Kamera Srinivas v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Criminal Petition No.478 of 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner-A.1 on bail in Crime No.223 of 2016 of CCC Narsapur Police Station, Adilabad District, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 21.12.2016.

The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of A.1 with Bhagya was performed on 25.02.2004, they lived happily for some time and blessed with two daughters. While matter stood thus, the petitioner along with his parents started ill-treating Bhagya for not giving birth to a male child and A.1 also proposed to marry another woman to give birth to a male child. However, his mother requested A.1 not to think about second marriage keeping in mind the welfare and future of the two female children, but they continued to ill-treat Bhagya and thereby drove her to commit suicide. Vexed with the attitude of A.1 and two others, on 06.11.2016 at about 1500 hours, Bhagya left the house without informing anybody and committed suicide on the railway track between Mancherial and Peddampet Railway station on down lane. Thus, the deceased Bhagya committed suicide only at the instigation of A.1 and two others or by act or omission, which drove her to commit suicide and the crime was registered basing on the report of the Superintendent of Railways.

During investigation, the investigating agency examined the witnesses and only father of the deceased Bhagya supported about the harassment she meted in the hands of A.1 and two others and that on account of such ill-treatment, she committed suicide. The other witnesses whose statements were recorded u/s.161 (3) Cr.P.C. did not support the cause of death of the deceased.

The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner never subjected the deceased to ill-treatment and the presumption under Section 113 (b) of the Evidence Act has no application and thereby it is difficult to conclude prima facie that the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

As per the material on record, death of Bhagya is an unnatural death. Whether the death of Bhagya is homicidal or suicidal is again a question of fact to be decided during trial. The material on record disclosed that she committed suicide due to subjecting her to cruelty for her failure to give birth to a male child, while leading marital life with A.2.

Section 107 of IPC defines 'abetment' and it reads as under:

107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, who- (First) - Instigates any person to do that thing; or (Secondly) -Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly) - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.-A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Here, the petitioner along with two others allegedly subjected the deceased to cruelty and drove her to commit suicide. Thus, by the direct act of the accused, deceased left the matrimonial house and committed suicide. Therefore, there is a direct nexus between death of Bhagya and the alleged incident of harassment of Bhagya for her failure to give birth to a male child during matrimonial life, which drove her to commit suicide. Further, the allegation made in the complaint prima facie shows that the petitioner subjected her to cruelty for her failure to give birth to a male child and drove her to commit suicide. Therefore, I find prima facie material against the petitioner to conclude that he is responsible for the suicide committed by Bhagya and thereby he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Date: 30.01.2017 sur