//
you're reading...
legal issues

It is a case of suicide committed by the deceased by consuming insecticide poison. It is alleged that the accused was harassing the deceased who was working as nurse and was behaving cruelly towards her for the sake of her salary and other financial benefits. This is not a case where the husband harassed a wife (legally married wife) resulting in death of the wife by suicide, in order to attract either Section 498-A or Section 304(B) I.P.C. If the accused asked or demanded or harassed the deceased for her salary and other finances, suicide is not the only solution for such harassment, particularly when there is no legal bondage between them as man and wife. The definition of ‘cruelty’ contained in Section 498-A I.P.C. has no application in this case, because of anomalous relationship between the accused and the deceased. Taking the prosecution allegations on their face value, they do not disclose requirements of Section 107 I.P.C. for abetment either by way of instigation or by way of intentional aiding. In the absence of basic ingredients of abetment in this case, the question of attracting Section 306 I.P.C. does not arise at all in this case.

Female suicide rates by country (per 100,000 f...

Image via Wikipedia

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.676 of 2011

BETWEEEN:

C.Satish Kumar Goud

Appellant

        AND

1. The State of A.P. & another.

… Respondents

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.676 of 2011

 

JUDGMENT:

The de facto complainant/PW1 seeks to file this appeal against order of acquittal recorded by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur, in S.C.No.455 of 2008 of the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. Admittedly, it was a Bigamous marriage for the accused with the deceased.  Their marriage itself is null and void. First wife of the accused is living and the accused is leading marital life with his first wife.  In those circumstances, the question of invoking Section 498-A I.P.C. in this case may not arise at all.

        2.        It is a case of suicide committed by the deceased by consuming insecticide poison.  It is alleged that the accused was harassing the deceased who was working as nurse and was behaving cruelly towards her for the sake of her salary and other financial benefits.  This is not a case where the husband harassed a wife (legally married wife) resulting in death of the wife by suicide, in order to attract either Section 498-A or Section 304(B) I.P.C.  If the accused asked or demanded or harassed the deceased for her salary and other finances, suicide is not the only solution for such harassment, particularly when there is no legal bondage between them as man and wife. The definition of ‘cruelty’ contained in Section 498-A I.P.C. has no application in this case, because of anomalous relationship between the accused and the deceased.    Taking the prosecution allegations on their face value, they do not disclose requirements of Section 107 I.P.C. for abetment either by way of instigation or by way of intentional aiding.  In the absence of basic ingredients of abetment in this case, the question of attracting Section 306 I.P.C. does not arise at all in this case.

3.        Apart from the above legal position, there is only evidence of PWs 1 and 2 in this case with regard to the alleged harassment meted out by the accused towards the deceased.  PWs 1 and 2 are no other than brother and sister of the deceased.  No death note was left by the deceased setting out any reasons for her decision to commit suicide.  The lower Court did not place any reliance on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 as they are interested witnesses in the deceased.  There is no other independent evidence on the alleged harassment of the deceased by the accused.  In those circumstances, the lower Court rightly acquitted the accused;  and there are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the said order of acquittal.

4.        Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

                               _____________________________  

         SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

Dated:07.07.2011

ysk

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.676 of 2011

DATED: 07.07.2011

ysk

 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Set Nickel - September 8, 2011

Blog Stats

  • 2,873,460 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: