IMPORTANT POINT
Mere harassment without any positive action on part of accused proximate to time of occurrence which led to suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 417 of 2009, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein – original accused and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo three years RI, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.

2. That the appellant herein – accused married with the deceased 25 years prior to the occurrence; that out of the said wedlock, they had three children, one married daughter PW2, living separately and their two sons working at Chennai and Kerala. That on the day of occurrence there was some quarrel between the deceased – wife of the accused and the accused. That thereafter both the deceased as well as the appellant herein consumed pesticide. However, the appellant survived, but his wife died due to consuming the pesticide. The younger brother of the deceased – PW1 lodged a complaint stating that the accused is having intimacy with the other woman and therefore the couple is used to quarrel and in this regard a panchayat was also convened by elders prior to the occurrence and due to which on 7.5.2007 there was a quarrel and both of them consumed pesticide and were taken to the local private hospital and the deceased died and the accused discharged after four days. Therefore, it was alleged against the accused that he has committed the offence under Section 306 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

2.1 The learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant herein for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment and also for the offence under Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and sentenced him to undergo three years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/-, in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant herein – original accused preferred appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal, however, confirmed the conviction for the offence under Section 306 IPC, but reduced the sentence to three years RI.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the High Court has committed a grave error in dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

5.1 It is further submitted that no ingredients of Section 306 IPC are at all satisfied. It is submitted that it is not established and proved that in fact the appellant abetted the commission of suicide. It is submitted that it is also not in dispute that the quarrel had taken place, but at the same time the accused also consumed pesticide along with his wife. However, unfortunately the wife died. It is submitted that except the quarrel between the appellant-husband and the deceased-wife on the day of occurrence, there is no further evidence making out a case for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

5.2 It is further submitted that even PW2, the daughter also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

5.3 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707; and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2009)