Judgment:
R. Kantha Rao, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the first accused in Sessions Case No. 233 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for the Trial of offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.
2. The appellant (A-1) was tried along with A-2 and A-3 who are his parents for the charge under Section 304B of IPC and also alternatively for the charge under Section 306 of IPC. While disposing of the case the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant, A-2 and A-3 for the charge under Section 304B of IPC. He also acquitted A-2 and A-3 for the offence under Section 306 of IPC but convicted the appellant (A-1) for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of eight years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.
3. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, A-1 preferred the present appeal.
4. The brief facts relevant for consideration in the appeal are that the appellant and deceased (Sandya Rani) who were studying in B.C.A. in Vasavi college, Hyderabad fell in love with each other and they eloped on 27.11.1999. P.W-1 (M. Yadagiri), the father of the deceased lodged a report with Chaderghat police station stating that on 27.11.1999, the deceased along with her classmate Karre Mohan Krishna (the appellant) absconded and her whereabouts were not traced. Soon after the deceased and the appellant eloped they marriied each other, led conjugal life. However, subsequently they were traced and on 28.04.2000 again their marriage was performed at Malakpet by the parents of the both.
5. It is the prosecution version that at the time of marriage the parents of the deceased presented her gold ornaments weighing five tulas and a gold ring to the appellant besides presenting him a cash of Rs. 10,000/- for his suit and dress material. The deceased joined the appellant at his parents house and led conjugal life with him. Since after four months from the date of marriage, the deceased who was pregnant was compelled to undergo abortion at the instance of the appellant on the ground that he was not employed. Some time thereafter the elder brother of the appellant was married to one Vimala Sandhya whose parents were financially sound and she brought a flat and other valuables as dowry at the time of marriage. After the marriage of the elder brother of the appellant, A-2 and A-3 who are the parents-in-law of the deceased started persuading upon the deceased to bring a flat and valuables from her parents. A-1 also ill treated the deceased at the instigation of A-2 and A-3 with the same demand. The appellant maintained strained relations with the deceased by keeping her at a distance and was not leading conjugal life with her though both of them were residing in the same house.
6. The deceased who was unable to bear the ill treatment and harassment meted out to her by A-1 to A-3 committed suicide by hanging in the bed room on 11.09.2002 at the house of the accused by leaving a suicide note which is marked in the course of trial as Ex.A-9. Subsequently A-2 informed about the incident to P.W-1 at 8.30 am and on receiving the information P.W-1, the father of the deceased, P.W-2 (M. Bala Krishna), the brother of the deceased, P.W-3 (D. Anita) and P.W-4 (A. Navaneetha), the cousins of the deceased and some others came to the house of the accused and found the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, on a report lodged by P.W-1, P.W-12 (K. Baburao), the Inspector of Police, Gandhinagar police station registered a case in Cr. No. 209 of 2002, later he conducted part of the investigation and the remaining investigation was conducted by P.W-14 (M. Ramesh Babu), the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chikkadpalli Division, Hyderabad who after completing investigation filed charge sheet.
7. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined P.Ws-1 to 14, marked Exs.P-1 to P-87 and M.Os-1 to 4. The accused on their behalf examined D.Ws-1 to 5. The learned trial Court upon considering the entire evidence on record acquitted A-2 and A-3 for the alternative charges under Sections 304B of IPC and 306 of IPC but convicted the appellant under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced him to punishment as mentioned above.
8. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 4 on which reliance is placed by the trial Court is only hearsay evidence and is not admissible. He would further submit that the trial Court which disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 4 with regard to demand of dowry by A-1 to A-3, having accepted the contents of Ex.P-9 suicide note with regard to the allegations relating to the offence under Section 304B of IPC gave an erroneous finding convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and lost sight of the fact that there is no incriminating material against the appellant warranting conviction under Section 306 of IPC, even as per the contents of Ex.P-9 suicide note. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are liable to be set aside in this appeal.
9. On the other hand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would contend that the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 4 coupled with the contents of Ex.P-9 indicates that the appellant was keeping the deceased away from the conjugal life which constitutes cruelty on the part of the appellant and, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly convicted him for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
10. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State at length. Perused the judgment of the trial Court, depositions of the witnesses and all the material papers available on record.
11. P.W-1, the father of the deceased, P.W-2, the brother of the deceased and P.W-3, the cousin of the deceased apart from stating about the deceased informing them about the harassment meted out to her by the accused in connection with demand of dowry also stated that they came to know through the deceased that the appellant was keeping her at a distance and there was no conjugal life between both of them. The learned trial Court disbelieved the evidence of above mentioned witnesses regarding demand of dowry by the appellant as well as A-2 and A-3 and acquitted all of them for the offence under Section 304B of IPC. The learned trial Court also took notice of the fact that the deceased did not mention about demand of dowry either in Ex.P-9 suicide note or in Ex.P-10 letter written by her to her father. But the trial Court relied on the evidence of the very same witnesses on the aspect that they were informed by the deceased that the appellant was keeping the deceased at a distance and there was no conjugal life between the both.
12. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant what all stated by P.Ws-1 to 3 is only hearsay evidence and the learned trial Court ought to have held that the same is not admissible in evidence. Ex.P-10 letter was written by the deceased some time after she eloped with the appellant, married him and was leading marital life with him. Perusal of the contents of the said letter indicates that the deceased was repenting for marrying the appellant without the consent of her parents. Absolutely there is nothing in Ex.P-10 indicating that the appellant was ill treating or harassing the deceased. The entire letter only indicates that the deceased was feeling guilty of committing mistake of involving in inter caste marriage for which her parents were unwilling.
13. Coming to Ex.P-9 suicide note, which consists of three parts in the form of letters, the first part is a letter written by the deceased to her father, the second part is addressed to her mother, the third part is addressed to her husband. In the first part addressed to her father, she stated that she took a very wrong decision in the matter of her marriage and that she has everything at her in laws house except the love of her husband. She further stated that at her parents house also she had everything except the love of her father and the elder brother. However, she also wrote to her father that the love of her good husband was not available to her and she was unable to live as a good wife.
14. While writing to her mother also she stated that she was repenting for marrying the appellant and she was also being subjected to lot of mental agony thinking that she committed a wrong against the wish of her parents.
15. The third part while addressing to the appellant, she mentioned that she loved the appellant very much but later she developed hatred towards him and was thinking as to why he entered into her life. She further mentioned in the said note that the appellant never spoke to her affectionately and he never expressed love towards her and also that he used to argue and quarrel with her which she was unable to digest. She also mentioned therein that it was her bad fate to get such a stupid husband like the appellant and she was fed up with him and she did not want to live at all. Curiously she wrote in the said note that she hates the appellant but loves him more than any one could, but was feeling unhappy for not getting the love of the appellant because still she loves him. Ultimately she wrote that as the appellant told her not to be in his life, she was moving away as there was nothing left for her in this World itself.
16. The contents of Exs.P-9 and P10 clearly indicate that the deceased was a sensitive girl and within few days after her eloping with the appellant and marrying him, she developed a feeling that she committed a grave mistake by marrying the appellant against the wish of her parents. It is obvious from these two documents that the deceased was quite unhappy with her marital life. Ex.P-9 clearly indicates that the deceased had lot of love and affection towards the appellant. If that is so, it is most unlikely that the deceased would resort to the extreme step of committing suicide even if for any reason the appellant stated to her not to be in his life. From the contents of Exs.P-9 and P-10, it is obvious that the deceased was unable to adjust with the appellant, she was a sensitive girl and was under emotional distress at the time of writing both Ex.P-9 as well as Ex.P10.
17. Before parting with the judgment, it is essential to refer to the following decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.
(i). Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 80 (SC) wherein it was held that if the accused had by his acts or omission or by continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in such a case an instigation has been inferred but a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the circumstances to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. The abetment contemplated under Section 306 of IPC must be the same which is defined under Section 107 of IPC. It was further held that before the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman provided under Section 113A of Evidence Act can be drawn and it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed with a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the above said circumstances, the Court may presume that such suicide has been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. It is further laid down that the Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution that the Court may presume the abetment having regard to all the other circumstances of the case. According to the apex Court, firstly, the presumption is not mandatory and it is only permissive as the employment of expression may presume suggests. Secondly, even if the above mentioned three conditions are satisfied before the presumption may be drawn the Court shall have to have regard to all the other circumstances of the case. A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the Court to abstain from drawing the presumption.
(ii). Rajbabu v. State of M.P. IV (2008) CCR 90 (SC) wherein it was laid down that the mere facts that a woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband or any relative of her husband does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide has been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband. The Court is required to look into all the other circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which has to be considered by the Court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such a nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman.Wherein a letter written by the deceased there was no reference of any act or incident whereby the appellants alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide, the Court is not persuaded to invoke the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act to find the appellant guilty of offence under Section 306 of IPC.
18. If the facts of the present case and the evidence forth coming are examined in the light of the principles laid down in the two decisions above referred, even if the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3 is believed, their evidence is only based on what all stated by the deceased to them and in the strict sense it is only hear say evidence and the same is not admissible against the appellant. Absolutely there is no direct evidence showing that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty by the appellant. There is no mention either in Ex.P-10 letter addressed by the deceased to her father or in Ex.P-9 suicide note about any harassment or cruelty meted out by the appellant. In Ex.P-9 the deceased wrote to the appellant that the appellant stated to her not to be in his life, that is why she was moving away as there was nothing left for her in this World itself. Even if really the appellant stated so to the deceased, it might be due to exchange of words between the deceased and the appellant and also might be in the fit of anger or emotion. Unless it is shown that the appellant visualized the consequences, which actually follow from the words he uttered, it cannot be said that he abetted commission of suicide. The material available on record does not indicate that the appellant by his conduct either aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Absolutely there is no evidence against the appellant to show that he had by his act or omission created the circumstances, which forced the deceased to commit suicide. If there is any such evidence, the abetment on the part of the appellant, which led to commission of suicide by the deceased can be inferred. As already stated Ex.P-10 letter addressed by the deceased to her father clearly indicates that she was repenting for marrying the appellant against the wish of her parents. Exs.P-9 and P-10 also reveal that the deceased was a sensitive girl and resorted to commit suicide under emotional distress mainly as she was thinking that she committed a grave mistake by marrying the appellant and that she was also not happy with the marital life as the same was not to her expectations. The facts and circumstances, therefore, do not enable the Court to raise a presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act as to abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased against the appellant. The facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record only indicate that the deceased who married the appellant against the wish of her parents, was thinking subsequently but she committed a grave mistake and she was also unable to adjust with the appellant. She was in a desperate condition on account of her dissatisfaction regarding the married life and ultimately resorted to the extreme step of committing suicide.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant is not based on any legal evidence warranting conviction under Section 306 of IPC. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court being erroneous is liable to be set aside in this appeal.
20. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC is set aside. He is acquitted of the said offence. The fine amount if any paid by him shall be refunded to him. The appeal is allowed.