The need for a live link or proximity link between the act of the accused and the act of the deceased committing suicide in order to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC.

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 5 as against the conviction and sentence, dated 03.04.2008, made in S.C.No.436 of 2007 on the file of the Mahalir Neethimandram, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

(i) P.W.1-Muthazhaki is the daughter of the deceased-Petchiammal. P.W.2-Rani is the sister of the deceased. P.W.3-Kathavarayan is the husband of the deceased. P.W.4-Murugan is the brother of the deceased. P.W.5-Sivan is the son of the deceased. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. Accused Nos.3 to 5 are relatives of Accused No.1. There was enmity between the family of the deceased and the accused over a piece of land. P.W.3, the husband of the deceased, is frequently consuming liquor, which led the deceased to reside at her brother's (P.W.4) house. At that time, all the accused quarrelled with the deceased over the piece of land, which led to lodging of complaint to the police station. However, since the accused abused the deceased continuously, the deceased went to her husband's house and committed suicide by hanging, in respect of which, P.W.1 lodged a report-Ex.P.1.

(ii) P.W.10-Sivasubramanian, Sub-Inspector of Police, received a report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C, under Ex.P.7-First Information Report. The Investigating Officer took up the case for investigation, went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P.2) and rough sketch (Ex.P.8), and recovered M.O.1(series)-rope and he has also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and issued an inquest report-Ex.P.9 and after examining the Medical Officer and other witnesses, altered the case into one under Section 306 IPC. The alteration report is marked as Ex.P.10.

(iii) P.W.11 took up the case for further investigation and arrested Accused Nos.1 to 4. Thereafter, P.W.12 took up the case for investigation and finally, laid final report as against the accused. for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

(iv) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 306 IPC and 4(B) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act against the accused. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.13 and M.O.1(series) were marked.

(v) When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against them, they denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. However, they neither choose to examine any witnesses nor to mark any document.

(vi) The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has found the accused guilty under Section 306 IPC and accordingly, convicted the accused under Section 306 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 5 have come up with this appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that there is no material whatsoever available on record to prove the charges under Section 306 IPC against the accused. Ex.P.1 is totally contradictory to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. Admittedly, the deceased committed suicide at her husband's house, whereas, the accused were residing in different area. Therefore, the statement to the effect that the accused abused the deceased is an improved version and cannot be believed. Hence, he prayed for acquittal of the accused.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that P.W.1 to P.W.4 have clearly spoken ab