Dismissed

Mallapuram Krishna , Krishna Rao, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC5 Aug 2010CRLP/350/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses two criminal petitions questioning proceedings for abetment of suicide. The court held that while the language attributed to the accused might statutorily attract Section 107 IPC, the truth of allegations must be decided at trial. Distinguishing a Supreme Court precedent based on death timing, it found proximate causation here, declined interference, and dismissed the petit

What did the court decide?

Both criminal petitions were dismissed without interfering with the proceedings under Section 306 IPC.

Mallapuram Krishna , Krishna Rao, Vs The State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.350 OF 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mallapuram Krishna

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

And

¶10

The State of A.P. & another

¶11

… RESPONDENTS

¶12

AND

¶13

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1012 OF 2009

Between:

Tara Chand

… PETITIONER

And

The State of A.P. & another

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

This Court made the following:

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.350 OF 2009 & 1012 OF 2009

¶22

COMMON ORDER:

¶23

1. These two petitions are filed by A1 and A2 questioning proceedings in S.C.No.364 of 2008 pending against them in the Court of VI Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, for offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C.

¶24

2. It is alleged that A2 is a follower and supporter of A1 who is a local leader and that the deceased Tulsiram Kachawa who was running sweet shop, demolished his house building and started making new construction after obtaining permission from GHMC authorities in April, 2007, and that A1 approached the deceased and demanded him to pay Rs.20,00,000/- to him at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- for each floor so that he would look after his needs in the construction and would pay the said amount as charity fund and that when the deceased refused to pay the said amount demanded, A1 started harassing the deceased in one way or the other and that at the instance of A1, A2 filed suit against the deceased for perpetual injunction and obtained ex parte temporary injunction on the ground of the deceased encroaching into part of the lane and that A1 was not keeping quiet and was harassing the deceased to fulfill his demand for Rs.20,00,000/-. In the meanwhile, municipal authorities came to the construction site and demolished some part of the construction. It is alleged specifically that on 15.05.2008, A1 and A2 with their henchmen came to the construction site and abused the deceased and his family members in front of ladies in filthy language and that the deceased felt insulted and expressed his inability to pay Rs.20,00,000/- and

¶25

stated that if they insisted in that manner, then he would commit suicide; and that thereupon the accused stated that the deceased should pay the demanded amount or stop the construction or he should die, otherwise they would kill him. On the same day, the deceased committed suicide by hanging.

¶26

3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that allegations in the charge sheet do not disclose any facts relating to offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. and that false case was foisted against them. Truth or falsehood of the case cannot be gone into and decided by this Court in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The incident which is stated to have occurred on 15.05.2008 and more particularly, to the effect that the accused demanded the deceased to pay the demanded amount or stop construction or he should die or otherwise they will kill him, undoubtedly attract statutory facts for the offence of abetment under Section 107 I.P.C. Truth or otherwise of the said facts, has to be decided by the trial Court after trial. I see no grounds to interfere with proceedings in the lower Court. In SANJU ALIAS SANJAY SINGH SENGAR VS. STATE OF M.P.^[1] , dead body of the deceased was found two days subsequent to the accused asking the deceased to go and die. Therefore, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there was no proximity between the utterances and death of the deceased. The said decision cannot be applied to facts of this case because in the case on hand, there is close proximity between the utterances of the accused and death of the deceased, because the deceased committed suicide on the same date of the incident at about 10.00 a.m. itself.

¶27

4. In the result, both the criminal petitions are dismissed.

¶28

______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶29

August 05, 2010 KL

¶30

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶31

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.350 OF 2009 & 1012 OF 2009

¶32

August 05, 2010