Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The Inspector Of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 2022
Decided on : 12-10-2022
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 read with Section 107 – Abetment of suicide – In order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining culpability – Not only there has to be evidence of continuous harassment, but there should be cogent evidence to establish a positive action by accused which should more or less be proximate to time of occurrence, which action can said to have led or compelled the person to commit suicide – Before convicting an accused under Section 306 IPC, Court must scrupulously examine facts and circumstances of case and also assess evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life – Each suicide is a personal tragedy that prematurely takes life of an individual and has a continuing ripple effect, dramatically affecting lives of families, friends and communities – However, court of law while adjudicating is not to be guided by emotions of sentiments but dictum is required to be based on analysis of facts and evidence on record – In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commission of suicide – Merely on allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to time of occurrence on part of accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. (Paras 26, 32, 34 and 38)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 107 – Cruelty and abetment of suicide – Conviction and sentence – To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence – It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and act must be such reflecting intention of accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide – In case at hand, not only positive action in close proximity to time of suicide is absent but also there is no evidence for any continuous physical or mental torture meted out to deceased by appellants – Appellant no. 1 himself took deceased to consult a Psychiatrist just a day prior to this incident obviously with intention to make her feel better – Allegations with respect to continuous harassment and torture of deceased by appellants just after marriage is not worthy of being relied upon – Even deceased herself who was a qualified doctor never made any complaint in this regard – Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that deceased committed suicide and Appellant No. 1 abetted commission of suicide of deceased – Both elements are absent in present case – There is no other evidence to establish allegation of any demand of dowry or ill-treatment meted out to deceased during her marriage – Impugned judgment passed by High Court as well as judgment and order of Trial Court set aside – Appellants acquitted of charges levelled against them. (Paras 35, 36, 37, 42, 44 and 45)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 498A IPC and to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-each in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months under Section 306 IPC. By impugned judgment, High Court upheld conviction of Appellants for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.
Findings of Court:
Courts ought to be extremely careful in assessing facts and circumstances of each case and evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2021 filed by the Appellants herein seeking to set aside the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) in S.C No. 209 of 2016 under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). The Appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 498A IPC and to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-each in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months under Section 306 IPC. By impugned judgment, the High Court upheld the conviction of the Appellants for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.
2. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows:
2.1 The marriage between Appellant No. 1 and Dr. M. Amali Victoria (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was solemnised on 08.09.2005 and a male child was born out of wedlock in the year 2007. On the professional front, both parties are doctors. Appellant No. 1 was informed on 05.11.2014 that the deceased had collapsed in the bathroom of their home and was non-responsive. Immediately, an ambulance was called by the father of Appellant No. 1. On reaching the site of the incident, Appellant No. 1 found the deceased having no pulse. Despite intervention from the neighbors of Appellant No. 1 who were doctors, the deceased could not be resuscitated and passed away on 05.11.2014. Post mortem of the body was conducted on 06.11.2014 and the cause of death was asphyxia due to external compression of the neck.
2.2 On 06.11.2014, The Respondent Police registered FIR No. 1865 of 2015 at Police Station K2, Ayanavaram, District Kilpauk, Chennai based on the statement of Appellant No. 1 owing to the unnatural death of the deceased under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”).
2.3 After 3 weeks of the death of the deceased, PW-1(the mother of the deceased) lodged a complaint against the Appellant No.1, Appellant No. 2(mother-in-law), and the father-in-law of the deceased for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. Thereafter, the FIR was converted from Section 174 Cr.P.C to Sections 498A and 306 IPC.
2.4 It was the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the deceased with Appellant No. 1 was solemnised in the year 2005 and since the deceased was not having a child for 1.5 years, the appellants abused her and compelled her to participate in the Pooja and on the refusal of the same, she was threatened by the appellants that she would die. Subsequently, the deceased gave birth to a male child named Rosando by caesarean in the year 2007. Further, the Appellant No. 1 caused immense mental torture to the deceased by compelling her to have another child in spite of the fact that the deceased had a miscarriage with her second pregnancy. The deceased was made to do all the domestic household work and was subjected to continuous cruelty at the hands of the appellants. Due to the same reason, the deceased was driven to commit suicide on 05.11.2014.
3. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken. Since the offences are triable by the Court of Session, the said case being SC No. 209 of 2016 was committed to Mahila Court, Chennai for trial.
4. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty and therefore they came to be tried for the aforesaid offence.
Section 306 in Indian Penal Code reads as abetment of suicide.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the appellant was found guilty of the offence under section 498A of the IPC, there was no evidence of positive action by the accused lea....
The prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of mens rea or guilty motive to instigate or abet the victim is crucial in cases of abetment of suicide.
Conviction under sections 498A and 306 requires concrete evidence of cruelty and direct acts of abetment; mere allegations and delays in FIR are insufficient for a successful prosecution.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or encouragement; mere harassment lacks sufficient immediacy to constitute such abetment.
The judgment underscores the importance of establishing the specific elements of cruelty and abetment as required by the relevant legal provisions, and the discretionary nature of the presumption und....
Cruelty and abetment of suicide – Mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for Court to raise presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act, and to hold accused guilty of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
