Allowed

Amutha, F/A.25 Years v. State by

Madras HC11 Nov 2022CRL A/439/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove instigation beyond reasonable doubt. Holding that mere scolding without positive acts proximate to suicide does not constitute abetment, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Judgment dated 28.06.2018 set aside; appellants acquitted from all charges.

Amutha, F/A.25 Years Vs State by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.A.No.439 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRL.A.No.439 of 2018

1.Amutha 2.Yobu

... Appellants

Vs.

State by The Inspector of Police, Mettur Police Station, Mettur, Salem District. (Crime No.85 of 2014) ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: The Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.309 of 2014 dated 28.06.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.

¶12

For Appellants : Mr.G.Pavendhan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This criminal appeal is directed as against the judgment passed in S.C.No.309 of 2014 dated 28.06.2018 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 10

¶16

CRL.A.No.439 of 2018

¶17

Court, Salem, thereby convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that on 09.02.2014 at about 6.00 p.m., when the defacto complainant, along with her family members, were in the house, the accused came there and scolded them as if she phoned to his brother and had love affair, it was condemned by them and also scolded the victim in filthy language and they also threatened her to do away from his life and if she continues love affair with him, he would cut her hair. After the occurrence, the victim committed suicide by hanging. Hence the complaint.

¶19

On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime No.11 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 452, 354 and 306 IPC. After completion of investigation the respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in S.C.No.309 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 452, 354 and 306 IPC.

¶20

On the side of the prosecution P.W.s1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to 13 were marked and M.O.1 was produced and on the side of the appellants D.W.s1 and 2 were examined and no document was marked.

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 10

¶22

CRL.A.No.439 of 2018

¶23

On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal.

¶24

The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond any doubt. The trial Court convicted the appellants only based on the presumptions, surmises and conjunctures which are not relevant to the circumstance of the case. PW1, the mother of the victim, lodged the complaint and the same was marked as Ex.P1. She deposed that the victim fell in love with the brother of the second appellant, therefore both the accused came to the victim's house and scolded them in filthy language. Immediately, the victim went inside her house and locked the door and thereafter, she was found dead by hanging. The learned counsel for the appellants would point out that PW1 deposed that the victim fell in love with the second son of the appellants.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 10

¶26

CRL.A.No.439 of 2018

¶27

He would further submit that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness to bring home the charges. He further submitted that even assuming that the appellants scolded the victim in filthy language, they never had any intention to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. There was no act done by the appellants to instigate the victim to commit suicide by hanging herself. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 306 IPC and the trial Court mechanically convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

¶28

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that admittedly the victim had fell in love with the brother of PW1 and when it was questioned by the accused and they came to the house of the victim and scolded them in filthy language. Both the accused also threatened her to do away from his life. Therefore, the victim felt humiliated and immediately she committed suicide. Thereby, the accused committed offence under Section 306 IPC and the trial Court rightly convicted the appellants. Hence, it does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 10

¶31

CRL.A.No.439 of 2018

¶32

Admittedly, the appellants are neighbors to the victim's house. The victim seems to have love affair with the brother of PW1. Therefore, on the date of occurrence, the accused went to the victim's house and questioned about the love affair of the victim, for which PW1 said that she will ask her. As per the evidence of PW1, the accused scolded them in filthy language and warned the victim not to love her brother. Even according to the case of the prosecution there was no words uttered by the accused with an intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

¶33

It is relevant to extract the evidence of PW1 which reads as follows;-

¶34

“Rkhh; 1 tUlj;jpw;F Kd;G 2 tJ khjk; khiy 06.00 kzp RkhUf;F M[h; 1> 2 vjphpfs; vd; kfs; Nggp vd;gtis vjphpfs; 2 tJ kfDld; NgRtjhf nrhy;yp vq;fis mbf;f te;jhh;fs;. vjphpfs; vq;fis ghh;j;J fPo; [hjp ehNa> 3 gps;isfis ngw;W Ch; NkatpLfpwhah vd;W rj;jk;Nghl;L jpl;bdhh;fs;. ngz; gps;isfis xOf;fkhf tsh;f;fhky; Ch; Nka tpLfpwhah vd;W rj;jk; Nghl;lhh;fs;. vd; kfs; Nggpia M[h; vjphpfs; khijad; Fl;ilapy; cs;s gs;spf;$lj;jpw;F vd; kfs; nry;yf;$lhJ vd;Wk; mt;thW nrd;why; 20 egh;fis $l;bte;J vd; kfs; Nggpia ntl;btpLtjhf vjphpfs; vd; tPl;bw;F Kd;G

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 10

¶36

CRL.A.No.439 of 2018

¶37

rj;jk;Nghl;L jpl;bdhh;fs;. vd;id jpl;baNghJ vjphpfs; vd;id mbf;fte;jhh;fs;. vd; kfs; Nggp tPl;bw;Fs; Xbtpl;lhs;. ”

¶38

Thus, it is clear that, PW1 deposed that the victim fell in love with the second son of the accused. Whereas she lodged complaint which was marked as Ex.P1 stating that the victim fell in love with her brother. Though the prosecution examined PWs2 to 4, who are none other than the husband and two other children of PW1.

¶39

Admittedly, according to PW1 there were public at the scene of occurrence. They had seen the accused when they scolded the victim. However, the prosecution failed to examine any of the independent witness to corroborate the evidence of PWs1 to 4. The father of the victim was examined as PW4, he was not there at the time of occurrence. Only after the victim committed suicide he reached home. PWs2 and 3, deposed that the deceased fell in love with the brother of PW1. Even assuming that the accused had scolded them in filthy language, there is no evidence to show that the accused had an intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC.

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

Page 6 of 10

¶42

CRL.A.No.439 of 2018

¶43

It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 306 IPC which reads as follows;

¶44

“ 306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicde, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶45

Thus it is clear that, to convict the accused for the 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 put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in the case of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation 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. Further, the person who is said to have abetted the

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 10

¶47

CRL.A.No.439 of 2018

¶48

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 the accused could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

¶49

It is also relevant to look at the provision under Section 107 IPC. The term instigation under Section 107 IPC has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the 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. Thus, to constitute 'instigation' a person who instigates another person to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by provoking or urging forward. The words uttered by the accused in the fit of anger or emotion, without intending any intention, cannot be termed as instigation. Therefore, the trial Court mechanically convicted the appellants and the conviction cannot be sustained for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 10

¶51

CRL.A.No.439 of 2018

¶52

In view of the above, the judgment dated 28.06.2018 passed in S.C.No.309 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, is hereby set aside, the appellants/accused are acquitted from all the charges.

¶53

In the result, the criminal appeal stands allowed.

¶54

11.11.2022

¶55

ata Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order

¶56

¶57

The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem

¶58

2.The Inspector of Police, Mettur Police Station, Mettur, Salem District.

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 10

¶60

CRL.A.No.439 of 2018

¶61

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

ata

Crl.A.No.439 of 2018

11.11.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 10

Amutha, F/A.25 Years v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amutha, F/A.25 Years v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinoth, Aged 30 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Raja, Vs State Rep. by

Selvi, F/65 (A2) Vs State by

S. Natrajan Vs Ayyasamy (Died)

Tiruvallurvar Transport Corporation Vs Priya

Mrs.Muthulakshmi Vs N.Bhanumathi