Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 313 (AP)

State of A. P. v. Kallepalli Giri

2013-04-23

RAJA.ELANGO

body2013
JUDGMENT Raja Elango, J. 1. State preferred the present Criminal Appeal by invoking the provision under Section 378(3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the judgment dated 23.12.2004 rendered in Sessions Case No. 86 of 2003 by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents-accused under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.'). Case of the Prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the deceased is the husband of A. 2 herein. A. 1 is the paramour of A. 2. Aggrieved over the illicit intimacy of A. 2 with A. 1, the deceased committed suicide. In that connection, the deceased also wrote letters to A. 2 and investigation officers prior to his death. Further, the deceased also informed the same to his brothers also. Subsequently, on 27.08.2001 deceased committed suicide. Hence, the case. 2. Heard both sides and perused the record. 3. The learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence adduced by all the witnesses acquitted the accused observing as follows: "Now, the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether A. 1 and A. 2 abetted the deceased Prasad to commit suicide, and whether they are responsible for the suicidal death of the deceased Prasad. It is the case of the prosecution that A. 2 who is the wife of deceased-Prasad is having illegal contact with A. 1 and in spite of several requests of Prasad, that A2 did not severe her illicit contact with A. 1 and unable to bear the said humiliation, that he committed suicide by consuming poison, and as Prasad has committed suicide on account of immoral conduct of A. 1 and A. 2, that they are responsible for his suicidal death. 15. Abetment is defined u/s. 107 of IPC and to prove an offence u/s. 306 of IPC regarding the abetment of a suicide the prosecution has to prove the ingredients that are contemplated u/s. 107 of IPC." 4. 15. Abetment is defined u/s. 107 of IPC and to prove an offence u/s. 306 of IPC regarding the abetment of a suicide the prosecution has to prove the ingredients that are contemplated u/s. 107 of IPC." 4. For better appreciation Sec. 107 of IPC is extracted hereunder:- 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 if any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or Thirdly: Intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing; 16. Thus, a perusal of Sec. 107 of IPC makes it abundantly clear that a person can be said to abet of doing things if 1) He instigates any person to do that thing; or 2) Engages with one or more other persons if any conspiracy for doing of that thing; or 3) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing; 17. It is only on proof of any one of the said ingredients, a person can be said to abet doing of a thing. To elucidate more clearly, there must be a direct act committed by the accused to instigate a person to commit suicide, or atleast there must be a direct act on the part of the accused in intentionally aiding the deceased to commit suicide. While, construing the word "instigation" it is held that to urge, to provoke, to incite, to goad etc, are considered to be the acts of instigation. Aiding is held to be rendering help by way of facilitating the deceased to commit suicide. Obviously, it is not the case of the prosecution that A. 1 and A. 2 have entered into any conspiracy to abet the deceased to commit suicide. 5. The reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge are well in accordance with law and need not be interfered with. 6. Further, in an appeal against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited and if there is any perversity or illegality appears on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the finding of the lower Court. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is directly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is directly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibility of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. 7. Considering the above said proposition of law and after perusal of the record and the impugned judgment, this Court is of the considered view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 8. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.