The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear mens rea and proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to establish the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

The appellant/accused being aggrieved of the conviction passed on 19.01.2011 in S.C.No.7 of 2008, on the file of the Mahila Court, Perambalur for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default in payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment, has preferred this appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :- P.W.1, the grand-father of the deceased lodged a complaint on 12.06.2006, alleging that his grand-daughter, the victim was under his custody and she completed her eighth standard school studies. While so, the deceased fell in love with the accused and accused used to present the poems and photos. After coming to understand about the love affair between the accused and the deceased, on 11.06.2006 at about 9.30 p.m., there was panchayath held with the accused and others. During the panchayath, the accused and his parents refused to marry the deceased and further the accused stated that he do not bother even though the deceased died. After panchayath, at about 1.00 a.m., the deceased went to the cattle shed of the accused and hanged herself and died. In the said panchayat Poonusamy, Selvaraj, Thangamuthu, Mannar, Kasi and one Selvakumar were also present and they had knowledge about the incident.

3. Upon receipt of the complaint the respondent registered a case in Crime No.50 of 2006 for the offence under Section 306 of IPC under Ex.P.9 against the appellant and two others. The respondent proceeded to the place of occurrence and removed the dead body and sent the same for conducting postmortem. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been laid against all the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The trial Court framed the charges for the offence under Section 306 IPC and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.12 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and produced material objections M.O.1 to M.O.9. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and accused did not choose to lead any evidence. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge i/c Mahila Court, Perambalur, acquitted the second and third accused, found guilty the appellant/first accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. As against the conviction and sentence, the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the grand-father of the victim only lodged the complaint when the father and mother of the deceased are very much alive. P.Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 6 are close relatives to the deceased and their evidence are stereo type and tutored one. No such panchayath was held on 11.06.2006 and no one was examined in respect of the said panchayath. There is no evidence of panchayath and no one has spoken about the panchayath and its date and time, except P.W.1.

6. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the accused 2 and 3 were also standing in the same footing as like the appellant/first accused and they were acquitted, and hence the appellant is also liable to be acquitted. Further P.Ws.2,3,4,6 and 7 turned hostile and P.W.5, the father of the deceased is a hear-say witness and as such his evidence cannot be considered, even though it supported the prosecution case. P.W.8, the mother of the deceased deposed that she attended the panchayath and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. But, it is seen from the evidence of P.W.5, the father of the deceased, he did not whispered about the presence of P.W.8 and categorically admitted that he was not present on the date of panchayat and only after the death of the deceased, he reached the place of occurrence.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further contended that the death of the deceased is unnatural and as such the respondent ought to have referred the case to the Revenue Divisional Of