Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 436 (TS)

Gali Srinivasa Rao v. State of Telangana

2023-06-13

K.SURENDER

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant is questioning the conviction recorded under Section 306 of IPC and being sentenced to suffer ten years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment of one month vide judgment in S.C.No.522 of 2007 dated 29.12.2008 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sathupalli. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased/husband and wife committed suicide for the reason of this appellant’s abusing the deceased husband uttering insulting words that the deceased was earning money by sending his wife and children to share bed with others and questioned why he was alive. By saying so, the appellant went away. Unable to bear the insult, around 11.00 a.m, the deceased called daughter Kiranmai (P.W.12) and told that the appellant had insulted them severely and they will not be available in future. P.W.12 in turn called P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased husband and P.W.1 rushed to the house and having broke open the door, found his brother and sister-in-law hanging to the ceiling. 3. On the basis of information given by P.W.2 to P.W.1, P.W.1 lodged complaint Ex.P1. During the course of investigation, the police also seized suicide note Ex.P2. On the basis of evidence collected during investigation, the police filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Accordingly, charge was framed under the said penal provision. 4. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, having examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marking Exs.P1 to P18 found that the utterances are made by the appellant herein i.e., NEEVU BHARYA PILLALANU PANDABETTI SAMPADHISUNNAVURAA NEE BRATHUKENDUKURA (you are earning by making your wife and children sleeping with others. What for do you live). 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the complaint is on the basis of hearsay evidence. It is alleged that the deceased called up P.W.12, who in turn called P.W.1. P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the alleged incident of the appellant abusing the deceased. P.W.12/daughter also stated that police informed that the appellant had abused them. He further submits that Ex.P2 suicide note cannot be considered for the reason of its inadmissibility. Under Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, unless a statement comes within its purview intimating cause of death, such statements cannot be considered. P.W.12/daughter also stated that police informed that the appellant had abused them. He further submits that Ex.P2 suicide note cannot be considered for the reason of its inadmissibility. Under Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, unless a statement comes within its purview intimating cause of death, such statements cannot be considered. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderpal v. State of M.P., 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1049. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the words uttered by the appellant were insulting and unable to digest such insult, the deceased couple have committed suicide. The ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are fulfilled, as such, conviction cannot be set aside. 7. P.Ws.1 and 2 are not witnesses to the alleged incident of the appellant allegedly abusing the couple. P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 have turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.Ws.6 to 8 are the witnesses who came to know that an altercation has taken place in between the appellant and the deceased. 8. P.W.9 is the photographer. P.W.10 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination. Death by suicide is not in dispute. 9. P.W.12 is the witness, who stated that the deceased father called and informed that the appellant had insulted them stating that he had earned properties by sending his wife and daughters to sleep with others. 10. Admittedly, there are no prior transactions in between the appellant and the deceased. According to the prosecution case, when the appellant went to purchase an item which was worth Rs.10/-, the appellant asked him to give it for Rs.5/-. The deceased informed that he cannot give it for Rs.5/-, as such the appellant abused in such a manner. 11. To attract an offence under Section 306 of IPC, there should be an abetment and such abetment should be with an intention or aim to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in the case of M.Arjunan v. State rep. by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 315 held as follows: “7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 315 held as follows: “7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” 12. The finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is similar to the facts in the present case. The appellant had gone to the shop and asked for an item to be given at lesser cost. When refused, the appellant allegedly used abusive and derogatory language. However, such abuses hurled by the appellant are not sufficient to attract the essential ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. It cannot be said in the facts of the present case that when the appellant abused them, it was his intention to aid, instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. 13. Since none of the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are made out, the Criminal Appeal deserves to be allowed. 14. In the result, Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment in S.C.No.522 of 2007 dated 29.12.2008 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sathupalli. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands closed.