Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
Suresh Kumar
Versus
State represented by its Inspector of Police, Kumaratchi Police Station, Cuddalore District.
Crl. O.P. No. 18041 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008
Decided on: 3 January 2014
R. Karthikeyan, for Petitioner
V. Arul, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side), for Respondent
The judgment establishes the requirement of active instigation or facilitation for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC and provides insights into the legal provisions related to abetment of suicide, including the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Abetment - Suicide - Section 306 IPC, Section 107 IPC, Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, Section 498A IPC, Section 304B IPC - The judgment discusses the interpretation and application of Section 306 IPC, the definition of 'abetment' under Section 107 IPC, the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, and the concept of cruelty under Section 498A IPC. It also highlights the introduction of Section 304B IPC to cover dowry deaths and the Supreme Court's rulings on abetment of suicide.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of abetting the suicide of his wife. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner scolded his wife, leading her to commit suicide by consuming pesticide. However, the court found that there was no evidence to show that the petitioner instigated or aided the suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no material to prove that the petitioner had instigated or aided the suicide of his wife. As a result, the prosecution was quashed.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner had abetted the suicide of his wife, as alleged by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: In order to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of active instigation or facilitation of the suicide. The court also discussed the provisions of Section 107 IPC, Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, Section 498A IPC, and Section 304B IPC in relation to abetment of suicide.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the prosecution in the case was quashed.
“To be or not to be; that is the question: Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, An by opposing end them.”
Shakespeare, Hamlet.
1. The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C. No. 245 of 2008 for an offence under Section 306 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution as evidenced by the final report is that the petitioner was married to the deceased Juliegandhi five years prior to 22.8.2007, which is the date of the occurrence. There was marital discord between the petitioner and his wife. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 22.8.2007, at about 8 O’ Clock, the child of the couple had taken sour food from the earthen pot and on account of which, the petitioner is supposed to have scolded his wife. Aggrieved over which, his wife committed suicide by taking pesticide. She died subsequently at 11 a.m., on that day. There is no dying declaration in this case. The Revenue Divisional Officer’s report discloses that the death was not due to demand of dowry warranting a prosecution under Section 304-B of IPC. Therefore, the prosecution was rest content with filing a final report for an offence under Section 306 IPC.
3. The final report dated 27.02.2008 filed by the respondent reads as under:
“That Suresh Kumar is the husband of Julie Gandhi. They got married, within a period of five years; that they used to quarrel frequently. On 22.08.2007 at around 8.00 a.m. when their child consumed food from the earthen pot which had become sour, the accused scolded his wife and she got angry with him and consumed the pesticide available in the house. She was taken to the hospital and was given treatment by Doctors despite which she died at 11.00 a.m. on the same day. Therefore, the accused Suresh Kumar had instigated and aided the suicide of Julie Gandhi and hence, he is liable for an offence under Section 306 IPC.”
4. A complete reading of the final report and the 161 Statements reveal that apart from scolding his wife for allowing the child to eat sour food, the petitioner has not done anything to instigate or aid the commission of suicide by his wife.
5. Section 306 IPC reads as follows:
“306. Abetment of suicide: If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
6. The word “abetment” used in Section 306 IPC is defined in Section 107 IPC, which reads as under:
“107. Abetment of a thing: A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First: -Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly: -Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly: -Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1: A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.”
7. To attract the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, the accused must have done any one of the overt acts enumerated in Section 107 IPC. Ignoring this salutary requirement, it is seen that frequently people are arrested and prosecuted indiscriminately under Section 306 IPC for the suicide of another person. When a person commits suicide, the whole neighbourhood rises in unison to clamour for the scalp of another and the police, unable to withstand social pressure, look out for a scapegoat to arrest and prosecute under Section 306 IPC. This Court cannot close its eyes to the fact that even teachers have become vulnerable today. If a teacher catches a student for copying, she gets arrested for an offence under Section 306 IPC if that student commit
