Dismissed

The State of a.P., v. Shymala Linga Swamy

Telangana HC16 Mar 2021CRLA/1405/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana considered an appeal by the State against an order acquitting three accused of abetting suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's finding that the prosecution evidence was contradictory, lacking corroboration from key witnesses, and insufficient to establish cruelty or abetment.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, confirming the order of acquittal dated 28.07.2007 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

The State of a.P., Vs Shymala Linga Swamy — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

,N THE H'GH COURT FOR o, n"orJ*.o?rffE^{oF TELANGANA}

¶2

TUE-S,?II THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF IVARCH, TWo THoUSAND AND rwer,rrV oi.ji'",

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶5

CRIMI NAL APPEAL NO: 1405 oF 2009

¶6

criminal Appear fired Under Section 378 (1) and (3) of cr.p.c (Leave and Appear) against the Judgment dated. 28.07.2007 made in s.c.No.419 of 2006 on the fire of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

¶7

Between:

¶8

p rese nted bv the^pu br ic p rosecuto ry H i g h co u rt ]ii.PotfrS SL1::R :i., ii:?ffla.re

¶9

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

1 !|,yfql,^{LingaSwamy, S/o. Yadaiah, 26 years, Chimiryala Village,Nalgonda} District.

¶12

2 9fymata^{Veeramma, W/o. Yadaiah,68 years, Chimiryala Village,Nalgonda} District.

¶13

Shymala Narsamma, W/o. Yadaiah, 48 years, Chimiryala Village, Nalgonda District.

¶14

...Respondents/ Accused

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: G"L"NARASIMHA RAO

¶17

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

HONOURABLE^{JUSTICE G. SRTDEVI} CRIMIN ALA^{PPEAL No.1405of 2009}

¶19

J UDGMENT:

¶20

The appellant-State^{filed the present appealby invoking the} provision under Section 378(1) and^{(3) of the Code of Criminal} Procedure, challenging the^{judgmentdated 28.07 -2007in} S.C.No.419 of 2006 on the file of the^{Assistant Sessions Judgeat} Nalgonda, wherein and whereby the learned Sessions^Judge acquitted the respondents/A1 to A3 for the offence^punishable under Section 306 lPC.

¶21

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of Al with the deceased Shyamala l\4anga was performed at about 5 years prior to the date of occurrence i.e., 10.5.2006, and after some time, Al along with A2 and 43 used to harass the deceased mentally and physically on the ground that she was not conceiving, for which she attempted to commit suicide once, and after the panchayat conducted by the elders, she joined with the company of Al and later, she gave birth to a female child. Since then, all the accused used to harass the deceased on the ground that she gave birth to a female child. On 10.05.2006, during morning hours, A1 to 43 quarreled with the deceased on the ground that she did not properly stitch the petty coat of A3 and they instigated her to die, thereupon, she went inside the house, set herself ablaze at 7.00 AM., and sustained burn injuries and immediately, she was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, and on the way, she told her parents about the harassment of the accused and later, She died near Ramoji Film City. Based on the report of^p.W.1-father of the deceased. a case in

¶22

2 c.r.A.No.i4os ;:36J

¶23

Cr.No.2S of 2006 was registered under Section 306 lpC against the accused.

¶24

Heard learned Assistant public prosecutor for the appellantState, Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/A1 to 43 and perused the record.

¶25

A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that in Ex.p1_ report given by P.w.1 immediatery after the death of the deceased, he stated that the accused used to harass the deceased immediatery after the marriage on the ground that she was not conceived and in that connection, a panchayat was conducted and on the advice of the elders, the deceased again joined the society of 41 . lf that allegation is true, one of the strong circumstances for the prosecution is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws. But the investigating Officer did not examine those elders, who conducted the panchayat and that there is no explanation for non-examination of those elders as witnesses. Therefore, non-examination of the material witnesses to support the case of the^prosecution is fatal to the case of the prosecution and it also belies the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. I,4oreover, in this case, the version of the^{prosecutionis} that 41 to A3 used to harass the deceased on the^ground that she has not given birth to a male child. But, how many occasions^she was harassed by her husband and in-laws, whether she^had informed to her parents while she was being taken to Osmania General Hospital or on^previous occasions also she^{had stated to} her parents, if so, on how many occasions and what steps^{had taken}

¶26

¶27

C11.A.No^{1405 of 2009}

¶28

¶29

¶30

regarding^{the harassment' there is absolutelyno evidence on record'} It was^{not the specific case of the prosecution thaton the date of the} alleged^{occurrence' because the deceased could not stitch the petty} coat^{properly, 43 quarreled with her' for whichshe committed} suicide. The^{trial court has rightly pointedout that any abetment to} commit suicide^{shall be soon before the suicide attempt and in all} probabilities, the alleged^{harassment shall be for an ordinary prudent} human being to^{commitsuicide. Simple abuses by somebody or an} isolated incident^{are not sufficient to constitute the abetment'}

¶31

The other important^{aspect in this case is that the deceased,} on the way to Osmania^{General Hospital, told her parents and others} about the harassment^{made by the accusedon "10.05.2006and also} their harassment on earlier occasions.^{ln this regard,P.W.1 stated} in his statement to^police that on the way^{to Hyderabad,the} deceased told them that 41 to^{A3 were responsiblefor her death} and later, she died in the hospital at'10.00^{AM. P.W.2stated in her} statement that the deceased told her^parents in the^{hospitalitself} that her husband and her mother-in-law were responsible for her death. However, P.Ws.3 and 4 in their statements to the^police have stated that on the way to the hospital only, the deceased told them about the harassment. But during the course of evidence, P.W.s.'l and 2 have stated contrary to their earlier statements made to the police. ln this regard, they stated that when they were shifting the deceased to Osmania General Hospital in the car, on the way, their daughter did not speak about any harassment and later, she died in the hospital. Thus, as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the

¶32

GSD. J Crl.A.No.1405 of 2009

¶33

¶34

deceased was not in a fit state of mind to reveal anything about the harassment of accused on the way to the hospital or in the hospital. However, P.W.2 stated in her evidence that the deceased, on the way of Osmania General Hopsital, told them about the harassment, which is quite contrary to the statement of her husband before the Court. Even before the Court, the statements of P.Ws 1 and 2 is that their son also accompanied them to the hospital in a car, but in his statement to the police he denied to have gone to the hospital in the car. Thus, the contradictory statements of these prosecution witnesses create in high degree of suspicion about the allegation of the prosecution that the deceased, on the way to Osmania General Hospital, told about the harassment caused by the accused on the date of the alleged occurrence and it is apparent on the face of record that such allegation is only the creation of prosecution for the purpose of this case.

¶35

ln this case, P.Ws.3 and 4 are neighbors and independent witnesses. They have categorically stated that after coming to know that Shyamala lvlanga received burn injuries, they rushed to the house of the accused, extinguished the flames and shifted her to Osmania General Hospital. There was nothing on record to prove that these witnesses have deposed falsehood in order to save the accused. Another important factor in this case is that P.W.10, who is the investigating officer, had issued express FlR, which reached the Court on 16.05.2006 at 4.30 PM through^post along with the^inquest report-Ex.P4. Since the offence is^grave in nature, it is the duty^of the investigating officer to send the First lnformation Report and^the

¶36

Crl.A.No.'1405^{of 2009}

¶37

¶38

written complaint^{through a special messengerto the Court} immediately.^{However,those reportswere sent through post' from} which, a^{presumption can be drawnthat after conductinginquest} over the dead^{body only, the complaintwas received by the} investigating^{officer and thereafter,the case was registered and that} is the reason^{why P'W.10 send'Ex'P1-report and FIR along with the} inquest report^{to the Court, which creates doubt about the veracity of} Ex.P1. Moreover,^{in this case, no GD entry numberwas mentioned} at Col.No.3^{of the CC in Ex.P-10, which also creates doubtabout} lodging of FIR at^{the relevant point of time as narrated by the} prosecution. Thus, the^{investigation conductedby the investigating} officer creates^{strong suspicionand alsoperfunctorynature Thus'} thetrialCourt,afterconsideringtheentireevidenceonrecord'has rightlyheldthattheprosecutionhasmiserablyfailedtoprovethatall the accused^{had harassed the deceasedon 10 05'2006 and also} priortothesaiddatefornotgivingbirthtoamalechildanddueto that harassment,^{she committed suicide and accordingly,found the} accused not^{guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and} acquittedthemunderSection235(1)Cr.P.C'Therefore'ldonotfind any illegality or^{perversity in the findingsof the trial Court'}

¶39

7 ln Mrinal Das v.^{State of Tripural the Apex Court heldas}

¶40

u nd er:

¶41

"lt is clear that in an appeal against acquittal^{in the} absence of^perversity in the^{judgment and order,interference} by this Court exercising^{its extraordinaryjurisdiction, is not} warranted. However, if the appeal^{is heard by an appellate}

¶42

1 (2O11) 9 SCC 479

¶43

UrJ.A.No. i405 of 2009

¶44

¶45

court, being the final court appreciate, reconsider .r. ,il,iilt;J :l'J.::ffi:t: ;: own decision. ln other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and lhe appellale court js free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person_ and in criminal jurrsprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. lf two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evldence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compel[ng and substantial reasons" for doing so. lf the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the malerials placed."

¶46

B. ln Maloth Somaraju v. Sfate of Andhra Pradesh2 the Apex

¶47

Court held that there can be no two opinions that merely because the acquittal is found to be wrong and another view can be taken, the^judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has more and serious responsibility while dealing with the^judgment of acquittal and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all supportable and where the appellate Court comes to the conclusion

¶48

2 (2O11) 8 SCC 635

¶49

l,att-,._:

¶50

GSO'^J Crl.A.No.1405^{of 2009}

¶51

¶52

i I

¶53

that conviction^{is a must, the judgment of acquittal cannotbe upset'} The appellate^{Courthas to examine as to whether the trial Court'} while upsetting^{the acquittal,has takensuchcare'}

¶54

L ln view of^{the judgments referredto above and havingregard} to the facts^{and circumstances of the case, I am of the viewthat} there are no^{merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be} dismissed.

¶55

'10. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed^{confirmingthe} judgment daled 28.07.2007 in S.C.No.419^{of 2006 on the file of the} Assistant Sessions Judge,^Nalgonda.

¶56