The court dismissed a criminal appeal against acquittal in a Section 306 IPC case. It held that harassment for illicit intimacy does not attract liability for instigating suicide and noted that Section 509 IPC was not charged, attracting no consideration.
Criminal Appeal dismissed against acquittal of accused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.546 of 2011
BETWEEEN:
Siddapuram Manemma AND 1. State of A.P. & 2 others.
… Appellant … Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.546 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
T h e de facto complainant seeks to file appeal against acquittal recorded by the lower Court of A1 and A2 for the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. The deceased, Sravanthi is wife of brother of the accused. It is alleged that A1 intended to develop illicit intimacy with the deceased, for which the deceased refused and reported to her husband and her parents and that A1 and A2 were insulting modesty of the deceased and A1 continued to harass the deceased with the instigation of A2 and that disgusted with the same, the deceased consumed spirit (Ethyl Alcohol) and died. The lower Court framed charge
against A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. only. After trial, the lower Court acquitted A1 and A2 of the charge holding that the prosecution failed to prove the offence against them. There is no allegation of A1 and A2 instigating the deceased to commit suicide much less intentionally aiding her to commit suicide. The only allegation against them is that they were harassing the deceased asking her to develop illicit intimacy with them. Remedies against the said allegation are many; and certainly committing suicide is no remedy against that malady. Even if the prosecution allegations in this regard are taken on their face value, this Court is of the opinion that liability under Section 306 I.P.C. is not attracted.
2. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the lower Court did not discuss about injuries noted by the Doctor on the dead body and also the offence under Section 509 I.P.C. There is no allegation that prior to the deceased committing suicide, there was any physical assault by the accused against the deceased. Investigation of the case also did not proceed in that direction. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 509 I.P.C. is concerned, there is no charge framed by the lower Court against the accused for the said offence. In the absence of a charge, the lower Court did not consider applicability of Section 509 I.P.C. to the evidence on record. The offence under Section 509 I.P.C. is not a minor offence for Section 306 I.P.C. in the same chapter. Therefore, the question of finding the accused guilty under Section 509 I.P.C. may not arise at all.
3. There are no grounds for admitting this appeal. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
Dated: 20.06.2011 ysk
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.546 of 2011
DATED:20.06.2011
ysk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court erred in acquitting the accused of instigating the deceased to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Whether the accused should have been charged with offence under Section 509 IPC regarding insult to modesty.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Siddapuram Manemma
State of A.P.
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
