ALLEPURE KUMARA v. THE STATE OF AP

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1556 OF 2008 O R A L J U D G M E N T: The appeal is preferred by the Accused No.1 and 2 challenging the judgment dated 18.12.2008 delivered in S.C.393 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapur Division at Hindupur.

2. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Hindupur, convicted the appellants/A-1 and A-2 for the offence U/secs.498-A and 306 IPC, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each for the offence U/s.306 IPC, and simple imprisonment for a period of three years each for the offence U/s.498-A IPC.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arraigned before the learned Assistant Sessions Court. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

4. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Alleepura Radha is the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2. P.W-3 is the brother of the deceased. The appellant/A-1 is the husband of the deceased. The appellant/A-2 is brother of the appellant/A-1. The marriage of the deceased and the appellant/A-1 was solemnized nine months ago. The deceased, A-1 and A-2 stayed at Bangalore for three months. 3 BVLNC, J CRL.A.No.1556 OF 2008 After three months, they returned to the village, and staying in the house of the appellant/A-1. On the date of incident i.e., on 10.03.2008, P.W-1 came to know about the death of the deceased. Immediately, P.W-1 went to the house of the accused, confirmed that deceased died due to harassment made by the accused. P.W-1 presented Ex.P-1 report to P.W-10 SI of Police, Gudibanda Police Station. He registered the same as a case in Cr.No.6/2008 for the offence U/s.306 IPC. He took-up investigation, conducted inquest over dead body of deceased vide Ex.P-5 report in the presence of P.W-8(VRO) and P.W-9 (Tahsildar) and others. He examined the witnesses and recorded statements, seized some material objects at the scene of offence vide M.Os-1 to 9, prepared Ex.P-8 rough sketch for the scene of offence. The body of the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital for autopsy. P.W-10 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Madakasira, conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P-6 postmortem certificate, opining that the deceased died due to asphyxia, caused by hanging and that the deceased committed suicide. P.W-10 on 25.03.2008 arrested the accused. Later, after concluding investigation, laid charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

5. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Division at Ananthapuram. It wasmade over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Hindupur, for trial in accordance with law. 4 BVLNC, J CRL.A.No.1556 OF 2008

6. The appellants/A-1 and A-2 were charged for the offence U/secs.498-A and 306IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION:

7. The prosecution to the above charge, examined P. Ws-1 to 11. During their evidence, filed Exs.P-1 to 8 documents, apart from M. Os-1 to 9.

8. The accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C.regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them from the evidence forthe prosecution.The accused denied the same as not true and correct.No evidence was adduced for the defence. FINDING OF THE SESSIONS COURT:

9. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Hindupur, upon consideration of the above evidence, found both the accused guilty for the offence U/secs.498-A and 306 IPC. Therefore, convicted them as mentioned above. Hence, the appeal came to be preferred by the accused, challenging the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Hindupur, on various grounds. CONTENTIONSOF THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

10. The appellants contended that the judgment of the learned trial Court is contrary to law and probabilities of the case. The trial Court failed to see that the evidence on record do not prove the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence under charge. The trial Court ailed to see that P.Ws-1 to 5 are the 5 BVLNC, J CRL.A.No.1556 OF 2008 interested witnesses and that their evidence would show that they do not know anything about the alleged harassment. They have no occasion to witness the alleged harassment. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the case of the prosecution. The trial Court erred in drawing presumption U/s.113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, though prosecution failed to establish the alleged harassment, soon before the death of the deceased. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the deceased was subjected to harassment soon before death by the husband or his relatives, but the learned trial Judge erred in applying the presumption. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/STATE:

11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of the parents and brother of the deceased would prove the case of the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to harassment, soon before her death. The deceased died within seven years from the date of marriage. Therefore, the trial Court raised presumption U/s.113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. The accused failed to rebut the said presumption. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Court.

12. In light of the above rival contentions, the point that would arise for consideration in this Criminal Appeal is as under: 6 BVLNC, J CRL.A.No.1556 OF 2008 “Whether there are grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Court?”

13. ANALYSIS:The case of the prosecution is that the deceased committed suicide on 10.03.2008 due to the harassment made by the appellants/A-1 and A-2. The marriage of the deceased and appellants/A-1 was solemnized nine months back to the date of death of the deceased. Therefore, the accused committed offence U/secs.498-A and 306 IPC.

14. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the appellants/A-1 and A-2, examined P.Ws-1 to 11 as mentioned above. P.W-1 is the mother, P.W-2 is the father, P.W-3 is the brother of the deceased.

15. The evidence of P.W-1 would show that the deceased and A-1 fell in love. They married against the will of the parents of the deceased. P.W-1 in the cross- examination admitted that the marriage was solemnized without their consent. In fact, before marriage, parents warned the deceased not to marry the appellant / A-1. Parents also beat the deceased many times, opposing the marriage with A-1. But the deceased did not heed the advice of the parents and married the appellant/A-1. Later, P.Ws-1 and 2 or P.W-3 neverwent to the house of A-1 and the deceased, though their house is nearby. She also deposed that the deceased also did not visit their house after the marriage. She went to an extent of deposing that P.Ws-1 and 2 asked the deceased not to come to their house, since she married the appellant/A-1 without their consent. She does not know 7 BVLNC, J CRL.A.No.1556 OF 2008 whether she stated to the police that A-1 used to beat the deceased, consuming arrack every day, and she did not give report stating that A-1 beating the deceased, consuming arrack. Her statement is against her report under Ex.P-1. Therefore, the evidence of P.W-1 would establish that the marriage of the appellant/A-1 and the deceased was solemnized against the will of P.W-1 and P.W-2. They did not allow the deceased to come to their house. They also did not go to the house of the appellant/A-1. P.W-1 admitted that the deceased was an emotional woman. All these circumstances would show that P.W-1 or P.W-2 or P.W-3 were not in talking terms with the appellant/A-1 or the deceased after marriage. Hence, there is no occasion for them to know what is happening between the appellant/A-1 and the deceased after marriage.

16. P.W-2 is the father of the deceased. He deposed that A-1 shifted residence to Bangalore after marriage. He sold away the jewelry of the deceased. P.W-2 did not disclose as to how, he comes to know about the sale of jewelry by the appellant/A-1. P.W-2 deposed that one month after the marriage, deceased came to him and asked to help for Rs.5,000/-. He refused to help his daughter. On the other hand, he asked his daughter to pledge the jewelry given to her in a bank and to get loan to meet her needs.

17. Here, it is pertinent to note down that admittedly, the marriage of deceased and the appellant/A-1 was solemnized against the will of P.W-1 and P.W-2. They did not attend the marriage. Later also, they did not allow the deceased to visit 8 BVLNC, J CRL.A.No.1556 OF 2008 their home. They also did not go to the house of the appellant/A-1 to see their daughter. Surprisingly, P.W-1 said that in the marriage, she gave Rs.8,000/- and presented one pair of gold ear studs to the daughter and performed the marriage, which is unbelievable in the light of evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2. No tangible evidence is available before the Court to show that the deceased was having gold ornaments in her possession given by her parents to say that the appellant/A-1 sold away those gold ornaments against the will of the deceased to attract harassment or cruelty as defined U/s.498-A IPC.

18. The brother of the deceased was examined as P.W-3. He deposed that the deceased informed him over telephone twice or thrice that the accused pledged the gold ornaments and wasted the money. As mentioned above, there is no evidence before the Court to show that the deceased was having gold ornaments given by her parents or earned by her at any time. P.W-1 or P.W-2 did not state that P.W-3 informed them that the deceased made a phone call stating that the appellant/A-1 sold away her gold ornaments and wasted the money.

19. P.Ws-4 to 7 did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W-5 stated that one day, when he was going to shop, he noticed quarrel between the deceased and accused and that the appellant/A-1 and A-2 beating the deceased suspecting her fidelity. The evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3 is not making out anything that P.W-5 intimated them that he witnessed the appellants/A-1 and A-2 beating the deceased, suspecting her fidelity. P.W-5 did not state as to why he did not 9 BVLNC, J CRL.A.No.1556 OF 2008 inform P.Ws-1 and 2 about the incident, though he is also residing near their house. P.W-1 already stated that the deceased and A-1 are residing very near to their house only in the village. Therefore, P.W-5 is a neighbor to P.Ws-1 and 2 also. If really this incident had occurred, P.W-5 would inform P.Ws-1 and 2 that he witnessed the accused beating the deceased suspecting her fidelity. The evidence on record is not making out case to constitute the offence U/s.498-A IPC against A-1 or A-2.

20. The evidence placed on record by the prosecution is not establishing that the appellant/A-1 or the appellant/A-2 subjected the deceased to cruelty, before her death. The evidence on record also is not establishing that the appellants/A-1 and A-2 willfully subjected the deceased to cruelty of such nature, as is likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide, and as a result, the deceased committed suicide, to constitute an offence either U/s.498-A IPC or U/s.306 IPC.

21. As rightly contended by the appellants, the learned trial Court had drawn certain inferences which are based on assumptions and surmises.The presumption raised by the trial Court U/s.113-A of the Indian Evidence Act is also not in accordance with law. The evidence placed by the prosecution is not establishing that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or she was abetted by the appellants to committed suicide. 10 BVLNC, J CRL.A.No.1556 OF 2008

22. Mere fact that if a married woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, the Court would not automatically apply the presumption U/s.113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband or any relative of the husband. Then only the Court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or relative of the husband.

23. In the absence of such evidence, raising presumption U/s.113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not in accordance with law. Therefore, finding of the trial Court is not based on evidence. It was based on surmises and assumptions, which are not based on evidence. Therefore, the judgment of the learned trial Court is not sustainable either on facts or in law, and the same is liable to be set aside. CONCLUSION:

24. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal be allowed. RESULT:

25. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellants/A-1 and A-2 are acquitted for the offence U/secs.498-A and 306 I.P.C. The fine amount if any paid by them, shall be refunded to them as per law. The bail bonds of the appellants/A-1 and A-2 shall stand cancelled. This judgment be certified to the trial Court, as per section 405 of Cr.P.C. 11 BVLNC, J CRL.A.No.1556 OF 2008 As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

01.04.2026 PSK _____________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 12 BVLNC, J CRL.A.No.1556 OF 2008 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 62 W PSK CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1556 OF 2008

01.04.2026