The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUG !,PAL CRIMII{AL REVISIO II CASE f,o.2443 OF I ro13 ORDER This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking o set aside the 1 judgment dated 08.11.2013 passed in Criminal App': l No'17 of 2011 on the hle of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, R.R. District (for short, "the appellate Cor rl") wherein and and whereby the judgment dated 11.05.2011 in S'C I o'54 of 2OO9 on the iile of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikaraba I (for short, "the trial Court") against the petitioner/accused for the offt r ce under section 306 of IPC was hereby conhrmed. Heard Sri M. Amarnattr, leamed counsel for I t petitioner and - appearing for 2 Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecul ' respondcnt. 3 Petitioner herein was tried as accused, by t I' trial Court, in S.C.Ncr.54 ctf 2CO9 for the offence punishable under S t ction 306 oi IPC During the course of trial, the prosecution had exatn necl P.Ws 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P. I to P.6 and M.Os.1 to 4. Tht eartred Assistant Srssrons Judge, having assessed the entire eviti''r t:e available on rccorcl, lound the petitioner guilty of tlae offence p rnishablc under section 3O6 of IPC and accordingly convicted and : lnt€rnced him to suffer imprisonment for a period of seven years and al () to pay a fine of Rs.SO/ in clefault of payment hne to undergo Simplt rnprtsonment for a pcriod of seven (07) days. Aggrieved by the sa r e, the petitioner \= \r j. i i l, I I 2 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2Oll on the hle of the appellate Court and the learned Judge, while concurring with the findings given by the trial Court, dismissed the said Appeal vide impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.O8.2OO7 at 08.OO A'M, the complainant-L.W.1 Smt.S.Ratnamma lodged a complaint stating that her daughter Smt.Maheswari was married to the son of her younger brother by name Balaian about fifteen years back and they blessed with a son namely Anil Kumar; that after giving birth to a male child her daughter Maheshwari and son-in-law Anil Kumar were residing together; that her daughter developed illegal intimacy with accused and she was living by erecting a room in front o[ her house by running a kirana shop. The accused used to come to thcir house and he used to get her daughter. On 3O.O8.2O07 at about Og O0 P.M herself, her grandson Anil Kumar and her daughter Maheshwari had their dinner all together, and thereafter she slept along u'ith hcr grand son in the side by house at his brother Bataiah, whereas her daughter slept in Kirana shop and at about 10.30 P.M when she came out for attending nature call, meanwhile the accused entered into the room of her daughter. On 14.08.2OO7 at about OT OO A.M her grand son informed that when he opened the door of shop, her daughter Mahcshwari found hanging herself and her nephew Anjilaiah, sister-in-law Anthamma went and found her daughter Maheshwari hanged with a plastic rope to a pipe of cement sheets roof. On observation the chappal and one shirL ---7, 3 /i of accused were pres€nt in the room and she suspect( ( on the accused in the death of her daughter. Hence, requested for nect ssary action'

5. Basing on the above complaint P.W'8/S'I of Fc ice Kulakcherla P.S., registered a case in Crime No.95 of 2O07 und': Section 174 of Cr.P.C and took up the investigation. Durin6 the course of investigation, ht: examined and recorded tJre stateme-r . of complainant LW 1 and LW I O proceeded to Mujahidpur, there I rr examined and recorded statement of L.Ws.2 to 6 i12., S.Anil Kuma -, P'Anjaneyulu' C.Maibamma, S,Balaiah and B'Krishnaiah, thereafte r l'eld inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of L'rr s'7 and 8 viz'' P.AnanLhaiah and B.Padmamma, seized clothes of c t ceased and also got photogr:rphod the scene and subjected t.I1e dead I ody for autopsy' L.W.9 / Dr- Dashirrath held autopsy over the dead body of deceased and opinecl that the c:ause of death as due to "haflging" iL trl issued report. Basing on thc statement of L.W.6 and evidence co I rted during the course of investigation, the investigating offrcer alte -' d the section of lan' [r<rm I7'] Cr.P.C to Section 306 of IPC. On 12.1 I' OO7, he arrested thc accusecl and produced before the trial court fo- ordering judiciat custod,\.. A[ter t:ompletion of investigation, the investi 3 rting officer hled a charge sheet zrgainst the accused under Section lO6 of IPC The learnecl Juclicial Magistrate of First Class, Parigi took t Ie case on ltle for the offence untler Section 306 of IPC, complied witt the provisions of Scction 2O7 ol Cr.P.C and committed the case to the )ourt of Sessions 4 and the learned Court of Sessions took the case on file under Section 3O6 of IPC and made over to his Court for disposal according to law. After appearance of the accused and on hearing both sides, charge under Section 3O6 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution altogether examined P.Ws. I to 8 and got marked Exs.P.l to P.6 and M.Os. 1 to 4 on its behalf.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appeared against him for which he denied the same and stated no defence. So defence evidence was closed.

8. The trial Court vide judgment dated 11.O5.2O i I in S.C No.54 of 2OO9 held as follows: - "tn the result, the accused is found guiltr- of the charge punishable U/s.306 I.P.C. ard accordingly, he is convicted U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous lmprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years and also sentenced to pa\' fine of Rs.50/ (Rupees hfty only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one week. The remand period already undergone bv the accused from 12.11.2007 to 2l.lL.2OO7 shall be given set off U/s.428 of Cr.P.C. MOs.l to 4 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time- Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal The appetlate Court, vide impugned judgment dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, thc petitioner preferred the present Revision. -,-' I i I t I 5 / g. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts failed to appreciate the evidence available on : < cord in proper perspective and erroneously passed their respective juc gments. In order to substantiate his contention, he relies on the decisi I rs passed by the Hon'trle Apex Court in Parvat Stngh & Ors. Vs. ll ate of Madhya Pradeshr, Rohiui Sudarshan Gangurde Ve. The Stat e of Maharashtra & Another2, Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & tJ rs. Vs. State of Gujarat3 and Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi Vs. St;r e of Karnataka through SHO Kakati Policea and seeks to allow the ll :vision. lO. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor conten(t: that bot] the Courts, upon careful scrutiny of the material avtj able on record, passed their respectivc judgments and interference of t ris Court, at this stage is not warr.rnted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss t re Revision. 1 1. Upon careful consideration of the material ava .lable on record, the trial Court, in its judgment, held as follows:- '33. Frorn thc above evidences, rt is clearly reveals the i reall] lhe accused drd not commit the offence as alleged then there is no necessit) for accused to escap€ fro[ deceased Mahesh$ari. rr:hen the accused and deceased wife and husband :ifter drvorce of deceased Maheshwari 'c Balaiah anrl there rs no necessity to PWI complainant art( minor u'itness to speak against accused unless the aU committed br accused. Further, PW.2 cateBorically stat€ c that ttre accused used to vtsit their house for his mother 1 chappal an<l shirt of accused in their house, As per d,rt complaint she sarv the entering of accused into the daughter Maheshwari one day prior to incident. So, the ;1 rctum that if in this case, L}re house of re living like her husband PW2, who is :ged act was before police rd he saw the ument Ex.P1 rouse of her ry of accused ' ' (2020) 2 S.( .li ,(;l ' (202 l) 7 \.(.lt l0.ll '(202 r) r 2 li.L.R l.J,r 'Cnrrrrrral .\14x;rl \{, . ., | ,,1 :lol! ( 6 with deceased Maheshwari on the night of [3A.2OO7 and the entering of accused in to the room of deceased Maheshwari was stated by PW.l in her complaint, which entering of accused fo:to the house of Maheshwari was witnessed by PW.l at 10.30 P.M. while she was returning after attending nature call. So, the stay of accused with Maheshwari on I3.A.2OO7 is absolutely proved and by the next day morning i.e., on 14.8.2OO7 at about 7.OO A.M. P\I/.2 saw the dead body of his mottter in hanging position. Therefore there is much force in the evidences of PWs.l and 2 and in the statement of LW.6 B.Krishnaiah recorded by PW.8 and in the contention of prosecution that since accused stayed with deceased Maheshwari on 13.3.2007 and on next day she died by hanging, means the accused is responsible and his chappal and shirt were found by PWs.l and 2 in the room of deceased. As per the statement of LW6 Boini Krishnaiah he stated that while the accused quarreling with deceased Maheshwari, he uttered that "nee!'u naventa enduku" and this conversation was taken place between the accused and deceased on 13.8.20O7 i.e., one day prior to alleged incident and thereby it very clearly appears that the very intention of accused was to get rid of the company of deceased in his life time and that's why h€ uttered "Neevu natho enduku", because it may be reason for accused to get rid of deceased Maheshwari as he already married another woman. Therefore, undoubtedly the court came to the conclusion that the accused only is root cause for committing suicide by deceased Maheshwari".

12. [n the appeal, the appellate Court, opined as follows:- "9.1n the light of the fact that there were no cordial relations between the accused and the deceased let us consider the available evidence on record. The statements of PWs.I, 2 and 5 clearly shows that the accused visited the deceased on t}te previous night of the offence and the same is neither countered nor rebutted by the accused in the cross examination of the said witnesses. Thus, the said statements \r'ould sholr that it was the accused who was in the company of the deceased for the last time i-e-, it was the accusd who was present 'r'ith the deceased before her death. Hence, in the said circumstances, it is for ttrc accused to throw light on the fact as to what happened either during hrs stav in the night \vith me deceased or after he left- Neither the accused nor the prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused and the deceased have quarreled on the evening of the oflence to their knonledge. Then the question arises is why did Maheshwari commrtted surcide in spite of spending night with the accused- The statements of PWs l, 3 and 5 answers the said question. Obviousty, the acts of the accused not returning the ornaments of the deceased in spite of marrying another lady, the deceased could have demanded for return oI her.;ewellery mortgaged by the accused and since the accused did not return the same, it can be presumed that there was a quarrel betu'een them and the same resulted in Maheshwari hanging hersetf to dcath. Both PWs.l and 2 have stated that they have seen t-l.e chappal and shirt o[ thc accused at the place of the offefrce, thus justifying the prescnce of the accused at the place of offence at the time of the offence. Hcnce, the presence of the accused is also established by both PWs- I and 2 and the S!4]!sments of PWs-4 and 5 is further supported by the Medical Officer \r,ith regarding to the cause of death ofthe deceased i.e., hanging $.ith regarding to the place of ofTence i.e., the house of the deceascd and I r 7 with regarding to the illegal intimacy b€tween the ac: tsed and the deceased apart from hard feeling existiflg between them rith.regard to the jewellery of the deceased.

10. Thus, the above mentioned statements of the discussed above, clearly establishes the presence of the € place of offence, at the time of offence, the cause of the ) cause of the death of the deceased Maheshwari apart fror that it is the accused who is responsible for Maheshna suicide on the date of thc offence and the said evidence r' prosecution before the trial court is neither countered r.( the accused i.e., the appetlant herein. The learned Trial .h his reasoning for finding the appellant guilty for the tf against him apart from supporting the same with the app€llate courts, hence this court is of the view t discussions of the trial Court need not be reiterated nor t be discussed, as it only amounts to repetition of tbe fin decides the point against the app€llant". vitnesses, as rcused at the bnce and the r establishing i committing .duced by the r rebutted by dge also gave ence charged ulings of the rat the said Le Judgrnents lings. Hence,

13. Though, PWI in her evidence stated that upor )btaining divorce from her legally weddcd husband namely Balaiah, tht rictim settled her life with the accused; that the accused used to li\ ( with the victim during night hours and that a day night before thr: alleged incident, both the accused and thc dcceascd Maheswari stayed ike husband and wife and that disputes arose belu,een them; that P\\. also stated that prior to the alleged incident, the accused took f,r rr tulas of gold orn€unents from her daughter, pledgcd it and beat her daughter, due to which a quarrel arose betn,een them, which lead her :r commit suicide. Even in cases where vrctim commits suicide, which ro ry be as a result of cruelty meted out to her, thc Courts have always hr I I that differences in domestic life are quite common in society and that t re commission of such an offence largely depends upon the mental s I te of the victim. Surely, unless and until some guilty rntention or accTsEd is established, it is ordinarily not possible the part of the r convict him for the offence under Section 3O6 of I.P,C i i I 8 The Salient features IPC were elucidated by represented by the Deputy observed as under: consfifuting an offence under Section 3O6 the Apex Court in M.Mohan Vs. State Superiateudent of Potces and it is ( i. : : I I p$ ff'r*ruffi[aqffi *:H*l.j;::.ii#,#}"{g"nx.,HfJi"+lfdri*:i $#$*ultr*,g;t,ruir*ffi In Prabhu Vs. State represented by Inspector of police & Anr6, the Apex court further observed that broken rerationships and heart breaks are part of everyday life and that breaking_up of the relationship would not constitute any instigation or abetment of suicide inasmuch as in must be shown that the accused had by his acts and omissions or by continued course of conduct created order to constitute .lnstigation,it ' (2(,t l) :i .\(t r,!tl " Z0ZA St'C r +:-,i,r,.1 t t: 9 such circumstances that the deceased was left witL no other option !,---n;!.b'--j(:'r:t.1isr'r)jrj 4r; except to commit suicide. a+. In the case on hand, though all the witnesses l ad stated about the incident, there is no direct evidence adduced by tt e prosecution to prove that the accused has in any way instigated >r provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Merely, the petitioner ut " Neerru Natho Endulot" and even assuming that I ering the words .ere were living together, it is only a broken relationship which by itself would not amount to abetment of suicide. The petitioner had r ot provoked the deceased in any manner to kill herself; rather, the leceased herself committed suicide by hanging herself with a pre-dete :mined mind. In such a situation, simply because the petitioner utter'r' I the above cited words, will not amount to a case of instigation, incitement and provocation of the deceased to commit suicide. \ 15 As the victim girl had not re married the petitio I :r after obtaining divorce from her husband, this is a case of broker relationship for which there is a difference cause of action, but nc : prosecution or conviction for an offence under Section 3O6 of I.P-C and it is a case where no guilty intention or mens reo ofl the part of the accused- petitioner has been established.

16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the ase, I am of the considered view that the impugncd judgment cannot >e sustained and hereby set aside. t0 r- 11 lt. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2O11 dated

08.11.2013 on the hle of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, R.R. District. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused is hereby set aside and he is found not guilty of the said offence and therefore, acquitted of the charges. The frne amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be returned to them. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand cancelled. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall also stand dismissed. SD/-K. SREERAMAMURTHY D PUTY REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional District and sessions Judge, vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. (with records, if anY)

2. The Assistant Sessions Judge at Vikarabad. 3. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District. 4. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Chedapally, Ranga Reddy District. - 5. The Station House Officer, Kulkacherla Police station, Ranga Reddy District. 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. One CC to Sri M. Amarnath, Advocate TOPUCI 8. Two CD CoPies kam/PSL A*)- HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 ORDER CRLRC.No.2443 of 2013 .i J}: -\- t; 1:', l" 06 r t. mt .:: l. Cti .\ x.4 1Z t ! z : ! I I I I t E II I I I DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE 0'n 1 t0 irt