Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
DHANASEKAR — Appellant
Vs.
STATE — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 2012
Decided on : 31-10-2018
Abetment - Conviction under Section 306 of I.P.C. - Section 306 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for abetting the suicide of his wife. The prosecution alleged that the appellant's abusive words led to the suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no direct or indirect evidence to hold the appellant guilty of abetting or instigating the suicide, especially in the absence of any overact or intentional instigation.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant's words constituted abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal precedents to establish that mere words, without any overact or intentional instigation, are not enough to constitute abetment of suicide.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and cancelled any bail bond executed by the appellant.
M.V.Muralidaran, J.
The appellant herein assails the Judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2012 passed against him in Sessions Case No.124 of 2011 on the file of the Learned Sessions Judge, Chennai sentencing him to undergo 10 years of punishment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for an offence charged under Section 306 of I.P.C. in connection with Crime No.1243 of 2008.
2. It is the charge against appellant that he abetted suicide of his wife and he was put to undergo Criminal Trial for an offence charged under Section 306 of I.P.C. The Learned Trial Judge on appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence led in by prosecution found the charge proven beyond reasonable doubt and thereby convicted the appellant in above terms. The said order of conviction is under challenge herein.
3. I heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, for Mr.B.Harikrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs.T.P.Savitha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and on careful perusal of impugned order and case records.
4. It is the case of prosecution that the marriage between the appellant Dhanasekhar and one Sharitha took place on 27.08.2004 and they lived in Velacherry Housing Board quarters. During marriage Sharitha was given 50 sovereigns of Gold, besides 10 sovereigns given to appellant by Sharitha's father. Apart from other sridana articles a cash of Rs. 50,000/- was given to appellant by Sharitha's father immediately after marriage.
5. Misfortunately there developed difference of opinion over several issues between the appellant and his wife Sharitha, which resulted quarrel between appellant and his wife Sharitha, out of same their Matrimonial family life was unhappy and was at peril. They had a son namely Vignesh.
6. According to prosecution version the appellant and his wife Sharitha went to bazaar on 20.08.2008 at about 7:00 PM. Their son Vignesh on seeing a ball asked the same. However, as ball was not purchased, their son Vignesh in anger threw Sharitha's cell phone towards the wall. Thereupon appellant's wife Sharitha fumed by the act of her son, beat him. Seeing this, the appellant got angry by saying “XXX XXX XXX” and beaten Sharitha on check.
7. Having worried on above quoted abusive words of the appellant, Sharitha was driven to commit suicide by hanging in her bedroom window rod by her dupatta. However it was informed to father of deceased Rathanasamy residing at his native place informing that his daughter suffers out of illness and was called to Chennai. Accordingly the father of the deceased Rathanasamy rushed to Chennai, however it was shocking to see that his daughter died.
8. For the above incident a complaint was made by the defacto complainant Rathanasamy/PW1 before the respondent police. On receipt of the complaint from PW11 namely Tamilselvi, the Sub Inspector of Police of J7 Velacherry Police Station registered a case in Crime No.1243 of 2008 viz Ex-P7 under section 174(3) of Cr.P.C. The case was taken for investigation by PW12 Natarajan, the then Assistant Commissioner. The PW12 Assistant Commissioner of Police took up the case for investigation, went to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation Mahazre in EX-P4, rough sketch Ex-P12 and he also arranged to take photographs in M.O.1 through the photographer Ravi. Requisition in Ex-P8 for inquest and enquiry was made before PW-10 Palanivel, the Personal Assistant to District Collector by PW12.
9. Further PW12 recorded statement of the witnesses and based on it FIR was altered vide alteration report in Ex-P13 for an offence under section 306 IPC. After completion of the inquest and other legal formalities the dead body was handed over to the relations by PW8 Venkatesh, the Head Constable assisting the personal assistant to Collector.
10. Further investigation was made by PW13 the succeeding officer of PW12 namely Senthilkumaran and he filed charge sheet against the accused under section 306 of IPC. The said final report was taken on file by the learned IXth Metropolitan
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
