Appeal against conviction and sentence for abetting suicide. High Court held that demanding loan repayment does not constitute instigation under Section 107 IPC and allowed appeal, acquitting accused and quashing conviction.
Criminal appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted; bail bond cancelled; fine refunded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Bail Slip
The Appellants/Petitioners namely 1.Ramalingam S/o Subburaya Chettiar 2.Thanikachalam S/o Jeganmohan 3.Rajendiran D/o Chinnasamy 4.Rajendiran S/o Rajamani 5.Asaithambi S/o Vadivel were released on bail dated 02.12.2011 made in M.P. 1/2011 in Crl.A. No. 776/2011 as directed this Hon'ble Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.07.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.A.No.776 of 2011
1.Ramalingam
2.Thanikachalam
3.Rajendiran
4.Rajendiran
5.Asaithambi .. Appellants/Accused 1 to 5
Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu
Rep.by The Inspector of Police,
Neyveli Town Police Station,
Neyveli,
Cuddalore District.
(Crime No.103/2009) .. Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, to set aside order dated 29.11.2011 passed in
S.C.No.193 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District and
Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.3), Virudhachalam and acquit
the appellants.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Vivekananthan for Mr.T.Sathyaseelan for A1 to A3 Mr.P.Mani for A4 & A5 For Respondent: Mr.T.P.Savitha Government Advocate
J U D G M E N T
The appellants herein are arrayed as A1 to A5 in S.C.No.193/2010 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC No.3) Virudhachalam. They stood charge for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
2. All the accused denied the charges and opted for trial. Therefore, they were put on trial on the charge. After full fledged trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found them guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC. All the accused were accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo 1 year R.I. Challenging the conviction and sentence all the accused are before this Court with the criminal appeal.
i) The deceased Sellapandian was working as a staff in N.L.C., Neyveli. P.W.1 Grassy Sheeba Elizabeth, is his wife, prior to the occurrence, the deceased availed a loan from the appellant and did not repay the same.
ii) On 06.03.2009, at about 9.am., when the deceased was in his house, the appellants came and abused the deceased in filthy language. Subsequently, due to the abuse made by the appellants, the deceased felt ashamed and consequently on the same day night hours, using the saree he committed suicide by hanging.
iii) Thereafter, on the same day, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before (P.W.10) the Sub-Inspector of Police, Neyveli Town Police Station under E.X.P1. After receiving the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.103/2009 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., Ex.P7 is the First Information Report. After registration of the case, P.W.10 went to the scene of occurrence and examined the witnesses and panchayathar. Further, he completed the enquiry and prepared the inquest report between 12.30 and 13.30 hours under Ex.P8. Thereafter, he made arrangements for sending the dead body to the Panroti Government Hospital with requisition for conducting autopsy. P.W.8 Dr.Vanitha, when she was working as Assistant Surgeon in Panroti Government Hospital, received a requisition letter sent by P.W.10. During the time of autopsy, she found the following injuries:-
External Injuries:- Ligatune mark – starting below side of ear running obliquely infront of the neck above the thyroid cartilage and ends below the nape of neck.
Internal Examination:- No fracture ribs, heart congested, chambers filled with blood, lungs congested hyoid bone intact.
v) After completing the post-mortem, as per the requisition given by the investigating officer, P.W.8 preserved the viscera for chemical analysis, after receiving viscera, P.W.9 Vasuki, when she was working as Deputy Director in Forensic Science, Tiruvarur District examined the above and issued a report that there was no poisonous substances or alcohol found in the body of the deceased.
vi) After receiving the said viscera report, P.W.8 gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia due to hanging. The post-mortem report is marked as Ex.P4.
vii) After preparation of inquest report, P.W.10 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared a observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of P.W.6 and one Balachandar. The said documents are Ex.P2 and 9 respectively. Subsequent to the examination of witnesses, he altered the Section of law as 306 IPC and sent the report to the Court under Ex.P10. Thereafter, he handed over the case records to P.W.11 for further investigation. After receiving the case records, P.W.11 the then Inspector of Police, Neyveli Police Station examined the doctor who declared the death of the deceased and recorded the statement. Further, he examined the doctor who conducted the autopsy.
viii) Since he was transferred from the said post, the investigation has been completed by P.W.12. He examined the witnesses already examined by P.W.10 and after receiving the chemical examination report he completed the investigation and laid a final report.
ix) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges under Section 306 IPC, all of them denied and wanted trial. Therefore, all the accused were put on trial. During the trial, the prosecution in order to prove the charges against the accused examined as many as 12 witnesses and
exhibited 10 documents.
x) Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the wife of deceased stated in his evidence as on 06.03.2009 at about 9.00 am, when she was present in 5th Block along with the husband's mother-in-law and relatives, all the appellants came there and demanded her husband to repay the loan amount. Further, they abused the deceased as to go and die. Further, they made a life threat and consequently, next day her husband committed suicide.
xi) P.W.2 is alleged to be occurrence witness not stated anything in support of the prosecution. According to P.W.3 he heard the news through his neighbours. P.W.5 is the daughter of the deceased deposed that the said incident was told to her by P.W.1. P.W.6 is a witness attested in the observation mahazar prepared by the investigation officer.
xii) P.W.7 is a Doctor stated in her evidence, on 07.03.2009 at about 6.15 hours, the deceased was brought to the hospital and after seeing him, he declared as brought dead. P.W.8 is also a Doctor stated in his evidence about the injury found on the dead body Chellapandian, he specifically stated about the sending of viscera for chemical examination and gave opinion.
xiii) P.W.9 is the chemical examiner examined the viscera and issued chemical examination report stating that no poisonous substance found in the viscera. P.W.10 to P.W.12 are the police officers stated in the evidence about the manner of investigation and with regard to the filing of final report.
xiv) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, he neither chose to examine any witness nor did he marked any document.
xv) Having considered the above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of abeting suicide. Accordingly, all the accused were convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced as indicated in the first paragraph of this judgment. Aggrieved by this conviction and sentence the accused has come up with the present appeal.
“16. . . . .on perusal of the totality of evidence on record the only fact appears that the applicant/accused was demanding the loan amount from the deceased and due to which the deceased has committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance and thus the only demand of the loan amount does not itself prove the fact of instigation to the deceased for commission of the suicide. Therefore, on the basis of that the applicant/accused cannot be charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.”
i) that any person committed suicide and
ii)that such a commission of a suicide by a consequence of an abetment
iii) that the abetment was made by the accused.
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.
10.In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 1998, a quarrel had taken place between the accused and the deceased during which, the accused asked the deceased “to go and die”. A chargesheet was filed against the accused under Section 306 r/w Section 107 IPC when the said person actually committed suicide. This Court dealt with the issue elaborately, taking into consideration the fact that the accused had also specifically been named in the suicide note left behind by the deceased, and held that merely asking a person “to go and die” does not in itself amount to instigation and also does not reflect mens rea, which is a necessary concomitant of instigation. The deceased was anyway in great distress and depression. The other evidence on record showed him to be a frustrated man who was in the habit of drinking. Thus, considering the said circumstances, this Court quashed the proceedings against the accused, holding that ingredients of abetment were not fulfilled therein.
aside and the appellants/accused are acquitted of the charges. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellants/accused shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by appellants/accused shall be refunded to them.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Neyveli Town Police Station,
Neyveli,
Cuddalore District.
2. The Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC. No.3),
Virudhachalam
3. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli.
4. Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore,.
5. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
6. The District Collector
Cuddalore.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore.
8. The Director General of police
Mylapore, Chennai 4.
9. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras 104.
10. The Section officer
Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.
+5 Ccs to Mr.T. Sathyaseelan, Advocate sr 42380.
+1 CC to Mr.P. Mani, Advocate sr 42413
Crl.A.No.776 of 2011
GMR(CO)
SP(09/08/2018)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether mere demand for repayment of a loan by the accused amounts to instigation by abetment under Section 306 IPC.
Whether the prosecution proved the intent to abet suicide of the deceased.
Whether the conviction and sentence of abetment to suicide should be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Paramjeethsingh Chawala v. State of Madhya PradeshFollowed¶39
Paramjeethsingh Chawala v. State of Madhya Pradesh in Cr.R.No.315 of 2007 CRL.L.J.3343
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.Followed¶40
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 1998 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramalingam and 4 other accused
The State of Tamilnadu
R. Pongiapapan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
