A. Hari Haranadha Sharma, J.

1. The informant/de-facto complainant in crime No.206 of 2014 of Nandyal III Town Police Station, (P.W.1) in S.C.No.429 of 2015 filed the present appeal.

2. Respondent No.2 to 4 are the Accused Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.1 is the State represented by its Public Prosecutor.

3. Questioning the acquittal of Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC) and the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC under the judgment dated 02.07.2018, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, in S.C.No.429 of 2015, the present appeal is filed.

4. The State did not choose to file any appeal.

5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

                  (i) Accused No.1 is the son of Accused No.2. Accused No.3 is the first wife of Accused No.1 and one Mabbu Yellamma (herein after referred as deceased) is the 2nd wife of Accused No.1.

                  (ii) In the year 2011, Accused No.1 and deceased fell in love. The family members of the deceased did not accept for the marriage. The deceased signed on stamp papers stating that she will not claim any interest in the properties, left the parental home and married Accused No.1 in the year 2012.

                  (iii) The deceased and Accused No.3 were living in a house bearing No.27/133 belonging to P.W.5 in Moolasagaram, Nandyal town. Accused Nos.1 to 3 used to harass the deceased physically and mentally asking her to get her share in her parental property. The deceased has shared her grievance i.e., the harassment of Accused Nos.1 to 3 with her sisters P.W.Nos.1 to 3 and L.W.4 and also with the relatives L.W.Nos.5 and 6. The deceased was assured by her sisters that the partition will be taken up soon.

                  (iv) On 10.11.2014, the deceased informed her elder sister - P.W.2 by name Boya Lakshmi Devi alias Ramulamma about the harassment. On 11.11.2014, P.W.Nos.7 to 9 and L.W.14 went to the house of the deceased and found Accused No.3 coming down from staircase in a confused state. Later they found main door was closed and heard screams from the house. They got opened the window and saw Accused No.2 holding the hands and legs of deceased tightly. Accused No.1 tied dish wire to the neck of the deceased and throttled her to death but it was projected as if the deceased committed suicide.

                  (v) On witnessing the episode, P.W.Nos.7 to 9 raised yells. Accused Nos.1 and 2 went away from the scene of offence throwing the crime weapon dish wire on the top of the house.

                  (vi) On information, P.W.1 and other relatives of the deceased rushed to the scene of offence and a report was given by P.W.1.

6. Case was registered for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and 302 read with 34 of IPC. The Tahsildar (P.W.10) conducted inquest over the dead body and P.W.6 conducted autopsy over the dead body. After completing the investigation P.W.11 laid charge sheet for the offences referred above.

7. On committal vide P.R.C.No.31 of 2015, the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool, has taken the case on file as S.C.No.429 of 2015 and made over the same to III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal on jurisdiction point where trial was proceeded.

8. Learned Sessions Judge found that, (i) the motive for the offence is not proved, (ii) medical evidence is indicating that death of the deceased is suicide, (iii) there is delay in lodging FIR, (iv) there is inconsistency as to the weapon used, (v) the circumstantial evidence is weak, (vi) the presence of P.W.7 at scene of offence is not believable, (vii) there are material omissions and contradictions, (viii) the circumstantial evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is unreliable and (ix) that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly the Accused 1 to 3 are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

9. Questioning the acquittal the present appeal is filed.

Arguments in the Appeal:- For the Appellant:-

10. (i) The evidence of P.Ws.7 to 9 is that Accused Nos.1 and 2 ran away from the scene of offence and the same is sufficient.

                  (ii) The evidence of P.Ws 7 to 9 is indicating that Accused Nos.1 to 3 committed murder of the deceased, but the Trial Court with reference to evidence of P.Ws.1, 6 and 10 and Exs.P.3 to P.5 erroneously found that the deceased committed suicide.

                  (iii) The evidence of L.Ws.4 and 14 shows that the crime weapon dish wire was thrown on the top of the house but the Trial Court ignored it. (Here itself it is relevant to note that they are not examined)

                  (iv) The reasons stated by the Trial Court for ignoring the evidence of P.W.7, P.W.9 and L.W.14 that they were unable to catch Accused No.1 is an incorrect approach and Trial Court should have considered that they were in shock.

                  (v) The Trial Court has wrongly acquitted the Accused ignoring the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, P.Ws.7 to 9 and Exs.P.1 and P.12.

For the Accused:

11. (i) The motive alleged for crime is that deceased shall get share from her parental property. When the deceased has relinquished her share even prior to marriage, neither the deceased nor the accused will get the property. Therefore, there is no scope for the motive.

                  (ii) The case of prosecution is that, it is a homicidal death whereas medical and other evidence indicating that it is a suicide. Therefore, it shall be held as prosecution has failed to prove the homicidal death of deceased and also guilt of the Accused.

12. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned judgment is well reasoned.

13. The points that arise for determination are:

                  (i) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and 302 of IPC read with 34 of IPC beyond every reasonable doubt?

                  (ii) Whether the judgment dated 02.07.2018 passed in S.C.No.429 of 2015 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, acquitting the Accused is sustainable in law and on facts? Or whether any interference is necessary? If so, on what grounds and to which extent?

                  (iii) What is the result of the appeal?

Point Nos.1 and 2:

14. Charge 1 is covering the offence under Section 498-A of IPC refers to the physical and mental harassment against the deceased with a view to get her landed property.

15. Charge 2 is covering the offence under Section 302 of IPC read with 34 of IPC refers to the Accused committing murder of deceased on 11.11.2014 at 8:30 a.m by tying dish wire to the neck of the deceased and throttling her to death and thereafter creating the same as if it is a suicide.

16. (i) P.W.1 is the sister of deceased. As per her evidence, after five months of the marriage of the deceased, their mother died and when the deceased went to the funerals, deceased informed P.W.1 about the harassment of Accused Nos.1 to 3 for property. One day prior to the death of deceased, P.W.1 was informed by the deceased over the mobile phone that Accused Nos.1 to 3 are going to kill her if the property is not given, whereupon the P.W.1 assured that soon the share of deceased will be given in property and on the next day P.W.4 informed that deceased died.

                  (ii) The evidence of P.W.4 is that Accused No.1 and deceased Yellamma lived happily and that on the date of incident Accused No.1 informed him that deceased committed suicide by hanging. Then he has informed the same to his relatives.

                  (iii) The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 together indicates that there was information from Accused No.1 to P.W.4 and from P.W.4 to P.W.1 that deceased died by committing suicide and then they went to the house of Accused No.1. P.w.1 also states that she has attended inquest.

                  (iv) During cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that after marriage of deceased she has seen P.W.1 on the day of funerals of their mother and thereafter she has seen the deceased as died. This indicates that there was no occasion for the deceased to share anything with P.W.1. Further, she (P.W.1) has stated that she does not know mobile numbers of herself and the deceased.

                  (v) Through whom the information about death of the deceased is received by P.W.1 is also not clear from the evidence. As per Ex.P1, she received information from some neighbours. She did not state that P.W.4 informed the same. During evidence she said that she got information of death of deceased at about 11 a.m and reached the scene of offence at 11.30 a.m and went to the Police Station at 6 p.m. There is no consistency as to the time when information about death is received.

17. P.W.2 is another sister of the deceased. As per her evidence, on information from P.W.4 they went to the scene of offence and found deceased dead. She was unable to say the mobile number of herself and the deceased although she stated that she received phone call from the deceased.

18. P.W.3 is another sister of deceased. The evidence of P.W.3 is on the same lines of P.W.2.

19. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not of much use to draw any inference either with regard to harassment or accused causing the murder of the deceased as they did not say anything as to specific harassment or what has happened on the date of death.

20. (i) The evidence of P.W.4 is that, on the date of death of deceased his wife fell ill and he has sent his wife to Nandyal and requested the deceased to accompany his wife to the hospital. After some time Accused No.1 informed that deceased committed suicide. Then P.W.4 proceeded to the scene of offence and found that there was black scar on the neck of the deceased.

                  (ii) The evidence of P.W.4 suggests that there were reasonable terms between the deceased and P.W.4 family and there is time gap between P.W.4 requesting the deceased to accompany the wife of P.W.4 to hospital and information about death of deceased.

21. (i) The evidence of P.W.5 is that deceased and Accused No.1 lived happily in the 3rd floor of his house and deceased committed suicide.

                  (ii) During cross-examination of P.W.5 it is elicited that while he was getting ready to go to school, Accused No.1 came to home and went to 3rd floor and came down. Accused No.1 informed P.W.5 that the door was closed and they tried to see inside through eastern window but it was not visible. They broke the eastern window with crow-bar and found the deceased hanging from the fan with saree. The door was on northern side and it was bolted from inside. Accused No.1 broke the door at the place of bolt, opened the door and found deceased hanging from the fan.

Whether the death of Deceased is Suicide or Homicide:-

22. (i) P.W.6 – Civil Assistant Surgeon who conducted autopsy and stated that the deceased died of mechanical asphyxia and as per Exs.P3 to P5 the death of the deceased is suicide. The evidence of P.W.6 clearly indicates that the death of the deceased is due to suicide. His findings with reference to injuries on the dead body of the deceased and cause of death are as follows:-

                  “The lingature mark on the neck of the deceased is not horizontal and it is oblique. The width of lingature mark will be 3 m.m if the death is by using dish wire. The width of lingature mark in the present case is 15 m.m i.e., 1.5 c.m. The poison’s death is ruled out. In the present case Hyoid bone is intact. There are no injuries around the soft tissues and muscles of Hyoid bone. On observing Exs.P.3 to P.5 the death of the deceased is suicide.”

                  (ii) To show that the death of the deceased as homicidal, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.7 to 9.

                  (iii) The evidence of P.W.7 is that, on information from P.W.1 he (P.W.7) along with L.W.14 went to the house of the deceased.

                  (iv) It is relevant to note that P.W.1 did not state that she has asked P.W.7 to go and verify the situation. Further, P.W.7 states that P.W.8 broke the window.

                  (v) P.W.8 evidence is that, he does not know the facts of the case and police did not examine him. He did not support the version of P.W.7 as to breaking the window etc.

                  (vi) The answers given by P.W.7 during cross examination as to physical features of the scene of offence and material omissions indicate that his evidence is not worthy of credit.

                  (vii) The evidence of P.W.9 is substantially a hearsay with regard to he witnessing that the Accused No.1 tying the neck of the deceased and throwing the deceased to the ceiling fan are exaggerations.

                  (viii) After analysing the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 on one hand and P.Ws.7 to 9 on the other hand, in the light of the medical evidence of P.W.6 and post-mortem certificate (Ex.P.3) coupled with Ex.P.6, we find that prosecution failed to show that the death is a homicidal death. The evidence is indicating it is a suicide.

23. It is not the case of prosecution that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment of the Accused Nos.1 to 3. No such change is there at any point of time against any of the Accused.

24. As rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge that, during the lifetime of the deceased, there was no complaint to police either by the deceased or by the parental family members of the deceased. The motive for killing the deceased that she did not get the property is not proved.

25. Natural witness is P.W.5, the owner of the house where deceased and Accused No.1 lived together. The person competent to speak something about the relationship between the deceased and accused is P.W.5. Nothing is stated by P.W.5 about the other Accused living along with Accused No.1 and harassment against the deceased etc.

26. Upon careful examination of the entire evidence and the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and 302 read with 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts and that the findings of the learned Sessions Judge under impugned judgment in S.C.No.429 of 2015 are sustainable and that there are no grounds to interfere. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

Point No.3:-

27. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is found devoid of merits, hence the same is dismissed, confirming the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal in SC No.429 of 2015 dated 02.07.2018.

28. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.