Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1267 (AP)

S. Rajitha v. Narahari Laxmi Reddy

2012-12-20

RAJA ELANGO

body2012
JUDGMENT : Raja Elango, J. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-de facto complainant against the judgment, dated 6.6.2005 passed by the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal, in S.C.No.694 of 2004. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Respondents 1 and 2 are accused in the above Sessions Case and they are working as teachers. One Gopu Narotham Reddy (for short 'the deceased') was the close friend of the accused. During the life time of the deceased, he was a subscriber of chit, which was run by Sri Ram Chits, Huzurabad and he was the successful bidder of the chit and while taking the prise amount, he furnished A1 and A2 as guarantors. Subsequently, the deceased committed default. In this connection, the accused used to pressurise the deceased to pay the amount due to the Sri Ram Chits. While so, on 16.1.2004, during morning hours, the deceased along with his daughter-P.W.1 went to Huzurabad on a Motor cycle and while they were at Huzurabad bus stand, the accused met them and pressed the deceased to pay the amount due to the chit fund company and also abused the deceased and took away the motor cycle from the possession of the deceased. The deceased asked P.W.1 to go home and then, P.W.1 went to the house. But the deceased did not go to the house and subsequently, on 21.1.2004, at 10.00 a.m., the deceased went to Warangal town, took a room in Vikas lodge, purchased pesticide poison and wrote death note stating that the accused harassed him to pay the amount in front of his daughter and when he requested time, the accused beat him and insulted him and so he vexed with his life and decided to commit suicide. Then, he consumed poison and committed suicide. L.Ws.5 to 7 noticed the dead body of the deceased and informed the same to the family members of the deceased. P.W.1 along with her sister visited Warangal and lodged a complaint. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal. On committal to the Court of Sessions, the same was numbered as Sessions Case and made over to the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal for disposal. 3. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal. On committal to the Court of Sessions, the same was numbered as Sessions Case and made over to the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal for disposal. 3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 306 IPC against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8, M.Os.1 and 2 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of the accused. 4. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the respondents-accused not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and acquitted them for the said offence. Challenging the judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner-de facto complainant filed the present revision. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-de facto complainant submitted that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in a proper perspective, and Ex.P-3 suicide note clearly discloses that the respondents-accused harassed and insulted the deceased and on account of such harassment only, the deceased consumed poison and therefore, the respondents-accused are liable for punishment for abetment of suicide. 7. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 goes to show that on 16.1.2004, when P.W.1 and the deceased were at Huzurabad bus stop, the accused came there, abused the deceased for not paying Sri Ram chit amount and snatched away the motor cycle of the deceased. The death of the deceased was on 21.1.2004. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses coupled with the suicide note clearly goes to show that the accused pressurised the deceased to clear the dues of Shri Ram chit amount. But, such act of the accused cannot be said to be an abetment to commit suicide. 8. In a case of this nature, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere words uttered by the accused pressurising the deceased to pay the chit amount cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. 8. In a case of this nature, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere words uttered by the accused pressurising the deceased to pay the chit amount cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. The death of the deceased is no way beneficial to the accused, who stood as guarantors to the amount due to be paid by the deceased. Further, the alleged pressure to pay the chit amount, said to have been made by the respondents-accused in the presence of P.W.1 was on 16.1.2004. The deceased was found dead on 22.1.2004. Even if it is assumed that the deceased had taken such pressure or abusive words seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the pressure, which had been made by the accused on 16.1.2004 driven the deceased to commit suicide. It is not alleged that the accused had told the deceased to die. It is not a case where the accused had by their acts created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. Therefore, the pressure caused by the respondents-accused cannot be construed as instigation. The learned trial Judge considered the entire evidence at length and recorded the conclusion that the necessary ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 306 I.P.C. have not been established. 9. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the there is no need to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this revision, stand dismissed.