To convict under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of active instigation or facilitation of the suicide by the accused, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT

RAJESH RAI K., J. -

The State has preferred this appeal questioning the validity of the judgment dtd. 2/12/2017 passed in S.C.No.41/2011 by the learned Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, wherein the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents of the offence punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 498-A, 306 r/w 149 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under; The daughter of CW.1-Devamma (PW5) by name Mallamma (now deceased in this case) was married to accused No.1 i.e., respondent No.1 and in their wedlock, three children were born. The first daughter of Mallamma was expired. Thereafter, the deceased Mallamma stayed in the house of PW.5-Devamma for about three months. It is the further case of the prosecution that, about five days prior to the date of incident, the accused No.3 came to the house of PW.5-Devamma and took deceased Mallamma to his house and subsequently accused No.3 informed PW.5 that deceased Mallamma is not at all attending any household work and asked PW.5 to take her back. However, PW.5 requested the accused not to do anything to her daughter and she would come to their house shortly. That on 23/9/2010 at about 4.00 p.m., the accused No.1, informed PW.5 over phone that her daughter died in his house and to take her dead body. Immediately, PW.5 along with PWs.6 to 9 came to S.Hosalli village i.e., to the house of accused No.1 and saw the dead body of her daughter and blood oozing from her mouth and ears, also there were hidden injury marks on the ear as well as on the back of the deceased. Thereby suspecting the murder of deceased Mallamma, PW.5 lodged the complaint against the accused persons i.e., respondents before the Rural Police Station, Yadgiri as per Ex.P4. The same was registered in Crime No.160/2010 against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 498-A, 302 r/w 149 of IPC by PW.13 as per Ex.P15. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer came to know that the accused persons were subjecting the deceased to cruelty on the ground that she was not at all doing any household and agricultural work and they tortured her both physically and mentally. Due to the said harassment meted out by accused persons, she had committed suicide by consuming pesticides on 22/9/2010 at about 10.00 p.m. in the matrimonial home. Accordingly, after conducting the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused persons before the Committal Court. On committal of the case before the Sessions Court/trial Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences and accused denied the same and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused before the trial Court, the prosecution in total examined 14 witnesses as PWs.1 to 14 so also got marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to 16 and 4 material objects as MOs.1 to 4. After conclusion of the evidence of prosecution side, the learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of material witnesses to the accused as contemplated under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same. The accused did not choose to examine any witnesses on their behalf, but got marked 3 documents as Exs.D1 to D3 i.e., portions of statements of PWs.7 to 9 respectively. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication.

4. After assessment of the oral and documentary evidence and also hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences vide judgment dtd. 2/12/2017 as stated supra.

5. The said judgment of acquittal is challenged under this appeal by the State.

6. We have heard the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the appellant/State so also the learned counsel appearing for respondents/accused.

7. Learned Addl. SPP vehemently contended that the judgment under appeal suffers from perversity and illegality, since the learned S