KUPPILI SURYA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kuppili Surya Rao, the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 77 of 1997 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam, is the appellant.

(2.) Sri D. Ramalinga Swamy, the learned counsel representing the appellant-accused would submit that the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained since absolutely there was no harassment or cruelty and the ingredients of the offence charged with had not been satisfied. The learned counsel also would submit the story that the accused eloped with a lady, cannot be believed for the reason that there is no acceptable evidence in this regard. The learned counsel also would submit that P.Ws. 3 to 6 deposed that this couple was living happily. The learned counsel also would further submit that the accused himself gave First Information Report (for brevity 'FIR') to the police and even presuming that he absconded after giving FIR, it cannot be taken as, though, he is guilty of abetment of suicide, in the absence of any acceptable evidence. The learned counsel also drawn the attention of this court to the sketch and also the evidence of Investigating Officer and would contend that the parapet wall of the well is only 1 1/2 feet in height and even if one tries to draw out water from the well with a bucket or a pot with an insufficient length of rope tied to it, there is likelihood of his/her slipping into the well. In this view of the matter, this may be just accidental and hence, the appellant-accused is entitled for an acquittal.

(3.) Per con tra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that P.W. 1 brother of the deceased deposed in detail what had happened and though details were not given the fact that the appellant had gone away with another lady and had been carrying on illicit intimacy had been established and this would definitely amount to sufficient harassment, with much of resultant in the incident. The learned counsel had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and also placed reliance on Pawan Kumarv. State of Haryana and Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra.