REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 681 OF 2003  

Dammu Sreenu …. Appellant

Versus

State of A.P.        …. Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

 1. The appellant herein filed the present appeal seeking for his acquittal from  

the  order  of  conviction  under  Section  306  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) whereby he was sentenced to undergo  

rigorous imprisonment for three years.

2. The appellant herein allegedly had illicit relationship with the wife of the  

deceased Bitra Nagarjuna Rao.  The wife of the deceased was also made a  

co-accused  in  the  same  offence  under  Section  306  IPC  and  she  was  

convicted for the aforesaid offence and was sentenced initially to undergo  

rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years which, however, later on  

was altered to one year of rigorous imprisonment by the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh.  The said sentence of one year has been served out by  

Accused No. 2, the wife of the deceased Bitra Nagarjuna Rao.

3. The  prosecution  has  alleged  in  its  case  that  the  present  appellant  had  

developed an illicit intimacy with Accused No. 2, who was the wife of the  

deceased Bitra Nagarjuna Rao.  On the night of 31.12.1995, accused No.  

2,  the wife of the deceased went out  of  her  house and returned to her  

matrimonial home only on the next day.  The deceased, Bitra Nagarjuna  

Rao was unhappy with the aforesaid conduct and so, naturally questioned  

her about her behaviour because of which there was a quarrel between the  

two.  Being disturbed and perturbed on account of the behaviour of his  

wife (Accused No. 2), the deceased, Bitra Nagarjuna Rao called the father  

of Accused No. 2 and asked him to take her away so as to give her proper  

counseling.  Accordingly, she was taken away by her father.  On the same  

day  the  present  appellant  (Accused  No.  1)  came  to  the  house  of  the  

deceased and when he was questioned by the inmates of the house of the  

deceased,  he  stated  that  he  had  illicit  relations  with  the  wife  of  the  

deceased and that he would keep coming to the house of the deceased so  

long she does not object to the same.  When he was told that Accused No.  

2 had gone with her father, Accused No. 1 went to the house of the brother  

of Accused No. 2 and took her away despite the protest of PW-5, brother  

2

of Accused No. 2, in whose house his father kept her.  The appellant took  

her away and brought her back to the house of her brother only after 4  

days and to her parents’ house on 06.01.1996.  

4. Having  come  to  know  about  the  aforesaid  incident,  the  deceased  felt  

humiliated and insulted.  He committed suicide by hanging himself in the  

intervening night of 7th and 8th January, 1996.  It is also to be noted, at this  

stage,  that  prior  to  his  suicide,  the  deceased,  Bitra  Nagarjuna  Rao  

expressed before his brother that it would be better to die as he felt very  

much insulted and humiliated.  The deceased having committed suicide,  

his brother gave a report to the police which was registered as a case under  

Section  174  of  Criminal  Procedure  Code,  1973  (for  short  ‘the  CrPC’)  

which was, during the course of investigation, altered to a case of Section  

306 IPC.   

5. The  police  after  investigation  submitted  a  charge-sheet  against  the  

accused.  The accused, however, denied the charge.  Accordingly, he was  

tried  under  the  aforesaid  charges.   During  the  course  of  trial  the  

prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and the appellant-accused  

was also examined under Section 313 of the CrPC wherein he denied his  

involvement in the offence.

3

6. The  trial  court  appreciated  the  materials  available  on  record  and,  

thereafter, passed a judgment and order of conviction.  He convicted the  

present appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo  

rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs. 100/- in  

default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.  The trial court  

also convicted accused No. 2, i.e. wife of the deceased, under Section 306  

IPC and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of  

five years.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and  

sentence the appellant as also the wife of the deceased filed a common  

criminal  appeal  in  the  court  of  IInd Additional  Sessions Judge,  Guntur  

which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1998.  The said appeal  

was allowed in part and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial  

court was altered and reduced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to  

3 years simple imprisonment.

8. In revision the High Court maintained the order of conviction against the  

accused-appellant but altered the sentence of Accused No. 2, i.e. the wife  

of  the  deceased  to  one  year  imprisonment  which  she  has  already  

undergone.

4

9. Now this  appeal  is,  therefore,  filed  only  by  appellant  No.  1,  who was  

convicted and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment  for three years.  

An order to release appellant No. 1 on bail was passed pursuant to which  

Accused No. 1 is on bail.   The appeal was listed before us for hearing  

during the course of which we heard the learned counsel appearing for the  

parties and were also taken through the records.

10.According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, ingredients  

of abetment are totally absent as envisaged under Section 306 IPC read  

with Section 107 of the IPC and, therefore, Accused No. 1 is liable to be  

acquitted.  It was submitted by him that on a proper interpretation of the  

facts as also the provisions of Section 306 IPC it cannot be said that the  

appellant herein was in any manner responsible for abetting the suicide  

committed by the deceased which was an independent act of the deceased.  

It  was also submitted by him that  the appellant  did not  in any manner  

substantially assisted the deceased in committing  the offence of suicide  

and since there was no such participation of the appellant in abetting the  

offence of suicide, the conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC is  

required to be set aside and quashed.

5

11.The  aforesaid  submissions  were,  however,  refuted  by  learned  counsel  

appearing for the State contending inter alia that there is a concurrent find  

of facts by three courts below finding the appellant guilty of the offence  

under Section 306 IPC and, therefore, the said findings cannot be said to  

be in any manner as untenable or unjustified.

12.The fact that the appellant had illicit relationship with Accused No. 2, who  

was the wife of the deceased, is an admitted position for which there was  

no cross-examination on the point which was clearly stated by PW-5, who  

is the brother of Accused No. 2, in  his statement on 2.1.1996 which is  

reproduced hereinbelow :   

“On 2-1-1996 my father brought A2 to my house at Tsunduru  and he  informed that  she  is  having  illicit  contact  with  A1 to  change her  behaviour  brought  her  to  my house  to  keep some  time.  On the same day evening A1 came to my house and took  away A2.  Some discussion take place between myself and A1  regarding coming to my house.  Due to fear, I could not resist for  taking away A2.”

13.  We have carefully examined the aforesaid statement of PW-5 and on  

perusal of the statement we do not find that any suggestion was made to  

the  said  PW-5  that  there  did  not  exist  an  illicit  relationship  between  

Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2.  Besides, the close relatives of the  

deceased who were also examined as witnesses had categorically stated in  

6

their statements that on coming to know of the fact that Accused No. 1 has  

taken  Accused  No.  2  from  the  house  of  PW-5  and  left  her  only  on  

06.01.1996  at  her  parents  house,  the  deceased  stated  before  the  said  

inmates of his house that because of the said insult and humiliation he does  

not like to live.  It is also proved that immediately thereafter in the night  

intervening 7th and 8th of January, 1996  the deceased committed suicide.  

The aforesaid fact leads to only one conclusion that it  is on account of  

humiliation and insult due to the behaviour and conduct of Accused No. 1  

and Accused No. 2 that he proceeded to commit the suicide.   

14.The facts which are disclosed from the evidence on record clearly establish  

that Accused No. 1 had illicit relationship with Accused No. 2 who is the  

wife of the deceased.  It is also not in dispute that Accused No. 1 was  

visiting the house of the deceased to meet Accused No. 2 and that he even  

went to the house of deceased when he came to know that the wife of the  

deceased was sent with her father for counseling and advise.  He loudly  

stated that he would continue to have relationship with Accused No. 2 and  

would come to her house so long she does not object to the same.  He also  

took her away from the house of PW-5, her brother and kept her with him  

for 4 days.  Immediately after the said incident the deceased committed the  

suicide.  Therefore, there is definitely a proximity and nexus between the  

7

conduct and behaviour of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 with that of  

the  suicide  committed  by  the  deceased.   Besides,  there  is  clear  and  

unambiguous findings of fact of three courts that the appellant is guilty of  

the offence under Section 306 of IPC.  Such findings do not call for any  

interference in our hand.  This Court also does not generally embark upon  

reappreciation of evidence on facts which are found and held against the  

appellant.   

15.Considering  the  entire  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  we  are,  

therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction as also the  

order of sentence passed against the accused-appellant.   We uphold the  

order of the High Court and dismiss this appeal.  The bail bond of the  

accused-appellant stands cancelled.  He shall surrender forthwith to serve  

out the remaining period of the sentence.

……………………………J. (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)

…………………………..J. (Dr. B.S. Chauhan)

New Delhi, May 28, 2009

8