Madras High Court
Krishnan vs State Rep By on 31 January, 2025
CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 31.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023
1.Krishnan
2.Malliga ... Appellants/Accused No.1 & 2
Vs.
State rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
Pudhur Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.89 of 2015) ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records in S.C.No.232 of 2017 on the file of the learned
Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court),
Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District, dated 30.06.2023 and acquit the
appellants from the charges levelled against them.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm )
CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District, in S.C.No.232 of 2017, dated 30.06.2023.
S.No Accused Offences under Punishment
Rank Section
1 A1,A2 355 of IPC To undergone two years of simple
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months
of simple imprisonment
2 A1,A2 306 of IPC To undergone ten years of Rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/- in default to undergo 6 months
of simple imprisonment
3 A1 4 of TNPHW To undergone three years of simple
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/- in default to undergo 3 months
of simple imprisonment
Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District has acquitted the 2nd accused for the offence under Section 4 of TNPHW Act.
2. Case of the Prosecution:-
According to the prosecution, the appellants and P.W.1 are neighbours and they are residing in the Mahalakshmi Nagar, Pudur. On 2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023 26.06.2015 at 06.30 p.m, when the deceased was fetching drinking water in a public water tap, the appellants questioned her and obstructed her by stating that they had the turn to take water. In spite of that, the deceased fetched water and hence, the appellants scolded her by using abusive words 'njtoah Tjp kfns' and also assaulted her with a broomstick.
Therefore, shamed by the said act, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison and the same was found by P.W.1, who had returned to the house after his business and he admitted her in a local primary health center and thereafter, she was shifted to the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai for further treatment. Subsequently, she was taken to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai. After 3 days of treatment, i.e on 29.06.2015, she died. Therefore, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.89 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 355 of IPC. P.W.14 conducted investigation. Since he was transferred, P.W.15, continued the investigation and filed final report under Section 294 (b), 355 & 306 of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi, and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.27 of 2016 and thereafter, the same was committal under Section 207 Cr.P.C., to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District and the learned 3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023 Sessions Judge took it on file in in S.C.No.232 of 2017.
3.1.After taking cognizance, the learned trial Judge framed the charges against the first appellant for the offences under Sections 294(b), 355 & 306 of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act and framed the charges against the second appellant for the offences under Sections 294(b), 355 & 306 of IPC. On the basis of charges, the learned trial Judge, questioned the appellants and the appellants pleaded not guilty and hence, the trial was conducted and the prosecution to prove the charges examined P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked the documents under Ex.P1 to Ex.P.17.
3.2. The learned trial Judge, considered the same, examined the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating materials available against them and they denied the same and hence, the case was posted for examination for the defence witness. On the side of defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
3.3. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the second accused from the charge under Section 294(b) of IPC and convicted the first accused for the offence under 4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023 Section 4 of TNPHW Act and convicted the accused No.1 & 2 for the offences under Sections 355 and 306 of IPC, by the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 and sentenced them to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 3 months simple imprisonment each for the offence under Section 355 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment each for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and convicted the first accused to undergo3 years simple imprisonment and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4.Aggrieved over the same, the appellants filed this appeal on the grounds stated in the memorandum of grounds of appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned trial Judge convicted the appellants only on moral ground. There is no evidence available to substantiate the allegations made against the 5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023 appellants. The independent witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5 have not supported the prosecution case and hence, without any evidence about the scolding and assault with broom stick by the appellants, the conviction and sentence imposed against them is not in accordance with law. More particularly no material circumstances have been proved by the prosecution to pass conviction against appellants under section 306 of IPC. Hence, he seeks to allow this appeal.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Cr.Side) would submit that on instructions, upon perusal of the records and also going through the impugned judgment would submit that before the deceased consuming poison, the deceased gave a statement to her husband (P.W.1) about the occurrence. The said statement is admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the prosecution clearly established the fact that only because of the act of the appellants, the deceased got depressed and committed suicide. In the said circumstances, the learned trial Judge correctly convicted the appellants and hence, he seeks for dismissal of the Appeal.
6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023
7. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record and the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Judge.
8.Discussion on Principles:
8.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 10 of the Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2010) 10 SCC 439 has held that the conviction cannot rest on moral grounds, it has been held as follows:-
“10. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend upon its own facts. The court must bear in mind that “human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions”. Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone.7/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023 8.2. In a criminal trial, an accused person faces the trial with the initial presumption of innocence in his favour and the presumption continues till the prosecution succeeds in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Moral conviction regarding the guilt of an individual has no place in Criminal Jurisprudence. It is settled proposition of law that the charges are to be proved with certain explicit evidence to warrant conviction and no person can be held guilty on moral ground. Therefore, where there is an element of genuine doubt then, the accused is entitled for acquittal as a matter of right and not as a matter of charity or favour.
8.3. The Court of Law must try to get at the truth from the legal evidence placed before it by both sides and is not to be guided by moral principles or influenced by the gravity of the crime. An order of conviction can be passed only on legal evidence and not on hypothetical propositions or hypothetical inferences. Surmises and suppositions cannot take the place of legal proof in a criminal trial and suspicion however grave cannot sustain a criminal charge. In the absence of any legal evidence and proof, criminality can not be fastened on moral grounds.8/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle that in order to convict a person under section 306 of IPC the prosecution must prove that the accused by his act or by a continued course of incitement should have forced the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide without any other option and the same has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:-
9.1. In the case of Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde Vs. State of Maharastra and Another reported in 2024 SCC online 1701, the Supreme Court has observed:-
“8. ... When we apply these three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide.” 9.2 In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the concept of abetment discussing the necessary ingredients for offence under Section 306 of IPC 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 9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023 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.” 9.3. In the case of Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the parameters of Section 306 in following words:
“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.10/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023 9.4. In the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618, while explaining the meaning of ‘Instigation’, the Hon'ble Supreme court has stated that:
“20. ....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 to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.” 9.5. In the case of State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal reported in (1994) 1 SCC 73, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that “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 her 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 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.” 11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023 9.6. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “...Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
44.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.
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 306IPC 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.” 9.7 In the case of Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 417 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “10. ... The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.
10. Discussion on Merits:
12/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023 10.1 According to prosecution, on 26.06.2015 at 6.30 am unexpected dispute arose between accused and deceased while fetching drinking water in the public tap. The deceased took water without following routine turn not allowing the accused to take water. Therefore accused scolded her in the public and assaulted with broomstick in front of P.W.4 and P.W.5. But P.W. 4 and 5 did not support the prosecution case and they turned hostile.
Therefore there was no evidence that the appellants had picked up a quarrel and assaulted the deceased with broomstick in the morning of the date of committing suicide which impelled the deceased to commit suicide.
10.2 The only available evidence is P.W.1's evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 no way helps the prosecution to prove the abetment to commit suicide and to pass conviction under section 306 of IPC against the appellants. According to P.W.1, he is the husband of the deceased and he left home at 03.30 am on 26.06.2015 and reached home at 09.00 am to take breakfast. At that time, the deceased informed him about the occurrence and assault committed by the appellants. Thereafter, in the evening, she committed suicide at 05.30 pm and the same was informed to him. He admitted her in the hospital. Except that, no other evidence is available to convict the appellants under section 355,306 IPC. Therefore, prosecution 13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023 miserably failed to prove the case agasint the appellants. In view of the above, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Cr.Side) to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants and hence, this Court is inclined to allow this appeal.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the following terms:
i) The judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District, in S.C.No.232 of 2017, dated 30.06.2023, is set aside.
ii) The appellants are acquitted from all the charges in S.C.No.232 of 2017 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
iii) Fine amount paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them forthwith.
iv) Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.
14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023 31.01.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No dss To
1. The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
2. The The Inspector of Police, Pudhur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section(Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023 dss Order made in CRL.A(MD).No.554 of 2023 31.01.2025 16/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:26:44 pm )