Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. Ravikumar, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
M. Vijayakumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1078 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4684 of 2019)
Decided On : 21-02-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 read with Section 107 – Abetment of suicide – Conviction and sentence – While considering question as to whether a person can be convicted under Section 306, IPC or whether a conviction thereunder could be sustained, one has to consider mens rea of accused/convict to bring about suicide of victim – Act must have been of such a degree intending to push deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide – Prosecution which is supposed to establish its case, as is put forth by it, failed to prove the same – Despite acquittal of co-accused of the appellant and thereafter, appellant, no appeal was preferred against their acquittal – Essentially, gravamen of offence punishable under Section 306, IPC, is abetting suicide – Abetment imposes a mental process of instigating a person or initially aiding a person in doing offence – There is nothing in oral testimonies of PWs which would suggest that appellant had instigated deceased to commit suicide – In absence of anything to make Section 106 applicable to shift onus on appellant, High Court had committed error in applying Section 106 of Evidence Act, in instant case – Prosecution has miserably failed to establish that appellant herein had abetted victim to commit suicide – Conviction of appellant under Section 306, IPC cannot be sustained – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 306, IPC. (Paras 8, 9, 17, 19, 21 and 22)
(B) Criminal Law – Mens rea – Mens rea is a state of mind – ‘Mens rea’ means a guilty mind – As a general rule, every crime requires a mental element, nature of which will depend upon definition of particular crime in question – Although it is impossible to ascribe any particular meaning to the term ‘mens rea’ as the circumstance to determine existence of mens rea depends upon ingredients constituting particular offence and expression used in definition of particular offence to constitute such offence. (Paras 15 and 16)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof – Section 106 is not intended to relieve any person of that duty or burden – Section 106 cannot be used to shift burden of proving offence from prosecution to accused – It can only when prosecution led evidence, which, if believed, will sustain conviction or which makes out a prima facie case, that question of shifting onus to prove such fact(s) on accused would arise. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against Judgment dated 25.01.2019 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal whereunder appellant’s conviction under Sections 342 and 365 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was reversed and he was acquitted therefrom, but his conviction for offence under Section 306, IPC was confirmed. Sentence imposed for said conviction was reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment from rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
Findings of Court:
In view of exposition of law and in absence of anything to make Section 106 applicable to shift onus on appellant, High Court had committed error in applying Section 106 of Evidence Act, in instant case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Leave granted.
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 25.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (for short the “High Court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 667 of 2011 whereunder the appellant’s conviction under Sections 342 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) was reversed and he was acquitted therefrom, but his conviction for the offence under Section 306, IPC was confirmed. The sentence imposed for the said conviction was reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment from rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
2. As a matter of fact, the appellant stood trial along with the four others, including his father Muthu (A-3). The appellant and one Ravichandran (A-2) stood trial for the offences under Sections 306, 342 and 365, IPC whereas the others were charged only for offences under Sections 342 and 306 IPC. After the trial, the appellant was convicted for all the offences for which he stood the trial and at the same time all his co-accused were acquitted from all the charges. As noticed hereinbefore, in the appellant’s appeal the High Court confirmed the conviction under Section 306, IPC and acquitted him only of the other two offences. Hence, this appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu.
4. Before dealing with the contentions and the evidence on record which ultimately resulted in the confirmation of the conviction of the appellant under Section 306, IPC, certain relevant aspects of Section 306, IPC with reference to certain relevant decisions are to be looked into. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that to bring home a charge under Section 306, IPC it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish :
b) That the accused abetted the commission of suicide;
c) That the abetment attracts the ingredients under Section 107, IPC.
5. Section 107, IPC defines the offence of abetment and it is constituted by any of the following :-
(b) engaging in conspiracy to commit it; or
(c) intentionally aiding a person to commit it.
6. Now, bearing in mind the scope and ambit of Section 107, IPC and its co-relation with Section 306, IPC and the decision of this Court in M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 we will proceed to consider the case. After referring to an earlier decision in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, this Court in M. Mohan’s case (supra) analysed the meaning of the word ‘abetment’ and held in paragraphs 44 and 45 thus:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.”
7. In the decision in Madan Mohan Singh’s case (supra) this Court was considering an appeal against dismissal of a petition filed under Section 482 Cr. PC to quash the FIR registered against the appellant therein under different Sections of IPC including Section 306, IPC. For the purpose of this case, it is only referred to paragraph 12 therein, insofar as it is relevant which reads thus:-
(1) Abetment of suicide – While considering question as to whether a person can be convicted under Section 306, IPC or whether a conviction thereunder could be sustained, one has to consider mens rea....
Administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view wh....
To convict for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement by the accused, which was not established in this case.
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding that compels suicide, which was not established in this case.
The essential elements of abetment under S.306 IPC must be established, involving direct actions or instigation prompting the individual to commit suicide.
To convict under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or abetment must be established, which was not proven in this case.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of the accused's intention to instigate the suicide, which was absent in this case.
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
