The High Court · 2025

Judgment

THE ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER "*l*r*o, APPEAL No. 1ro2 aF 2ot2 JUDGMENT: This appe is filed by the appellant/A1 aggrievecl by the .aaoal ed by the IX Additional District and Sessions "oarrri"tioar Judge (FTC) SC.No.497 c Sections Orr-O I ,i: Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, in dated 15.05.2012 for the offence under d 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo J, gorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay Rs.1, OO l- for the offence under Section ilo6 of Indian I Penal Code; and undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years ernd to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 498-A of he Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard Ie d counsel for the appellant and learned Asst.Public P:'os utor for the respondent-State I

3. Briefly, the ACts of the case are that on 05.06.2010, at l1:2O P.M, a telephon c message was received by PS, I\4edchal from

Gandhi Hospital, stating that Smt. Alyanagari (hereinafter, I referred to ." 'al".."edJ had been admitted to the Burns Ward with 5O% bu rt-I I 'Inr Medchal procee | Sri P. Venkat Rao, HC-I67O of p.S to Gandhi Hospital and recorded her 2 statement. The deceased stated that she was married to Ramesh I (A1) 14 years agb and that they had a 12_year_old son and a 9_ I I I year-old daughtelr. she further stated that their matrimonial life was peaceful forl the Iirst year, but thereafter, A1, influenced by his mother (A2)l brother (A3), and sister-in Iaw (A4), started harassing her fot additional dowry, repeatedly demanding money and household larticles from her parental home, which she provided on sevelal occasions. On 05.06.2010, at night, A1, in an I i l I inebriated state, lattempted to assault her with an axe stick while I demanding additional dowry. Thereafter, the deceased poured I kerosene on herJelf and set herself ablaze. She was immediately I shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatmenl. I I I I

4. Based on the deceased's statement, LW.72 - Inspector of Police registered h case in Cr. No. l4B/2OlO under Sections 49g_A I and 506 of IPC, Categorized as Woman-BURNS, and entrusted the I investigation to PlV. I 1, Sub-Inspector of police. During the course I of the investigati6n, PW. 11 examined and recorded the statements I of PWs. 1 to 4 and LW.3, visited the scene of offence, and prepared the scene of offence panchanama and a rough sketch in the presence of mediators, PWs. 5 and 6. pW.B, Magistrate, recorded the deceased's dying declaration based on a requisition filed by PW.1 1 on 06.06.201O. On 1 1.06.2O i0, a telephonic message from 3 Gandhi Hospital informed that the deceased succumbed to her injuries at 3 :50 P. M while undergoing treatment. Consequently, the sections of law were altered from Sections 498-4 and 506 of IPC & Woman Burns to Sections 498-,4 and 3O6 of IpC. Thereafter, ) an inquest ov er: the deceased's dead body was conducted by PW. 11 in the Ipre corpse was sence of mediators, PW.7 and LW.g, and the for post-mortem examination (PME). pW. l1 conducted the a due to burns. topsy and concluded that the cause of death was On 15.06.20iO, A1 to A4 were arrested. Subsequentl5., Ai to A4 were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 498-4 and 3O6 of IpC_ 5 The learned Additional Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses PWs. I to 1 1 and also relying on the documents trxs.pl to P8, convicted the appellant/Al, while acquitting A2 to A4.

6. PWs.1 to 4,lwho are the father, mother, sister, and brother of the deceased, deposed regarding Al,s harassment against the deceased. According to their evidence, the marriage between the deceased ancl Al took place 15 years ago. After one year of marriage, A1 began harassing the deceased for additional dowry, and she informed them about his demands for mone-y. Thereafter, 4 the cleceased r.rd at started residing separately from A1,s family. Since A1 was unable to afford the rent for a rented house, pW. 1 purchased a smd,ll site and constructed two rooms for their stay. On the day of the housewarming ceremony, .A1 physically assaulted the debeased without any reason. They further de posed that previously, due to A1's frequent quarrels with the deceased, a report was lodged with the police, and a case was filed before the Mahila Court. l However, since the deceased wished to reconcile with A1, the ca3e ended in a compromise. Later, the deceased once again apprbached them for financial assistance, and pW.1 I arranged Rs. 4OjOOO. The deceased later informed them that all accused were abusing her. Five to six days later, A,3 informed PWs. 1 to 4 that the deceased had attempted suicide and was admitted to G hi Hospital. Upon visiting her, they inquired about the incident, and the deceased disclosed that A1's I harassment physical assault had driven her to commit suicide. PWs. l lto 4, in unison, deposed about A1,s persistent l I harassment of the deceased for additional dowry. However, while they mentioned that a police report was filed and a case was initiated before the Mahila Court, no documentary evidence was presented on record to substantiate this claim. 5

7. Additionally, PW1's statement regarding the purchase of A1's father's land and the construction of two rooms does not establish that it was in furtherance of a demand for additional dowry, as PW.1 himself deposed that the construction was done because A1 lacked money to pay rent. Furthermore, PWs. 1 to 4 are interested witnesses, and while the testimony of interested witnesses can be suf{icient for conviction, discrepancies exist in their statements regarding how the deceased sustained burn injuries. According to PWs. I and 2, A1's harassment and physical assault led the deceased to set lherself on Iire. However, PWs.3 and 4 did not clearly state that the deceased set herself on fire. Instead, they deposed that A1 threw her against a wall, causing her to fall and lose consciot-tsneis, and upon regaining consciousness, she found herself with burn injuries. No expianation has been provided for the non-examination of the deceased and A1's children, a |2'year- old son and a 9-year-old daughter, despite their presence being specihcally nrentioned in the deceased's dying deciaration. In her dying declaration, the deceased stated that when A1 was beating her, the chilciren tried to intervene, but Al assaulted them as well. Moreover, lr,hile PWs .1 to 4 deposed about A1's harassment of the deceased for aclditional dowry prior to the incident, none of them lodged a complaint, even after inquiring with the deceased 6 regarding how she sustained burn injuries. Hence, it is apparent that PWs.1 to 4 have improvised their version before court.

8. The prosecution's case states that Medchal p.S received a telephonic message from Gandhi Hospital at ll:2O p.M on

5.6.2010, while FIR/ExPB was lodged at 6:20 PM on 6.6.2010, indicating a delay in the lodging of the FIR. As per pW.1O, head constable, on 6.6.2010, he was instructed by the inspector of police to proceed to Gandhi Hospital to examine the deceased and record her 5.161 statement, which is Ex.P7. He further deposed that the inspector of police directed him to record the deceased,s statement at 7:OO AM on 6.6.2010, and that he delivered Ex.P7 to the inspector at 2:OO PM. However, no reason is provided for the nearly 4-hour delay in registering the FIR, despite PW. 10's deposition stating that Ex.P7 was handed over to the inspector at 2:O0 P.M. Conveisely, PW.-11, sub-inspector of police, deposed that on 6.6.2010, they received information from Gandhi Hospital regarding the admission of the deceased with burn injuries. He further stated that PW. 1O was deputed to record the deceased's statement at 5:30 P.M. PW. 1 1's testimony contradicts Ex.P4, which is the requisition requesting the recording of the deceased's dying declaration. Ex.P4 explicitly states that Medchal P.S received a telephonic message on 5.6.2010 at 11:2O P.M. 7 Furthermore, PW. 1 1 's deposition not only contradicts ,h: prosecution's case regarding the receipt of telephonic information on 5.6.2010 at \7:2O P.M but also conflicts with PW.10's statement that Ex.P7 was handed over at 2:00 P.M, which is well before 5:30 P.M-the time PW. 11 claimed PW. 1O was deputed to record the deceased's statement. Additionally, PW. 10 admitted that he did not record the time on Ex.P7 when the deceased's statement was taken, making it impossible to corroborate either PW.1O or PW.11's testimonies regarding when PW. 10 was deputed to record the deceased's statement. Instead, Ex.P7 states that it was received on 6.6.2010 at 6:20 P.M. If PW. 11's testimony is to be believed-that they received telephonic information on 6.6.201O and that PW10 was deputed at 5:30 P.M to record the deceased's statement-then it remains questionable how Ex.P7 was received by the police at 6:20 P.M, particulariy since, according to PW. 11, the hospital is approximately 15 k.m from the police station. Moreover, the scribe on trx.P7, indicating its receipt at 6:20 P.M, again contradicts PW. 1O's testimony that he handed over Ex.P7 to the inspector at 2:0O P.M.

9. Furthermore, PW.2 deposed that the police visited the hospital belbre their arrivai. However, PW. I testified that he and PW.2 reachetl the hospital around 12:OO /1:00 A.M on the night of B the incident and that the police arrived after them. This discrepancy between the testimonies of PWs. I and 2 regarding whether the police arrived before or after them is significant. However, both confirmed that the police did arrive at the hospital on the night of the incident, which raises a critical question as to why no initial statement of the deceased was recorded if the police were indeed present at the hospital that night. Such inconsistencies strike at the core of the prosecution's case. Not only is there uncertainty regarding when the police received the telephonic message, but there is also ambiguity regarding when the deceased's statement was recorded. These discrepancies further cast doubt on the deiay in the lodging of the FIR. With regard to Ex.P7, the deceased's statement does not mention A.1 pushing het against a wall, causing her to become unconscious. Instead, Ex.P7 states that on 5.6.2010, A1, in a heavily drunken state, assaulted her with the handle of an axe, again demanded additional dowry from her parents, and, when she refused, Al threatened her to either leave the house or die, which led her to committing suicide. There are contradictions and embellishments in the testimonies of PWs.1 to 4 regarding how the deceased sustained her injuries compared to Ex.P7. According to PW. 1, when he and PW.2 arrived at the hospital, the deceased stated that A1 had beaten her and attempted to kill her with an axe. stick, and due to this harassment, she committed suicide by setting herseif on fire. PW.2, on the other hand, deposed that when she and PW. 1 arrived at the hospital, the deceased stated that A1 had harassed her for money, pushed her against a wall by holding her head, and assaulted her. She further stated that the other accused had instigated ,\1 to harass her, ultimately leading her to commit suicide. PW.3 deposed that when she met the deceased at the hospital, the deceased told her that the accused had threatened her and that A1 had attempted to strike her with an axe stick. She also stated that A1 threw her against a wall, causing her to fall unconscious, and upon regaining consciousness, she found herself with burn injuries. PW.4 deposed that when he met the deceased at the hospital, she told him that an argument had taken place over payment of electricity charges, during which A1 struck her on the head, threw her against a ',r,'a11, causing her to fall unconscious, and upon regaining consciousness, she found herself with burn injuries. While E.xP7 and the testimonies of PWs. I and 2 consistently state that due to A I 's harassment and assault, the deceased poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze, PWs.3 and 4 did not testily that the deceased set herself on fire. According to 10 them, she lost consciousness after being thrown against a wal1, and upon regaining consciousness, she noticed the burn injuries on her bod.y.

10. In light of. the contradictions between the testimonies of PWs.l and 2, on one hand, and PWs.3 and 4, on the other, regarding how the deceased sustained burn injuries-along with the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimonies of pWs. 10 and 11 concerning Ex.P7-the possibility of the deceased being tutored cannot be ruled out. This is particularly concerning, given that no complaint was lodged by PWs.l to , 4 prior to the registration of FIR/Ex.P8 at 6:2O P.M. 1 1. In Ex.PS, the dying declaration, recorded by pW.8- Magistrate, the deceased stated that she poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze due to the accused's beating and harassment for additional dowry. However, Ex.PS was recorded at 12:30 pm on 6.6.2010. Ex.P4 is the requisition sent requesting the recording of the dying declaration, and it is scribed on Ex.P4 that it was received at l2:OO pm on 6.6.2010. However, it is not mentioned when Ex.P4 was sent.

72. PW.S, the Magistrate, deposed that he did not inquire whether the deceased had met her parents before he arrived at the 11 hospital. Horvever, the testimonies of PWs.1 to 4 clearly establish that they reached the hospital on the night of 5.6.2010. PW. 1 speciflcallv deposed that they arrived at the hospital at approximately l2:3O am-l:00 a.m on the night of the incident.

13. Thus, the presence of PWs.1 to 4 with the deceased before the recording ol her dying declaration is evident. Given that Ex.PS was recorded the next day, i.e., at 12:30 pm on 6.6.2O1O, the possibility of the deceased being tutored cannot be mled out, especially considering that Ex.P7, the deceased's statement, was also not recorded before the dying declaration. This concern is further compounded by the delay in iodging the FIR, which was registered at 6:20 pm on 6.6.2010, despite PS Medchal receiving telephonic information at 1l:2O p.m on 5.6.2010. Additionally, PW.B admitted that no crime number was noted on Ex.P4.

14. PW. 1 i stated that hc examined PWs. t to 4 at Gandhi Hospital on 7.6.2O1O. He admitted that their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C are dated 6.6.2010, however the date of death of deceased was mentioned as 1 1 .06.20 10 in the 161 Cr.p.C. statements. The 161 Cr.P.C statements are ante-datecl. 1,2

15. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the witnesses have deliberately stated against the accused, and developed their case during trial. Counsel relied on the following Judgments: i) In case of Loksham a. State of Maharastra t the Honourable Supreme Court cautioned that the Court should always be on guard to see whether the statement of the deceased was a result of tutoring, prompting, or a product of imagination. il) The Apex Court held in case of Gananath patnaik u. State of Orissaz that the Dying Declaration recorded by the Magistrate falls under the statement contemplated under Section 32 of t}:-e Evidence Act, pertaining to the cause of death. iii) In case of Nanhar o. State of Haryanas the Honourable Supreme Court held that a dying declaration should carry the impression of being genuine and true. It should be free from al1 doubts. iv) The Honourable Supreme Court in case of Kashibai and others u. Stote of l{arnataka a, at paras 6 and 7 observed as under: ' zooz 1o1scc rro 'zooz 1:1scc ors 'rr zoto 101 sc rse 2023 scc onLine SC 575 4 13 '6. At this juncture, it tttould beneficiol to reproduce the releuant prouision contained in Section 306 IPC pertaining to Abetment of suicide. 306 of IPC: Abetment of suicide: If ang person commits suicide, tuhoeuer abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punishable tuith imprisonment of either desciption for a term uthich mag ertend to ten Aears, and shall also be liable to fine.

7. What is 'Abetment of a thing'has been descibed in Section 1O7 of IPC uthich reads as under: 1O7.A person abets the doing of a thing, utho first instigates anA person to do that thing; or secondlg engjages uith one or more other person or persons in ang conspiracg for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracg, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdlg, intentionallg aids, bg ang oct or illegal omission, the doing o.f that thing. Explanation. 1: A person tuho, bg rttillful misrepresentation, or by willful concealmeri of a mateial fact u.thich he is bound to disclose, uoluntaily caltses or prodtres, or attempts to cause or procure, o thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing."

16. From rhe bare reading of the said provisions, it clearly transpires that in order to convict a person for the offence under 14 section 306 of IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namery, the death was suicidal, and there was an abetment on. the part of the accused as contempiated in Section 1O7 IpC have to be established.

17. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court in various Judgments, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person intentionally in doing a thing. The facts of a given case should indicate that deliberate acts were done by an accused, compelling a person to commit suicide. The said ingredients are missing in the present case. No allegation of constant harassment .( was made by the witnesses. However, the suicide according to the prosecution case, was on account of an act of beating by lhe appellant on the date of incident. It cannot be said that the said beating on the day of incident involves abetment, as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court.

18. However, from the narration of the victim in the Dying Declaration and also corroborating testimonies of the family members, as discussed, it is evident that the appeliant was harassing the deceased for additional dowry.

19. For the said reason, conviction under Section 3O6 of Indian Penal Code is set aside. However, while sustaining the conviction 15 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of imprisontnent is reduced to one year' 20 Accorclingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed' //TRUE COPY// A.V.S.S.C.S.M. JOINT REGIS \ S;ECTION OFFICEB I To, t The lX Additional District & Sessions-Judge (FTC)' Ranga Reddy District at ' iij Ni;s;;Hto"irnra (with records' if anv) 2. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal Cyberabad 3-TheSuperintendent,CentralJail,Cherlapalli,RangaReddyDistrict 4. The Station House Officer, tVledchal PS' Medchal District 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri Jayanti S C Sekhar' Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies vAish k HIGH COURT DATED:1210212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1102 of 2012 PARTLY ALL.OWING THE CRI-A qo coS<A Y, ?5[e \f,5 :{E STA rA c( 3 21 itAfl zflffi z o .l.\