Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1146

2009(4) Supreme 525
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Dammu Sreenu — Appellant
versus
State of A.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 681 of 2003
Decided on : 28-05-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :A.T. rao, A. Subba Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s):D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where there was a proximity and nexus between conduct and behaviour of accused appellants with that of suicide committed by deceased, conviction of accused appellants under section 306 of IPC was held justified.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Abetment to commit suicide – Deceased committing suicide unable to bear humiliation that his wife was having illicit relationship with appellant – Conviction of appellant by Trial Court along with accused 2, wife of deceased – Appeal – Allowed in part by Additional Sessions Judge altering conviction and sentence awarded by trial court to 3 years simple imprisonment – In revision High Court while maintaining order of conviction against accused-appellant altered sentence of Accused 2, to one year imprisonment – Appeal – Facts which were disclosed from evidence on record clearly established that Accused No. 1 had illicit relationship with Accused No. 2 who was the wife of deceased – No dispute that Accused. 1 was visiting house of deceased to meet Accused. 2 and that he even went to house of deceased when he came to know that the wife of deceased was sent with her father for counseling and advise – He loudly stated that he would continue to have relationship with Accused. 2 and would come to her house so long she did not object to same – He also took her away from house of PW-5, her brother and kept her with him for 4 days – Immediately after said incident deceased committed suicide – Therefore, there was definitely a proximity and nexus between conduct and behavior of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 with that of suicide committed by the deceased – Besides, there was clear and unambiguous findings of fact of three courts that appellant was guilty of offence under Section 306 of IPC – No interference called for with said findings in view of facts and circumstances of case –No interference called for even with order of conviction as also order of sentence passed against accused-appellant. (Paras14,15)
       Facts of the Case :
        1. Deceased herein in the instant case committed suicide as he was unable to bear humiliation that his wife was having illicit relationship with appellant. Trial Court convicted appellant along with accused 2, wife of deceased. Appeal thereagainst was Allowed in part by Additional Sessions Judge altering conviction and sentence awarded by trial court to 3 years simple imprisonment. In revision High Court while maintaining order of conviction against accused-appellant altered sentence of Accused 2, to one year imprisonment.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of conviction passed against appellant.
       Findings of the Court :
        Facts which were disclosed from evidence on record clearly established that Accused No. 1 had illicit relationship with Accused No. 2 who was the wife of deceased. No dispute that Accused. 1 was visiting house of deceased to meet Accused. 2 and that he even went to house of deceased when he came to know that the wife of deceased was sent with her father for counseling and advise. He loudly stated that he would continue to have relationship with Accused. 2 and would come to her house so long she did not object to same. He also took her away from house of PW-5, her brother and kept her with him for 4 days. Immediately after said incident deceased committed suicide. Therefore, there was definitely a proximity and nexus between conduct and behavior of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 with that of suicide committed by the deceased. Besides, there was clear and unambiguous findings of fact of three courts that appellant was guilty of offence under Section 306 of IPC.No interference was called for with said findings in view of facts and circumstances of case. Held No interference was called for even with order of conviction as also order of sentence passed against accused-appellant.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.—

1. The appellant herein filed the present appeal seeking for his acquittal from the order of conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.

2. The appellant herein allegedly had illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased Bitra Nagarjuna Rao. The wife of the deceased was also made a co-accused in the same offence under Section 306 IPC and she was convicted for the aforesaid offence and was sentenced initially to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years which, however, later on was altered to one year of rigorous imprisonment by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The said sentence of one year has been served out by Accused No. 2, the wife of the deceased Bitra Nagarjuna Rao.

3. The prosecution has alleged in its case that the present appellant had developed an illicit intimacy with Accused No. 2, who was the wife of the deceased Bitra Nagarjuna Rao. On the night of 31.12.1995, accused No. 2, the wife of the deceased went out of her house and returned to her matrimonial home only on the next day. The deceased, Bitra Nagarjuna Rao was unhappy with the aforesaid conduct and so, naturally questioned her about her behaviour because of which there was a quarrel between the two. Being disturbed and perturbed on account of the behaviour of his wife (Accused No. 2), the deceased, Bitra Nagarjuna Rao called the father of Accused No. 2 and asked him to take her away so as to give her proper counseling. Accordingly, she was taken away by her father. On the same day the present appellant (Accused No. 1) came to the house of the deceased and when he was questioned by the inmates of the house of the deceased, he stated that he had illicit relations with the wife of the deceased and that he would keep coming to the house of the deceased so long she does not object to the same. When he was told that Accused No. 2 had gone with her father, Accused No. 1 went to the house of the brother of Accused No. 2 and took her away despite the protest of PW-5, brother of Accused No. 2, in whose house his father kept her. The appellant took her away and brought her back to the house of her brother only after 4 days and to her parents’ house on 06.01.1996.

4. Having come to know about the aforesaid incident, the deceased felt humiliated and insulted. He committed suicide by hanging himself in the intervening night of 7th and 8th January, 1996. It is also to be noted, at this stage, that prior to his suicide, the deceased, Bitra Nagarjuna Rao expressed before his brother that it would be better to die as he felt very much insulted and humiliated. The deceased having committed suicide, his brother gave a report to the police which was registered as a case under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘the CrPC’) which was, during the course of investigation, altered to a case of Section 306 IPC.

5. The police after investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the accused. The accused, however, denied the charge. Accordingly, he was tried under the aforesaid charges. During the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and the appellant-accused was also examined under Section 313 of the CrPC wherein he denied his involvement in the offence.

6. The trial court appreciated the materials available on record and, thereafter, passed a judgment and order of conviction. He convicted the present appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The trial court also convicted accused No. 2, i.e. wife of the deceased, under Section 306 IPC and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence the appellant as a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1146

2009(4) Supreme 525SUPREME COURT OF INDIADr. Mukundakam Sharma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.Dammu Sreenu — AppellantversusState of A.P. — RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 681 of 2003Decided on : 28-05-2009

IMPORTANT POINT Where there was a proximity and nexus between conduct and behaviour of accused appellants with that of suicide committed by deceased, conviction of accused appellants under section 306 of IPC was held justified.

2009(4) Supreme 525
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Dammu Sreenu — Appellant
versus
State of A.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 681 of 2003
Decided on : 28-05-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Where there was a proximity and nexus between conduct and behaviour of accused appellants with that of suicide committed by deceased, conviction of accused appellants under section 306 of IPC was held justified.