K. Kantam Kalavathi v. Hyderabad

Judgment

- The appellant/A.1 is mother-in-law of the deceased who committed suicide by hanging on 23.07.2002 at her in- law’s house. A.1 and her husband A.2 were tried by the lower Court for the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. The lower Court acquitted A.2 of all the charges. But the lower Court convicted A.1 of both the charges and sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 306 I.P.C and also to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 498-A I.P.C. Questioning the same, A.1 filed this appeal.

2. Out of the witnesses examined during trial in the lower Court, all the neighbours namely P.Ws.2 to 6 turned hostile to the prosecution in all respects, except speaking to the relationship between the parties and to the factum of suicide committed by the deceased. None of them spoke to the reasons which prompted the deceased to commit suicide. P.W.7 is husband of the deceased. He also turned hostile to the prosecution and did not state the reasons for his wife to commit suicide.

3. P.W.8 and P.W.11 are sisters of the deceased. P.W.9 is father of the deceased. P.W.10 is paternal uncle of the deceased and he arranged marriage between the deceased and P.W.7. Even though the deceased was married to another

individual previously, she became separated from her first husband and thereafter ritual of marriage was performed between the deceased and P.W.7. P.W.7 is a rickshaw puller and evidence on record reveals that he was not fully worldly wise and that A.1 was dominating the house.

4. Since nobody came forward to give report on this incident, on receipt of information, the police went to the scene of offence and observed the scene in the presence of mediators including P.W.1 under the cover of Ex.P.1- opbservation report. The said observation report formed part of Ex.P.12-F.I.R issued by P.W.14 who was the then Sub- Inspector of Police, Musheerabad Police Station. P.W.15 who was the then Inspector of Police, Musheerabad Police Station investigated into the case. P.W.12 is Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad Mandal, who conducted inquest on dead body of the deceased under the cover of Ex.P.10-inquest report. P.W.13 is Doctor/Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine in Gandhi Medical College who conducted post mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.11-P.M certificate. He opined that the deceased died due to hanging. Except pressure abrasion (ligature mark) around neck of the deceased, there were no other injuries on dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.13 is rough sketch prepared by the investigating officer during investigation. Under the cover of Ex.P.1-observation report, P.W.14 seized M.Os.1 to 3 lungie, bus pass and cash of Rs.120/- apart from Exs.P.2 and P.3 letters. M.Os.2 and 3 and Exs.P.2 and P.3 were in the purse said to belong to the deceased.

5. Exs.P.2 and P.3 are stated to be letters written by the deceased prior to her death. P.W.8 who is sister of the deceased identified letters as letters handwriting of the deceased. The lower Court did not place reliance on those letters on the ground that the prosecution did not take steps to get the said letters examined by handwriting expert and on further ground that the investigating officer did not show those letters to P.W.8 for identification of handwritings therein. No-doubt, Exs.P.2 and P.3 letters do not contain any date and also do not contain signature of the deceased. The said absence of dates and signatures cannot invalidate Exs.P.2 and P.3 in case they are found to be written by the deceased only. The question of examining those letters by handwriting expert arises only when there are any standard and controlled handwritings of the deceased, in which event Exs.P.2 and P.3 can be compared with those standard writings and the expert can given an opinion after comparison. P.W.8 being sister of the deceased is most competent witness identify handwritings of the deceased in Exs.P.2 and P.3. Except pointing out that during investigation P.W.8’s opinion on those letters was not taken, there is absolutely no cross-examination of P.W.8 on identification of Exs.P.2 and P.3 letters being in the handwriting of the deceased. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in discarding Exs.P.2 and P.3 letters. Simply because the lower Court did not place reliance on Exs.P.2 and P.3, in the absence of any counter appeal by the prosecution, this Court is not precluded from taking into consideration Exs.P.2 and P.3 letters in order to sustain the conviction of the appellant by the lower Court in this appeal.

7. Evidence on record reveals that original name of the deceased was Yadamma. But in education records, name of the deceased is noted as Swathi. After marriage with P.W.7, his family members used to call the deceased as Lakshmi. P.W.7 is step-son of A.1. It is evidence of P.W.8 that after marriage of the deceased with P.W.7, house of the accused was demolished by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. P.W.8 says that therefore A.1 used to abuse the deceased as if the deceased was ill-fated woman and her arrival in the house resulted in demolition of their house. According to P.W.8, she used to go to her deceased sister’s house and used to console her sister to bear with her in-laws and she also requested A.1 not to harass her sister. She further says that on 09.07.2002 her deceased sister came to her house and informed her about continuous harassment caused to her by her mother-in-law and that the deceased requested her to procure a job for her as she was scared of her mother-in-law. It is pointed out by the appellant’s counsel that the entire above evidence of P.W.8 is a development during trial and does not find place in her previous statement recorded by P.W.15 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Similar incriminating evidence of P.Ws.9 to 11 also development during trial from what they have stated during investigation to P.W.15 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is therefore contended that no reliance can be placed on evidence on those portions of incriminating material spoken by P.Ws.8 to 11 during trial in the lower Court. P.W.15 in his cross- examination admitted that the portions of incriminating evidence of P.Ws.8 to 11 does not find place in their respective statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Therefore, oral evidence of P.Ws.8 to 11 may not be of any help or assistance for the prosecution to come to any conclusion in favour of the prosecution.

7. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that since there is no allegation much less evidence of the prosecution that A.1 either instigated or intentionally aided or conspired for the suicide committed by the deceased, the lower Court should not have found A.1 guilty under Section 306 I.P.C. As per the prosecution allegations, A.1 was harassing the deceased and beating her and it led the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, even if the prosecution allegations are accepted for the sake of argument, those allegations are not sufficient to find A.1 guilty under Section 306 I.P.C.

8. The only material left out for consideration is Exs.P.2 and P.3 letters. Ex.P.2 letter is addressed by the deceased to her mother and father, whereas Ex.P.3 letter was addressed by the deceased to one Lakshmi. In Ex.P.3 letter, there are no allegations made by the deceased against A.1. It was stated therein that her husband (P.W.7) was taking drinks heavily and was not returning to the house and became almost a mad man therefore she required Lakshmi to pray enlightenment and good behaviour and change of mind of her husband. Thus, Exs.P.3 is only a request for prayer for betterment of P.W.7’s condition and nothing more.

9. Whereas in Ex.P.2 the deceased stated that her mother-in-law/A.1 and father-in-law/A.2 were harassing her a lot and also beating her. She requested her father and sisters to come to her without fail and without delay. She finally says that she was facing many difficulties in her life and she was very much frustrated with her life. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that it is not known whether the deceased became frustrated because of the activity of her in-laws or because of the condition of her husband. In Ex.P.3 letter, the deceased did not express her frustration because of the condition of P.W.7. She only asked her friend Lakshmi to pray for P.W.7’s betterment in life. Whereas in Ex.P.2 letter the deceased expressed her frustration towards life because of harassment by her both in-laws. It is contended that since A.2 was acquitted in this case, A.1 is also entitled for the same relief because both of them stand on the same footing as per Ex.P.2 letter. I refrain from expressing any opinion on A.2 who was acquitted by the lower Court and which acquittal became final, as the prosecution did not file any appeal against the said acquittal. Insofar as A.1 is concerned, in Ex.P.2 there is definite material to show that the deceased was being harassed and beaten by A.1. The said activity of A.1 led to frustration for the deceased towards her life and led the deceased to commit suicide by hanging.

10. The appellant’s counsel tried to base her arguments on Rajbabu Vs. State of M.P [1] of the Supreme Court. In my opinion, the said pronouncement of the Supreme Court is inapplicable herein since this is not a case in which A.1 was charged under Section 304-B I.P.C and this Court is not taking aid of the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act in order to find A.1 guilty under Section 304-B I.P.C.

11. Therefore, for all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the lower Court was not justified in finding A.1 guilty under Section 306 I.P.C. At the same time, the lower Court is justified both legally and factually in finding A.1 guilty under Section 498-A I.P.C since the harassment and beating of the deceased by A.1 drove the deceased to commit suicide and end her life.

12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court against the appellant/A.1 under Section 306 I.P.C; and the Criminal Appeal is partly dismissed confirming conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court under Section 498-A I.P.C. _____________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

29.08.2011 VJL [1] 2009(1) ALD (Crl) 122 (SC)