IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T.Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
Shaik Hussain Bee - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2016
Decided On : 14-08-2023
Abetment - Suicide - Sec. 304-B, Sec. 306 I.P.C. - Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C. - Sec. 498-A of I.P.C. and Ss. 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act - Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. - Sec. 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 - Sec. 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Reshma, was married to the accused's deaf and dumb son. The deceased's mother alleged that the accused harassed her daughter, leading to her suicide by setting herself on fire. The trial Court convicted the accused under Sec. 306 I.P.C. based on the dying declaration of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the evidence did not establish the essential elements of abetment under Sec. 306 I.P.C. The deceased's demand for the accused's property share and the accused's refusal did not amount to instigation or aiding in suicide. The Court concluded that the trial Court had committed a grave error in holding the accused guilty of the offence under Sec. 306 I.P.C.
Issues: The main issue was whether the evidence proved the accused's guilt for the offence under Sec. 306 I.P.C. based on the deceased's dying declaration and the circumstances surrounding the deceased's suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that to convict an accused under Sec. 306 I.P.C., there must be evidence of instigation or aiding in suicide. The Court cited legal provisions and case law to establish that mere quarrels or demands without direct or indirect acts of incitement do not constitute abetment of suicide.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction under Sec. 306 I.P.C., and acquitted the accused. The Court ordered the appellant to be set at liberty and refunded any fine paid.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused, in Sessions Case No.32 of 2015 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool [for short, "the trial Court"], is the appellant herein. She was tried for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, "I.P.C."].
2. Vide Judgment, dtd. 26/2/2016, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Accused under Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C. Instead of convicting her for the offence under Sec. 304-B I.P.C. the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Sec. 306 I.P.C. Accordingly, she was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Five (5) Years for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 I.P.C.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
4. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, are as under:-
(a) P.W.1-Shaik Sali Bee is the mother of the deceased/Reshma. Reshma was given in marriage to the accused's son, who is deaf and dumb. P.W.1 gave the accused Rs.50,000.00 cash and two tulas of gold towards dowry. Her son-in-law used to look after her daughter well, but the accused used to harass her, directing her to do agricultural work and business work of selling fruits on a push cart. As such, her daughter agreed to do agricultural work but used to refuse the work of selling fruits on a push cart. On her refusal, the accused used to beat her daughter as well as her son-in-law.
(b) P.W.1 further stated that on 23/12/2013, she received a phone call from one villager of Penchikalapadu. She was informed that her daughter poured kerosene on her body, and P.W.1 rushed to the Government Hospital, Kurnool and found her daughter sustained burnt injuries. On being enquired, her daughter stated about the harassment made by the accused earlier, even though her daughter requested the accused give them the house. They will live by doing work, but the accused did not accept her request and stated that she go and live anywhere with her husband or else go and die; vexed with the accused's attitude, her daughter decided to commit suicide and poured kerosene on her body. On 24/12/2013 at 2.00 A.M., her daughter died due to unbearable harassment made by the accused. Police recorded the statement of her daughter at Government Hospital, Kurnool.
(c) P.W.8-J. Ramesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, stated that on 23/12/2013 at about noon, he received M.L.C intimation from Government Hospital, Kurnool; immediately, he went to the Government Hospital at 12.30 noon and recorded the statement of the deceased/Reshma and obtained her thumb impression on her statement. Based on the statement, he registered the case in Crime No.85 of 2013 under Sec. 498-A of I.P.C. and Ss. 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Ex.P5 is the statement of the victim, and Ex.P6 is the F.I.R. He further stated that he again visited the Government Hospital and recorded the victim's statement under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., and visited the scene of the offence, prepared observation panchanama, and seized the Material Objects from the scene of the offence. Ex.P7 is the observation panchanama.
(d) P.W.9-K.G. Eswaraiah, A.S.I. of Police, stated that on 24/12/2013, he received M.L.C. death intimation through a doctor intimating the death of the deceased/Reshma. He altered the Sec. of Law from Sec. 498-A I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and Women Burns to Sec.
04-B I.P.C. in Crime No.85 of 2013 of K. Nagalapuram Police Station. Ex.P8 is the M.L.C. death intimation, and Ex.P9 is the altered F.I.R. Later, he sent a requisition to P.W.5-MRO to conduct an inquest over the dead body of the deceased. After completing the inquest, he handed over the dead body to the deceased's blood relatives. (e) P.W.5-Bala Ganeshaiah, Tahsildar, stated that on 24/12/2013, he received a requisition to conduct an inquest over the dead body of the deceased through Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kurnool. Later, he led an inquest over the dead body of the deceased and recorded
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs State of West Bengal
Gurucharan Singh vs The State of Punjab (2020 (0) A.I.R. (SC) 4714)
Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (2007) 3 S.C.C. (Cri) 701
Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana (2014) 12 SCC 595
Nachhattar Singh and others vs State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 542
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab ((2004) 13 SCC 129: 2005 S.C.C. (Cri) 56)
Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. (2002 (5) SCC 371 : 2002 (5) SCC 371
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.
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....
Section 306 in Indian Penal Code reads as 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.
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.