Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
Kayar Nisha and Anr. – Appellants
versus
State by Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.A.No.572 of 2016
Decided on 2.7.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. J. Franklin, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. J.R. Archana, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
IMPORTANT POINT
Abetment of attempt to commit suicide by child – Conviction must be upheld where all elements of offence under Section 305 of IPC stand proved.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 305 – Abetment of attempt to commit suicide by child – Conviction and sentence – Independent witnesses saw and vividly explained incident – Considering that area consists of people living in close proximity, their presence is natural, especially when appellants/accused stood at doorstep of house and shouted at victim – Evidence of eyewitnesses inspires confidence and is thoroughly believable – Since prosecution proved all elements of offence under Section 305 of IPC and in a way that prompted her to harm herself, conviction of appellants/accused under Section 305 of IPC is justified – Girl was 15 years old at the time of incident – POCSO Act would have been in force by then, making it an offence if there was marriage and physical relationship – Marriage, if celebrated, would have been a child marriage – Conviction of appellants/accused stands confirmed and sentence modified to rigorous imprisonment for period already served, and fine amount increased to Rs.20,000/- each. (Paras 19, 23, 26 and 27)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment dated 21.07.2016 in S.C.No.28 of 2012 on the record of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore. By the judgment, both appellants were found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, and in default, to three months of simple imprisonment.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that on 18.08.2011, at about 14:00 hours, upon receiving information from the C.M.C.H. Hospital, P.W.12, Mahalingam, who is the Special Sub-Inspector of Police at Kuniamuthur Police Station, proceeded to the hospital where the victim in this case, a minor girl about 15 years old at that time and studying in X standard, gave a statement indicating that she resides at a specific address with her parents and younger brother, who is studying in VII standard. She stated that she fell in love with Saddam Hussain, aged about 19 years, who is a neighbour. The affair became known to Saddam Hussain’s relatives. His parents admonished him for his actions, but he was determined to continue the relationship and marry the victim.
3. At that point, the parents of the said Saddam Hussain also agreed to marry the victim to him. Three months later, the parents of the said Sadam Hussain also visited the victim’s house, and arrangements for the marriage between the victim and Sadam Hussain were being made. Under these circumstances, the appellants/accused, who are the aunts of Saddam Hussain, disliked the marriage plans. On 18.08.2011, at about 9:00 A.M, when the victim’s mother had gone out, they came to the doorstep of the victim’s house and shouted at her about her relationship with Saddam Hussain. They verbally abused her with sexually coloured remarks, threatened her about the relationship, and specifically scolded her, saying that she should commit suicide.
4. Unable to bear how they scolded her, the girl ran inside the house, poured kerosene, and set herself on fire. Later, others came to her rescue and admitted her to the hospital. Based on her statement, a case was registered as Crime No.733 of 2011, originally under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigations began. Subsequently, the victim died of her burn injuries on 02.09.2011. The case was then altered to one under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code, and P.W.14 and thereafter, P.W.16 completed the investigation. P.W.16 filed the final report, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.36 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore. After the accused appeared, the case was committed and taken on file by the Trial Court as S.C.No.28 of 2012.
5. Thereafter, summons were issued and the copies were furnished. The Trial Court framed a charge under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused. Upon being explained and questioned, the accused denied the charge and stood trial. The prosecution, to prove the charge, examined one Abuthahir, the father of the victim child, as P.W.1, who deposed as if the victim was studying in the IX standard and the boy’s parents and brother had come to their house demanding that his daughter be given in marriage to the said Saddam Hussain. However, the accused did not like the same and was enraged by the same; they came in front of his house and abused the victim girl, and the girl committed suicide. One Jennath Nisha, the mother of the victim child, was examined as P.W.2, who also deposed to the same effect. One Panchavarnam, who is residing near the house of the victim child and was the eye witness to the incident, was examined as P.W.3. She categorically deposed about the appellants/accused abusing the victim child with sexually coloured unparliamentary words and admonishing the child for having a love affair with the said Saddam Hussain and intending to get married to him and threatening the girl. The extremely ha
