JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore, dated 17.06.2014, passed in S.C.No.29/2012, in conviction the appellant herein under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.)

1. The matter is heard through “Video Conference”.

2. Convicted sole accused is the appellant herein.

3. The respondent police filed final report, after investigation, against the accused in Mettupalayam Police Station in Crime No.493/2011, under Section 306 of IPC. A love marriage between the accused and deceased was solemnized about 12 years before the date of incident. The accused and the deceased are having three children by name Priya, Jamuna and Titus. Accused never use to give his earnings to the family and used the entire earnings for liquor and always used to beat the deceased and the children as an usual habit. While so on 06.03.2011 at about 5.45 pm, the deceased asked money from the accused for the family necessities for which, the accused abused the deceased to “go and die” and if the deceased died he would be in a peaceful condition. This being the abetment the deceased committed suicide by hanging by using her Saree. Thereby the accused committed an offence under Section 306 of IPC.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has cited totally 20 witnesses and out which P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked and M.O.1 to M.O.4 were also marked on the side of the prosecution and no witnesses, no exhibits and no M.Os were marked on the side of the defence.

5. Based upon the ocular and documentary evidence, the trial Court has held that the charge under Section 306 of IPC is made out. Accordingly, convicted the accused and laid the sentence as stated supra and hence, the appeal.

6 (a). The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the reliance placed upon by the Sessions Judge on the evidence of P.W.4 is totally unbelievable and the presence of P.W.4 was never spoken to by the private prosecution witnesses either in Ex.P1/complaint or with the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and only during the time of trial, P.W.4 is projected, as if, she was present when there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased.

6(b). The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andra Pradesh (AIR 2010 SC 377): Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, for the preposition that mere utterance of word “go and die”, does not amounts to abetment to commit suicide as defined under Section 107 of IPC and prayed for acquittal.

6(c). The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) made a submission in support of the judgment of the Sessions Judge.

7. The appellant/accused stands charged for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The deceased and the accused were initially in love affair with each other and subsequently, the marriage was solemnized between them about 12 years before the date of the incident. Out of the legal wedlock, three children had born viz., Priya, Jamuna and Titus.

8. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is habitual drinker and used to beat his wife(deceased) and on the said day, there was quarrel between the husband/accused and wife and the accused alleged to have uttered “unless you go and die, I will not get peace”, so she went and committed suicide by hanging.

9. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased who had lodged Ex.P1/complaint. On perusal of the lower Court record, it reveals that P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined in chief, on 08.10.2012, and thereafter, the advocate appointed by the accused has not appeared and the Court has appointed the legal Aid Advocate. The Legal Aid Advocate so appointed has filed the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P