SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
State by the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 620 of 2015
Decided On : 13-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : P. Thamaraiselvan, P. Palaninathan.
For the Respondent: S. Udaya Kumar.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of mental cruelty and instigation in cases of abetment of suicide, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions such as Section 306 of I.P.C. in relation to mental cruelty and abetment of suicide.

Headnote:

Criminal Appeal - Abetment of Suicide - Section 306 of I.P.C. - [ABETMENT OF SUICIDE] - [CRIMINAL APPEAL] - [Section 306, 498-A and 302 I.P.C.] - The court discussed the evidence and reasoning supporting the finding of abetment of suicide by the accused, the impact of mental cruelty and instigation, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions such as Section 306 of I.P.C. in relation to mental cruelty and abetment of suicide.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, husband of the deceased, was convicted of abetting the suicide of his wife and sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default, 1 year R.I. The case was based on the frequent demand of money, extra marital affair, and mental cruelty suffered by the deceased.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence and reasoning supporting the finding of the trial court were well-founded and required no interference. The appellant's conduct instilled fear and threat in the deceased, leading to her suicide.

Issues: The issues revolved around the evidence of abetment of suicide, impact of mental cruelty, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions such as Section 306 of I.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence and reasoning supporting the finding of abetment of suicide were well-founded, and the impact of mental cruelty and instigation played a crucial role in the decision.

Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the trial Court was directed to secure the appellant and commit him to Central Prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of imprisonment already undergone shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Bail Bond stands cancelled.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the sentence and order passed in S.C. No. 154 of 2013 dated 19.09.2015 by the Learned Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur and seeks to set aside the same.

1. The appellant herein is the husband of deceased Mageshwari. They got married in the year 2006 and had two female children by name Harini (3 years old) and Hasini (6 months old). On 30.10.2010, Mageshwari doused herself with kerosene and set fire to herself. Her 6 months old daughter Hasini, who was near her also caught in fire, both died.

2. Next day, on 31.10.2010, at about 2.00 p.m. Chandrapal, the father of the deceased informed the police about the incident. He alleged that, a month before the occurrence when he and his wife came to see their daughter, she complaint about her husband Srinivasan that, he is having illicit relationship with several women and not taking care of her and their children. He stay away from the home for several days. A month prior to the incident, they heard Srinivasan has set up a house for one Radha, daughter of Neelaperumal and living with her. When they reported about the behaviour of Srinivasan to his parents, they supported him and retarded saying, he as a male will marry 1000 ladies. Nobody should blame his conduct. When this matter was reported to Palladam Police, they called Srinivasan and warned him to desist from such behaviour. On 30.10.2010, at about 11.00 p.m. he received a call from her daughter's house informing that his daughter Mageshwari and grand daughter Hasini caught fire and died.

3. For the above said incident, First Information Report registered in Crime No. 2360/2010 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palladam, took up the investigation and visited the scene of occurrence at 17.00 hrs. He prepared the observation mahazar, rough sketch and recovery mahazar in the presence of local witnesses. Since the unnatural death of Mageshwari occurred within 7 years of her marriage, enquiry by RDO was arranged. Her body was sent to post-mortem along with requisition letter. Therefore, F.I.R was altered from 174 Cr.P.C. to Sections 306, 498-A and 302 I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, final report filed before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur and taken on file as P.R.C. No. 13/2012. After furnishing copies to the accused, the final report copy and the documents relied by the prosecution, committed the case to Sessions Court for trial.

4. The case was taken on file by the District and Sessions Court as S.C. No. 154/2013 and later, transferred to the Special Court for offence against Women, on its constitution at Tiruppur. The Mahila Court framed charge under Section 306 of I.P.C. against the accused and put him on trial.

5. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, marked 21 documents and one material object.

6. PW-2 and PW-3 are the father and mother of Mageshwari. PW-4 is the brother of PW-3, PW-7 is the brother of the deceased Mageshwari. These witnesses had deposed about the demand of money and physical assault by the accused. The extra marital affair of the accused with one Vaishnavi and then, with Radha. PW-2 had deposed that, he heard that, on the date of occurrence, when the accused was questioned by the deceased about his behaviour, he attacked her and told her that he will not change his behaviour. She may go to her father’s house or die, so that, he can live happily with Vaishnavi, his second wife. PW-7 the brother of the Mageshwari had deposed that, when the accused kidnapped the minor girl Radha and kept her in his second wife's Vaishnavi house, Palladam Police rescued the said Radha, on the complaint of Radha's father. By this, the accused got furious and told his sister to die, then only he can live happily with her. He had also deposed about the call he received from his sister at about 8.00 p.m. on 30.10.2010. According to PW-7

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              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

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top