SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Amudha – Appellant
Versus
The State Represented by the Inspector of Police and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1642 of 2024, Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 313 of 2024
Decided On : 22-03-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Abetment of suicide – Quashing petition – Dismissal – There were no acts of incitement on part of appellant proximate to date on which deceased committed suicide – No act is attributed to appellant proximate to time of suicide which was of such a nature that deceased was left with no alternative but to take drastic step of committing suicide – No offence is made out against appellant – In suicide note, there is a general allegation against appellant and her family members (her father, mother and brother) that they are responsible for his suicide – Suicide note does not help prosecution at all, especially when there is no evidence on record to show that appellant was in touch with deceased during period in question – Impugned order set aside and proceedings stands quashed as against appellant. (Paras 9, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is accused no. 4, who has been charged with an offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before High Court of Judicature at Madras. By impugned judgment, petition has been rejected.
Findings of Court:
Adjudication is confined to only case of present appellant, and Trial Court is free to proceed against other accused in accordance with law. However, defences of other accused are kept open.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTS
1. The appellant is accused no. 4, who has been charged with an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’). The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. By the impugned judgment, the petition has been rejected.
2. The second respondent is the complainant. The second respondent had five brothers and two sisters. The deceased (Kanagasabha) was one of her two younger brothers. All of them were married except the deceased. On 5th March 2020, the deceased allegedly committed suicide by consuming poison. There was a dispute between the deceased and his elder brother Baskar @ Annamalai. Another brother of the deceased, Anandraj, had constructed a new house, which he sold to the deceased. However, the said house was occupied by Annamalai, his wife, son, and daughter Amutha (appellant). According to the case of the second respondent, Annamalai refused to vacate the house and filed a civil suit against the deceased. Though Annamalai (co-accused) failed in the suit, he declined to vacate the house. Therefore, the deceased sought the intervention of the local MLA. However, the local MLA could not resolve the dispute. The second respondent has made a general allegation that Annamalai and his family members, including the appellant, used to harass the deceased by insulting him on the ground that he was a bachelor. They used to tell the deceased to go anywhere else and die.
3. After the charge sheet was filed, the appellant filed a petition for quashing, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
SUBMISSIONS
4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that even by taking the statements of all the prosecution witnesses as correct, no offence is made out against the appellant. The learned counsel pointed out that after her marriage, the appellant left for the USA on 11th September 2019, and till the date of suicide, she continued to stay in the USA. His submission is that there is nothing placed on record to show that during this period, the appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the appeal by submitting that without the Trial Court recording oral evidence, one cannot conclude at this stage that no case of commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC was made out against the appellant.
6. The second respondent did not appear despite service of notice.
OUR VIEW
7. We have carefully perused the statements of the second respondent, her husband and other prosecution witnesses. Apart from a general allegation that the appellant, her father and other family members used to insult the deceased and tell him to go out and die, there is no other allegation made against the appellant. However, another incident was brought on the record by the witnesses. The marriage of the appellant was fixed on 4th September 2019. After reading the wedding card, the deceased objected to printing of his name on the card without his consent. Two days before 4th September 2019, there was a quarrel between the family of the appellant and the deceased on the issue. It is alleged that the appellant told the deceased not to attend the marriage.
8. The State Government has placed on record an additional affidavit along with a photocopy of the appellant's passport. The photocopy shows that on 11th September 2019, the appellant left India from Chennai and reached the USA on 12th September 2019. On instructions, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent accepted that till 5th March 2020, the appellant never returned to India. We may note here that in the charge sheet, no material is placed on record to show that any telephonic conversation occurred between the appellant and the deceased between 12th September 2019 and 5th March 2020.
9. The other material placed on record
Abetment of suicide – There must acts of incitement on part of accused proximate to date on which deceased committed suicide.
Abetment under S.306 IPC requires clear evidence of instigation, which was not present in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific intent and the absence of evidence of instigation or intentional aid in the commission of suicide under Section 306 of ....
Abetment of suicide – Accused must have mens rea to instigate deceased to commit suicide – Such instigation must be in close proximity to act of committing suicide.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.