Point of Law: 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 which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been filed by the 1st and 2nd accused in S.C.No.281/2007 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I, Kottayam challenging the judgment dated 6.3.2008 convicting them under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC.

2. One Mr. Madhavan, a 73 year old agriculturist, committed suicide on 29.9.2006 by consuming poison. The police registered the crime initially under Section 174 of Cr.P.C on the basis of a statement given by PW1, the grandson of the deceased, at 8 am. on 30.9.2006. Ext.P10 is the FIR. It was registered by PW8, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ayarkunnam Police Station. He conducted initial part of the investigation. Admittedly, the 1st accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the deceased in the year 2001. When PW8 questioned the witnesses as part of the investigation, it was disclosed that in spite of repeated demands, the accused did not repay the amount borrowed, instead they consistently humiliated, harassed and threatened the deceased and on account of the said constant threat, harassment and humiliation, he committed suicide. Accordingly, Section 306 r/w. 34 IPC was added and the appellants were arrayed as accused. PW7, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ayarkunnam Police Station, took up the investigation from PW8 on 30.10.2006. He arrested the accused. PW9, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ayarkunnam Police Station, verified the case records and filed final report before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate after complying with the statutory formalities committed the case to stand trial at the Court of Sessions.

3. On receipt of summons, the accused appeared at the court below. After hearing both sides, the charge under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty.

4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exts.P1 to P12. MOs 1 and 2 were identified. On the side of the defence, Exts. D1 to D5 were examined.

5. Considering the evidence on record, the court below found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and they were convicted for the said offence. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this appeal.

6. I have heard Sri. Muraleekrishnan, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Sanal P. Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants impeached the findings of the court below on appreciation of evidence and resultant finding as to the guilt. The learned counsel submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is believed in toto, still on the basis of the material brought on record by the prosecution, offence under S.306, IPC is not made out against the appellants. The counsel further submitted that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to establish the abetment of suicide by the appellants and hence the conviction under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC cannot be sustained. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 2010 SC 512), Velladurai vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police (MANU/SC/0644/2021) and Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajastan and Ors. (MANU/SC/0785/2021). The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the findings and the verdict handed down by the court below and argued that necessary ingredients of Section 306 of IPC had been established and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

8. The 1st accused is the father of the 2nd accused. The deceased is stated to be a relative of the 1st accused. It is not in dispute that the deceased committed suicide on 29.9.2006. It is also not in dispute that the 1st accused borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the deceased in the year 2001. The prosecution adduced evi