IMPORTANT POINT
For convicting an accused u/s 306, it must be established that deceased committed suicide only and only because of the conduct of the accused.

Judgment :-

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the accused Mankamma challenging her conviction for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC on the allegation that she abetted the suicide of her daughter-in-law, Bindu. All the three courts below have found her guilty of that offence. The first two courts had awarded her the rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The High Court while confirming the sentence reduced the sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment and also reduced the amount of fine from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-.

2. The prosecution case in extremely short conspectus is that Bindu was married to Prakasan, son of the appellant and it was a love marriage. They belonged to different communities and hence the marriage was not approved by the parents of Bindu. So much so, Bindu ran away with Prakasan to get married . The prosecution case reveals that there is one son born out of the wedlock. Bindu was married in the year 1987 and was residing in the matrimonial house with her husband and the accused. The incident in question had taken place on 15.06.1989 i.e. just within two years of their marriage. On the said day at about 8.30 a.m. it was reported by PW1, Vijayan that Bindu had committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze. On that information Crime No. 189/1989 was registered. Inquest was held and post mortum was also conducted. PW9, the Assistant Commissioner took up the investigation initially and thereafter PW11, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jayendran K., completed the investigation and filed the chargesheet before the Court. In all 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the father, brother, sister-in-law of the deceased as also her friend, Ameer Jan. The allegation against the appellant are that because of her cruel treatment to Bindu, she was ultimately driven to commit suicide and that is how the accused had abetted her suicide and had committed offence under Section 306, IPC. There can be no doubt that all the three courts below have held the appellant guilty on the basis of the evidence led before them. Ordinarily we would not have interfered in the matter by re-appreciating the evidence as this court normally does not go into the task of re-appreciating the evidence. However, when it is found that the evidence has been appreciated in a mechanical manner and without proper consideration of facts and circumstances on record we in the interest of justice re-appreciate the evidence. That has happened here.

3. Mr. Jayanth Muthuraj, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused painstakingly took us through the evidence. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution also relied on two letters, one written by Bindu to her husband and the other written by her sister-in-law to her and her husband. In support of his argument learned counsel points out that Bindu after her elopement with her husband Prakasan was not in contact with her own family members because she had married into a different caste.

4. We were taken through the evidence of the relation witnesses and it is pointed out from that evidence by learned counsel that insofar as the evidence of PW2, Kumaran, father of the deceased is concerned he is totally silent about his personal knowledge regarding the treatment given by the accused to the deceased. In his evidence he asserts that about two months prior to the death of Bindu when she came to his house she had told about the ill-treatment by the accused since no money was given to the baby of Bindu. Very strangely, this witness kept quiet and did not bother to even ask his son-in-law about the treatment meted out by his mother to Bindu. He admits that after the marriage for almost a year his family did not go to the house of Prakasan and they visited her only after about a year and there was no correspondence between the family. It was only after th