The prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the lack of cogent and convincing evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the order in S.C.No.94 of 2014 dated 28.05.2019 on the file of the Mahila District Judge, Salem and set aside the same.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 28.05.2019 in S.C.No.94 of 2014 on the file of the Mahila Court, Salem.

2. According to the appellants, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.180 of 2013 against the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Initially the case was registered against the appellants under Section 174 Cr. P.C. After Revenue Divisional Officer's (hereinafter referred to as 'R.D.O.') enquiry, the case was altered for the offence under Section 306 IPC. After investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Mettur and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.21 of 2013.

3. The Judicial Magistrate No. I, Mettur, after considering the facts that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by the Sessions Court has committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Salem and the same has been taken on file in S.C.No.94 of 2014 and made one to Mahila Court. After trial, the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court.

4.1 The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is no prima facie materials as against the appellants to frame charges under Section 306 IPC. Further, the prosecution neither substantiated the case before the trial Court that the appellants had committed the offence under Section 306 IPC, nor established the main ingredients of Section 107 or 306 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, failed to consider the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence that soon before committing suicide there was an inducement. Either the family members or the in-laws of the victim, whoever abets to commit suicide, shall be punished, however, in this case there is no specific materials as against the appellants.

4.2 The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that originally, the case was registered under Section 174 Cr. P.C., since the victim alleged to have committed suicide by hanging herself. Though R.D.O enquiry report does not reveal that the appellants instigated or induced the victim to commit suicide, he has simply given a finding that due to quarrel with the neighbours, the victim said to have committed suicide. Further, R.D.O had not named the appellants or any other persons, who have quarreled with the victim, had instigated the victim to commit suicide.

4.3 Admittedly in this case, the husband of the victim is a dumb person and the victim is the second wife and his first wife left the matrimonial home, due to the harassment of her husband and in laws, but, the investigating officer had not investigated the said fact. The learned counsel further submitted that in this case neither the parents of the victim nor her husband or in laws have filed any complaint against these appellants. The de facto complainant one Palanisamy, who was examined as P.W.1 had only named the appellants. Further, there is no suicide note or dying declaration in this case. Only based on the complaint given by P.W.1, who is the neighbour of the deceased, the case was registered against the appellants.

4.4 Further, P.W.1 in his chief examination had stated that there was a quarrel between the appellants and the deceased with regard to the illegal relationship between the deceased and the husband of the first appellan