Madras High Court
Selvi vs The State Represented By on 16 November, 2021
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 16.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDRA
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
Selvi ...Appellant
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Suramangalam Police Station,
Salem. ...Respondent
(Cr.No.234/2012)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to set
aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.50 of 2014
dated 25.07.2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
------
JUDGMENT
The criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, in S.C.No.50 of 2014 dated 25.07.2019 finding the appellant guilty for 1/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 the offence under Section 306 of IPC and convicting and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2 The brief facts of the case is as follows:- P.W.1 who is the husband of the deceased is the resident of No.30, Kabilar Street, Old Suramangalam, Salem. P.W.5 Renukadevi is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and P.W.4 Bharathi is son of the deceased. P.W.4 was running an unregistered chit and he had suffered loss in the business and thereby he had borrowed an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh from the appellant after executing a blank pronote and he had repaid major part of the amount, six months prior to the occurrence on 03.03.2012, the appellant had gone to the house of the deceased and had abused and threatened her and P.W.4 had given a complaint against the appellant, due to which, there was animosity between both families. While so, on 03.03.2012 at about 12.00 noon when P.W.l husband of the deceased had come back home, the deceased Chinnaponnu and P.W.5 were at home and they had informed that the accused had come to their house 2/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 and had threatened them saying how dare they have given complaint against her after receiving money from her and that she will fill the blank pronote given by her son for a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs and would file a case against them and send them all to jail and she also threatened she will bring hirelings and ransack their house and further harassed them saying that it is better for all of them in their family to die. The appellant had further abused them in front of several other persons and had humiliated the deceased, due to which, the deceased at around 2.00 p.m. on the same day, committed suicide by consuming potion made of oleander seeds.
3 The respondent based on the complaint given on the same day i.e. 03.03.2012 by P.W.1 husband of the deceased, registered a case in Cr.No.234/2012 under Section 174 Cr.PC. During the course of investigation the case was altered to one under Section 306 IPC. The respondent after completing investigation filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem. The case was taken up on file in P.R.C.No.32 of 2013 and finding that the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate after furnishing copies to the accused under 3/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the learned Principal District and Sessions Court Salem, and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem, taken the case on file in S.C.No.50 of 2014 and made over the same to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem for trial. The Trial Court, after perusing the materials available on record framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
4 To substantiate the charges, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.13 were examined and Exs.P1 to 11 were marked and no material object was exhibited. After completing examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. based on the incriminating materials, for which, the appellant/accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the accused, she examined herself as D.W. 1 and no documentary evidence was marked. The Trial Court, after analysing the materials available on record and after hearing both the learned counsel, found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and convicted her accordingly.
4/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 5 Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the appellant is now before this Court with the present criminal appeal.
6 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the case of the prosecution is filled with contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations and embellishments. There is no direct eye witness to the facts and occurrence that the accused had abetted the victim to commit suicide. The Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant without there being any positive evidence to show that the appellant abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In order to prove the charge against the accused, prosecution is bound to prove the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of IPC. In order to hold the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, prosecution is bound to prove that there was intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide and the prosecution is bound to establish that the accused had mens rea. The learned counsel would further submit that even though prosecution has examined several witnesses, they are only hearsay witnesses and they could not have witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 5/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 husband of the deceased is only a hearsay witness and he has not seen the occurrence. Even though P.W.5 one Renuka had deposed that she was present at the scene of occurrence, taking into consideration of the evidence of P.W.1, the husband of the deceased, her presence, at the time of occurrence, is highly doubtful. The learned counsel would further submit that it is the admitted case of the prosecution witnesses that P.W.4/Bharathi son of the deceased had conducted chit and suffered loss and due to which, he had borrowed money from several persons and there were several disputes with regard to the same. The learned counsel would further submit that the complaint has been preferred after much deliberation and though the deceased is stated to have died on 03.03.2012 at 2.00 p.m., the complaint had been given to the respondent only at 19.45 hours and further the complaint has reached the Court only on 31.01.2013, after about 10months and there is no explanation for the delay.
6.1 The learned counsel would further submit that it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased and her son had borrowed money from the appellant and had failed to repay the amount on account of which the 6/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 appellant is alleged to have abused the deceased and insulted and humiliated her with filthy language. He would further submit that insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not by itself constitute an abetment of suicide and there should be a concrete evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Assuming without admitting the act of the accused, however insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. The prosecution is bound to prove that the accused had mens rea. A person who is alleged to have given money to another person will not expect or want the person who has borrowed money to die. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
6.2 In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments:
1. M.Arjunan Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 2019 3 SCC 315
2. V.Venkataraman vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in (2015)3 MLJ (Crl) 669.7/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
3. Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2020) 10 SCC 200 7 Mr.E.Raj Tilak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that it is the case of the prosecution that the son of the deceased had borrowed money from the appellant and since he was unable to repay the same, the appellant had harassed the family members of the deceased due to which, they have given a complaint to the Police prior to the occurrence. Coming to know about the complaint, the appellant had gone to the house of the deceased and had abused and humiliated the victim and her family using vulgar language and thereby abetted the deceased to commit suicide, due to which, the deceased committed suicide by consuming potion made of oleander seeds. He would further submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and hence would pray to dismiss the appeal.
8 Heard Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record.
8/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 9 The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the evidence of the witnesses:
(i) PW1 is the husband of the deceased is the informant in this case, he had deposed that he is residing at Door No.30, Kabilar Street, Old Suramangalam and his wife name is Chinnaponnu and he got 2 sons and 3 daughters, he was running tiffin centre. He knows the accused, his son Barathi was running a private chit due to which he ran into loss and severe debts and they were running the family with great difficulty. He further deposed that they had received loan of Rs.1lakh from the accused and they were paying interest, since the accused had demanded meter interest they were unable to repay the amount and they had not paid the interest for 6months. The accused had abused and threatened them and unable to bear the humiliation, they had given a complaint against the accused to the officials. On 03.03.2012, when his wife was alone at home, the accused had come to their house and had abused his wife and humiliated his wife, she had threatened his wife saying how dare she would give a complaint against them, after taking money from her and threatened that she will fill the empty pronote for Rs.15lakhs and file a case against her. When he had came back home he had seen his wife lying down with shivering, when he had enquired her, she 9/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 had told him that the accused had spoken ill of her and had humiliated her and had informed him, there is no purpose in living, he had consoled his wife and asked her not to cry. His wife had told him that she is going to bathroom and she did not come back. Since she did not return, he had gone there and opened the bathroom and found oleander seeds. When he had enquired her she had told him that unable to bear the humiliation of the accused, she had done so. Later he had attempted to give water to her and she was unable to drink and he had found her dead. He had further deposed that it was 2.00pm and they went to the police station at 7.45pm and preferred the complaint/Ex.P1.
(ii) P.W.2 is a relative of P.W.1 and she had deposed that the deceased is her husband's aunt and that family of the deceased had taken loan of Rs.1.00 lakh from the accused and that since they were unable to repay the loan, the accused had gone to the house of the deceased and abused her, due to which, the deceased had consumed potion made of oleander seeds and was lying unconsciously in the bathroom and she was aware of the accused having spoken ill of her.10/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
(iii) P.W.3 is yet another relative of the deceased and she had deposed that on 03.02.2012 at about 12.00 noon the accused had gone to the house of the deceased and abused her and that around 2.00 p.m. the son of the deceased called her saying that his mother was lying unconscious and when she gone there, she had seen the relatives of the deceased lifting her from the bathroom and keeping her in the room and the person nearby have told that the victim was already dead. She had seen oleander seeds in the bathroom. She had further deposed that since the accused had threatened the deceased that she will file a case against her and her family members for recovery of Rs.15.00 lakhs, the deceased had committed suicide. In her cross examination, she had stated that the son of the deceased P.W.4/Bharathi was running a chit fund in Salem and he was running chit to the tune of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1.00 lakh and he stayed at his in-law's house at Tiruchengode and she knows the accused. P.W.4 had been conducting chit for 7 to 8 years and he was also working as Electrician. She had further stated that 20 to 30 persons have subscribed the chit run by the husband of the deceased and that those persons used to demand money from the deceased. 11/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
(iv) P.W.4 is the son of the deceased and he had deposed that he had been running chit business from the year 2004 for about 5 or 6 years and he had suffered loss and he had borrowed money from the accused after executing a pronote and paid interest more than the principal and he was unable to pay the interest and six months prior to the present occurrence, the appellant/accused had come to his house and had abused him with filthy language and unable to bear the harassment, he had sent a petition to the Chief Minister's Special Cell, the District Collector, the Commissioner, the Superintendent of Police, Assistant Commissioner, Sooriyamangalam and to the Inspector of Police. Further, he had deposed that he had also given complaint to the District Collector in person and that on the date of occurrence in the morning the accused was summoned by the Assistant Commissioner's Office for enquiry and on the day he heard that the accused had come to their house and had abused his mother and his sister-in-law and threatened them saying that she would file a case based on the blank pronote by filling the same for Rs.15.00 lakhs through her relative Advocate Tamilselvi and unable to bear the harassment and humiliation, his mother had consumed potion 12/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 made of oleander seeds and committed suicide. In his cross examination, he had admitted that during the year 2007, the accused and her husband had subscribed Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- chit run by him and he had repaid the amount to them. He had further deposed that he suffered loss in the chit and he had borrowed an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh from the accused. He had further in his cross examination admitted that he was living at Tiruchengode.
(v) P.W.5 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She had deposed that her mother-in-law was living with her and the accused was living in the next street. She had further deposed that her brother-in-law Bharathi/P.W.4 had borrowed an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh from the accused and he had been paying the interest regularly and they paid interest more than the principal amount and at one occasion they were unable to pay the interest in time. On 03.03.2012 at 12.00 p.m. the accused had come to their house and abused her family members and her mother-in-law unable to bear the harassment had consumed potion made of oleander seeds and committed suicide. In her cross examination, she had deposed that her brother-in-law/P.W.4 had gone to his in-law's house four years back and he and his wife had come home coming to 13/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 know of the death of her mother-in-law. She further deposed that she was present along with her mother-in-law and on her information P.W.1/her father- in-law had given the complaint.
(vi) P.W.6 Lakshmi is neighbour of the deceased she had deposed that she knows the accused and on 03.03.2012, when she had gone to the house of the deceased, she had seen the accused abusing the deceased with filthy language and she had returned back home and since she was having pressure she took tablet and was lying down and after some time, she heard some noise and she heard that the victim had consumed the potion made of oleander seeds.
(vii) P.W.7 is the Mahazar witness and he had deposed that on 03.03.2012 when he was standing in front of the house, the respondent prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P2.
(viii) P.W.8 is another son of the deceased and he had deposed that on 03.03.2012 he had gone to work and he had come back to his house for 14/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 taking lunch and at that time P.W.5 his wife had informed him that the accused had come to their house and abused family members filthily and he had taken food and his wife informed that his mother was sleeping in the room and that after having food he had gone to the Bathroom, where he had seen his mother lying unconscious and when he lifted his mother, he had found his mother lying dead and that he had seen oleander seeds and thereafter, he along with his father had gone to the Police Station and given the complaint.
(ix) P.W.9 is a relative of the deceased and he had deposed that P.W.4 was running a chit business and he suffered loss and borrowed an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh from the accused and repaid the interest and that since time was bad for P.W.4, he had gone and stayed in his mother-in-law's house at Tiruchengode and that on 03.03.2012 he had gone out for work. He had further deposed that the accused had earlier 2 or 3 times threatened P.W.4 to repay the debt and that P.W.4 had given the complaint against the accused before the Soormanagalam Police Station and he came to know that on 03.03.2012, the accused had come to the house of the deceased and 15/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 threatened her saying that she would fill the blank pronote and file a case against her and her family members. He had further deposed that the accused had also abused the deceased and her family members, due to which she had committed suicide by consuming poison and he came to know about the same when he had come back home for lunch.
(x) P.W.10 is the Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent Police Station. He has deposed that on 03.03.2012 at 12.00 noon when he was in the Police Station, P.W.1 had given a complaint/Ex.P1 based on which he had registered a case in Crime No.234 of 2012 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P3/FIR. He had later forwarded the FIR to the RDO and the copies to the higher authorities and thereafter he had taken the body of the deceased to Government Hospital, Salem, and given request Ex.P4 for conducting autopsy and the report sent along with the body was marked as Ex.P5. On 04.03.2012, inquest was conducted in presence of the witnesses and the report was marked as Ex.P6. Thereafter he had gone to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P2 and rough sketch/Ex.P7 and thereafter examined the witnesses and he came to know that the victim 16/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 committed suicide, since the accused had threatened to register a case based on the blank pronote and the victim being humiliated had committed suicide by consuming potion made of oleander seeds and he has altered the section to 306 IPC and sent the alteration report/Ex.P8 to the Court. He had further deposed that he had arrested the accused on 05.03.2012 and sent her to remand. P.W.10 in his cross examination has deposed that there was no reference in the CD file for having sent the FIR to RDO.
(xi) P.W.11 is the Inspector of Police and he had deposed that the Sub Inspector of Police has registered the case and had conducted the preliminary enquiry and handed over the file on 05.03.2012 for further investigation. On 05.03.2012 at 6.00 a.m. he had gone to the place of occurrence and on the same day at about 10.30 a.m. he arrested the accused and sent her for remand.
(xii) P.W.12 is the Doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and he had deposed that he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 04.03.2012 at 10.00 a.m. and no external injuries were found and nails of the deceased were found to be blue in colour and he had found 17/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 110 ml of greenish fluid in the intestine and he had given an opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of effects of oleander poisoning. Post- mortem report was marked as Ex.P9, viscera report was marked as Ex.P10 and the final opinion was marked as Ex.P11.
(xiii) P.W.13 is the Inspector of Police who has conducted further investigation in this case and filed charge sheet before the Trial Court.
10 During questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused had denied the charges and she had examined herself as D.W.1. She had deposed that she has three children and she was doing milk vending business and she had denied having given loan to the family of the deceased and having threatened the family members of the deceased.
11 After hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused.
12 Now what is to be seen is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and whether the Trial Court is right in finding 18/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 the appellant guilty and convicting her.
13 Before analysing the evidence in this case, this Court deems it necessary to refer to the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the law regarding abetment to suicide :-
(a). In M.Arjunan vs. The State of Tamilnadu reported in 2019 3 SCC 315, the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
“8. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the Accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the Accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the Accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, Accused cannot be convicted Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. “
(b). In V.Venkataraman vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in (2015)3 MLJ (Crl) 669, this Court has held as under:
“31. The scope of Section 306 IPC has been 19/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 elaborately considered by this Court in MANI v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GUINDY POLICE STATION, CHENNAI (supra).
32. It is relevant to note the following from 'MANI v.
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GUINDY POLICE STATION, CHENNAI (supra).
"16. In the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Chapter XIV, in Section 306 I.P.C. 'abetment of suicide' has been made an offence.
17. Section 306 I.P.C. runs as under:
"306. Abetment of suicide: If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
18. The twin requirements for an offence under section 306 I.P.C. are (1) Suicide and (2) Abetment to commit suicide.
19. = = = = = = = =
20. = = = = = = = =
21. = = = = = = = =
22. = = = = = = = =
23. In Section 306 I.P.C., the word 'abetment' has not been defined or explained. In Concise Oxford English Dictionary (XI Edition 2004), 'Abetment' (Abet, Abets, Abetting, Abetted, 20/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 Abettor) has been explained as 'encourage or assist (someone) to do something wrong in particular to do crime'.
24. In Indian Penal Code, in Chapter V (Abetment), in Section 107 'abetment of a thing' has been explained. Though the word 'abetment' has not been defined in section 306 I.P.C., to understand its meaning, we can refer to section 107 I.P.C.
25. Section 107 I.P.C. runs as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First: -Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly: -Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly: -Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1:-- A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.' Explanation: Whoever either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the 21/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that thing."
26. It is seen that in statutorily explaining the word 'abetment' (See section 107 I.P.C.) what the word abetment connotes in general English has been kept in view.
27. In RATTANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL'S 'commentaries on the Indian Penal Code' (32nd Edition) (2010), at page 1735- 1736, 'abetment', has been commented as under:
''2 Abetting Suicide The gravamen of the offence punishable u/s. 306 I.P.C. is abetting suicide. Section 107, I.P.C. defines abetment as comprising:
(a) instigation to commit the offence;
(b) engaging in conspiracy to commit the offence, and
(c) aiding the commission of an offence. Abetment thus necessarily means some active suggestion or support to the commission of the offence. The word 'instigate' literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act and a person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means, or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. It is also not necessary that the instigation should be only in words and may not be conduct."22/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
28. In RANDHIR SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB (AIR 2004 SC 5097) : (2004) 13 SCC 129,the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In case 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."
29. In RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AIR 2001 SC 3837 : (2001) 9 SCC 618): LNIND 2001 SC 2368,, 'instigation' has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex court as under:
"20. 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 consequence 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 23/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 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."
30. In S.S. CHHEENA v. VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN & ANOTHER (2010) 12 SCC 190: LNIND 2010 SC 746 : (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl) 547, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:
"abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
31. In AMALENDU PAL @ JHANTU v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AIR 2010 SC 512 : (2010) 1 SCC 707 : LNIND 2009 SC 1978 : (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl) 109,, the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined as under:
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that 24/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which let or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.''
32. In VIJAY KUMAR RASTOGI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2012) CRI. L.J. 2342 : LNIND 2012 RAJ 9 the Rajasthan High Court observed as under:
"10 The word 'urge' means to advice or try hard to persuade somebody to do something, to make a person to move more quickly or in a particular direction, specially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person instigating another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. In order to prove abetment, it must be shown that the accused kept on urging or annoying the deceased by words, taunts or 25/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 willful omission or conduct which may even be willful silence, until the deceased reacted, or pushing the deceased by his words or willful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction. Secondly, the accused had the intention to provoke or urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly the presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation."
33. In VIJAY KUMAR RASTOGI V. State of Rajasthan (supra), it was also observed as under:
"13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
34. The offence of abetment requires 'mens rea' (guilty mind). There must be intentional doing/aiding or goading the commission of suicide by another. Otherwise, even a mere casual remark, something said in routine and usual conversation will be wrongly construed or misunderstood as 26/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 'abetment'.
35. In GANGULA MOHAN REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. AIR 2010 SC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (Crl.) 917 :LNIND 2010 SC 3 :
(2010) 2 MLJ (Crl)410, it was held that to attract section 306 I.P.C., there must be clear 'mens rea' to commit offence.
36. In CHITRESH KUMAR CHOPRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AIR 2010 SC 14 : (2010)3 SCC (CRI.) 367):
LNIND 2009 SC 1663 : (2010) 1 MLJ (Crl) 143, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under:
"This court had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self- esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances."
37. In M. MOHAN v. D.S.P., KARAIKUDI AIR 2011 SC 1238 :
(2011) 3 SCC 626) : LNIND 2011 SC 246 : (2011) 4 MLJ (Crl) 273 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.27/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
45. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
38. In STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ORILAL JAISWAL AIR 1994 SC 1418 : (1994) SCC (CRI.) 107) : LNIND 1993 SC 772 : (1994) 1 MLJ (Crl) 187, the Hon'ble Apex Court cautioned as under:
''The Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to 28/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
39. Generally, the person who commits suicide used to/liked to leave a suicide note naming certain person as responsible for his committing suicide. Merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note we are not to immediately jump to the conclusion that he is an offender under section 306 I.P.C.
40. The contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances have to be examined to find out whether it is abetment within the meaning of section 306 I.P.C. read with section 107 I.P.C. There may be a case where in the suicide note victim had named a person, who is responsible for his committing suicide, but, on proper analysis, section 306 I.P.C.
may not be attracted to him.
41. Recently, in RAJAMANNAR v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SEVVAPET, POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT (Crl. O.P. No. 8230/2014 dated 3.4.2014) A-2 introduced A-1 to the deceased as a person who will get railway jobs for money. Relying on this, the deceased collected money from many and gave it to A-1. 29/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 Ultimately, A-1 cheated him. The job seekers pressurised the deceased to return their money. Under these circumstances, the deceased and his family members have committed suicide and the deceased left a suicide note that A-2 is responsible for their death. A-2 was arrested for an offence under section 306 I.P.C.
42. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, this Court came to the conclusion that prima facie section 306 I.P.C. is not attracted towards A-2 and observed as under:
"7. On reading the entire suicide note from the beginning to end, it is seen that A-1 duped Sugumar, who received money from many persons. They have asked him and humiliated him. Unable to bear this humiliation, Sugumar committed suicide.
8. For an offence under Section 306 IPC, there are twin requirements, namely, suicide and abetment to commit suicide. No need to explain what is suicide. But what is abetment has to be understood. It is not stated in Section 306 IPC. It is 'instigation', 'provocation', compelling a person to do certain things or not to do certain things. This may be by words, deeds or writing or even by signs. May be humiliation, degrading a person in the presence of others. The act must be 30/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 such that it must force, desire, compel a person to take the extreme decision. But, it must be a positive act. Thus, the act alleged to have committed on the part of the accused must have played a key role for the victim to take a decision to commit suicide.
9. If a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student commits suicide because of his poor performance in the examination, a client commits suicide because his case is dismissed, the lady, examiner, lawyer respectively cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide. For the wrong decision taken by a coward, fool, idiot, a man of weak mentality, a man of frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his committing suicide. Now, in this case, the suicide note shows that unable to bear the humiliation given by the job seekers, Sugumar committed suicide. For this, petitioner cannot be blamed. Further, no act or deed in the nature of a positive act forced Sugumar and his family members emanated from the petitioner to force them to commit suicide. The conclusion would be Sugumar died like a coward. Instead of protecting the family, he perished like an unsuccessful man in life foolishly he also took along with him his other family members also. For this, how can the petitioner be directly blamed."31/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
43. If a person makes an ordinary joke or a casual remark in routine course of ordinary life and when the victim commits suicide, that will not attract section 306 I.P.C. The circumstances under which the incriminating words spoken and the type and nature of the victim have also to be considered. Some positive act must have emanated from the accused towards the victim. And should be in the nature of forcing or urging the victim to take the extreme decision. If nothing had came from the accused, the accused cannot be blamed for the extreme decision taken by the victim.
44. Simple abuses are not sufficient to provoke the victim to commit suicide. It will not attract section 306 I.P.C. Simply because the lender has demanded repayment of his money, if the debtor commits suicide the creditor cannot be said to have abetted his suicide. Section 306 I.P.C. is not attracted towards him.
45. Mere reprimanding does not amount to instigation. The words stated in a fit of anger will not amount to abetment. Casual remark of husband towards his wife in the ordinary course of life will not amount to abetment to commit suicide. Because they did not say so with any mens rea. (see SWAMY 32/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 PRAHALDAS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 438).
46. In NARESH MAROTRAO v. UNION OF INDIA ( 1995 Crl.L.J. (Bom :LNIND 1994 BOM 465, the deceased poured kerosene on her body and set fire to herself in the presence of the accused. But the accused did not do anything, he did not put off the fire and saved the deceased. It was held that the accused cannot be held liable under section 306 I.P.C. read with 107 I.P.C. and he has not committed any offence at all.
47. Sometimes, the decision to commit suicide might be taken by the victim himself/herself, unaccompanied by any act or instigation etc. on the part of the accused. A person may die like a coward. On his failure in the examination, a student may commit suicide. They are weak minded. They are persons of frail mentality. For their foolish mentality/decision, another person cannot be blamed."
(c). In Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2020) 10 SCC 200, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
16. The necessary ingredients for the offence 33/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 under section 306 IPC was considered in the case SS Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan1 where explaining the concept of abetment, Justice Dalveer Bhandari wrote as under:-
“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”
17. While dealing with a case of abetment of suicide in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal2, Dr. Justice M.K. Sharma writing for the Division Bench explained the parameters of Section 306 IPC in the following terms:34/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence 35/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
18. In the case Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana3, which again was a case of wife’s unnatural death, speaking for the Division Bench, Justice K.S.P. Radhakrishnanan rightly observed as under:-
“24. We find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning of the High Court that “no prudent man is to commit suicide unless abetted to do so”. A woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment. The reasoning of the High Court that no prudent man will commit suicide unless abetted to do so by someone else, is a perverse reasoning.” 14 P.W.1 husband of the deceased had deposed that on the date of occurrence (i.e. on 13.03.2012) he came to know from his wife that when she was alone in the house, the appellant/accused had come to his house and threatened his wife and his wife had told that there is no useful purpose for 36/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 her to live and he has consoled her and his wife had gone to bathroom and she did not come back and when he went to bathroom he had had seen his wife lying unconscious inside the bathroom having consumed mixture made of oleander seeds. As per the evidence of P.W.1, except him, no one was else present in the house and he has not referred about the presence of P.W.5/Renuka. He is also a hearsay witness with regard to the occurrence. He has not stated anything about the alleged words spoken by the appellant/accused. The evidence of other witnesses are also in the nature of hearsay evidence and none of them have personally witnessed the alleged abusive words used by the appellant/accused. Even assuming it to be true, the appellant/accused had used abusive language against the deceased humiliating her, such act by itself would not constitute the offence of abetment of suicide.
Further, on scrutinising the entire evidence on record, there is nothing to suggest that the accused had mens rea and she intended by such act of instigating the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be found guilty and convicted under Section 306 IPC. 37/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 15 Having scrupulously assessed the evidence on record and having examined the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm opinion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the trial Court had erred in convicting the appellant. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
16 Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.50 of 2014 dated 25.07.2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted from the charges tried in the above sessions case and bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant/accused shall stand cancelled.
16.11.2021 cgi/ tsh Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order To
1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.
2. The Inspector of Police, Suramangalam Police Station, Salem.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
38/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 39/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDRA cgi/ tsh Crl.A.No.516 of 2019 16.11.2021 40/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis