Allowed

S.Pullamma(A-2) v. The State of a.P.,Rep.by Public Prosecutor.

Telangana HC23 Apr 2010CRLA/997/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC for abetting suicide and cruelty, the High Court scrutinized prosecution evidence including the dying declaration and FIR, finding no proximate link between the appellant's alleged abuse and the suicide.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC set aside; bail bonds cancelled.

S.Pullamma(A-2) Vs The State of a.P.,Rep.by Public… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶5

Crl.A.No.997 OF 2004

¶6

Between:S.Pullamma

¶7

…Appellant

¶8

A n d

¶9

The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶10

…Respondent

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.A.No.997 OF 2004

¶12

J U D G M E N T:

¶13

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

¶14

15-04-2004 in S.C.No.208 of 2002, on the file of the V- Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, wherein the appellant/A-2 was found guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 306 IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

¶15

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/A2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State. Perused the record.

¶16

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 28-042000 at about 08-00 p.m., there was a quarrel between the deceased Swaroopa Rani and her mother-in-law, the appellant/A-2, over a petty matter and A-2 abused the deceased for not preparing the food properly and complained to her son/A-1, the husband of the deceased, after he returned home and instigated A-1 on which A-1 slapped the deceased. The deceased felt insulted and did not take meals and at about 0130 hours she went into the bathroom, poured kerosene and set fire to herself and sustained burn injuries. On her raising hue and cry, A-1, A-2 and neighbours extinguished the flames and shifted her to Osmania General Hospital. Based on her complaint/statement-Ex.P-8 recorded by P.W.10, F.I.REx.P-10 was registered in Cr.No.184 of 2000. According to the prosecution, ever since the marriage, A-1 and A-2 had been harassing the deceased over petty matters and abusing her. Initially, the F.I.R was registered as a case of ‘woman burnt’ and subsequently sections of law were altered to Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. During the course of investigation, requisition-Ex.P-1 was given to the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate-P.W.4, who recorded the dying declaration-Ex.P-2 of the deceased. P.W.11,

¶17

the Investigating Officer, observed the scene of offence and prepared a report-Ex.P-4 and rough sketch-Ex.P-5. Inquest was conducted over the body of

¶18

the deceased under Ex.P-6 by P.W.7-Mandal Revenue Officer. P.W.8, the photographer has taken the photographs under Ex.P-7. Postmortem was conducted by P.W.11 over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P-9. After completion of investigation, P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector filed charge sheet.

¶19

4. A-1 and A-2 appeared before the trial Court and pleaded not guilty to the charges framed under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC.

¶20

5. In support of their case, the prosecution examined

¶21

P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 and M.Os.1 to 3. During trial, A-1 died and prosecution against him abated. A-2 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in evidence.

¶22

6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court found the appellant/A-2 guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and convicted her for the same and imposed the sentence as stated above for the offence under Section 306 IPC and no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction and

¶23

sentence, the appellant/A-2 preferred the present appeal.

¶24

7. The prosecution seeks to rely on the testimony of P.W.1, father of the deceased, and P.W.2, mother of the deceased, besides the dying declarationEx.P-2 recorded by P.W.4. P.Ws.1 and 2, parents of the deceased, have testified that at the time of marriage, almirah, utensils and other household articles were given, besides three tolas of gold and new clothes worth Rs.3,000/- and that on the eve of Deepavali festival, they also presented a scooter to A-1, but not satisfied with the same, A-1 and A-2 were harassing the deceased. Admittedly, the incident took place in the house of the accused and P.Ws.1 and 2 were not present at the time and they reached subsequently on coming to know about the incident. P.Ws.1 and 2 both admitted that they have nowhere stated either at the time of inquest or at the time of recording their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C about the alleged harassment of the deceased by the accused. P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector, who recorded the statements during investigation also confirmed in evidence that P.Ws.1 and 2 have not stated in their statements during investigation that the deceased was subjected to harassment on account of any demand for additional dowry. Thus, the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the alleged harassment of the deceased by the accused over demand for additional dowry is clearly an

¶25

improvement made for the first time at the time giving evidence and the same cannot be given any weight or credence. It is highly improbable that P.Ws.1 and 2, being none else than

¶26

the parents of the deceased, would have kept quiet without even making a whisper at any time during investigation regarding the alleged harassment of the deceased, if really such harassment was true. P.W.3 is stated to be a distant relative of P.Ws.1 and 2. According to her, she came to know through the deceased that she was being subjected to harassment by her mother-in-law. She claims that once she went to the house of the deceased and consoled the deceased and advised her to be tolerant and it is common occurrence in the families. In the cross-examination, she admitted that she has not witnessed any quarrel between the deceased and accused or any ill-treatment of the deceased by the accused. She also admitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 never informed her about the alleged harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused. Though she denied the suggestion that she never stated to the police during investigation about the

¶27

same, P.W.12 the Sub-Inspector confirmed that P.W.3 has not stated during investigation before him as to what she deposed in the Court. The testimony of P.W.3 is also clearly an improvement inasmuch as her version does not find any mention at any earlier point of time during

¶28

investigation. When the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 is thus vitiated on account of improvements and embellishments introduced for the first time in evidence and they admittedly being not a witness to any harassment or illtreatment of the deceased by the accused and they admittedly having no personal knowledge of such harassment or ill-treatment, the trial Court clearly erred in relying on their testimony and recorded a finding that the deceased was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by the accused.

¶29

8. Coming to the dying declaration of the deceased recorded under Ex.P-2, what all the deceased stated before the learned Magistrate-P.W.4 is that she was being insulted over small issues and A-2 started taunting her every day that she was getting proud of joining job. According to her, she set herself ablaze because her aunt Pullamma i.e., appellant/A-2 talked to her in a rough manner. Ex.P-2 is thus totally silent about any harassment or ill-treatment or cruelty on the part of the accused towards the deceased. The cause of suicide as per Ex.A-2 is the alleged rough talk by A-2. Ex.P-2 also does not disclose as to what was the nature of the said rough talk or as to any abusive words employed by A-2 or any accusations made by A-2 against the deceased. The vague statement contained in Ex.P-2 to the effect that A-2 talked in a rough manner does not amount to perpetration

¶30

of any cruelty of such a nature as to drive an ordinary woman to commit suicide. Even in the statement-Ex.P-8 recorded by the Head Constable-P.W.10 from the deceased what all the deceased had stated is that her mother-in-law i.e., appellant/A-2 quarrelled with her in a filthy language alleging that she was not preparing food and that after her husband’s arrival, her mother-in-law informed and her husband gave her a slap and thereby insulted and subsequently at

¶31

01-30 a.m., she poured kerosene and set herself afire. Ex.P-8 based

¶32

on which the F.I.R was registered is also silent as to any demand

¶33

for additional dowry or subjection of deceased to harassment or

¶34

ill-treatment over such demand. Even if the allegation that A-2 abused the deceased in filthy language over her failure to prepare food properly, the same cannot be construed as amounting to act of cruelty so as to drive an ordinary woman to take the extreme step of committing suicide. In fact, as per the contents of Ex.P-8, the deceased felt insulted because her husband/A-1 slapped her not merely because of abuse by the mother-in-law. The immediate or proximate cause for the deceased committing suicide even as per the contents of Ex.P-8, is her feeling insulted because of slapping by the husband. Quarrelling is said to have taken place at about 08-00

¶35

p.m., and the deceased setting herself ablaze was at about 01-30 a.m., in the night. The alleged abuse of the deceased by A-2 cannot, therefore, be considered as a proximate or immediate provocation or cause for commission of suicide by the deceased.

¶36

9. In any event, the evidence on record and the contents

¶37

of Exs.P-2 and P-8 do not at all disclose that appellant/A-2 has

¶38

in any manner instigated, aided or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The accused is charged with the offence under Section 306 IPC. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt under Section 306 IPC has to necessarily establish that the appellant/A-2 abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased within the meaning of Section 107 IPC.

¶39

10. In the present case, there no iota of evidence to show that appellant/A-2 has in any manner abetted the commission of the suicide by the deceased within the meaning of Section 107 IPC. The alleged abuse on the deceased by appellant/A-2 cannot even constitute a remote cause for commission of suicide by the deceased. If at all, the evidence on record only shows that the deceased felt insulted because of the slapping by her husband and being oversensitive she committed suicide by setting herself afire. There is,

¶40

however, absolutely no evidence on record to establish the case of the prosecution that the accused were demanding additional dowry or

¶41

that they were subjecting the deceased to ill-treatment or harassment over any such demand and the incident was culmination of such harassment and ill-treatment. The deceased appears to have taken

¶42

the extreme step of committing suicide in a fit of emotion being oversensitive by nature and appellant/A-2 cannot in any way be considered to have abetted the commission of the said offence. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC are not at all attracted to the facts of the present case. As already stated A-1 died during the pendency of trial and prosecution against him abated. The conviction of appellant/A-2 for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC as recorded by the trial Court is not sustainable and the same is held liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.500/- imposed for the offence under Section 306 IPC is also set aside.

¶43

11. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against appellant/A-2. The bail bonds of appellant/A-2 shall stand cancelled.

¶44

G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶45

23^rd April, 2010 Lrkm.

S.Pullamma(A-2) v. The State of a.P.,Rep.by Public Prosecutor.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Pullamma(A-2) v. The State of a.P.,Rep.by Public Prosecutor.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandipogula Thupan Vs The State of a.P.,Rep.by its Public Prosecutor

M.Sudhakar Reddy Vs SHOAddakula Ps.,Mahabubnagar District and State Rep.by

Pallanta Chandra Rao Vs Pallanta Venkata Ramana

Jada Pydappadu Vs Mannala Appayamma

Smt. v. Lakshmi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

The Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P. Vs M.S.Varadarajulu (A-1)