1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.A.No.321 of 2010
Saraswathiammal … Appellant
Vs
State by the Inspector of Police,
K.1, Sembium Police Station,
Chennai … Respondent
Prayer:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to set
aside the judgement and conviction dated 12.05.2010 made in
SC.No.401/2007 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.Johnsathyan for
Mr.K.Chandru
For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabakar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed, against the Judgment of
conviction and sentence, dated 12.05.2010 made in SC.No.401/2007
on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, convicting and
sentencing the Appellant/1st accused for the offence under Section
498(A) IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo two months simple
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
imprisonment and for the offence under Section 306 IPC, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,
in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment and ordering
the sentences to run concurrently.
2. The case of the Prosecution in brief is as follows:-
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sembium Range, filed the
charge sheet against the appellant/A1 and her son-Balakrishnan/A2,
for the offences under Sections 498A and Section306 IPC. The allegations in
the final report was that the marriage between the deceased-Anitha
and the 2nd accused had taken place on 04.05.2001 and that, after
the marriage, the deceased was living with the 2nd accused-her
husband and his mother/A1, the appellant herein, at Door No.2,
Pazhani Aandavar Koil Street, Perambur, Chennai – 11, and that the
deceased did not conceive, even after five years of marriage. Due to
which, the appellant/1st accused used to quarrel with the deceased
and that, she had informed to her father about the harassment by the
appellant/1st accused. When the father of the deceased had enquired
the appellant, she had scolded him in abusive language and from that
day onwards, she used to pick up frequent quarrel with the deceased
and that, whenever, the deceased informed her husband/ 2nd
accused, he also used to scold the deceased.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
3.On 15.05.2006, at about 2.00 p.m., there was a quarrel
between the appellant and the deceased with regard to missing of the
key of the suitcase which the appellant/1st accused has intended to
take with her for her tour programme. When the appellant/1st
accused had abused her stating that the deceased had purposely
taken the key and hidden it somewhere and when the deceased told
her that ‘she did not take the keys’, the appellant had scolded her by
saying “cd;id jtpu ahUk; rhtpia vLf;f KoahJ. bghWf;fp ehna. eP tps’;f
khl;nl. cd; tapww; py; g[S g{r;rp Tl mjdhy; jhd; ,y;iy vd;Wk;. eP mof;fo
nghyP!; !;nlrDf;F nghdtjhnd. ehd; LPUf;F ngha; jpUk;gp tUtjw;Fs; eP
tPli
; l tplL
; ngha;tplDk;” and had assaulted the deceased with Chappals
and that unable to bear the insult and ill-treatment of the appellant
and the passive behaviour of the 2nd accused, in not reprimanding his
mother/ appellant about the ill-treatment meted out to his wife, the
deceased self-immolated herself on 16.05.2006 at about 7.45 a.m.,
and died in K.M.C.Hospital, due to the burn injuries and thereby the
respondent on the statement of the deceased initially registered a
case in Cr.No.604 of 2006 for offence under Section 309 IPC and later
when the victim succumbed to the burn injuries, filed the final report
against the appellant/1st accused and her son for offences under
Sections 498A and Section306 IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
4.The committal Magistrate, on receipt of the final report against
the accused, summoned the accused, furnished copies of relevant
records and documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, finding that the offences involved in this case are
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed this case to
the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, and the same was
made over to the Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, for disposal, in
accordance with law.
5.On appearance of the accused before the trial Court, after
hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire materials on record and
having satisfied prima facie, that there are sufficient grounds to frame
charges against the accused, framed charges against the accused, for
the offences under Sections 498A and Section306 IPC, and the charges were
read over, explained to the accused in the local language, known to
them and questioned about the charges. Both the accused denied
the charges and claimed to be tried.
6.In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution has
examined 16 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked documents as
Exs.P1 to P20, on its side and also marked Material Objects, M.Os.1
and 2. However, no evidence was let in, on the side of the defence.
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
7.P.W.1-Murugesan is the father of the deceased. P.W.2-
Sampath is Tenant of the house owned by the appellant/A.1. P.W.3-
Kowsalya is wife of P.W.2. P.W.4-Anjalai is mother of the deceased.
P.W.5-Venkatesan is the witness, who attested the Observation
Mahazar-Ex.P4 and Rough Sketch-Ex.P.18. P.W.6-R.Vijayakumar, the
then XV Metropolitan Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration
from the deceased in Kilpauk Medical Hospital. P.W.7-Damodararaj is
the duty Doctor in Kilpauk Medical Hospital, who certified to the effect
that the deceased was conscious and in a fit state of mind to give
dying declaration. P.W.8-Kubendran is the photographer. P.W.9-
Mohammed, who signed as a witness for the confession statement
given by the appellant/A.1. P.W.10-Dr.Subbulakshmi, who treated the
deceased in Kilpauk Medical Hospital and issued Ex.P.11-Accident
Register. P.W.11-David Prabhu Kumar, Tahsildar, who conducted
inquest over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.12-
Inquest Report. P.W.12-Vijayakumar, Personal Assistant to District
Collector, who sent Ex.P.14 report to the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Sembium Range. P.W.13-Dr.C.Manohar, who conducted post
mortem on the deceased and issued Ex.P.15-Post Mortem Certificate.
P.W.14-Silambu Chelvan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Sembium, who
registered the case in Crime No.604 of 2006 and prepared Ex.P.17-
FIR. P.W.15-Boopathy, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sembium
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
Range, who conducted further investigation. P.W.16-K.Rajaram,
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sembium Range, who conducted
further investigation and filed the final report against the accused
under Section 306 IPC and sent the same to the trial Court.
8.Ex.P1, dated 16.05.2006 is the endorsement made by P.W.1 in
the statement of P.W.4, recorded by the Tahsildar. Ex.P2, dated
16.05.2006, is the statement of P.W.3, recorded by the Tahsildar.
Ex.P3, dated 16.05.2006, is the statement of P.W.4, recorded by the
Tahsildar. Ex.P4, dated 15.05.2006 is the Observation Mahazar.
Ex.P5, dated 15.05.2006 is the requisition Seizure Mahazar. Ex.P6,
dated 15.05.2006, is the requisition sent by the Sub-Inspector of
Police to the XV Metropolitan Magistrate. Ex.P7, dated 15.05.2006 is
the Dying Declaration. Ex.P8, dated 15.05.2006 endorsement made
by P.W.7 in the dying declaration at 5.15 pm on 15.05.2006. Ex.P9,
dated 15.05.2006 is the endorsement made by P.W.7 in the dying
declaration at 05.40 p.m. Ex.P10, signature of P.W.9 in the
confession statement of the 2nd accused. Ex.P11, dated 15.05.2006 is
the copy of Accident Register. Ex.P12, dated 16.05.2006, is the
Inquest report. Ex.P13, dated 18.05.2006, is the report of Tahsildar.
Ex.P14, dated 06.06.2006 is the report of the Personal Assistant to
District Collector. Ex.P15, dated 17.05.2006 is the Postmortem
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
Certificate. Ex.P16, dated 15.05.2006 is the Complaint. Ex.P.17,
dated 15.05.2006 is the printed FIR. Ex.P.18, dated 15.05.2006 is
the Rough Sketch. Ex.P.19, dated 30.05.2006 is the requisition given
by the Assistant Commissioner of Police to the V Metropolitan
Magistrate. Ex.P.20, dated 16.05.2006 is the requisition given by the
Assistant Commissioner of Police to the District Collector.
9.On completion of the evidence, on the side of the prosecution,
the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., as to the
incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses and the accused has come with the version of total denial
and stated to be tried. However, no evidence was let in, on the side
of the defence.
10.The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on
either side and also looking into the materials available on record,
while acquitting the 2nd accused found the appellant/1st accused guilty
for offence under Sections 498A and Section306 IPC and awarded
punishment as stated above, which is challenged in this Criminal
Appeal.
11. This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on
either side.
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
12.The learned counsel for the appellant/1st accused has assailed
the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence, on the following
infirmities, discrepancies and grounds :-
(a) The trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant
/1st accused for the offences under Sections 498(A) and Section306 of IPC
based on the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 4, who are none other than the
father and mother of the deceased and they are living elsewhere and
that whatever deposed by them can only be hearsay evidence in
respect of the incident that took place on the particular day.
(b) Ex.P7, dying declaration itself would show that the
appellant/1st accused is not responsible for the suicide committed by
the deceased and further, there is absolutely no material, attracting
ingredients of offence under Section 306 of IPC against the
appellant/1st accused.
(c) It is also on record as per the evidence of P.W.3, the
neighbour, that there used to be frequent quarrels between the
appellant/1st accused and the deceased and that they used to
compromise with each other after quarrels and it was the regular
conduct of their affairs. Petty quarrels between the appellant/1st
accused and the deceased would not tantamount to cruelty either
mental or physical and there was no big fight between them, at any
point of time. When such being so, the allegations against the
http://www.judis.nic.in
9
appellant/accused cannot be held guilty for the petty quarrels and
further that there are material on record to show that the victim had
assaulted the appellant/mother-in-law on an earlier occassion,
thereby, offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C., is not attracted.
13.The learned counsel for the appellant/1st accused would
contend that reading of the dying declaration would only infer that
the death of the deceased is due to accidental fire and not due to
suicidal and it is the admitted case of the deceased herself in the
dying declaration that there was a quarrel in the morning, thereafter,
husband of the deceased/A.2 had come home and consoled her and
gone back to work and thereafter, being humiliated by the conduct of
the appellant/accused the victim had poured kerosene over herself
and since, she was afraid, she started crying and thereafter expecting
that somebody would come and console her had been lighting the
match stick and putting it off repeatedly and unexpectedly,
accidentally, she set her ablaze. Immediately on hearing the noise,
neighbour of the deceased one Ganesan came, doused the fire and
saved her. It could be evident from the reading of the dying
declaration which would go to show that it is not the intention of the
deceased to commit suicide and she had set fire by an accidental act
while she was continuously lighting the match box and putting it off
http://www.judis.nic.in
10
expecting someone would come and console her and that there was
no intention on the part of the appellant/1st accused to abet the
deceased to commit suicide.
14.Further, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that it is the case where no demand of dowry was made and that as
per the dying declaration, the deceased herself had stated that
immediately after the incident, her mother-in-law came and lamented
stating why she had attempted to do such a thing. In such
circumstances, the trial Court ought to have analysed the evidences
with the other circumstances and having acquitted the husband of the
deceased/A.2, ought to have acquitted the appellant/A.1 also.
15.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent
would vehemently oppose stating that the statement of the deceased
is clear and it is admissible in law and that the deceased has spoken
about the circumstances and the transaction under which she was led
to commit suicide and that the transaction which ensued after the
fight between the appellant/accused and the deceased would show
that there was wilful conduct of the appellant/accused, which is of
such a nature to drive the woman to commit suicide and thereby the
appellant/accused is liable for the acts for having subjected the
http://www.judis.nic.in
11
deceased to drive her to commit suicide and hence, the impugned
judgement of conviction and sentence warrants no interference by
this Court.
16.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
17.I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival
contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned
through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the
impugned judgement of conviction.
18.Now, what is to be seen is whether the prosecution has
proved the charges against the accused by letting in evidence beyond
reasonable doubt and whether the trial Court is right in convicting the
appellant/accused for the charges framed against her ?
19.P.W.1, is the father of the deceased Anitha. P.W.2-Sampath
is the tenant, owned by the appellant/1st accused. P.W.3, wife of
P.W.2. P.W.4-Anjalai is the mother of the deceased. Deceased was
given in marriage to the 2nd accused and their marriage was taken
place on 04.05.2001. As per the evidence let in by P.W.1, it was
informed that the 2nd accused was working in Chennai Metro Water
http://www.judis.nic.in
12
Board and only after marriage, it came to light that the 2nd accused
was running a barber shop. After marriage, the deceased was living
with her husband in a peaceful manner only for 6 months and that
thereafter, the appellant as well as her son/2nd accused used to pick
up petty quarrels with the deceased. Since, the deceased did not
conceive, there used to be frequent quarrels and ill treatment of the
deceased and that whenever P.W.1 enquired, the deceased had
informed that the appellant and her son/2nd accused used abusive
language against her.
20.Further, it is the evidence of P.W.1, that during 2003, the
appellant/1st accused had attempted to cause injury on the deceased
with sickle and that the deceased went and stayed in the house at the
ground floor and P.W.1 was informed about the incident by the
neighbours. When P.W.1, came to Chennai to see his daughter, she
informed the same and they went to the Police Station and gave a
complaint and thereafter, the matter was compromised in the Police
Station and the deceased started living with the appellant and her
son. After sometime, the deceased and 2nd accused lived separately
for one year and since, they were unable to pay the rent, they came
back and started living in the house of the appellant and that during
2006, when the appellant was about to go for a tour, keys of her suit
http://www.judis.nic.in
13
case were found missing and that the appellant had blamed the
deceased and that there was a wordy quarrel.
21.On 15.05.2006, a friend of the 2nd accused telephoned P.W.1
and informed stating that his daughter had set her ablaze by pouring
kerosene and asked all of them to come to Chennai and on
16.05.2006 at about 3.00 a.m., when P.W.1 had come to Kilpauk
Medical College and Hospital, to see his daughter, she had told him
that it had happened due to ill-treatment of the appellant/accused
and after sometime, she died in the hospital. Endorsement made by
P.W.1 in the statement of P.W.4 recorded by the Tahsildar is marked
as Ex.P.1 and the statement of P.W.4, recorded by the Tahsildar is
marked as Ex.P.3.
22.P.W.10-Dr.Subbulakshmi, was the duty Doctor in the
emergency ward in the Kilpauk Medical College and hospital, Chennai
and she had deposed that the deceased was brought with burn
injuries on 15.05.2006 by her husband/A.2 at about 2.15 p.m., and
she had informed that the deceased self immolated herself because of
the quarrel between the deceased and her mother-in-law/the
appellant. Further, the Doctor deposed that the burn injuries were
http://www.judis.nic.in
14
seen in the face, both legs and the deceased was admitted as an in-
patient and given treatment for the burn injuries. Copy of the
accident register issued by P.W.10 is marked as Ex.P.11.
23.P.W.14-Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of intimation from
the hospital, went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P.16 statement
from the deceased and got her left thumb impression in the complaint
and thereby registered the case in Crime No.604 of 2006 for the
offence under Section 309 IPC. The printed the copy of the FIR is
marked as Ex.P.17.
24.P.W.14-Investigating Officer took up the case for
investigation and prepared Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.4, Seizure
Mahazar-Ex.P.5, Rough Sketch-Ex.P.18 in the presence of the
witnesses. P.W.8 is the photographer, who took the photographs at
the scene of occurrence and took the photograph of the deceased,
after her death in the Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Chennai.
Photographs taken by him were marked as M.O.2 series.
25.P.W.6 is the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, who had on receipt
of Ex.P.6, requisition from the Sub-Inspector of Police, to record the
http://www.judis.nic.in
15
dying declaration from the deceased, had gone to Kilpauk Medical
College and Hospital, Chennai, at about 05.15 p.m., and got an
endorsement about the fitness of the deceased in Ex.P.7 from the
duty Doctor Damodararaj-P.W.7 and recorded Ex.P.7-dying
declaration from the deceased. After recording dying declaration,
duty Doctor-P.W.7 also certified to the effect that the deceased was
conscious and in a fit state of mind while the dying declaration was
recorded.
26.Thereafter, the respondent police received information from
the Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, that the deceased
had died and since, her death was within 7 years from her marriage,
the case was altered to under Section 306 IPC and it was handed
over to the Assistant Commissioner of Police-P.W.15, for further
investigation. He took up the case for further investigation and sent
a requisition to Personal Assistant to the District Collector to conduct
an enquiry, whether any cruelty or demand of dowry has made on the
deceased. P.W.12-N.Vijayakumar, Personal Assistant to District
Collector had forwarded the same to the Tahsildar for further action
and P.W.11-Tahsildar, on receipt of the intimation from P.W.12, went
to the Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Chennai and conducted
inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses
http://www.judis.nic.in
16
and panchayatars. Inquest Report is marked as Ex.P.12. P.W.13-
Dr.Manohar, Professor of Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital,
Chennai, had deposed that he conducted post mortem and issued
post mortem certificate under Ex.P.13 and the following injuries were
found on the deceased,
“Epidermo-dermo epidermal burns with
denuded cuticle exposing the reddish area
seen over the face, neck, both sides of the
chest and part of abdomen, front and back of
both upper limbs, back of the trunk and front
of both thigh (71% Burns). Both eyes are
found eviscerated for corneal graft purpose.
No other external or any internal injury are
noted.”
27.Further, P.W.13 had given an opinion that the deceased
would have died due to Hypovolumic shock and due to burns and
thereby, P.W.15-Assistant Commissioner of Police altered the case
under Section 306 IPC and arrested the accused. P.W.16-Assistant
Commissioner of Police, completed the investigation and filed the final
report against the accused. Thereafter, the trial Court framed
charges against the appellant for offences under Sections 498A and
Section306 IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in
17
28.In this case, admittedly there are 2 dying declarations, one in
the form of statement recorded by P.W.14-Sub-Inspector of Police
under Ex.P.16 and another dying declaration recorded by the XV
Metropolitan Magistrate, which is marked as Ex.P.7. In both the
dying declarations, the victim has stated about the frequent quarrels
that happened between herself and her mother-in-law, the appellant
herein. In the 2nd dying declaration, though there are minor
contradictions in respect of the earlier statement given by the
deceased, one thing is clear that there had been frequent quarrel
between her and that the appellant/1st accused and that the appellant
used to abuse her and that on the particular day, there being a
quarrel, the appellant had abused her. On the analysis of the dying
declaration recorded by P.W.6-XV Metropolitan Magistrate, this Court
can infer that the deceased did not actually intend to commit suicide
and she had accidentally caught fire. At this juncture, it would be
appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of the contents of the
dying declaration.
“……. vd; tPl;Lf;fhuh; vd;id rkhjhdk; bra;J itj;J tpl;L
rY}Df;F ngha; tpl;lhh;/ vd; khkpahh; vd;id nftykhf ngrpaJ
vdf;F mrp’;fkhf ,Ue;jJ/ vdf;F mtkhdkhf ,Ue;jjhy;
ehnd vd; kPJ bfurpid Cw;wpf; bfhz;nld;/ bfhSj;jpf;bfhs;s
gakhf ,Ue;jjhy; rj;jk; nghl;L mGJ bfhz;oUe;njd;/
mg;nghJk; ahUk; tutpy;iy/ tj;jpf;Fr;rpia Vw;wp g[lit kPJ gw;w
http://www.judis.nic.in
18
itj;J. gw;w itj;J mizj;Jf; bfhz;oUe;njd;/ mg;nghJ
jpObud;W vd;kPJ beUg;g[ ntfkhf gpoj;Jf; bfhz;lJ/ vjph;
tPl;oypUe;Jk; fnzrd; vd;gth; Xo te;J jPia mizj;jhh;/ vd;
khkpahh; mg;nghJ te;J ehd; vd;d brhd;ndd;. rhtpia
vLj;jhah vd;W jhnd nfl;nld; vd;W brhd;dhh;/ Mdhy; mth;
jpl;oajhy; jhd; ehd; bfhSj;jpf;fpl;nld; mt;tst[jhd;/“
29. It is appropriate to refer to Section 306 IPC:-
“20.Section 306 of the Code prescribes the
punishment for abetment of suicide and is designed
thus:
“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.”
30.The ingredients of abetment of suicide are as follows:-
The prosecution has to prove-
(i)the deceased committed suicide;
(ii)the accused instigated or abetted for committing
suicide and that
(iii)there was direct involvement by the accused in such
abetment or instigation.
http://www.judis.nic.in
19
31. Before Section 306 of IPC can be acted upon, there must be
clear proof of the fact that the death in question was a suicidal death.
The offence of ‘abetment’ must conform to the definition of that term
as given in Section 107 of IPC, that is to say, there must be
instigation, cooperation or intentional assistance given to the
commission of suicide. It is not necessary or indeed is it a part of the
definition that the suicide should have been committed in
consequence of the abetment.
32.Admittedly, it is not a case of dowry death. As stated above
the ingredients, the prosecution has to prove that the victim
committed suicide and that the accused abetted the suicide. While
analysing the dying declaration, the victim had stated that she was
lighting the match stick and putting it off repeatedly expecting that
somebody would come and console her, whereas suddenly the match
stick lit the saree and thereby she caught fire, inferring that the
victim caught fire accidentally and the death is not suicide. Further
the term instigation under Section 107 IPC, explained in Chitresh
Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) as follows:-
“16.Speaking for the three Judge Bench in
Ramesh Kumar case [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC
(Cri) 1088], R.C.Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was)
http://www.judis.nic.in
20said that 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.
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.
17.Thus, to constitute “instigation”, a person who
instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or
encourage the doing of an act by the other by
“goading” or “urging forward”. The dictionary
meaning of the word “goad” is “a thing that
stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or
reaction” (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to
keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts”
(see Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7th Edn.).”
10.Words uttered in a fit of anger or omission
without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.
(See Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal).”
http://www.judis.nic.in
21
33.The same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the recent decision of M.Arjunan Vs. The State rep. By its
Inspector of Police (Crl.Appeal.No.1550 of 2018, dated
04.12.2018)
(Crl.Appeal.No.1550 of 2018)
“8. The essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment : (ii) the
intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet
the accused 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 t
he ingredients of instigation / abetment to commit
suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted
under Section 306 IPC.”
34.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that though this Court may not place relevance on the
statement recorded during Revenue Divisional Officer enquiry, it is
the admitted statement of P.W.2-Kowsalya, the tenant, that the
deceased also assaulted her mother-in-law, which resulted the
appellant to use abusive language on the deceased. So, the entire
http://www.judis.nic.in
22
circumstances leading to the death of the victim/deceased cannot be
attributed to the appellant alone and further, he would submit that it
is the statement of the deceased herself that immediately after the
occurrence, the appellant had lamented about the conduct of the
deceased for having committed such an act that the appellant did not
have the intention or motive to drive the victim to commit suicide and
that the reason for the death of the victim could not be due to
suicide.
35.While analysing the evidence on record, with reference to the
Judgment referred above, it can be inferred that the victim/deceased
did not intend to commit suicide. As stated in the dying declaration
she had been lighting the match stick and putting it off and was
crying, expecting that somebody would come and console her. While
she was lighting the match stick and putting it off, she had
accidentally lit the fire on her saree, resulting in her sustaining burn
injuries, ultimately leading to her death. Further, it is the statement
of the victim/deceased that the appellant/1st accused rushed to place
and lamented saying why she had done that and that she had only
asked for the keys. Admittedly, there used to be frequent quarrels
between the appellant/mother-in-law and the deceased/daughter-in-
law, and that there is also evidence that the victim had earlier
http://www.judis.nic.in
23
assaulted the appellant/1st accused. When such being so, the words
uttered by the appellant/1st accused can only be taken as words
uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention to instigate
the victim/deceased to commit suicide. However perusal and reading
of the evidence on record makes out charges against the accused for
offences under Section 498A IPC.
36.In the light of the decisions referred and the reasons stated
above, this Court is of the considered view that the Prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 306
of IPC and however, taking into consideration the evidences in
totality, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved
the charges against the appellant/1st accused for having committed
offence under Section 498A IPC, thereby this Court while setting
aside the conviction for offence under Section 306 IPC, confirms the
conviction for offence under Section 498A IPC.
37.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The
impugned judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 12.05.2010
made in S.C.No.401 of 2007, on the file of the Magalir
Neethimandram, Chennai, is set aside in respect of the offence under
http://www.judis.nic.in
24
Section 306 of IPC alone. The Appellant/1st accused is acquitted from
the charges levelled against her for the offence under Section 306 IPC
alone. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant for the offence
under Section 306 IPC is directed to be refunded to her. However, in
respect of the offence under Section 498A IPC, while confirming the
conviction under Section 498A of IPC, the period of sentence is
modified to the period already under gone by the appellant/1st
accused.
Jer 21.03.2019
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
To
1.Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
K.1, Sembium Police Station,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
4.The Section Officer
Criminal Section
High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
25
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
Jer
Crl.A.No.321 of 2010
21.03.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
