ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-Accused No. 3 aggrieved by the order dated 06.02.2020 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 30 of 2018 in SC No. 388 of 2015 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam, in dismissing the discharge petition filed by her.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 27.09.2014 at 11.00 AM, the de facto complainant (father of the deceased No. 1) lodged a report before the Police, Khammam I-Town Police Station, stating that he got married his daughter with A1 on 15.11.2007. Out of the said marriage, they were having a son, aged about 3 years. His daughter and son-in-law were also living with them in the same house at Ricca Bazar, Khammam. His son-in-law (A1) was working as an Urban Mandal Revenue Inspector. Due to work load, he engaged one Sunkara Ravi - A2 to look after his personal works. A2 used to drop and pick up A1 for his duty. A2 made friendship with A1 and got addicted him to liquor and other bad vices and got developed illegal intimacy with one Priyanka - A3. At the instigation of A2, A1 started harassing his daughter. A1 was not coming home since 05.09.2014. On 26.09.2014, at about 10.00 PM, after having dinner, the complainant and his wife slept in their room. His daughter and his grandson slept in another room. On 27.09.2014 at about 7.30 AM or 8.00 AM, as his daughter or grandson did not come outside, his wife went and observed from the window and found his daughter hanging to a ceiling fan and grandson lying on the bed with froth from his mouth.

3. Basing on the said report, the Inspector of Police registered a case vide Crime No. 412 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 302, 306 read with 109 IPC and issued FIR. After conducting investigation, the Inspector of Police deleted Section 302 IPC and filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘DP Act’).

4. The petitioner-A3 filed a discharge petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. stating that there was no prima facie material to link or to connect her with the offences. The charge sheet filed by police did not reveal the proximity or nexus of the acts of A3 or any active role played by her in committing of suicide by the deceased No. 1. There was neither instigation, intentional aid or engaging in conspiracy so as to attract the ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC to constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC. There was no mens rea at all. The Accused No. 3 was neither relative nor neighbor or in any way connected with the family of the deceased No. 1. Even as per the charge sheet, on the fateful day on 27.09.2014, A3 was neither present at the scene of offence or at the vicinity of the scene of offence nor she had any contact or conversation with the deceased before her committing suicide. A3 was falsely implicated without there being any role or any part played by her in the said crime and charge sheet was filed against her showing her as A3 without there being any credible material. Conducting the trial against A3 without any material would be an exercise in futility and prayed to allow the discharge petition.

5. The prosecution filed counter objecting the discharge petition filed by A3 on the ground that A1 had illicit intimacy with A3 and the same was the main cause for the suicidal death of the deceased No. 1. Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of LWs.8 and 9 would show that A3 was living with A1 in the house of LW.9, and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. On hearing both the counsel, the trial court dismissed the petition, observing that the statement of LW.9 would show that A3 was living along with A1 in the house of LW.9, it would be premature to make observations on the veracity of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of LW.9, without testing her statement in the course of trial, besides A3 to establish her defence and seek acquittal after trial and relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.E. Sivalinga Murthy