Page 1

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1605 & 1604 of 2007                         1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1605 OF 2007

K.R.J. SARMA                               Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

R.V. SURYA RAO & ANR.                      Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1604 OF 2007

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,                     Appellant (s) HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                VERSUS

R.V. SURYA RAO                        Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

These are appeals against the judgment dated 25-

11-2002 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal  

Appeal No. 1207 of 2002.

2. The  facts  very  briefly  are  that  the  

respondent was married to Vijaya Bala. Vijaya Bala died  

on  27-06-1994  by  consuming  poison  and  committing  

suicide  at  her  residential  apartment  in  Soverign  

Shelter Apartments, Hyderabad. After investigation, a  

charge-sheet  was  filed  against  the  respondent  under  

Sections 306 and 498A, IPC. The Trial Court, however,

Page 2

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1605 & 1604 of 2007                         2

found that the deceased Vijaya Bala had left a suicide  

note (Ext.P1) addressed to the police to the effect  

that  no  one  was  responsible  for  the  death  of  the  

deceased  and  there  was  no  pressure  either  from  her  

parents, husband (respondent), children or friends and  

relatives and that the decision to commit suicide was  

taken by her on her own will and the suicide note was  

also signed by the deceased. The Trial Court, after  

considering  the  contents  of  Ext.  P1  and  after  

considering  all  other  evidence,  held  that  the  

prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt  

that the respondent had abetted the deceased to commit  

suicide and accordingly acquitted the respondent of the  

charges under Sections 498A and 306, IPC.

3. Aggrieved, the State carried Criminal Appeal  

No. 1207 of 2002 and by the impugned judgment, the High  

Court held that the suicide note said to have been left  

behind  by  the  deceased  wife  and  marked  as  Ext.P1,  

obviously exonerates the respondent on both the charges  

under  Sections  498A  and  306,  IPC.  The  High  Court  

further held that it was discernible from the evidence  

that the deceased had a suicidal tendency which was  

expressed  on  several  occasions  and  except  the  only  

circumstance  that  the  door  was  bolted  from  outside  

there  was  no  other  evidence  that  was  available  on

Page 3

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1605 & 1604 of 2007                         3

record against the respondent and there was also no  

evidence that the respondent had subjected the deceased  

to any harassment or cruelty. Accordingly, the High  

Court did not interfere with the order of acquittal.

4. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 1605 of 2007 is  

concerned, the same was filed by the complainant and it  

has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel  

for the parties that the complainant has expired during  

the  pendency  of  the  criminal  appeal.  Hence  this  

criminal appeal abates.

5. In support  of Criminal  Appeal No.  1604 of  

2007 filed by the State, learned counsel for the State  

Mr. D. Mahesh Babu submitted that there was evidence of  

PW 1, the son of the deceased, to show that there were  

quarrels between the deceased and the accused over the  

innumerable loans taken by the accused and that the  

accused used to take away the salary of the deceased  

who was employed as a teacher. He further submitted  

that there was also evidence of PW 1 that the accused  

used to lock the house from outside and keep with him  

the keys with the deceased inside the house. He argued  

that  the  aforesaid  evidence  makes  out  the  case  of  

harassment,  cruelty  and  abetment  of  suicide  and  

therefore, the respondent was guilty of the charges  

under Sections 498A and 306, IPC.

Page 4

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1605 & 1604 of 2007                         4

6. We have perused the evidence of PW 1 and we  

find that the respondent had taken PW 1 and his younger  

brother  for  a  movie  when  the  deceased  committed  

suicide. This is what PW 1 has stated in his evidence  

with regard to what happened on the day the deceased  

committed suicide:

“...On  the  fateful  day,  neither  myself nor my father requested my  mother  to  accompany  us  to  see  movie,  as  my  mother  was  in  a  disturbed mood and my father asked  us not to press her to come along  with us. It is not true to suggest  that there were no quarrel on that  day and that I am saying for the  first time contradictory statement.  My father did not quarrel with us  on that day. Myself and my brother  accompanied  my  father  to  watch  movie willfully, my mother did not  oppose for us to go to movie and  did not oppose for being the main  door  locked  from  outside  of  the  home.  My  mother  did  not  put  the  lock from outside or that she would  bolt  the  door  from  inside  by  herself. At the time when we were  leaving from our flat my mother was  well  awake  and  saw  us  going  for  movie. My mother knows that we were  going  to  movie.  My  brother  also  told  my  mother  that  we  are  all  going to movie. My mother did not  show any interest to accompany us.  Neither my father nor myself or my  brother ever had any thought that  she  would  attempt  to  commit  suicide.”

It is clear from the aforesaid evidence of PW 1 that  

the deceased herself opted not to go to the movie on  

that day along with the respondent and their two sons

Page 5

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1605 & 1604 of 2007                         5

and neither the respondent nor the two sons had any  

thought that the deceased would commit suicide when  

they have gone to the movie. This being the evidence  

of the prosecution witness (PW 1), we fail to see how  

the  case for  abetment of  suicide by  the respondent  

could be made out, particularly when the deceased had  

left  behind a  suicide note  (Ext. P1)  absolving the  

respondent and all others from the responsibility for  

the  step  taken  by  her  to  commit  suicide  by  taking  

poison.

7. Also from the evidence of PW 1 we do not find  

any act of cruelty or harassment as such committed by  

the  respondent  within  the  meaning  of  Clauses  (a)  

and  (b)  of  the  Explanation  to  Section  498A,  IPC.  

Clause  (a) of  the Explanation  to Section  498A, IPC  

states that any willful conduct which is of such a  

nature  as  is  likely  to  drive  the  woman  to  commit  

suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,  

limb  or  health,  whether  mental  or  physical  of  the  

woman amounts to 'cruelty'. We have noticed from the  

evidence  of  PW  1  that  on  the  day  the  deceased  

committed suicide, the respondent was not in any way  

guilty  of  any  willful  conduct  which  was  likely  to  

drive  the  deceased  to  commit  suicide,  nor  did  the  

respondent  cause  any  grave  injury  to  the  deceased.

Page 6

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1605 & 1604 of 2007                         6

Clause  (b) of  the Explanation  to Section  498A, IPC  

states  that  harassment  of  a  woman  with  a  view  to  

coercing her or any person related to her to meet any  

unlawful demand for any property or valuable security  

or  is  on  account  of  failure  by  her  or  any  person  

related  to  her  to  meet  such  demand  amounts  to  

'cruelty'.  Though PW 1 has stated that the respondent  

used to take away the salary of the deceased, he has  

very fairly conceded in cross examination that he had  

not stated before the police that the respondent used  

to take away the salary of the deceased. Considering  

this evidence of PW 1, we are of the view that the  

concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High  

Court  that  the  respondent  was  not  guilty  of  the  

offences under Sections 498A and 306, IPC should not  

be interfered with by us in exercise of our powers  

under Article 136 of the Constitution.

8. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

............................J. (A.K. PATNAIK)                 

............................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)  

NEW DELHI, APRIL 01, 2013