MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Suicide note is not adequate to assign indicted with rapist liability

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 31-07-2015
CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS
Crl.A.No.56 of 2012

V.Venkataraman .. Appellant/Accused
Vs.
State,
Represented by a Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ayanavaram Range, Chennai. (Crime No.398 of 2003) .. Respondent/Complainant

This Criminal Appeal is filed underneath Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to set aside a JUDGMENT upheld in S.C.No.3 of 2007 on 12.1.2012 by a schooled Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai.

For Appellant : Mr.V.Padmanabhan, Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Harikrishnan. For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor.

JUDGMENT

The solitary indicted in a Sessions Case in S.C.No.3 of 2007 on a record of a schooled Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai is a appellant.

2. He is purported to have tormented his mom for dowry and also abetted her elect of suicide.

3. He was prosecuted in a pronounced Court. Ultimately, a Trial Court, appreciating a justification adduced, found him guilty underneath Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and condemned him as settled below:

Conviction Sentence 498-A IPC One year R.I. and fined of Rs.5,000/- i/d 3 months S.I.

306 IPC Five years R.I. and fined of Rs.25,000/- i/d 3 months S.I.

4. The Trial Court destined both a sentences imposed on a indicted were destined to run concurrently. The Trial Court also destined remuneration of Rs.25,000/- as compensation, out of a sum excellent of Rs.30,000/- to PW-3, underneath Section 357 Cr.P.C.

5. The box of a charge runs as under:

(1) Lakshmidevi is a elder daughter of PWs-1 and 2 Mohana Subramanian and Meenakshi. The indicted is employed in I.C.F., Chennai. On 9.3.1998, a indicted married Lakshmidevi. For about 8 months, they have lived in PW-1’s house. Thereafter, they have set adult their detached family in a detached residence. On 6.9.1999, their son PW-3, Hari Eswar was born;

(2) The indicted grown cognisance with a woman. He used to come home dipsomaniac and argue with his wife. He also demanded income from her family;

(3) PW-1 gave a indicted Rs.60,000/- to squeeze a flat. Subsequently also, P.W.1 gave him Rs.40,000/-. However, a indicted continued to harass his mom for dowry. He also got Rs.1 lakh from Lakshmidevi’s sister in U.S.A. He scolded his mom for she remaining idle in a chateau though going for a job;

(4) On 27.7.2003 morning, Lakshmidevi woke adult late. The indicted scolded and beaten her. In a circumstances, she went to Villivakkam Railway Station along with her son. PW-2 and her crony PW-4 Jagadeeswari brought them to a chateau of a accused. However, a indicted quipped during his mom that still she did not die;

(5) In a circumstances, on 13.8.2003, during about 1 p.m., in their chateau during No.15, B-1, Second Floor, Meera Apartments, North Thirumalai Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai-49 Lakshmidevi committed self-murder by hanging. PWs-1 and 2 seen their daughter’s passed body;

(6) On a same day, during about 3 p.m., during a ICF Police Station, a indicted gave Ex.P-13 censure as to a genocide of his mom to PW-10, Subramani, Inspector of Police. He purebred a box underneath Section 174 Cr.P.C.;

(7) Since she died within 7 years of her marriage, P.W.9 Thirunavukkarasu, Tahsildar conducted enquiry and his news is Ex.P12. PW-12, Ramakrishnan, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Villivakkam Range took adult his investigation. He visited a stage place. In a participation of PW-5 and DW-1, Thiagarajan and Ramamurthy, P.W.12 prepared Ex.P-4 Observation Mahazar. He drew Ex.P-17 Rough Sketch. In a participation of pronounced witnesses, P.W.12 seized Ex.P-2 Diary from a chateau of a indicted underneath Ex.P-15 Seizure Mahazar; PW-11, Dr.Kannan Srinivas, Forensic Professor, Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai conducted a postmortem on her passed body. He reliable that she had committed self-murder (Ex.P-14, Postmortem Certificate);

(8) PW-1 handed over a minute containing a scratch of a defunct to PW-12. He perceived it underneath Form-95 (Ex.P-7). PW-12 sent a pronounced minute and Ex.P-2 Diary by Court to a Forensic Lab for comparison and report. PW-12 altered a Section of law to Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and submitted Ex.P16 Alteration Report to a Court. On 14.9.2003, during about 9 p.m., in North Thirumalai Nagar, Villivakkam, PW-12 arrested a indicted and sent him to Court for authorised custody. PW-13 Dhanasekaran, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ayanavaram Range continued serve investigation. He serve examined PWs-1 to 4 and available their statement;

(9) PW-8, Kumar, Document Expert, Forensic Lab, Chennai compared and examined Ex.P-2 (Q-1 to Q-10) and a handwritings ff a defunct (S-1 to S-25) and reliable that they were combined by one and a same person. (Ex.P9 Report). PW-13 perceived a Analyst Report. Concluding his investigation, on 27.2.2006, he filed a Final Report opposite a indicted before a endangered Court for offences underneath Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.

6. Upon conference both and on caring of a Final Report and a papers trustworthy thereto, a Trial Court framed charges underneath Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C., otherwise underneath Section 306 IPC. The indicted pleaded not guilty to a charges.

7. To justify a charges, charge examined PWs-1 to 13, remarkable Exs.P-1 to P-23.

8. The Trial Court examined a indicted on a damning aspects in a charge justification underneath Section 313 Cr.P.C. The indicted denied a offences. He also filed his combined statement.

9. The indicted examined DW-1, Ramamurthy to a outcome that zero was seized in his presence. DW-2, Rajeev, a neighbour of a accused, denied that he had beheld any argue between a indicted and his wife. The indicted also remarkable a duplicate of this Court’s sequence in O.P.No.596 of 2003 antiquated 20.10.2004 filed by PW-1 opposite a indicted (Ex.D-1), School Fees remitted by him for his son (Ex.D-2), Income Tax Assessment paper of PW-1 (Ex.D-3), Evidence of PWs-2 and 5 given in O.P.No.596 of 2003 (Ex.D-4) and minute of R.D.O. to a Assistant Commissioner of Police, (LO), Sembium antiquated 23.7.2004 (Ex.D-5).

10. Appreciating a above evidence, a Trial Court found a indicted guilty underneath Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and condemned him as already settled in divide No.3.

11. According to a schooled Senior warn for a appellant, a charge contingency infer a charges leveled opposite a indicted over all reasonable doubts. Suspicion, however, clever competence not take a place of authorised proof. In this connection, a schooled Senior warn cited GAMBHIR VS. STATE MAHARASHTRA (AIR 1982 SC 1157). However, in a benefaction case, a charge has not determined a charges leveled opposite a indicted over all reasonable doubts.

12. The schooled Senior warn for a appellant serve contended that in their matter to a Investigating Officer/PW-12 underneath territory 161 Cr.P.C. PWs-1 and 2 a relatives of a defunct have not concerned a accused. However, scarcely after 3 years, in their serve statement, they have purported that a indicted had tormented their daughter for dowry. This is an alleviation and concocted version. They did not contend so before P.W.9, a Tahsildar nor to a R.D.O.

13. The schooled Senior warn for a appellant serve contended that a charge witnesses finished deceptive allegations as to a purported bootleg cognisance of a appellant with a woman. They did not discuss a name of a woman. There is no petrify information on these allegations.

14. The schooled warn for a appellant serve contended that PW-3, son of a indicted had been finished to spin opposite his father. He is underneath a caring and control of his grand-parents/P.Ws.1 and 2. He was tutored by them. He has been indoctrinated to have opposition towards his father and vaunt it in his deposition before a hearing Court. The schooled Senior Counsel for a appellant serve contended that it is too dangerous to act on such justification of a child witness.

15. The schooled Senior Counsel for a appellant submitted that a justification of a child declare has to be approached with most caring and warn as probability of education him is most more. In this connection, a schooled Senior Counsel cited ANAND KUMAR VS. STATE OF M.P. (AIR 2009 SC 2155) CAETANO PIEDADE FERNANDES AND ANOTHER VS. UNION TERRITORY OF GOA, DAMAN AND DIU, PANAJI, GOA (AIR 1977 SC 135), PANCHHI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. (AIR 1998 SC 2726) and THE STATE OF BIHAR OTHERS VS. KAPIL SINGH AND ANOTHER (AIR 1969 SC 53).

16. The schooled Senior warn for a appellant serve contended that Ex.P-2 diary has been simply introduced in this box by PW-1 in connivance with police. Ex.P-2 diary belongs to PW-1. It contains his address. Its law and genuinness have to be established.

17. The schooled Senior Counsel for a appellant also contended that scratch justification has to be conscientiously proved. In this connection, a schooled Senior warn cited FAKHRUDDIN VS. STATE OF M.P. (AIR 1967 SC 1326).

18. According to a schooled Senior Counsel for a appellant, a opinion of an scratch consultant is scuttle-butt in nature. It can't be towering to a standing of a estimable square of evidence. In this connection, a schooled Senior warn cited RAHIM KHAN VS. KHURSHID AHMED AND OTHERS (AIR 1975 SC 290)

19. The schooled Senior Counsel for a appellant also contended that merely since a self-murder note has been left by a defunct it can't be automatically resolved that a defunct died due to a abetment of a accused.

20. The schooled Senior Counsel for a appellant submitted that there contingency be positive, conscious act on a partial of a indicted instigating a plant to dedicate suicide. Then usually Section 306 IPC review with Section 107 IPC can be invoked. In this connection, a schooled Senior Counsel cited SANJU @ SANJAY SINGH SENGAR VS. STATE OF M.P. {(2002) 5 SCC 371} and MANI VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GUINDY POLICE STATION, CHENNAI {2014 (3) MLJ CRL. 18}.

21. The schooled Senior Counsel for a appellant serve submitted that ordinary, slight quarrels between a spouses and an husband, being a drunkard, can't be deliberate a certain act on a partial of a indicted to force, provoke, satisfy a mom to dedicate self-murder and it will not tumble underneath territory 306 IPC In this connection, a schooled Senior Counsel cited ASSOO VS. STATE OF M.P. {2012 CRL. L.J. 658}.

See also  Section 493, I.P.C : Accused cannot be prosecuted on materials adduced later

22. The schooled Senior Counsel for a appellant also submitted that PWs-1 and 2 who were dissapoint by a remarkable passing of their daughter finished a indicted a plant for her remarkable death. Prosecution has not determined a charges leveled opposite a indicted over all reasonable doubts. Thus, a appellant is entitled to a advantage of doubts.

23. On a otherhand, a schooled Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that a justification of PWs-1 to 4 would clearly uncover that a indicted had invariably harrassed his mom and he also grown bootleg cognisance with a lady and he is also a drunkard and since of his activities, a defunct committed suicide. PW-3 who is a son of a indicted himself had settled about a nuisance of his father.

24. The schooled Additional Public Prosecutor serve submitted that PWs-1 to 4 have clearly settled that a indicted had pursuaded, forced his mom to dedicate suicide. The indicted had ill-treated her. Ex.P-2 diary containing her writtings would uncover a wrong doings of her husband. The genuinness of Ex.P-2 also has been determined by a justification of PW-8 Document expert. Thus, charge has determined a charges leveled opposite a indicted over all reasonable doubts. In a circumstances, a indicted has been righteously convicted and he has been punished accordingly.

25. we have anxiously deliberate a opposition submissions, perused a whole materials on record, a impugned visualisation and also a decisions cited by a schooled Senior Counsel for a appellant.

26. Now, a doubt is possibly a charges underneath territory 498-A and 306 IPC framed as opposite a indicted have been valid over all reasonable doubts.

27. On 13.8.2003, in her house, a mom of a accused, namely, Lakshmidevi, who is a daughter of PWs-1 and 2 and mom of PW-3, has committed suicide. The indicted is indicted of carrying tormented her for dowry and rigourously treated her and also abetted her elect of suicide.

28. The offences, allegations, however, critical they competence be, they have to be valid over all reasonable doubts. Suspicion, however, clever competence not take a place of authorised proof. Surmises and conjunctures can't be towering to a spin of authorised proof. Thus, a offences purported contingency be determined over all reasonable doubts by authorised evidence.

29. Section 498-A IPC also seeks to retaliate an father for subjecting his mom to cruelty. The cruelty competence be earthy or mental. It competence be nuisance in a inlet of an intolerable conduct.

30. Section 306 IPC seeks to punsih those who abets a elect of self-murder by other. It requires mental element. Such a requirement can be review into in Section 306 IPC by reading Section 107 IPC.

31. The range of Section 306 IPC has been elaborately deliberate by this Court in MANI vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J-3, GUINDY POLICE STATION, CHENNAI {(2014) 3 MLJ (CRL.) 18}.

32. It is applicable to note a following from ‘MANI’ (supra):

16. In a Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Chapter XIV, in Section 306 I.P.C. ‘abetment of suicide’ has been finished an offence.

17. Section 306 I.P.C. runs as under:

306. Abetment of suicide:

If any chairman commits suicide, whoever abets a elect of such suicide, shall be punished with seizure of possibly outline for a tenure that competence extend to 10 years, and shall also be probable to fine.”

18. The twin mandate for an corruption underneath territory 306 I.P.C. are (1) Suicide and (2) Abetment to dedicate suicide.

19. = = = = = = = =

20. = = = = = = = =

21. = = = = = = = =

22. = = = = = = = =

23. In Section 306 I.P.C., a word ‘abetment’ has not been tangible or explained. In Concise Oxford English Dictionary (XI Edition 2004), ‘Abetment’ (Abet, Abets, Abetting, Abetted, Abettor) has been explained as ‘encourage or support (someone) to do something wrong in sold to do crime’.

24. In Indian Penal Code, in Chapter V (Abetment), in Section 107 ‘abetment of a thing’ has been explained. Though a word ‘abetment’ has not been tangible in territory 306 I.P.C., to know a meaning, we can impute to territory 107 I.P.C.

25. Section 107 I.P.C. runs as under:

107. Abetment of a thing A chairman abets a doing of a thing, who-

First: -Instigates any chairman to do that thing; or Secondly: -Engages with one or some-more other chairman or persons in any swindling for a doing of that thing, if an act or bootleg repudiation takes place in pursuit of that conspiracy, and in sequence to a doing of that thing; or Thirdly: -Intentionally aids, by any act or bootleg omission, a doing of that thing.

Explanation1:- A chairman who, by determined misrepresentation, or by determined dissimulation of a element fact that he is firm to disclose, willingly causes or procures, or attempts to means or procure, a thing to be done, is pronounced to satisfy a doing of that thing.’ Explanation: Whoever possibly before to or during a time of a elect of an act, does anything in sequence to promote a elect of that act, and thereby facilitates a elect thereof, is pronounced to assist a doing of that thing.

26. It is seen that in statutorily explaining a word ‘abetment’ (See territory 107 I.P.C.) what a word abetment connotes in ubiquitous English has been kept in view.

27. In RATTANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL’S ‘commentaries on a Indian Penal Code‘ (32nd Edition) (2010), during page 1735 1736, ‘abetment’, has been commented as under:

”2 Abetting Suicide The gravamen of a corruption punishable u/s 306 I.P.C. is helping suicide. Section 107, I.P.C. defines abetment as comprising:

(a) propelling to dedicate a offence;

(b) enchanting in swindling to dedicate a offence, and

(c) helping a elect of an offence.

Abetment so indispensably means some active thought or support to a elect of a offence. The word ‘instigate’ literally means to goad, titillate forward, provoke, stimulate or inspire to do an act and a chairman is pronounced to satisfy another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to a act by any means, or language, approach or indirect, possibly it takes a form of demonstrate questionnaire or of hints, slur or encouragement. It is also not compulsory that a propelling should be usually in disproportion and competence not be conduct.”

28. In RANDHIR SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB (2004(13) SCC 129: (AIR 2004 SC 5097) a Hon’ble Supreme Court celebrated as under:

”Abetment involves a mental slight of instigating a chairman or intentionally helping that chairman in doing of a thing. In box of swindling also it would engage that mental slight of entering into swindling for a doing of that thing. More active purpose that can be described as instigating or helping a doing of a thing is compulsory before a chairman can be pronounced to be helping a elect of corruption underneath Section 306 IPC.”

29. In RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (2001(9) SCC 618), ‘instigation’ has been explained by a Hon’ble Apex justice as under:

“20. Instigation is to goad, titillate forward, provoke, stimulate or inspire to do “an act”. To infer a requirement of propelling yet it is not compulsory that tangible disproportion contingency be used to that effect. or what constitutes propelling contingency indispensably and privately be revealing of a consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to stimulate a effect contingency be able of being spelt out. a benefaction one is not a box where a indicted had by his acts or repudiation or by a continued march of control combined such resources that a defunct was left with no other choice solely to dedicate self-murder in that box an propelling competence have been inferred. A word oral in a fit of annoy or tension though intending a consequences to indeed follow can't be pronounced to be instigation.”

30. In S.S.CHHEENA VS. VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN ANOTHER (2010(12) SCC 190) a Hon’ble Apex Court celebrated that:

“abetment involves a mental slight of instigating a chairman or intentionally helping a chairman in doing of a thing. Without a certain act on a partial of a indicted to satisfy or assist in committing suicide, self-assurance can't be sustained. The goal of a legislature and a ratio of a cases motionless by a Supreme Court is transparent that in sequence to crook a chairman underneath Section 306 IPC there has to be a transparent mens rea to 6 dedicate a offence. It also requires an active act or approach act that led a defunct to dedicate self-murder saying no choice and that act contingency have been dictated to pull a defunct into such a position that he committed suicide.”

31. In AMALENDU PAL @ JHANTU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (2010(1) SCC 707), a Hon’ble Apex Court has opined as under:

“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken a perspective that before holding an indicted guilty of an corruption underneath Section 306 IPC, a justice contingency conscientiously inspect a contribution and resources of a box and also consider a justification adduced before it in sequence to find out possibly a cruelty and nuisance meted out to a plant had left a plant with no other choice though to put an finish to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of purported abetment of self-murder there contingency be explanation of approach or surreptitious acts of incitement to a elect of suicide. Merely on a claim of nuisance though there being any certain movement present to a time of occurrence on a partial of a indicted that let or compelled a chairman to dedicate suicide, self-assurance in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.”

32. In VIJAY KUMAR RASTOGI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2012) CRI. L.J.2342) a Rajasthan High Court celebrated as under:

See also  SC: Language Problem of a Party is not a Ground to Transfer a Case U/s 406 CrPC

”10 The word ‘urge’ means to recommendation or try tough to convince somebody to do something, to make a chairman to pierce some-more fast or in a sold direction, specifically by pulling or forcing such person. Therefore, a chairman instigating another has to “goad” or “urge forward” a latter with goal to provoke, stimulate or inspire a doing of an act by a latter. In sequence to infer abetment, it contingency be shown that a indicted kept on propelling or irritating a defunct by words, taunts or determined repudiation or control that competence even be determined silence, until a defunct reacted, or pulling a defunct by his disproportion or determined repudiation or control to make a defunct pierce brazen some-more fast in a brazen direction. Secondly, a indicted had a goal to stimulate or titillate or inspire a defunct to dedicate self-murder while behaving in a demeanour remarkable above. Undoubtedly a participation of mens rea is a compulsory consequent of instigation.”

33. In VIJAY KUMAR RASTOGI (supra), it was also celebrated as under:

”13. In sequence to move a box within a reach of Section 306 IPC there contingency be a box of self-murder and in a elect of a pronounced offence, a chairman who is pronounced to have abetted a elect of self-murder contingency have played an active purpose by an act of propelling or by doing certain act to promote a elect of suicide. Therefore, a act of abetment by a chairman charged with a pronounced corruption contingency be valid and determined by a charge before he could be convicted underneath Section 306 IPC.

34. The corruption of abetment requires ‘mens rea’ (guilty mind). There contingency be conscious doing/aiding or goading a elect of self-murder by another. Otherwise, even a tiny infrequent remark, something pronounced in slight and common review will be poorly construed or misunderstood as ‘abetment’.

35. In GANGULA MOHAN REDDY VS. STATE OF A.P. (2010(1) SCC (Cri.) 917), it was hold that to attract territory 306 I.P.C., there contingency be transparent ‘mens rea’ to dedicate offence.

36. In CHITRESH KUMAR CHOPRA VS. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI (2010)3 SCC (CRI.) 367), a Hon’ble Supreme Court opined as under:

”This justice had an arise to understanding with this aspect of abetment. The justice dealt with a compendium definition of a word “instigation” and “goading”. The justice opined that there should be goal to provoke, stimulate or inspire a doing of an act by a latter. Each person’s suicidability settlement is opposite from a others. Each chairman has his possess thought of self- venerate and self-respect. Therefore, it is unfit to lay down any straight-jacket regulation in traffic with such cases. Each box has to be motionless on a basement of a possess contribution and circumstances.”

37. In M.MOHAN VS. D.S.P., KARAIKUDI (2011(3) SCC 626) a Hon’ble Supreme Court celebrated as under:

44. Abetment involves a mental slight of instigating a chairman or intentionally helping a chairman in doing of a thing. Without a certain act on a partial of a indicted to satisfy or assist in committing suicide, self-assurance can't be sustained.

45. The goal of a Legislature and a ratio of a cases motionless by this justice are transparent that in sequence to crook a chairman underneath territory 306 IPC there has to be a transparent mens rea to dedicate a offence. It also requires an active act or approach act that led a defunct to dedicate self-murder saying no choice and this act contingency have been dictated to pull a defunct into such a position that he/she committed suicide.”

38. In STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ORILAL JAISWAL (1994 SCC (CRI.) 107), a Hon’ble Apex Court cautioned as under:

”The Court should be intensely clever in assessing a contribution and resources of any box and a justification adduced in a hearing for a purpose of anticipating possibly a cruelty meted out to a plant had in fact prompted her to finish a life by committing suicide. If it appears to a Court that a plant committing self-murder was hypersensitive to typical petulance, conflict and disproportion in domestic life, utterly common to a society, to that a plant belonged and such petulance, conflict and disproportion were not approaching to satisfy a likewise circumstanced sold in a given multitude to dedicate suicide, a demur of a Court should not be confident for basing a anticipating that a indicted charged of helping a corruption of self-murder should be found guilty.”

39. Generally, a chairman who commits self-murder used to/liked to leave a self-murder note fixing certain chairman as obliged for his committing suicide. Merely since a chairman has been so named in a self-murder note we are not to immediately burst to a finish that he is an delinquent underneath territory 306 I.P.C.

40. The essence of a self-murder note and other attending resources have to be examined to find out possibly it is abetment within a definition of territory 306 I.P.C. review with territory 107 I.P.C. There competence be a box where in a self-murder note plant had named a person, who is obliged for his committing suicide, but, on correct analysis, territory 306 I.P.C. competence not be captivated to him.

41. Recently, in RAJAMANNAR VS. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SEVVAPET, POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT (Crl.O.P.No. 8230/2014 antiquated 3.4.2014) A-2 introduced A-1 to a defunct as a chairman who will get railway jobs for money. Relying on this, a defunct collected income from many and gave it to A-1. Ultimately, A-1 cheated him. The pursuit seekers pressurised a defunct to lapse their money. Under these circumstances, a defunct and his family members have committed self-murder and a defunct left a self-murder note that A-2 is obliged for their death. A-2 was arrested for an corruption underneath territory 306 I.P.C.

42. In a contribution and resources of a pronounced case, this Court came to a finish that prima facie territory 306 I.P.C. is not captivated towards A-2 and celebrated as under:

”7. On reading a whole self-murder note from a commencement to end, it is seen that A-1 hoodwinked Sugumar, who perceived income from many persons. They have asked him and flustered him. Unable to bear this humiliation, Sugumar committed suicide.

8. For an corruption underneath Section 306 IPC, there are twin requirements, namely, self-murder and abetment to dedicate suicide. No need to explain what is suicide. But what is abetment has to be understood. It is not settled in Section 306 IPC. It is ‘instigation’, ‘provocation’, constrained a chairman to do certain things or not to do certain things. This competence be by words, deeds or essay or even by signs. May be humiliation, spiritless a chairman in a participation of others. The act contingency be such that it contingency force, desire, enforce a chairman to take a impassioned decision. But, it contingency be a certain act. Thus, a act purported to have committed on a partial of a indicted contingency have played a pivotal purpose for a plant to take a preference to dedicate suicide.

9. If a partner commits self-murder due to adore failure, if a tyro commits self-murder since of his bad opening in a examination, a customer commits self-murder since his box is dismissed, a lady, examiner, counsel respectively can't be hold to have abetted a elect of suicide. For a wrong preference taken by a coward, fool, idiot, a male of diseased mentality, a male of thin mentality, another chairman can't be blamed as carrying abetted his committing suicide. Now, in this case, a self-murder note shows that incompetent to bear a chagrin given by a pursuit seekers, Sugumar committed suicide. For this, postulant can't be blamed. Further, no act or help in a inlet of a certain act forced Sugumar and his family members emanated from a postulant to force them to dedicate suicide. The finish would be Sugumar died like a coward. Instead of safeguarding a family, he perished like an catastrophic male in life foolishly he also took along with him his other family members also. For this, how can a postulant be directly blamed.”

43. If a chairman creates an typical fun or a infrequent acknowledgement in slight march of typical life and when a plant commits suicide, that will not attract territory 306 I.P.C. The resources underneath that a damning disproportion oral and a form and inlet of a plant have also to be considered. Some certain act contingency have emanated from a indicted towards a victim. And should be in a inlet of forcing or propelling a plant to take a impassioned decision. If zero had came from a accused, a indicted can't be blamed for a impassioned preference taken by a victim.

44. Simple abuses are not sufficient to stimulate a plant to dedicate suicide. It will not attract territory 306 I.P.C. Simply since a lender has demanded amends of his money, if a debtor commits self-murder a creditor can't be pronounced to have abetted his suicide. Section 306 I.P.C. is not captivated towards him.

45. Mere reprimanding does not volume to instigation. The disproportion settled in a fit of annoy will not volume to abetment. Casual acknowledgement of father towards his mom in a typical march of life will not volume to abetment to dedicate suicide. Because they did not contend so with any mens rea. (see SWAMY PRAHALDAS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 438).

46. In NARESH MAROTRAO VS. UNION OF INDIA (1995 Crl.L.J. (Bom), a defunct poured kerosene on her physique and set glow to herself in a participation of a accused. But a indicted did not do anything, he did not put off a glow and saved a deceased. It was hold that a indicted can't be hold probable underneath territory 306 I.P.C. review with 107 I.P.C. and he has not committed any corruption during all.

See also  Maintenance u/s.125, Territorial jurisdiction

47. Sometimes, a preference to dedicate self-murder competence be taken by a plant himself/herself, unparalleled by any act or propelling etc. on a partial of a accused. A chairman competence die like a coward. On his disaster in a examination, a tyro competence dedicate suicide. They are diseased minded. They are persons of thin mentality. For their ridiculous mentality/decision, another chairman can't be blamed.

33. Keeping a above beliefs of rapist law in a view, now, we shall return to a box during a hand.

34. PW-1, Mohanasubramanian, father of a deceased, in his justification had settled that a indicted had demanded income from his daughter Lakshmidevi. He also settled that he had given him Rs.60,000/- to squeeze a prosaic and subsequently also gave him Rs.40,000/-. He also settled that he had pressurised his another daughter Kamatchi, who is in U.S.A. and got Rs.4 lakhs from her. PW-2, Meenakshi, mom of a defunct also reiterated her husband. PW-4, a crony of PW-3 also steady them. However, in their matter to RDO, conjunction PW-1 nor PW-2 had settled those aspects.

35. PWs-1 and 2 gave their matter underneath Section 161 Cr.P.C. to PW-12 Ramakrishnan, Investigation Officer/Assistant Commissioner, on 13.8.2003. But, afterwards PWs-1 and 2 did not make such allegations as opposite a accused. Nearly after 3 years, on 5.1.2006, in their serve statement, PWs-1 and 2 have concerned a indicted had tormented their daughter and also demanded dowry. In his cross-examination, PW-12 also certified that PWs-1 and 2 have not finished such a matter to him earlier.

36. PW-9, Thirunavukkarasu, Tahsildar also settled that PWs-1 and 2 did not make matter that a indicted had tormented their daughter for dowry. Even in Ex.P-1, a matter of PW-1 to PW-9, he has clearly settled that there was no dowry nuisance to their daughter by a accused. In his minute antiquated 23.7.2004 (Ex.D-5) to a Assistant Commissioner of Police, R.D.O. had settled that a enquiry did not exhibit any dowry nuisance by a accused. Thus, it is transparent that prolonged after a self-murder of their daughter, in their evidence, PWs-1 and 2 had finished successive developments and improvements.

37. PWs-1 and 2 have also settled that a indicted is a drunkard, used to betray their daughter. PWs-2 and 4 had settled that on 27.7.2003, they have seen Lakshmidevi with her son Hari Eswar/PW-3, during a Villivakkam Railway Station and when enquired, Lakshmidevi settled to have told them that a indicted had tormented and beaten her.

38. PWs-2 and 4 settled that they took them to a chateau of a indicted and in their presence, a indicted is settled to have quipped during his mom that still she did not die. However, these aspects were not settled by PWs-1 and 2 in their beginning matter to police. PW-12 also did not repudiate this.

39. PWs-1, 2 and 4 had also settled that Lakshmidevi told them that a indicted is carrying cognisance with a lady and when she questioned him, he tormented her. However, there is no transparent cut element on this aspect. Further, in their cross-examination, they have certified that they did not know a name of a lady with whom a indicted had grown bootleg intimacy.

40. PW-3, Hari Eswar is a son of a accused. He was examined before a Court on 23.1.2008. At about that time, he was 8 years old. Thus when his mom died, he would have been a 3 years aged kid.

41. In his evidence, PW-3 had settled that his father had tormented his mom and told her ‘go and die’. It is impending to note that afterwards PW-3 was a proposal child. During a applicable period, he was a tiny kid. It his concise that he is recounting an occurrence after 5 years implicating his father.

42. As per this Court’s sequence in Crl.O.P.No.596 of 2003 antiquated 20.10.2004 (Ex.D-1) control of PW-3 was given to PWs-1 and 2. PW-3 admits that he is underneath their caring and control. Since 2004, he was with them. Throughout his evidence, PW-3 called his father a ‘Monkey’. His justification shows that he has grown too most tie towards PWs-1 and 2, who were really most dissapoint by a remarkable passing of their daughter.

43. Thus, a arguments of a schooled Senior Counsel for a appellant that PW-3 was totally tutored, finished to spin a list opposite his father and to pronounce fabrication can't be settled to be an justification though substance.

44. Ex.P-2 diary has been pulpy into use in this box by a charge to uncover that there was abetment on a partial of a indicted to his mom to dedicate suicide.

45. Ex.P-2 has been constructed by PW-1 to PW-12 Investigation Officer. PW-8 Kumar, Document Expert, examined a handwritings in a sold page in Ex.P-2 with a aged handwritings of a defunct and resolved that both are in a handwritings of same chairman (Ex.P-9 Report).

46. Ex.P-2 diary belongs to PW-1. PW-1 admits that it was used by him in tie with his business. It also contains entries display remuneration of salary to a persons employed by him. The diary is of a year 1998. There is no denote that it belongs to a deceased.

47. It is impending here to note a submissions of a schooled Senior Counsel for a appellant that Ex.P-2 is a successive insertion of PW-1 in connivance with police. In analysing and deliberation a justification of PWs-1, 12, with anxiety to Ex.P-2 diary such an justification can't be discharged as abandoned of merits.

48. That apart, a opinion given by PW-8 with courtesy to a entries in Ex.P-2 is usually scuttle-butt justification in inlet and it can't be a concrete square of evidence.

49. The essence of entries in Ex.P-2 in vernacular denunciation runs as under:-

9.2.2002 during 8 p.m., vd;id mtkhdg;gLj;jp ngrpd nghJTlh xU thh;j;ij mij gw;wp nfl;fhjJ vdf;F xU ngUapo MH;r;rp.me;j b$ae;jpia xU thh;j;j nfl;f c’;fSf;F gak;. mts; bfhoia fHl;L brd;dh vd;id bra;a bry;wp’;f. tpsf;F Vw;w md;W nkny itj;jh fPnH it mt vd;d bry;wJ vd;W brd;d MS ,d;iwf;F tpsf;F Vd; nkny btf;fs vd nfl;fpw’;f/ eP vy;yfpl;nlna ele;Jf;f bjhpa overM elj;Jf;FJid vy;yhk; vd;id nfhl;fpwh’;f mg;ngh vd;df;F vt;tst[ kd fc;;lkh ,Uf;F gjpy; nghrk vg;go ,Ug;gJ/ c’;fSf;F supportM ngrpd vdf;F fpilj;j gwpR ,Jjhd;/ Mdh vd;dhy mt nfl;l eP vg;go te;jt vd vdf;F bjhpahJ/ cd; FLk;gk; vg;gogl;lJ eP v’;fpUe;njh te;jtjhnd vd ,jak; btof;fpwkhjphp ngrpaJ vd;dhy jh’;f Koay kwf;f Koay ehd; vd;d jg;g[ gz;z vd; FLk;g fhy;Jrpf;F Mt[kh mt ,t;tst[ nftykhf epiyapny ehd; fc;lgl;l nghJ Tl c’;fSf;F me;j fc;lk; bjhpay/ ,e;j tPl;il tpl;L nghfDk; vdf;F vd;d Mirah ,t;tst[ nftykh ngrpdh vg;go ,Ug;gJ/ c’;fSf;F brhe;j tPl;il tpl;L tu kdkpy;iy. igaida[k; ntW propagandize nru ,c;lk; ,y;iy/ ,g;go vf;fh eP’;f Vd; c’;f tpUg;gj;ij fc;lg;gl;L khj;jpf;fDk;/ eP’;fSk;. c’;f igaDk; re;njhckhf ,e;j tPl;onyna ,U’;f/ ve;j fhyj;jpypa[k; eP mgj;JsTl vdf;F cjtkhl;o’;f vdf;F ey;y bjhpe;Jtpl;lJ/ mk;kh. mg;gh jat[ bra;J ehd; nghd gpwF mtiuna mth; igaidna c’;fSld; ,Uf;f mDkjpf;fhjp’;f vJ ey;yjy;y ,jdhy; eP’;fs; jhd; fc;lg;gLtPh;fs;/@

50. In Ex.P-2 there is no denote as to when it was written. But it contains an occurrence purported to have taken place on 9.2.2002 during 8 p.m. She has committed self-murder on 13.8.2003.

51. An purported eventuality on 9.8.2008 mentioned in Ex.P-2 is projected as in a inlet of instigating a plant to dedicate suicide. There contingency be vicinity as between a purported eventuality and a tangible elect of self-murder by a victim. However, in this case, there is no vicinity as between her self-murder on 13.8.2003 and a purported eventuality on 9.2.2002.

52. As hold in MANI VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J-3, GUINDY POLICE STATION, CHENNAI {2014 (3) MLJ CRL. 18} merely since a chairman who has committed self-murder has left a self-murder note immediately one can't burst to a finish that it is adequate to despoil a indicted with rapist guilt underneath Section 306 IPC. The essence of a self-murder note has to be analysed to find out possibly it contains any damning information in a inlet of instigation, provocation, forcing a plant to dedicate suicide.

53. Now reading a purported handwritings of a defunct in Ex.P-2 diary, it is not of such a nature. The whole handwritings in Ex.P-2 would not uncover any abetment on a partial of a accused. It would not uncover any goal or wish on a partial of a indicted that his mom should die. It would not uncover any certain act on a partial of a indicted forcing her to dedicate suicide.

54. Considering all a above aspects, a charge has not determined a charges framed opposite a indicted over all reasonable doubts. The indicted is entitled to a advantage of doubts.

55. In a result;

(i) This Criminal Appeal is allowed. The self-assurance underneath Sections 498-A and 306 IPC of a appellant by a schooled Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai in S.C.No.3 of 2007 and a sentences imposed on him are set aside. The appellant is clear from a charges;

(ii) The instruction of a Trial Court to compensate Rs.25,000/- as remuneration to PW-3, out of a sum excellent volume of Rs.30,000/-, if a excellent volume is already paid by a appellannt, a whole excellent volume of Rs.30,000/- shall be paid to PW-3 and if already Rs.25,000/- has been paid to PW-3 out of a excellent amount, a change Rs.5,000/- shall be refunded to a accused.

31-07-2015 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Svn/vaan

To

1.The Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
5.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ayanavaram Range, Chennai.

P.DEVADASS, J., Svn/vaan
PRE DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN Crl.A.No.56 of 2012

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Legally acquired foreign Divorce is valid in India
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation