Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 271 (AP)

M. C. Saraswathamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-03-08

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2022
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - These two Criminal Petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are filed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest. 2. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.1276 of 2022 are a-4 and a-5 and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.1309 of 2022 are a-6, a-8 and a-10 in Crime No.18 of 2022 of Somandepalli Police Station, ananathapur District. Therefore, as the petitioners in both the petitions are accused in the same crime, both the petitions are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. a case under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC was registered against the petitioners in the above crime. 4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 18.01.2022 at about 03.00 P.M., the petitioners herein along with other accused threatened the deceased to give his lands to the Government and also threatened him that if he does not give his lands to the Government to die by committing suicide and they also threatened him that they would expel them from the village with the help of the ruling party. Therefore, the deceased has consumed pesticide and committed suicide. It is stated that the petitioners along with the other accused have abetted him to commit suicide and thereby committed the aforesaid offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is delay of four days in lodging the report after the alleged incident took place and it throws any amount of doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution version. They would further submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry. It is also submitted that a-6, a-8 and a-10 are employees and they have been falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry. They also would submit that the statement of the deceased was not recorded after he was admitted in the Hospital and the deceased did not state that on account of the instigation given by the petitioners that he has committed suicide. Therefore, they would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7. Learned additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Criminal Petitions. Therefore, they would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7. Learned additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Criminal Petitions. He would submit that there is a clear allegation made in the F.I.R stating that these petitioners have threatened and instigated the deceased to commit suicide if he does not give his lands to the Government and that they would expel him from the village with the help of the ruling party and as such he has committed suicide. So, he would submit that a clear allegation of instigation to commit suicide is made and as the accusation made against the petitioners in this regard is prima facie well founded from the said specific allegations made in the F.I.R that the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail and thereby prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petitions. 8. In the instant case, the deceased consumed pesticide and committed suicide. a clear allegation is made in the F.I.R that on 18.01.2022 at about 03.00 P.M., when the deceased was going to his fields along with the other family members that all the petitioners herein restrained him on his way and threatened him to give his lands to the Government and also threatened him saying that if he does not give his lands to the Government, to commit suicide and die. a clear allegation is also made in the F.I.R that if he does not give his lands to the Government that they would ostracize the entire family of the deceased from the village with the help of the ruling party. Therefore, a clear allegation is made in the F.I.R relating to instigation given by the petitioners to the deceased to commit suicide. The relevant wording that is used by the petitioners as mentioned in the F.I.R reads as follows - 'bhoomi ni prabutvaniki ivvakapothe champutamani bediristunnaranu. leda neevu ina neeku nuvvu atmahatya chesukuni chavali ani bediristunnaru. lekapothe adhikara party anda tho ninnu nee kutumba sabyulani gramam nunchi velle varaku vadilipettamu'. 9. The aforesaid words uttered by the petitioners prima facie show that the petitioners along with other accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the necessary ingredients contemplated under Section 107 IPC are satisfied in this case. Having regard to the said allegations ascribed in the F.I.R, the accusation made against the petitioners is prima facie well founded. 9. The aforesaid words uttered by the petitioners prima facie show that the petitioners along with other accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the necessary ingredients contemplated under Section 107 IPC are satisfied in this case. Having regard to the said allegations ascribed in the F.I.R, the accusation made against the petitioners is prima facie well founded. Therefore, considering the seriousness of the offence in which the petitioners are involved and as it is a case of abetting to commit suicide punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 10. Therefore, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.