The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdishraj Khatta v. The State o.f Himachal Prad.esht held tha.t abe l.ment of suicide and crr

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. T. Sujan Kumar Counsel for the Respondent: Assistant Public Prosecutor The Gourt delivered the following: JUDGMENT t.t'i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.14 OF 2O11 JUDGMENT:

1. The appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 5 are conr,.icted for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Pernai Ctode and sentenced to undergo ten (10) years of Rigorous Imprisonment and a-lso under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Ctode and sentenced to undergo three (3) years of Rigorous Imprisonment. Questioning the same, the present criminal appeal is filed.

2. During pendency of the appeal, accused Nos.l and 2 died. The said fact is not disputed by the learned ,\ssistant Public Proset:utor. Accordingly, the case agairrst the appellants /acc used Nos.1 and 2 stands abated

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and. learned Assistant Fubljc Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

4. The case against the accused is that the decea.sed was married to Srinivas, who is the son of accused Nos. L ald 2. 2 The marriage happened 14 years a,rior to the incident of death. They lived happily for a period of three years. Acsused Nos.1 and 2 are the in-laws, accused No.3 is the brother-in-law, accused No.4 is the sister-in-law and accused No.5 is wife of accused No.3. After marriage, the husband/ Srinivas and the deceased lived separately. The husband/ Srinivas went to Dubai. The deceased was staying in the very same house complex. Disputes arose regarding amounts which were being sent by husband of deceased from abroad. Accused Nos.3 to 5 were insisting the deceased to give part of the amount which was sent by her husband. For the said reason, they were harassing the deceased. 5 PW. 1 is the brother of the deceased, PW.2 is the father of the deceased, PW.3 is the mother of the deceased, PW.4 is the wife of PW. 1, PW.s is the secondwife of PW.2, FW.6 is the neighbor in the village, where the deceased ald the appellants were staying.

6. PW. 1 lodged complaint alleging that the marriage of the deceased with Srinivas happened 14 years ago and they were .-j'a}!:* .B ) having a five .year o1d son. SriniVf,s left for Drrbai, ',vhile the deceased alo ng with her son remained in the village where accused Nos.l to 5 were staying.

7. According to the evidence and complainl- of P'rIi.1, there were dispute s regarding amounts being sent by Sr:Lnivas to accused Nos. I and 2. All the witnesses PWs.1 to 5 stated that in the absence of Srinivas, all the accused were haras;sing and ill-treating tlrt: deceased. PW. 1 stated that he re,oeived a telephone call lrom the village elders about the deal.h of the deceased rand .her son. A11 the witnesses expressed d<;,ubt that accused Nos. I to 5 throttled the deceased, poured ker,156ns en her and lit her on fire.

8. Admittr:dly, the deceased along with the :ion was staying separalely in the same house complex. It is ttorne by record that ttre door in which the deceased Nos.1 and 2 were burnt was broke open. Accordingly, the police had file,C..charge sheet on the alegation of abetting suicide. To attract an offence under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution has br.Lrden to establish that rhe conduct of the accused was deliberate and 4 such conduct drove the decease&to cornmit suicide. Unless such conduct is established, the question of satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 ofIPC does not arise. 9 In the evidence before the Court, all the witnesses have made a bald statement that all the accused were ill-treating and harassing the deceased. The reason for the harassment, what was the mode of harassment or when the harassment had taken place and who informed about the alleged harassment was not at all stated by any of the witnesses.

10. As already discussed, the version given in the complaint is that the accused fought with the deceased for the amount sent by Srinivas- However, the witnesses stated during trial that accused Nos. 1 to 5 were ill treating and harassing her, without giving any specific details. 1 1. To attract an offence under Section 498-A of IPC, it has to be proved that there should be such willful conduet on part of the husband or the relatives of the husbald which is likely to drive the womal to commit suicide or to cause aly danger to life, limb or health. Further, any such harassment with a =7-7 5 view to coerc;eve any person ff her behalf to nreet any I unlawful demand amounts to cruelty. Both the ingredients are missing in thr: case. Merely, stating that there was har-assment will not suffice, when the said allegation of harassmr:nt is an improvement during trial. Further nothing specillc is rltated by any of the witnesses.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdishraj Khatta Vs. The State o.f Himachal Prad.esht held tha.t abe l.ment of suicide and crr:elty has to be established on the basis of the conduct of th,: accused ald such conduct has dr iven the deceased to cornmit suicide.

13. Both 1he mother and son died on the said dav. It is the case of the accused that there was no electricity power and lamps were 1i1.. There is no reason why the mother wo Lrld burn her own son. 'lhere arises anv amount of doubt whe:ther the death was accrirlental or suicidal. Since there are no al.legations of harassment or any conduct proved for abetting suicide, the appeal deserves to be a-llowed. ' ArR 2019 scc 2 872 6

14. Accordingly, the Criminal=Appeal 1S allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. The fine amount paid by the accused, if any, sha-ll be refunded. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. //TRUE COPYII Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER \To,

1. The Assistant Sessions Judge at Bodhan- (with records, if any) 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bodhan. 3. The Superintendent, Cherlapalli Jail, Ranga Reddy District. 4. The Superintendent, Chenchalguda Jail, Hyderabad. 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderqbad. IOUTI

6. One CC to Mr. T Sujan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 7 . Two CD Copies a kam/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0810112025 I I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.14 of 2011 t. {HE s rAi J J 2 4 14A,1 2U5 1$? t oC Sr,^f. ,';(' 12,' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL €