IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
A. Alagar Konar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Steel Plant Police Station - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 703 of 2013
Decided On : 05-08-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498 A, 306 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for records pertaining to judgment made in S.C. on file of learned Court Judge, Salem and set aside same – Held, Intention of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 clearly shows that they want conviction of these accused persons and therefore, they had made several incriminating statements without any corroboration and also inconsistent to each other – Therefore, very allegation that A1 to A3 caused cruelty to deceased itself has become highly doubtful, in view of contradictory and unreliable testimony of prosecution witnesses – While so, even if their evidence has taken on face value, there is no material to hold that deceased committed suicide because of any aid, incitement or instigation by these accused – Hence, benefit of doubt has to be extended to accused persons – Trial Court has miserably failed to see contradictions, embellishment, exaggeration and imaginary statements of these witnesses – Hence, judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside – Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated 10.09.2013 made in S.C.No.71/2012 on the file of the learned Mahila Court Judge, Salem and set aside the same.
The appellants 1 and 2 are the mother and father of the 3rd appellant. On receipt of the complaint dated 29/09/2010 from Tr.Muthu Ramalingam, the father of the deceased Rupa Devi, a case in Crime No.292/2010 was registered at the Salem Steel Plant Police Station and investigated. On completion of investigation, final report filed alleging, Rupa Devi committed suicide by hanging on 29/09/2010 at about 6.00 a.m. in her house at door No.63, Steel Plant Gangai Nagar, Salem. The day before the incident the Appellants 1 and 2 scolded the third appellant for living with a barren lady, who is incapable to begot a child for him. The third appellant beaten her and physically caused cruelty in the public. The deceased on being attacked and humiliated in the public unbearable of the cruelty, on the next day morning committed suicide. Thus, the alleging father-in-law, mother-in-law and the husband of the deceased, (A-1 to A-3 respectively) caused mental and physical cruelty to the deceased Rupa Devi and abetted her to commit suicide by hanging. Final report laid before the Court.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, after furnishing copies of document, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. On committal, the case was taken up for trial in S.C.No.71/2012. Charges under Sections 498A IPC and 306 IPC were framed against the appellants herein as A1 to A3 respectively.
3. For the sake of convenience, the appellants are referred as per their ranking and designation mentioned in the trial Court judgment.
4. The prosecution to prove the charges examined 14 witnesses and marked12 exhibits as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12. The two pieces of nylon rope recovered from scene of occurrence were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2.
5. The learned Mahila Court Judge held the accused guilty of the charges and convicted them. Sentenced A-1 to A-3 to undergo 3 year RI and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month SI for the offence under Section 498 A IPC and to undergo 10 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo 2 months SI for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The period of substantive sentences ordered to run concurrently. The period of imprisonment already undergone ordered to be set off.
6. Aggrieved by them, the present appeal is filed. Pending appeal, it is reported that the first appellant/A-1 died and the same is hereby recorded.
7. The learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants submitted that the witnesses to the prosecution have not spoken about any overt act on the part of the accused persons regarding aid or assist or instigate the deceased to commit the offence of suicide. The witnesses for prosecution have not deposed that they saw the accused persons causing cruelty. The witnesses are all hearsay and not reliable. The charges as framed and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that the accused persons treated the deceased cruelly pointing out her infertility. Once in five months, A-1 and A-2 used to come to the deceased house and pick quarrel. They used to abuse her and tease her for not getting conceived. On the day before the incident, A-1 and A-2 came to Salem from Tuticorin. In the street, A-1 to A-3 abused the deceased and humiliated her saying she does not have uterus to carry a child and assaulted the deceased on her cheek and back. On the next day morning, she committed suicide.
8. The trial Court relying on the testimony of PW-3 [Kamatchi] the owner of the house, where A-1 and the deceased living, convicted the accused without proper appreciation of the evidence. The parents of the third accused are residents of Iyyan Theppakulam in Tuticorin District. The third accused along with the deceased was living in Salem in a rented house. A1 and A2 travel
To convict under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of active instigation or facilitation of the suicide by the accused, which was not established in this case.
Cruelty – Every harassment does not amount to cruelty – What constitutes cruelty for one person may not constitute cruelty for another person.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be evidence of instigation or intentional aid by the accused to drive ....
In order to establish the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had instigated or aided the deceased to commit suic....
The prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of mens rea or guilty motive to instigate or abet the victim is crucial in cases of abetment of suicide.
Vague allegations of ill-treatment do not constitute legal cruelty under IPC; a clear causal link between accused's actions and victim's suicide must be established.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.