MAKKENA BALAIAH Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 1 to 5/A-1 to A-5 are accused of offence punishable under Section 306/34 I.P.C. in P.R.C. No. 12 of 2006 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntur. A-1 and A-5 are brothers and they are sons of A-2. A-3 is wife of A-1. A-4 is wife of A-5. Marriage of the deceased with Ramadevi (witness No. 6 as per charge sheet) was performed 10 years prior to the case. It is alleged that when Ramadevi was talking with A-1, the deceased noticed the same and beat A-1 with hands and that fearing for the deceased, Ramadevi went away to some other house and that on 19.03.2006 the deceased gave petition in the police station about missing of his wife alleging that A-1 was responsible and that Ramadevi thereafter went to the police station and from there went to house of Sundaram because of fear for the deceased. It is further alleged that on 20.03.2006 A-1 to A-5 abused the deceased Venkata Rao saying that he is an impotent person and allowed his wife to have illicit intimacy with A-1, and created harassment and degraded prestige of the deceased in the locality and the society and that therefore the deceased consumed pesticide poison and committed suicide on 20.03.2006. In this petition, it has to be seen whether the above prosecution allegations taken on their face value make out the offence for which A-1 to A-5 were charge sheeted.

(2.) The only imputation alleged to have made by A-1 to A-5 against the deceased is that he is an impotent person and allowed his wife to have illicit intimacy with A-1. According to the prosecution, the said imputations caused harassment and degraded prestige of the deceased in the locality and the society and it resulted in the deceased committing suicide by consuming pesticide poison. The question is whether the above alleged imputation made by A-1 to A-5 against the deceased would amount to abetting the deceased to commit suicide. The petitioner's counsel placing reliance on several reported decisions of the Supreme Court, contended that even if the above prosecution allegations are taken for granted for the sake of argument, they do not satisfy requirements of any of three varieties of abetment contained in Section 107 I.P.C. viz., instigation, engaging in any conspiracy, or intentional aiding.

(3.) In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 AIR(SC) 3837, the Supreme Court was considering circumstances relating to abetment of suicide by the husband to the wife, as per Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. The Supreme Court observed: