Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Selvarani - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police & Another - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 669 of 2016
Decided On : 11-05-2022
Abetment - Suicide - Section 306 IPC - The court discussed the evidence and found that there was no proof of the accused instigating or aiding the deceased to commit suicide. The court emphasized the need for positive acts of instigation or aid as per Section 107 of IPC and concluded that the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish abetment for suicide.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased had an illicit relationship with the accused, and the prosecution alleged that the accused abetted the deceased's suicide by consuming poison. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the defacto complainant filed a criminal appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented was not enough to prove that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It emphasized the lack of evidence of aiding for committing suicide and concluded that the trial court's decision to acquit the accused was justified.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused abetted the deceased's suicide, based on the illicit relationship between them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for positive acts of instigation or aid as per Section 107 of IPC and concluded that the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish abetment for suicide.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decision to acquit the accused was upheld.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal passed on her by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam in S.C.No.41 of 2014 dated 23.07.2014.)
1. The defacto complainant in S.C.No.41 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam is the appellant herein.
2. The second respondent/accused viz., Maheswari has been prosecuted by the Inspector of Police, Roshanai Police Station, Tindivanam, in Crime No.4 of 2011 for having abeted the suicide of the deceased Ramalingam an offence punishable under section 306 IPC.
3. In the trial Court, the prosecution examined nine witnesses PW 1 to PW9 and marked eight documents Exs.P1 to P8. On the side of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence were marked.
4. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution side, found not guilty of the charge under Section 306 IPC and acquitted the accused under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
5. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the defacto complainant viz., Selvarani PW1, has filed this criminal appeal.
6. The prosecution case is that the deceased Ramalingam was the President of Illamangalam Village Panchayat. The accused Maheswari was the Ward Member of that Panchayat. The deceased developed illicit intimacy with the accused and many days, he stayed in her house at Santhaimedu, Tindivanam and spent more amount for the accused and also gave 12 sovereigns of jewels to her. One week prior to the occurrence, the deceased wife Selvarani PW1 went to the house of the accused and found the deceased was in her house with the bare body. Hence, his wife Selvarani PW1 assaulted the deceased at the house of the accused and the deceased requested the complainant PW1 not to disclose their relationship to others. Thereafter, the complainant returned to her home and the deceased also came to the house and again requested not to disclose his relationship with the accused. Thereafter, he went to the house of the accused to get back the jewels but he did not return. On 07.01.2011 at about 2.00 p.m. the complainant received a phone message that her husband consumed poison and admitted in the Government hospital, Tindivanam. She immediately went to the hospital and found her husband was unconscious. Thereafter, he was taken to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry and on the way to the hospital, he died on 08.01.2011. Thereafter, she gave the complaint Ex.P1 to Roshanai Police Station, Tindivanam and the same was registered in crime No.4 of 2011.
7. Nagarathinam PW7 Sub Inspector of Police, Roshanai Police Station, on 08.11.2011 at about 6.30p.m., received a complaint Ex.P1 from Selvarani PW1 and registered the case in Crime No.4 of 2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The registered FIR is Ex.P5. Thereafter, he informed to RDO and higher officers and went to the place of occurrence in the presence of the witnesses viz., Selva and Annadurai PW3, prepared observation mahazer Ex.P2, rough sketch Ex.P6 and conducted inquest and the inquest report is Ex.P7 and send the body to postmortem.
8. Dr.Kusha Kumar Shaha PW5 Association Professor in Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry, conducted the postmortem on the deceased body and opined that he was died due to ingestion of organophaspherous. The viscera report is Ex.P3, in the viscera report, it was mentioned that stomach and intestine organophaspherous. Pesticide was detected and 236 ml gram of Eathel Alchohol was also formed in the liver and kidney the same pesticide was also detected in the liver and kidney 276 ml.gram Eathel alchohol was presented, in the blood same pesticide was also detected and 288 ml.gram was present and on the basis of viscera report, issued postmortem certificate Ex.P4.
9. Ramakrishnan, PW8 Inspector of police took up the case for further investigation and after receiving the postmortem report, he altered the case into 306 IPC alteration FIR Ex.P8. Further, on 18.09.2012, at about 10.30 a.m. he arres
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for positive acts of instigation or aid as per Section 107 of IPC to establish abetment for suicide.
Prosecution must prove abetment under Section 306 IPC requires clear evidence of instigation; the trial court's acquittal upheld due to lack of such evidence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proof of extraordinary circumstances leading to suicide and the absence of evidence supporting the allegations of abetment.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere with acquittal unless the trial court's conclusion is unreasonable.
Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires proof of direct instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid in suicide; generalized harassment allegations without proximate acts inciting suicide are insuff....
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
