Rao, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the prosecution has not established, as required in law, that the accused have abetted in the commission of suicide by the deceased. According to him, there did not exist any element of mens rea. He further submits that the whole version as regards existence of illicit relationship between A1 and A2 is concocted by P. Ws. 1 and 2, to knock away the property of the deceased. ( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that there was consistent and cogent evidence before the trial Court to drive home the point that it was only on account of the illicit relationship between A1 and A2 and their outrageous conduct, that the deceased had committed suicide. He submits that the Courts below have discussed the matter threadbare and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. ( 7 ) THE offence against the accused is the one under Section 306 IPC. They are accused of abeting the deceased in committing suicide. Section 107 of IPC describes the circumstances under which a person is said to have abeted the commission of an offence. The term abetment has been construed by the Supreme Court and various High Courts in several reported cases. A person can be said to have abetted a commission of offence by another if the former instigates by various acts or omissions. The term abetment has been construed by the Supreme Court and various High Courts in several reported cases. A person can be said to have abetted a commission of offence by another if the former instigates by various acts or omissions. These acts and omissions may, in turn, fall into various categories. They may be direct or indirect in nature. It is too difficult to have a definition or description of the word instigation of universal application in all the cases. What constitutes an instigation or abetment varies from case to case. While in some cases, acts, which are specific, positive and direct, may not be construed as abetment, in certain cases, indirect acts or omissions even remotely connected to the offence may constitute abetment. What ever may be the connotation of abetment in respect of other offences, as regards the incidents of suicide, it is the creation of a circumstance for the deceased to commit the suicide that constitutes abetment. It may not involve any specific course or act. But, if a situation is created by the accused, for the deceased to have no other recourse than to commit suicide, it can safely be said that the accused are guilty of the offence of abetment. ( 8 ) THE element of mens rea in the offences under Section 306 IPC would slightly differ from the one in other categories of offences. In certain cases, it may not be the specific intention of the accused that the deceased must commit suicide on account of their acts and omissions. However, if it can be said that the acts and omissions of the accused would certainly drive a person of ordinary prudence to commit suicide, the element of mens rea can certainly be said to be present with the accused. ( 9 ) THE case of the prosecution was that A1 developed illicit intimacy with A2, who is the wife of the deceased. It was categorically asserted that A2 left the house of the deceased on the night of 31-12-2001 and returned only in the next day morning. It was also alleged that the deceased called for the parents of A2 and sent her away to their house and soon thereafter A1 came to the house of the deceased. It was categorically asserted that A2 left the house of the deceased on the night of 31-12-2001 and returned only in the next day morning. It was also alleged that the deceased called for the parents of A2 and sent her away to their house and soon thereafter A1 came to the house of the deceased. When he accosted by the inmates of the house, he is alleged to have declared that as long as the deceased does not object, he will continue to have his relations with A. 2. A2 was left by her father at the house of PW. 5 on 2-1-2002 and on the same day, A1 had taken her away and left her at her parents place on 6-1-2002. ( 10 ) PW. 1 has categorically stated in his deposition that when the deceased sent A2 to her parents house, soon after A1 came and on being asked, stated that he will continue to do so unit he was not objected to by the deceased. He has also spoken to the factum of A1 taking A2 from the house of PW. 5, her brother, despite protest. PW. 1 was extensively cross-examined on behalf of A1. The entire cross-examination was about existence of the dispute within the family and also as regards their property. It was not even suggested to him that A1 did not visit the house of deceased after A2 was sent away and said that he will continue to come as long as the deceased does not object. It was not suggested to him that A1 did not take away A2 from the house of PW. 5 and both of them returned only after 4 or 5 days when A1 left A2 with her parents. ( 11 ) ANOTHER important witness is PW. 5. He is none other than the brother of A2. In the Indian context, it is rare that the brother of a woman deposes against her sister, touching upon her character. In his chief examination, PW. 5 stated as under :"on 2-1-1996 my father brought A2 to my house at Tsunduru and he informed that she is having illicit contact with A1 to change her behaviour brought her to may house to keep for some time. On the same day evening A1 came to my house and took away A2. In his chief examination, PW. 5 stated as under :"on 2-1-1996 my father brought A2 to my house at Tsunduru and he informed that she is having illicit contact with A1 to change her behaviour brought her to may house to keep for some time. On the same day evening A1 came to my house and took away A2. Some discussion took place between myself and A1 regarding coming to my house. Due to fear, I could not resist for taking away A2. "not even any suggestion was made that this statement of PW. 5 is not correct. No suggestion was made that there did not exist any illicit relationship between A1 and A2. The inmates and close relatives of the deceased, who were examined as witnesses, have categorically stated that on coming to know of the fact that A1 has taken A2 from the house of PW. 5 and left her only on 6-1-1996 at her parent s house, he committed suicide. ( 12 ) ON these established facts, it needs to be seen as to whether there constituted abetment of the suicide by the deceased. The conduct of A1 was so reprehensible, irresponsible and outrageous that he not only developed illicit relationship with A2 but had openly declared the same with the members of the family of the deceased as well as that of A2. It has come on record that when A2 left the house of the deceased on 31-12-1995 and came back on the next day morning, the deceased quarrelled with A2 and sent her away to her parent s house after calling them. A1 knew very well that how his outrageous acts have brought about troubles in the family. Obviously, on account of the humiliation and to cover up the unchaste activity of A1, her father left her at a different place, viz, the house of PW. 5, his son. A2 tracked her and on the same day took her along with him, despite the resistance by PW. 5. They were together for about 5 days and it is only on 6-1-1996 that he left her at her parent s house. The behaviour and attitude of A1 and A2 cannot be countenanced in any civilized society. 5, his son. A2 tracked her and on the same day took her along with him, despite the resistance by PW. 5. They were together for about 5 days and it is only on 6-1-1996 that he left her at her parent s house. The behaviour and attitude of A1 and A2 cannot be countenanced in any civilized society. Any person in the place of the deceased would have either done some wrong to A1 to rescue his wife-A2, or to commit the suicide; He has chosen the latter. Apart from causing humiliation to the deceased, the acts of the accused have caused the members of the family of deceased as well as A2, to hide their faces in shame. Therefore, the outrageous acts resorted to by A1 and A2 can safely be held as constituting abetment of the suicide by the deceased. The Courts below have appreciated the matter in its proper perspective. ( 13 ) SRI J. Venugopal Rao, learned counsel for the accused, has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sanju v. State of M. P. , 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141, Shri Ram v. State of U. P. , AIR 1975 SC 175 and Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, 1989 (1) SCC 244 . ( 14 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Brijlal v. Premchand, AIR 1989 SC 1661 . ( 15 ) IN all these cases, the Supreme Court had taken the view that what constitutes abetment is purely a question of fact and would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The results in the cases referred to above turned on the facts. ( 16 ) THIS Court is convinced that the outrageous acts resorted to by the accused have left the deceased with no alternatives and have driven him to commit suicide. The accused are, thus, guilty of abetting the suicide. ( 17 ) SO far as sentence is concerned, this Court feels that A1 had acted in an uncivilized and outrageous manner and no interference as to sentence against him is called for. A2, however, had become the victim of the lust of A1 and in the process had become partly responsible for the suicide of the deceased. Hence, the sentence against her is reduced to 1 year with fine of Rs. A2, however, had become the victim of the lust of A1 and in the process had become partly responsible for the suicide of the deceased. Hence, the sentence against her is reduced to 1 year with fine of Rs. 100/-, which is said to have already been paid. The Cri. R. C. is accordingly dismissed with modification of sentence against A2 as indicated above. Order accordingly.