IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Mr.Santhosh @ Santhoshkumar – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by – Respondent
Crl.A.No.420 of 2022
Decided on : 20-12-2023
ABETMENT - SUICIDE AND CASTE DISCRIMINATION - Section 306 IPC, SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) - The court discussed the legal provisions regarding abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC and the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. It emphasized that mere refusal to marry does not constitute abetment unless it can be shown that the accused instigated the victim to commit suicide. The court found insufficient evidence of caste-based humiliation or instigation, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of abetting the suicide of the deceased, who was in a romantic relationship with him. Following a public humiliation regarding their caste differences, the deceased committed suicide. The prosecution charged the appellant under Section 306 IPC and various sections of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not establish that the appellant's actions constituted abetment of suicide or that he had insulted the deceased based on her caste. The evidence presented did not support the claims of humiliation or instigation necessary for a conviction under the relevant sections.
Issues: Whether the appellant abetted the suicide of the deceased and whether he committed offences under the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding in the act of suicide. It emphasized that mere refusal to marry, without more, does not amount to abetment. Additionally, the court highlighted the need for direct evidence of caste-based discrimination to support charges under the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside.
JUDGMENT:
(Order of the Court was delivered by SUNDER MOHAN, J.)
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 02.12.2021 in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
2 (i) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant and the deceased knew each other and they were in a romantic love relationship for about four years before the occurrence; that the deceased was studying in Arts College and belonged to Hindu, Mathari, a Scheduled Caste; that the accused belonged to Hindu, Boyar, which falls under MBC category; that on 03.11.2019 at about 8.30 p.m, the deceased along with her mother, her uncle, sister and grandmother, were proceeding towards the house of the appellant to request him to marry the deceased; that the appellant came in the opposite direction and the deceased requested the appellant to speak to her mother regarding the marriage; that the appellant insulted and humiliated her by uttering her caste name in a public place; that unable to bear the humiliation and insult, the deceased ran to her house and committed suicide at about 8.45pm by pouring kerosene and setting herself ablaze; and that she sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries on 08.11.2019, inspite of treatment.
(ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that PW1, PW2, and PW8, the mother, uncle, and sister of the deceased respectively saw the deceased rushing to her house and locking herself inside her room; that they banged on the door and requested the deceased to open the door; that when she refused to do so, they broke open the door and took the deceased to the hospital in an ambulance for treatment; that she died on 08.11.2019 i.e. five days after the occurrence.
(iii) On the request of PW13 Doctor, PW16-the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, recorded the dying declaration of the deceased (Ex.P14), in his presence, who had certified that the deceased was in a conscious state. After her death, PW1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) on 08.11.2019, to the Sub Inspector of Police, who in turn registered the FIR (Ex.P16) for the offence under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
(iv) PW20, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palladam Sub Division, took up the investigation, after he was nominated as the Investigating Officer by the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District on 08.11.2019. The nomination letter was marked as Ex.P19. PW20 visited the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P20) and Rough sketch (Ex.P21). He thereafter seized the kerosene can and match box, viz., M.O.1 and M.O.2, under the seizure mahazar (Ex.P3). He conducted the inquest in the presence of panchayatars and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P22). He thereafter arranged the conduct of the postmortem. PW19- Doctor conducted the postmortem and issued a post mortem certificate (Ex.P17) stating that the deceased died due to shock and burn injuries and its complications.
(v). Thereafter, the Investigation officer obtained the community certificates of the deceased (Ex.P7) and the appellant (Ex.P8), the Accident Register (Ex.P9) and the Dying Declaration (Ex.P14) and altered the sections of law. After examining all the witnesses, he filed the final report for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, and 306 of the IPC against the appellant/accused.
(vi) On appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2020. The trial Court, viz., the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, framed four charges for the offences under Sections 306 of the IPC, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act,
Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (11) SCALE 24
Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2023) 2 SCC (Cri.) 798
Marudanal Augusti Vs. State of Kerala
Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka
State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Another [(1994) 1 SCC 73]
AI
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding by the accused, which was not present in this case. Mere refusal to marry does not consti....
The sufficiency of provable evidence is paramount in establishing guilt for abetment of suicide; mere words or allegations are insufficient without clear intent or instigation.
To convict under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or direct acts leading to suicide must be established, which was absent in this case.
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding that compels suicide, which was not established in this case.
Abetment under Section 306 IPC requires evidence of direct instigation and established mens rea; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction.
To convict under Section 306 IPC, clear proof of active instigation and direct acts leading to suicide is necessary; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of the accused's intention to instigate the suicide, which was absent in this case.
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.