Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 880 (AP)

Mutyala Devi Niharika v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-07-31

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2024
ORDER : Accused No.4 filed this Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) impugning the order dated 27.09.2022 of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2022 in S.C.No.95 of 2021. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court refused to discharge the present revision petitioner. 2. Heard arguments of Sri N.Siva Reddy, the learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri S.Satish Kumar, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 3. Crime No.104 of 2018 of Dowlaiswaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram was investigated into, and the Inspector of Police laid a charge sheet before learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram. Finding that the offences alleged are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed. Accordingly, S.C.No.95 of 2021 was on the file of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram. The offences alleged are under Sections 417, 420, 376 and 306 read with 34 I.P.C. There are four accused in it. The revision petitioner is accused No.4. 4. There is GIET College in Rajanagaram. The victim girl in this case is an adult. She was pursuing her course in B-Tech. The revision petitioner was her classmate. A.1 was also pursuing his B-Tech in the same college, but he was junior to them. The elder brother of the revision petitioner was friend of A.1. All of them are known to one another. 5. The essence of the prosecution case is against A.1. It is alleged that A.1 procured the telephone number of the victim/deceased and gained acquaintance with her in the name of love. Believing his words for prosperous life and marriage, the girl developed friendship with A.1. It is alleged that the girl disclosed her love with A.1 and to her parents. Thereafter, there were discussions among elders on both sides and the proposal for marriage was not accepted by the elders. The allegations further revealed that on two occasions the girl attempted to end her life. On one occasion by consuming a powder made from glass pieces and on the other occasion by consuming large number of sleeping tablets. On both the occasions she was admitted in hospital and was rescued. The fascination of love kept A.1 and the girl together and over a period there developed sexual relationship between them. On one occasion by consuming a powder made from glass pieces and on the other occasion by consuming large number of sleeping tablets. On both the occasions she was admitted in hospital and was rescued. The fascination of love kept A.1 and the girl together and over a period there developed sexual relationship between them. The final allegation was that A.1 refused to marry her and feeling disgusted the girl in her own house hung herself and died. 6. Coming to the allegations against A.4, who is the revision petitioner here, it is alleged that it is from her A.1 procured the telephone number of the victim girl several years ago. The other allegation was that A.1 used to ask the victim girl and she used to give him money on various occasions and payment of this money was sometimes by hand and sometimes through mobile applications. It is also alleged that the victim girl also paid some money to A.4. 7. Presently we are not concerned with the allegations against A.2 and A.3. To make it clear, allegations made against A.2 and A.3 are totally unconnected to A.1 and A.4. The investigation officer filed the charge sheet listing 29 witnesses. On the investigative outcome the opinion arrived at by the investigation officer is that:--- A.1 exploited the deceased sexually on the guise of marriage with his deceitful words and induced the deceased to deliver cash to A.1 and also transferring the amounts through online apps. Due to the instigation and abetment of A.1 to A.4, deceased committed suicide. 8. When S.C.No.95 of 2021 came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for hearing on charges, A.4 moved an application in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2022 seeking her discharge. After due enquiry, by an order dated 27.09.2022 the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed it and refused to discharge her. The premise on which it was refused, as gleaned from the impugned order, is that prima facie material was found to charge A.4. It is that order which is impugned in this revision. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner cited M.Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2021 SC 4764 and filed additional material papers. It is that order which is impugned in this revision. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner cited M.Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2021 SC 4764 and filed additional material papers. It is argued that all that is alleged in the charge sheet even if taken to be true, it do not amount to commission of any offence under any penal provision and the learned trial Court erred in not discharging the petitioner. 10. As against it, on behalf of the State, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor urged that the learned trial Court properly concluded the aspect and the order does not require any revision. 11. Having considered the arguments and having perused the record, the following aspects are to be stated: Whoever abets the commission of suicide and the individual being so abetted commits suicide, the person who caused such abetment is governed by Section 306 I.P.C. and can be punished. Section 306 I.P.C. does not define abetment. It is Section 107 I.P.C. that defines and explains ‘abetment’. As per that provision, whoever instigates or intentionally aids or engaging in conspiracy with others or there is an act or illegal omission in order to drive the individual to commit suicide she/he is said to have abetted the person. The scope and ambit of Section 107 I.P.C. and its co-relation with Section 306 I.P.C. has been expounded in the two rulings cited earlier. Their Lordships, in those rulings, held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, it cannot be called an abetment to commit suicide. An active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option will attract these provisions. The act attributed to the accused must have been intended to push the victim into such a position leading to suicide. 12. An active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option will attract these provisions. The act attributed to the accused must have been intended to push the victim into such a position leading to suicide. 12. The principles of law mentioned in the earlier paragraphs shall govern the situation and the facts on record should be viewed through the lenses of those rules to find out whether there was sufficient material to charge the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. When these principles of law are applied to the case at hand, it is at once clear that there are only two facts that are alleged against the revision petitioner/A.4. One fact is that it was from her A.1 gathered the telephone number of her classmate who is the deceased, who was also senior to accused No.1 in the college. Exchange of telephone numbers among friends is per se no offence. After the exchange of telephone numbers it was for several years there was love making between A.1 and deceased. The other allegation against this revision petitioner is that A.1 used to demand, and the deceased used to give him money. A.1 may have given some money to the revision petitioner or on some occasions the deceased may also have given some money to the revision petitioner. There is no allegation that this revision petitioner demanded money from the deceased keeping a threat on her head for any illegal reasons. It is also not an allegation that A.1 had paid some money to this revision petitioner as part of any nefarious act. Payment and receipt of small amounts of money among friends per se is no offence. A reading of the entire case diary and the allegations in the charge sheet do not contain any fact on part of this revision petitioner whereunder she could be said to have prompted A.1 or the deceased to fall in love with each other or suggesting them not to marry each other or that she did anything for the alleged sexual relationship between A.1 and the deceased or that she actively or positively did something preventing them from getting married. At any rate, phone number that she had given to A.1 several years prior to the death of the girl and some money she took from her friend even when they are accepted on their face as true, they show no nexus in driving the victim to commit suicide either on the earlier two occasions or on the final occasion when she was successful in ending her own life. All the allegations only show that the emotional drive for the deceased was the conduct of A.1 and may be the other accused, but not this revision petitioner at all. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, though notices principles of law governing these aspects, was evasive in resorting to any fact while applying the principles of law. Asking someone who did nothing in the crime to stand up for trial and defend does not serve justice at all. The case at hand serves a good example to state that there is no case as against A.4 who was asked to stand up for trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and this Court cannot agree with such decision and therefore, the order impugned cannot be maintained even for a moment. 13. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.09.2022 of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2022 in S.C.No.95 of 2021 is set aside. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2022 in S.C.No.95 of 2021 is allowed discharging the petitioner/A.4 – Ms. Mutyala Devi Niharika from S.C.No.95 of 2021. Her bail bonds shall stand discharged. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the case as against the other accused in S.C.No.95 of 2021 in accordance with law. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.