Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Lingature Mark Was Oblique Not Horizontal, Width 15 mm Inconsistent With Dish Wire Which Would Leave 3 mm Mark, Hyoid Bone Intact With No Injuries To Surrounding Soft Tissues", Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal by the de-facto complainant against the acquittal of three accused persons charged with murder and cruelty, holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal when overwhelming medical evidence clearly established suicide, and that eyewitness testimony contradicted by medical findings and marred by material omissions cannot be relied upon.

Background of the Case

The case involved the death of Mabbu Yellamma, the second wife of Accused No.1, on November 11, 2014. Accused No.1 was the son of Accused No.2, while Accused No.3 was his first wife. The deceased and Accused No.1 had fallen in love in 2011, and despite family opposition, the deceased signed stamp papers relinquishing all rights in her parental property, left her parental home, and married Accused No.1 in 2012. The deceased and Accused No.3 were living together in a house belonging to PW-5 in Moolasagaram, Nandyal town.

The prosecution's case was that Accused Nos.1 to 3 used to harass the deceased physically and mentally, demanding that she obtain her share in her parental property. According to the prosecution, on November 10, 2014, the deceased informed her elder sister PW-2 about the harassment. On November 11, 2014, prosecution witnesses PW-7 to PW-9 allegedly went to the deceased's house and found Accused No.3 coming down the staircase in a confused state. They claimed the main door was closed and they heard screams from inside. According to their version, they opened a window and witnessed Accused No.2 holding the deceased's hands and legs tightly while Accused No.1 tied dish wire around her neck and throttled her to death, projecting it as suicide. The witnesses allegedly raised an alarm, following which the accused fled, throwing the dish wire on the rooftop.

On information, PW-1 (sister of the deceased) and other relatives rushed to the scene, and PW-1 lodged a report. A case was registered under Sections 498-A and 302 read with 34 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. The trial court acquitted all three accused, finding that the motive was not proved, medical evidence indicated suicide, there was delay in lodging the FIR, inconsistency regarding the weapon used, weak circumstantial evidence, material omissions and contradictions, and that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The State did not file any appeal. The informant/de-facto complainant PW-1 filed the present appeal challenging the acquittal.

Legal Issues and Court's Observations

The Division Bench of Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma examined whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for offences under Sections 498-A and 302 read with 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the acquittal judgment was sustainable.

On the crucial question of whether the death was suicide or homicide, the Court relied heavily on the medical evidence. PW-6, the Civil Assistant Surgeon who conducted the autopsy, stated that the deceased died of mechanical asphyxia, and that according to the post-mortem certificate and related documents (Exs.P3 to P5), the death was suicide. The Court quoted the autopsy surgeon's critical findings: "The lingature mark on the neck of the deceased is not horizontal and it is oblique. The width of lingature mark will be 3 mm if the death is by using dish wire. The width of lingature mark in the present case is 15 mm i.e., 1.5 cm. The poison's death is ruled out. In the present case Hyoid bone is intact. There are no injuries around the soft tissues and muscles of Hyoid bone. On observing Exs.P.3 to P.5 the death of the deceased is suicide."

The Court noted that the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW-7 to PW-9 to establish homicidal death. However, the Court found their testimony fundamentally flawed and unreliable. PW-7 claimed he went to the deceased's house on information from PW-1 and witnessed the incident through a broken window. "It is relevant to note that P.W.1 did not state that she has asked P.W.7 to go and verify the situation. Further, P.W.7 states that P.W.8 broke the window," the Court observed.

Critically, PW-8's evidence completely contradicted PW-7's version. "P.W.8 evidence is that, he does not know the facts of the case and police did not examine him. He did not support the version of P.W.7 as to breaking the window etc.," the Court noted. The answers given by PW-7 during cross-examination regarding physical features of the scene and material omissions indicated his evidence was not worthy of credit.

Regarding PW-9's testimony, the Court found it substantially hearsay and exaggerated. "The evidence of P.W.9 is substantially a hearsay with regard to he witnessing that the Accused No.1 tying the neck of the deceased and throwing the deceased to the ceiling fan are exaggerations," Justice Sarma observed.

The Court then analyzed the evidence holistically. "After analysing the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 on one hand and P.Ws.7 to 9 on the other hand, in the light of the medical evidence of P.W.6 and post-mortem certificate (Ex.P.3) coupled with Ex.P.6, we find that prosecution failed to show that the death is a homicidal death. The evidence is indicating it is a suicide," the Court held.

On the allegation of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution claimed the deceased was harassed to obtain her share in parental property. However, the Court found this motive inherently flawed. The accused's counsel pointed out that since the deceased had relinquished her property rights even before marriage by signing stamp papers, neither she nor the accused would benefit from such property. "When the deceased has relinquished her share even prior to marriage, neither the deceased nor the accused will get the property. Therefore, there is no scope for the motive," the Court noted.

The Court examined the testimony of PW-1 to PW-3 (sisters of the deceased) who claimed the deceased complained of harassment. However, critical contradictions emerged. PW-1 stated that after the deceased's marriage, she saw her only once—at their mother's funeral—and the next time she saw the deceased was when she had died. "This indicates that there was no occasion for the deceased to share anything with P.W.1," the Court observed. Furthermore, PW-1 claimed she received phone calls from the deceased complaining of harassment but stated she did not know the mobile numbers of either herself or the deceased.

The Court noted significant inconsistencies regarding the timeline and source of information about the death. According to the FIR (Ex.P1), PW-1 received information from neighbors. During her evidence, she said PW-4 informed her. She stated she got information at 11 AM, reached the scene at 11:30 AM, but went to the police station only at 6 PM. "There is no consistency as to the time when information about death is received," the Court observed, finding this delay and inconsistency cast doubt on the prosecution case.

The Court placed significant weight on the testimony of PW-5, the owner of the house where the deceased and Accused No.1 lived on the third floor. PW-5 testified that the deceased and Accused No.1 lived happily together. His evidence detailed how Accused No.1 came to him when the door was locked, they tried to look through the eastern window but could not see inside, broke the window with a crow-bar, and found the deceased hanging from the fan with a saree. The door was bolted from inside on the northern side. "Natural witness is P.W.5, the owner of the house where deceased and Accused No.1 lived together. The person competent to speak something about the relationship between the deceased and accused is P.W.5. Nothing is stated by P.W.5 about the other Accused living along with Accused No.1 and harassment against the deceased etc.," the Court held.

The Court also noted that PW-4's evidence suggested reasonable terms existed between the deceased and his family. On the date of death, PW-4 had sent his wife to the hospital and requested the deceased to accompany her. After some time, Accused No.1 informed him that the deceased committed suicide. "The evidence of P.W.4 suggests that there were reasonable terms between the deceased and P.W.4 family and there is time gap between P.W.4 requesting the deceased to accompany the wife of P.W.4 to hospital and information about death of deceased," the Court observed.

Addressing the appellant's contention that the trial court wrongly ignored evidence about the crime weapon (dish wire) being thrown on the rooftop, the Court noted this was stated by LW-4 and LW-14 who were never examined, and therefore no reliance could be placed on unexamined witnesses' purported testimony.

The Court found that the trial court had correctly observed that during the deceased's lifetime, there was no complaint to police either by the deceased herself or by her family members about any harassment. "As rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge that, during the lifetime of the deceased, there was no complaint to police either by the deceased or by the parental family members of the deceased. The motive for killing the deceased that she did not get the property is not proved," Justice Sarma held.

Significantly, the Court noted that it was not even the prosecution's case that the deceased committed suicide due to harassment by the accused. "It is not the case of prosecution that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment of the Accused Nos.1 to 3. No such change is there at any point of time against any of the Accused," the Court observed.

Conclusion

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the criminal appeal and confirmed the acquittal judgment. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal or that the accused committed offences under Sections 498-A and 302 read with 34 IPC. "Upon careful examination of the entire evidence and the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 498A of IPC and 302 read with 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts and that the findings of the learned Sessions Judge under impugned judgment in S.C.No.429 of 2015 are sustainable and that there are no grounds to interfere," the Court held, finding the appeal devoid of merits.

Date of Decision: March 12, 2026