Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pothyamsetti Satyanarayana Reddy And ... vs State Of A.P. on 7 October, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006CRILJ27, 2006 CRI. L. J. 27, 2006 (1) AJHAR (NOC) 92 (AP), 2006 (2) ABR (NOC) 235 (AP), (2006) 1 ALD(CRL) 66, (2006) 1 ANDHLT(CRI) 250
ORDER G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. This is a revision case filed by the accused in the S.C. No. 164 of 1992 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, challenging the con victions and sentences imposed by the said Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court, Rajahmundry in Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1992.
2. The revision petitioners are A-1 to A-3 in Crime No. 28 of 1991 of Rajavaram P.S. registered for the offences under Sections 306 and 509, IPC.
3. This revision petition was allowed in part by this Court through the order dated 22-11-1996 acquitting the petitioners for the offence under Section 306, IPC and confirming their conviction for the offence under Section 509, IPC and reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The de facto complainant who is the first respondent herein preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1056 of 1997 before the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court through its judgment dated 17-3-2004 set aside the order of this Court and remitted the matter back to hear the case afresh and dispose of the same according to law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there was no consideration whatsoever in the judgment of the High Court of the evidence on record or the findings recorded by the Courts below and yet the High Court set aside the conviction of the respondents under Section 306, IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court extracted the relevant portion of the order of this Court which reads as follows :
From the evidence it is clear that the prosecution has not established the case against the accused for the offence under Section 306, IPC beyond reasonable doubt. As far as the offence punishable under Section 509, IPC is concerned there is ample material to establish the case against the accused. Accordingly this revision is allowed in part setting aside the conviction and the sentence of R.I. for three years passed for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC. As far as the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 509, IPC is concerned the same is confirmed and the sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following further observations :
Against the concurrent findings of fact, the High Court has interfered in its revisional jurisdiction and that too without even noticing the findings recorded by the Court's below and giving reasons for disagreeing with the conclusions reached by them. As it is, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is limited and only in cases where there appears a manifest illegality or injustice, or the order suffers from any error of law the High Court would be justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Even if a wider jurisdiction is assumed in favour of the High Court in revisional jurisdiction, it cannot be wider than the power of the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction. In the instant case we find that the learned Judge even without considering the evidence observed that from the evidence it was clear that the prosecution had not established the case against the accused for the offence under Section 306, IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Such a cryptic and unreasoned order disposing of the criminal revision against concurrent findings of fact cannot be sustained by this Court.
Brevity when accompanied with logic, and reason is a great virtue as it imparts clarity to the judgment. But brevity by itself, for some reason, cannot, be pleaded as the sole reason for sustaining a judgment. It is of the essence of a fair judicial adjudication that the conclusions reached must be supported by reason which must appear on the face of the judgment so as to lend credibility and transparency. In the instant case we find brevity to be the sole virtue of the judgment, and therefore in the absence of reasons, the judgment is unsustainable.
5. In the light of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the revision petition was restored to its original file and after hearing the counsel for both parties, the following order is passed.
6. The revision petitioners were charged for the offences under Sections 306 and 509, IPC. The trial Court found them guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 306, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5.000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five months. The trial Court also convicted the revision petitioners for the offence under Section 509,IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The revision petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court preferred the appeal covered by Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1992 and the appellate Court through its judgment dated 19-12-1994 confirmed the convictions and the sentences imposed by the trial Court. The revision petitioners being aggrieved by the convictions and the sentences imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court preferred this revision petition challenging its validity and legality.
7. The case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the petitioners is briefly as follows :
8. The accused are residents of Pasalapudi village and they are close associates to each other. The deceased Sujatha was the daughter of P.W. 1. She was married to P.W. 2 of Pandlapaka village in the year 1984. After the marriage he migrated to Pasalapudi and was running a medical store. During the wedlock the deceased gave birth to a male child through P.W. 2. They were leading happy marital life and their family members and relations were also affectionate towards her. The deceased died on 5-3-1991 by committing suicide by hanging. About seven months prior to the said incident, P.W. 2 and the deceased shifted their family to a rented house of one Goluguri Bhadrakali. The accused are residents of the same locality. They had an eye on the deceased Sujatha. They used to follow her whenever she was going on the road and were making indecent gestures uttering obscene words and were demanding her to fulfill their lust. The deceased refused their request and did not yield to them. Therefore, the accused started spreading rumours in the village regarding her chastity and created mental agony to her. The deceased being an orthodox lady could not endure the humiliation caused by the accused. She complained to P.Ws. 1 to 3 and others and sought for protection from them. The father of the deceased reported the matter to elders and they admonished the accused and cautioned them not to repeat their conduct. Thereafter, the accused stopped harassing the deceased for 2 or 3 months. The father of the deceased tried to shift the house of the deceased, but they did not find suitable accommodation. After some time, the accused started spreading rumours and created an atmosphere of terror in the mind of the deceased. The accused used to follow her and eve-tease her. She also complained to her husband repeatedly about the humiliation caused by the accused. On 2-3-2001 the deceased came to her parents' house with her son in distress and sorrowful mood. She narrated to her relatives about her miserable life and expressed that she could not bear the humiliation caused by the accused. The parents of the deceased consoled her and promised to shift her residence, after the marriage of her brother, to a different locality. Thereafter, she returned to Pasalapudi village leaving her son with her parents. The accused provoked the deceased by creating such circumstances leaving no option to her, except to commit suicide. The deceased decided to commit suicide to put an end to her miseries. On 5-3-1991 in the morning time, P.W. 2 went to his medical shop and the deceased was alone in the house. On the same day at about 12 Noon, one Sri Satti Veera Raghava Reddy, the grandfather of the deceased went to her house and found the doors closed unbolted. He opened the doors and found the deceased hanging to the fan hook of the ceiling of the kitchen, untied the cloth and laid the body on the floor. The husband and parents of the deceased on coming to know about the incident rushed to the house and after confirming that the deceased died, cremated the dead body for want of sufficient information regarding the cause of death. On 15-3-1991 i.e. ten days after the death, the sister of the deceased noticed Ex. P-2 letter while cleaning the room, in which the deceased committed suicide. She handed over the said letter to her father and the contents of the letter disclosed that the accused created the circumstances which compelled the deceased to take an extreme step of hanging herself. After tracing the letter covered by Ex. P.2 the father of the deceased presented Ex. P-4 complaint to Rayavararn police and a crime for the offence under Section 306, IPC was registered. After gathering the evidence, the police laid the charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 509 and 306, IPC against all the accused. The accused denied the charges framed by the Court and claimed for trial.
9. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined P.Ws. 1 to 16 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-12. No oral evidence was adduced on defence side but Exs. D-1 to D-5 were marked.
10. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy learned Senior Counsel representing the revision petitioners submitted that the prosecution failed to place direct evidence for the harassment alleged to be caused by the accused and the evidence of the other witnesses is only hearsay, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged misconduct of the accused towards the deceased. He further submitted that the material placed by the prosecution is not attracting the ingredients of either Section 306 or 107, IPC and unless the ingredients of those sections are satisfied the alleged harassment said to be caused by the accused cannot be termed as abetment to the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the revision petitioners requested to set aside the judgments of the Courts below by recording their acquittal.
11. In the light of the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel, the followings are the points taken up for consideration :
(1) Whether the incidents of the accused following the deceased in the street, demanding her to fulfill their lust, uttering vulgar words, spreading rumour in the village about her chastity amount to offences under Sections 306 and 509, IPC ?
(2) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt ?
Points :
12. The fact that the deceased and her husband shifted their residence to a rented house at Pasarlapudi village, that all the accused are residents of the neighbouring houses and close associates to each other is not in dispute. The prosecution alleged that from the day the deceased and her husband shifted their residence to the house of Goluguri Bhadrakali, the accused had an eye over the deceased and were trying by all means to get her favour to oblige them. The prosecution further alleged that whenever the deceased was going in the street they were following her by making indecent gestures and uttering obscene words by demanding her to fulfill their lust. It is the further story of the prosecution that when the deceased did not accede to the demand of the accused, they started spreading rumours in the village regarding the chastity of the deceased and caused mental agony to her. The deceased being an orthodox lady could not bear the humiliation caused by the accused and decided to commit suicide. The prosecution in order to prove the above allegations relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 13.
13. P.W. 1, the father of the deceased deposed that the marriage of the deceased was performed with P.W. 2 in 1984. P.W. 2 is running a medical shop in Pasalapudi village. The deceased and P.W. 2 shifted their residence to the rented house of Bhadrakali about five or six months prior to the date of occurrence. A-2 is the neighbour of the deceased. A-1's house is also nearer to that house. All the accused used to harass the deceased by eve-teasing by way of using indecent language, hurling flowers and calling her through signs while she was cooking in her house and they used to whistle and call her through the signs of hands. P.W. 2 used to go to the medical shop at 7 a.m. return for lunch at 1 p.m. again go to the shop at 1-30 p.m. and return to house at 10 p.m. in the night. The deceased used to stay alone in the house, therefore, the accused used to call her with signs and whistles. The accused used to follow the deceased walking in the street. He further stated that the deceased narrated the behaviour of the accused towards her to him and other family members. She underwent mental agony and requested him for action. He requested P.W. 6 and others for mediation and the deceased narrated the happenings to them and they in turn asked the accused to keep quiet. On that, the accused kept quiet for some time. But, later they resorted to same activities with more aggressiveness by saying that they will not stop their activities till the deceased surrenders to them. The deceased came to his house on 2-3-1991 along with her son in a distressed mood to attend the marriage of his son. She narrated the activities of the accused against her. When he told her that after the marriage of his son the house would be changed, she left the house by leaving the child. On 5-3-1991, she committed suicide. On 15-3-1991, when his eldest daughter Manikumari and his younger brother Venkat Reddy went to the house of P.W. 2 to bring their articles, they traced Ex. P-2 letter containing the reason for her death. After recovery of Ex. P.2 letter, he decided to probe into the matter by concluding that the accused were responsible for the suicide of the deceased.
14. P.W. 2, Sri Padala Satyanarayana Reddy, who is no other than the husband of the deceased deposed that he is having a medical shop at Pasalapudi village. He married the deceased in 1984. There were no disputes or misunderstandings between the deceased and himself till her death occurred on 5-3-1991. Prior to the death of the deceased, they shifted their residence to the house of Bhadrakali. After they shifted their residence the deceased was telling him about the harassment caused by the accused who were residing in the nearby locality. The deceased informed him that the accused used to treat her by using indecent language and calling her by signs, clapping with hands. The accused resorted to those acts with a view to engage her. Despite resistance by the deceased, the accused used to hurl small stones and spread rumours against her character and he advised her to keep it in her mind. The deceased asked him to change the house and he was trying to shift the house. On account of the activities of the accused, the deceased underwent mental agony. Mediators were also sent by P.W. 1 to the accused and they stopped their activities for some time and later resorted to the same practice in more aggressive form. The accused also harassed the deceased on the way while she was going to her parents' house. On the date of occurrence, the deceased committed suicide. On 15-3-1991 when the room was being cleaned Ex. P.2 letter was found in the box of the deceased and it was in the handwriting of the deceased. As per the contents of Ex. P-2 letter, the deceased died due to the harassment of the accused.
15. P.W. 3, the mother of the deceased deposed that the deceased used to come to their house and during those visits the deceased used to tell her that the accused were harassing her after occupying Bhadrakali's house. The deceased used to narrate the facts by weeping. The deceased informed her that the accused used to hurl small stones and flowers at her, and also accompany her in the bus. The deceased also told her that the accused used to call her with gestures, hands and whistles. She advised the deceased not to be afraid and requested her to bear with the inconvenience till the house is changed. The deceased resisted the attempts of the accused and did not surrender to them. Therefore, the accused started spreading rumours in the village that the deceased had no character. She further stated that on 2-3-1991 the deceased came to their house with her son in a sorrowful and weeping mood. She informed her eldest daughter that she was being harassed by the accused and she cannot withstand the same. The deceased left their house by leaving the child and on 5-3-1991 the deceased committed suicide.
16. P.W. 4, the eldest sister of the deceased deposed that the deceased informed her that after they shifted the residence to the house of Bhadrakali the accused used to hurl stones and whistles when she was in the house and when she was going out the accused were harassing her by throwing flowers and using indecent language with a view to make her surrender to them. She further stated that as and when the deceased and herself are visiting their parents' house, the deceased used to inform her about the activities of the accused and weep. On 2-3-1991, the deceased came to her parents house in connection with the marriage of their brother and on that day also the deceased informed her in the presence of their mother that the accused were harassing and she cannot no more withstand the harassment. On 5-3-1991 she was informed about the incident and they saw the dead body by going to the place of occurrence. On tenth day--ceremony day, the rituals were performed and P.W. 1 handed over the keys of the almirah. While arranging articles in the almirah, she found a box and in that box she found Ex. P.2 letter, which was in the handwriting of the deceased.
17. P.W. 5, the grandfather of the deceased also stated that P.W. 1 informed him and others that the accused have been harassing the deceased and requested them to intervene. He along with others went to the Rice Mill at Pasarlapudi village and questioned the persons named by the deceased and asked them to be careful in future. After that, the accused kept quiet for some time. On 5-3-1991, P.W. 1 sent him to bring the deceased for the marriage of his grand son. Sometime later, he went to the house of the deceased and on opening the door found the deceased hanging in the room.
18. P.W. 6, a resident of Pasarlapudi village deposed that his wife informed him that A-1 and A-3 were teasing the deceased Sujatha. Thereupon, he went to ask A-1 about it and questioned as to why he was teasing the deceased since three months prior to the incident. Since this witness did not wholeheartedly support the prosecution, he was declared hostile.
19. P.W. 7, the father-in-law of P.W. 1 deposed that the deceased informed him that the accused used to follow her, harass and tease her with a bad motive to make her to surrender to them. Subsequently, P.W. 6 along with others went to the house of P.W. 7 with a view to contact the accused and to question them about their activities. Later all of them went to the rice mill and questioned the accused as to why they were harassing the deceased and advised them not to harass her. After the said chastising the accused kept quiet for some time and later the deceased informed him that the accused resorted to repeat the earlier conduct of teasing her. Subsequently, when the deceased did not yield to their pressure, the accused started spreading rumours about the character of the deceased. The deceased while attending the marriage of her brother was also in a sorrowful mood. Subsequently, he came to know that the deceased died on 5-3-1991 and went to that place.
20. P.W. 8, a resident of Komaripalem deposed that P.W. 1 informed him that A-3 and others were harassing the deceased and requested him to intervene in the matter since A-3's father was his neighbour. He told to P.W. 1 that A-3 is not a man of that type. When he questioned A-3, he was informed that he did not harass the deceased. Subsequently, he came to know about the death of the deceased.
21. P.W. 9, a resident of Konkuduru village deposed that about two months prior to the incident while taking medicines from R.C. Puram to Konkuduru he saw the deceased at the bus-stand of Pasalapudi, he got down from his cycle and asked the deceased as to why she is there. She told that she is going to her parents' house and she was in a sorrowful mood, when he questioned she told that the accused were harassing her and he saw the accused at that place.
22. P.W. 10, a resident of Balabhadra-puram deposed that about 15 days prior to the death of the deceased he boarded a van at. Machavaram. While he was sitting alone in the bus he saw a person sitting on the back seat smoking cigarette and laughing at the deceased in a vulgar mariner. The deceased was in a sorrowful mood. After his conversation with the deceased, the cigarette smoker came to know that he is related to the deceased and then stopped his activities. He further stated that he saw the smoker only on one occasion and he cannot identify that person.
23. P.W. 11 (Bhadrakali), a resident of Pasalapudi turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.
24. P.W. 12, a resident of Pasalapudi and the elder sister of P.W. 1 deposed that about 5 or 6 months prior to the death, the deceased and her husband occupied the third floor of the house of P.W. 11. The deceased used to visit her house very often and inform that she was being harassed by the accused by hurling stones, flowers and by eve-teasing. Subsequently, when she along with other elders questioned A-1, A-1 stated that the deceased was like his daughter. After that, the accused kept quiet for some time and they repeated the same conduct of harassment afterwards. They were spreading rumours against the deceased about her character and the deceased informed her that the accused were hurling stones against her. On 2-3-1991, she found the deceased in a sorrowful mood at the house of P.W. 1 also. On the date of occurrence when she asked the deceased at what time they should go to the marriage of her brother, the deceased informed her that she would send a word about the timing. She was hale and healthy at that time. But by the time P.W. 5 went to the house of the deceased, she was found dead by hanging.
25. P.W. 13, a neighbour of the deceased turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.
26. In Ex. P.4 complaint which contains the earliest version of P.W. 1, he mentioned that the deceased committed suicide on 5-3-1991, that the ceremony of the deceased took place on 15-3-1991 and while going through the belongings of the deceased, they found Ex. P-2 suicide note, which was in the handwriting of the deceased and the deceased committed suicide being unable to bear with the harassment, caused by the accused. The accused did not take any specific defence except denying the offence.
27. In the light of the above evidence, it has to be examined whether the above acts of harassment amount to an offence under Section 306, IPC.
28. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that as the material placed by the prosecution does not attract the ingredients of Section 107, IPC, the accused are not liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 306, IPC. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention placed strong reliance on the following judgments.
29. In Shankaraiah v. State of A. P. 2002 Cri LJ 3201 (AP) a learned single Judge of this High Court while dealing with Sections 306(iii) and 107, IPC held that in a case of suicide alleged to have been committed by the deceased on account of cancellation of her marriage with A. 1 after its settlement and on account of the paternal uncle of the accused humiliating the deceased along with A. 1 and father of A. 1, it does not amount to instigation as the ingredients of Clauses (i) and (if) of Section 107 are not attracted. The Court further held that since no aid was given by the accused to the deceased, Clause (iii) of Section 306 does not apply.
30. In Ram v. State of U.P. the Supreme Court held that in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. It is clearly held that mere proof that the crime could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirement of Section 107, IPC. Various High Courts have taken a view that merely because a person committed suicide by feeling insulted or humiliated, due to the comments or uttarances made by the accused, the accused cannot be said to be guilty of an offence under Section 306, IPC.
31. In Devraj v. State of H. P. 1991 (3) Crimes 383 a partner in a firm committed suicide due to the other partners (accused) taking away large sums of money out of partnership fund for various purposes and their not rendering an account to the deceased, and for not permitting the deceased utilizing the profits. The other partners in the firm who are accused of an offence under Section 306, IPC for the suicide of the deceased, were held to be not guilty of such offence.
32. In Alka Grewal v. State of M. P. 2000 Cri LJ 672 a woman was held to be not guilty of an offence under Section 306, IPC for her husband committing suicide, after feeling insulted and humiliated due to her immoral conduct. The Court specifically held that though she may be the cause for suicide of her husband, she cannot be said to have abetted his suicide.
33. In State of Gujarat v. Pradyuman Ramanlal Mehta 1999 Cri LJ 736 the publishers and others responsible for publication of a defamatory article are held to be not guilty of an offence under Section 306, IPC for the defamed person's suicide on feeling humiliated due to the defamatory publication.
34. In V. Adinarayana v. State of A.P. 2000 Cri LJ 1182 a woman committed suicide when the accused threatened her that he would reveal her illicit connection to her husband. The accused was held to have not committed an offence under Section 306 of IPC.
35. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. 1996 Cri L J 894 the Supreme Court held that merely because the deceased woman stated in her dying declaration that she was harassed by the accused, the accused cannot be held guilty of an offence under Section 306, IPC.
36. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2002 (1) Andh LT (Cri) 80 : 2001 Cri LJ 4724 the Supreme Court while considering Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC and contents of a letter written by the de-ceased held that the letter nowhere indicates any demand of dowry having been made by the accused or the deceased having been pressurized by the accused for bringing more dowry. The Supreme Court further held that the case is not one which may fall under clauses, secondly and thirdly of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code. The case has to be decided by reference to the first clause, i.e. whether the accused-appellant abetted the suicide by instigating her to do so, The Supreme Court at paragraph No. 21 of the judgment also observed as follows :
21. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of Instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the con-sequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without Intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
37. In Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab 2005 SCC (Cri) 56 : 2004 Cri LJ 4985 the Supreme Court held as follows :
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as Instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306, IPC. (Para 12)
38. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners after placing reliance on the above judgments submitted that even if there is some material to show that the revision petitioners eve-teased the deceased through demands, gestures and objectionable words, it does not amount, to abetment for committing suicide.
39. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on certain other judgments in support of their contention that the revision petitioners abetted the suicide of the deceased.
40. In State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh the Supreme Court held that when the wife committed suicide due to strained relationship with her husband over dowry, when there was ill-treatment given to the wife, when the wife was apprehending danger to her life, seeking police protection, divorce deed executed subsequently, but not acted upon, when the wife was apprehending bloodshed and when the husband severely beaten the deceased the day before sue committed suicide, it is a clear case of the husband responsible for creating circumstances which provoked or forced the wife to commit suicide. The husband is liable to be convicted under Section 306, IPC.
41. In Brij Lal v. Prem Chand the Supreme Court while dealing with Sections 306 and 107 Explanation II of the Indian Penal Code held that where the husband repeatedly demanded money from his wife quarrelling with her everyday over payment of money and reacting to her comment that she preferred death to life in this world, that she can provide him relief quicker by dying on very same day and that she need not postpone her death to the next day and the wife committing suicide by setting fire to herself amounts to instigation to the deceased wife to commit suicide.
42. In the case covered by the above decision there was overwhelming evidence to establish that the life of the deceased was made intolerable by the accused by constantly demanding her to get him money and also beating her frequently, in spite of her writing to her brother and mother for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- being sent immediately, the accused did not relent in his insistence for immediate compliance of his demand. The accused wanted Immediate payment of the money and went to the extent of saying that the deceased can go to hell, but he should get Rs. 1.000/- forthwith. The deceased on the fateful day reacted by saying that because of the accused quarrelling with her everyday over the payment of money, she preferred death to life in this world. The accused, far from expressing regret for his conduct, drove her to despair by further saying that she can provide him relief quicker by dying on the very same day and that she need not postpone her death to the next day. After leaving deceased in the house, the accused went to the Court. He was practicing as an Advocate. One hour later the deceased committed suicide by setting fire to herself.
43. The Supreme Court, in the above factual background, observed that it is not a case where the deceased wanted to commit suicide for reasons to her own and the accused had facilitated her in the commission of suicide. The Supreme Court also held that the abetment of the commission of suicide by the deceased wife is clearly due to instigation and would therefore fall under the first clause of Section 306, IPC. The Supreme Court while rendering the above Judgment further observed as follows :
23. As to what would constitute instigation for the commission of an offence would depend upon the facts of each case. Therefore, in order to decide whether a person has abetted by instigation the commission of an offence or not, the act of abetment has to be judged in the conspectus of the entire evidence in the case. The act of abetment attributed to an accused is not to be viewed or tested in isolation. Such being the case, the instigative effect of the words used by the accused must be judged on the basis of the distraught condition to which the accused had driven Veena Rani.
44. In Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh the Supreme Court after considering the evidence of the father and sisters of the deceased that the deceased complained to them about the forture of her in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry and accusing her of carrying illegitimate child leading to the commission of suicide by the deceased by burning amounts to instigation to the deceased to commit suicide. In the case covered by the above decision, the Supreme Court observed as follows :
30. We have already referred hereinbefore to the evidences of the prosecution witnesses who clearly testified to the greedy and lusty nature of the accused and that they persistently taunted the deceased and tortured her for not having brought sufficient dowry from her father. It is also in evidence that they also taunted her for carrying an illegitimate child. All these tortures and taunts caused depression to her mind and drove her to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life by sprinkling kerosene oil on her person and setting fire. Circumstantial evidence as well as the evidences of the prosecution witnesses clearly prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons instigated and abetted Ravinder Kaur, deceased in the commission of the offence by committing suicide by burning herself. The findings arrived at by the High Court without considering properly the circumstantial evidence as well as the evidences of the prosecution witnesses cannot be sustained. As such the findings of the High Court are liable to be reversed and set aside.
45. In Shaik Ibrahim v. Slate of A. P. 2005 (1) Andh LD (Cri) 163 the question regarding the abetment of suicide of a minor girl by imputing unchastity came up for consideration. A learned single Judge of this Court while confirming the conviction against A.1. therein observed as follows :
26. A family in the Indian Society, whether big or small, rich or poor, wants to live in peace with some dignity and reputation. Indian women do not tolerate insults and get offended at the slightest remarks made against them, and moreso, when touching remarks with respect to their chastity are made, and they become so sensitive that they even go to the extent of giving up their lives, and in fact, give up their lives, instead of leading an unceremonious life. In Indian Society, chastity is regarded as a women's virtue, and no women would digest if any person makes touching remarks or casts aspersion against her chastity or doubts her chastity, even if it. be her husband. Indian woman prefers to lead honourable life than lead a life of unchastity or with insults touching her honour. In spite of modernization in the world, yet rural India continues to be traditional and follows the, customs with utmost regard. In the instant case, the deceased was unable to bear the words uttered by A. 1., and such utterances, on the fateful day, made her to kill herself by dousing kerosene on her body and lighting it up. P.W, 1 spoke about the incident and P.W. 2 corroborated the same and this is direct evidence. No doubt their evidence in relation to pre-incident is more in the nature of hearsay, but the fact remains that the accused teased her by making touching remarks against her chastity, and if this conduct of A. 1 on the fateful day is not construed as instigation or abetment, then what else would constitute abetment, and this Court is at a loss to understand. Instigation or abetment has to be understood in the context of age of the deceased, the society in which she lives, and the social acceptance of the nature of the words uttered by A.1 and the attending circumstances.
46. The case covered by the above decision is a case of a young girl of 15 years and the deceased girl and three accused are residents of the same village. The deceased was studying at Eturunagaram and she used to attend the school at Kturunagaram from her village. Since 2 or 3 months prior to the date of occurrence. A. 1 to A.3 who were also students, teased her and pelted stones on her. When she made complaint to her mother and grandmother, they assured to warn the accused, but the eve-teasing was continued by the accused. On 25-6-1993 the mother and grandmother of the deceased asked A. 1 and his mother about the misbehaviour and on that A. 1 picked up quarrel and uttered that Bhavani was having illicit intimacy with him and attributed unchastity. The deceased could not bear the insult, went inside the house and set fire to herself by pouring kerosene. She was shifted to the Government hospital and on the next day she died.
47. In Waxir v. State of Haryana , the Supreme Court observed as follows :
Reading Sections 306 and 107 together it is clear that if any person instigates any other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished under Section 306 of the Penal Code for abetting the commission of suicide.
48. In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana , the Supreme Court while dealing with a dowry death case observed as follows :
In cases of dowry deaths and suicides, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can be drawn on the basis of such evidence, that could be either direct or indirect In the case covered by the above decision, there was repeated demand from the husband's side from the girl and her parents for the various articles and on failure, the girl was tortured, harassed by words and deeds, amounting to cruelty. One day before the fateful clay, the husband saturated the mental agony and cruelty by quarrelling with the wife even at her sister's place, leaving no option which led the deceased to commit suicide. The mental state is further clear by the words, which she spoke to her sister, "it would be difficult now to see her face in the future.
In the light of the above facts, the Supreme Court held as follows :
In our opinion all this would constitute to be an act which would be an abetment for the commission of the suicide by the girl. The husband, in the present case, has not led any cogent evidence or brought any circumstances to dislodge the aforesaid inference. Of course benefit of doubt, to the accused would be available provided there is supportive evidence on the record. Hence, for creating doubt or granting benefit of doubt, the evidence was to be such which may lead to such doubt. We do not find that present is a where any benefit of doubt results at least against the husband. There is direct evidence, as stated by the aforesaid witnesses, that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by the husband.
49. The learned single Judge further observed that the deceased Bhavani would not have committed suicide but for the acts and utterances made by the accused on the fateful day and the evidence placed by the prosecution satisfied the ingredients of Section 305, I. P. C. and accordingly A. 1 is liable for punishment.
50. The above case law indicates that irrespective of presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, the offence under Section 306, I. P. C. can also be established through the circumstances. In the light of the above legal position, it has to be examined whether in the present case the revision petitioners making demand to the deceased to surrender, calling her by gestures and commenting her with objectionable words and attributing unchastity amount to abetment to commit suicide?
51. The evidence placed by the prosecution indicates that the deceased informed the prosecution witnesses about the harassment caused by the accused In various forms and all of them stated as to what the deceased informed them about the conduct of the accused. Ex. P. 2 is the suicidal note of the deceased and it reads as follows :
This is written with solace to my mother. I am leaving by keeping in big responsibility of looking after my son. He shall be treated as their son, educate him and make him useful to the society. I lived all these days for the sake of my son. It is now time for me to die. I am not dying either at the instance of my husband or my mother-in-law. Erra Satyanarayana (A-1) and Mohan Reddy (A-2) are responsible for my death. They conspired against me. People are believing their conspiracy. Nobody knows to what extent there is truth or falsehood in that. They are believing the falsehood. 10 days after my shifting to this terraced building, Prasad (A-2) started watching me. If he is caught, he would disclose the truth as to who has what intention. People harassed me and relations also uttered so many words hurting my feelings, but I bear with all hose comments. I am not a God to further bear with such things. I lost my patience. My brother's marriage should not stop. My death should not be disclosed to my people till after the marriage and it shall be disclosed only later. I am not fortunate to see the marriage of my younger brother. I am blamed and humiliated. I do not want to trouble my elders. But I stood for my character.
52. After recovery of Ex. P.2, PW-1 made a complaint to police. There was lapse of some time from the date offence. When a new fact concerning the offence and complicity of some persons comes to light, the complainant has every justification to prefer a complaint irrespective of the time lapse due to non-availability of any incriminative material.
53. The statement of the deceased as to the cause of his or her death is admissible not only against the person who actually instigated the deceased to commit suicide, but also against other persons concerned in the transaction which resulted in the deponent's death. The suicidal note of the deceased comes within the purview of Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Section 32 is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies, whether the death is homicide or a suicide, provided the statement relates to the cause of death, or exhibits circumstances leading to the death. Though the dying declaration is only a piece of untested evidence and it is required to satisfy the court like any other evidence that what is stated therein is the unalloyed truth when once it is absolutely safe to act upon it.
54. The suicidal note was written by the deceased immediately before committing the suicide, therefore, it can be treated as a statement given by the deceased under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act and the contents of the said note can be relied on. There is a specific mention in Ex. P. 2 that A. 1 and A. 3 were responsible for the death of the deceased. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 10 and 12 is also lending corroboration to the contents of Ex. P. 2 to the extent of the responsibility of A. 1 and A. 3 in creating circumstances leading to the death of the deceased. Since the deceased is no more, the oral statements made by her to the prosecution witnesses are admissible in evidence and they can be relied on for the purpose of corroboration to the contents of the suicidal note left by the deceased. In the light of the above circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold the trial Court, and the appellate Court were right in holding that the prosecution established the guilt of A. 1 and A.3 for the offence under Section 306, I. P. C.
55. So far as the role of A.2 is concerned, the deceased did not mention in specific terms in Ex. P.2 whether he was also responsible for her death, She mentioned in Ex. P. 2 that A. 2 was watching her and if he is caught, he would reveal the real story. Though the prosecution witnesses stated in general that A.2 was also harassing her along with A. 1 and A.3, in the absence of any specific allegation in Ex. P. 2 about the role of A.2, I am inclined to give the benefit of doubt to A.2 for the offence under Section 306, I. P. C. Regarding the offence under Section 509, I. P. C., the material placed by the prosecution amply established that all the accused harassed the deceased and the lower court rightly came to the conclusion that all of them are liable for the offence under Section 509, I. P. C.
56. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. A-2 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 306, I. P. C. The conviction and sentences imposed against A-2 for the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. by the lower Court are set aside. A-2 is acquitted for the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. The fine amount, if any. paid by him for the offence under Section 306, I. P. C. shall be refunded to him. The convictions of A-1 and A-3 for the offence under Section 306, I. P. C. are confirmed. The convictions of A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 509. I. P. C. are also confirmed.
57. Regarding the quantum of sentences, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the sentences imposed on A-1 and A-3 are excessive, therefore, requested to reduce the same.
58. The trial Court sentenced A-1 and A-3 for the offence under Section 306, I. P. C, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5.000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. A-1 to A-3 were also convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 509, I. P. C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
59. After taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on A-1 and A-3 is reduced from three years to two year's for the offence under Section 306, I. P. C. The fine amounts remain undisturbed. The convictions and sentences imposed on A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 509, I. P. C. remain undisturbed.