Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8408
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B V L N Chakravarthi, J
G Uduru Rangaraju – Appellant
Versus
State of AP – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 504/2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D Kodandarami Reddy
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor (AP)
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide
Act Referred
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.313, S.235, S.384
Headnote
(B) Evidence and Proof - Conviction based on hearsay - Testimony of witnesses who are not eye-witnesses regarding the incident, which is inconsistent with FIR, cannot form the basis for conviction - Embellishments introduced during trial, unsupported by original complaint, lead to lack of credible evidence. (Paras 27, 28, 29).
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court for the offence of abetment of suicide following an incident where they allegedly quarreled with and insulted the deceased. The deceased subsequently committed suicide by consuming poison. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the daughter and other relatives, whereas the prosecution eye-witnesses failed to support the case.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that there was no evidence of specific intent (mens rea) or active instigation. The alleged insults were casual remarks during a quarrel and did not satisfy the ingredients of abetment. The trial court's reliance on hearsay and unreliable testimony was deemed erroneous.
Issues: Whether the verbal insults exchanged during an altercation constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, and whether the conviction can be sustained on the evidence of non-eye-witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: Abetment for suicide requires proof of an intentional act or omission by the accused that directly instigates or aids the deceased to commit suicide. Casual words spoken in the heat of a quarrel do not satisfy this threshold.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; appellants acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature and origin of the criminal appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of prosecution case, evidence collected, trial court conviction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. arguments regarding insufficiency of evidence and lack of abetment ingredients. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. court's analysis on lack of mens rea and unreliable witness testimony. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. final order of acquittal and setting aside trial court judgment. (Para 32) |
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 504/2008
Between:
1. G UDURU RANGARAJU, & 5 OTHERS,, S/O NAGARAJU, R/O
CHINNAMPALLI VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA
DISTRICT.
2. G UDURU CHINNAMARA RAJU,, S/O RAMARAJU, R/O CHINNAMPALLI
VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.
3. G UDURU RAMARAJU @ RAMUDU,, S/O VEERAIAH, R/O
CHINNAMPALLI VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA
DISTRICT.
4. P ALUKURI SUBRAMANYAM RAJU,, S/O VENKATA RAJU, R/O
CHINNAMPALLI VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA
DISTRICT.
5. D ASANAPU NARAYANA RAJU,, S/O VENKATARAJU, R/O
CHINNAMPALLI VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA
DISTRICT.
6. D ASANAPU VENKATESWARA RAJU,, S/O VENKATA RAJU, R/O
CHINNAMPALLI VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA
DISTRICT.
...APELLANT(S)
2
2026:APHC:18664
AND
1. T HE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD, rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.
… RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
3
2026:APHC:18664
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.504 OF 2008
The present criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants/accused A1 to
A6, who are aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, Rajampet, in S.C.No.62 of 2007, vide judgment dated
17.04.2008.
2. The appellants/accused No.1 to 6 are convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-
(Rupees Two Hundred only) each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
one (1) month each.
3. Heard Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants/accused No.1 to 6, and Sri P.Somayaji, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.07.2006 at about 09.00 a.m.,
when the deceased, Sri G. Chinnama Raju, is constructing a wall for keeping a
petty shop at Chinnamapalli Village, accused No.1 to 6 came there and
altercated with the deceased. The accused abused him in filthy language, made
aspersions against the conduct of his wife, and insulted him. Later, the deceased
4
2026:APHC:18664
went home, unable to bear the humiliation, and committed suicide by consuming
insecticide poison.
5. PW1, Sri G. Sridevi, daughter of the deceased, is present at home. She
raised cries. On hearing the cries, Sri G. Narayana Raju (PW2), Sri G. Rama
Raju (PW3), and others came there and shifted the deceased to Obulavaripalle
Police Station in an auto. Later, the deceased was shifted to the Government
Hospital, Rajampet. At that time, the deceased was in an unconscious state.
6. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajampet Police Station (PW13),
received intimation from the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Rajampet
(Ex.P12). PW13 went to the Government Hospital and found that the deceased is
unconscious. Therefore, he recorded the statement of PW1 under Ex.P1. Later,
PW13 transferred Ex.P1 to Obulavaripalle Police Station on the point of
jurisdiction by way of Ex.P13 memo.
7. The Sub-Inspector of Police (PW14) received the death intimation of the
deceased (Ex.P14) from the Government Hospital, Rajampet. Basing on Exs.P1,
P12, and P14, PW14 registered a case in Crime No.60 of 2006 on the file of
Obulavaripalle Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 306 read
with Section 34 IPC. He submitted the original FIR (E
