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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA, J.
Swamy @ Sivakumar - Appellant 
Versus
State, represented by its Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sathyamangalam Division, Erode. (Thalavadi P.S.Cr. No.125 of 2014) - Respondent 
Crl. A. No.37 of 2017
Decided On : 06-11-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Karthikeyan
For the Respondent: Ms. G.V. Kasthuri, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The absence of compelling evidence to prove that the accused abetted his wife's suicide led to the acquittal under Section 306 IPC.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 207 - Conviction for abetment of suicide - Appellant convicted and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment by Trial Court for abetting suicide of his wife - Appeal against conviction - Court evaluated evidence and highlighted that alleged extramarital affair did not establish abetment as per requisite legal threshold - Burden on prosecution to establish that accused abetted suicide beyond reasonable doubt - Existing evidence did not support conviction. (Paras 20, 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant, married to the deceased, was accused of abetting her suicide after a tumultuous marital relationship, which included allegations of the Appellant's alleged extramarital affair and ill-treatment due to the deceased's complexion leading up to her suicide. No complaints were lodged against the Appellant prior to the suicide, raising doubts on intent and provocation.

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled sufficient evidence was lacking to demonstrate that the Appellant had incited or provoked the deceased to commit suicide, thus leading to the conclusion that conviction under Section 306 IPC could not be upheld.

Issues: The main issues considered were whether the Appellant's actions constituted abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC and if the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction made by the Trial Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for clear evidence that the accused's actions directly induced the suicide, referencing principles established in previous Supreme Court rulings stating that mere allegations of extramarital relationships do not constitute abetment unless proven to have a direct impact leading to the suicide.

Result: Conviction of the Appellant set aside; he is acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC, and to be released from prison.

Table of Content
1. conviction under section 306 ipc involves examination of evidence leading to suicide. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. claims of ill-treatment and extramarital affairs require substantial evidence for conviction. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 9 , 12)
3. prosecution must prove that accused actions were directly responsible for suicide. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
4. the appellate court found insufficient evidence to maintain conviction under section 306 ipc. (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA, J.

1. The Appellant is the sole Accused in S.C.No.120 of 2016 dated 28.12.2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode.

2. The Trial Court, vide impugned judgment in S.C.No.120 of 2016, dated 28.12.2016, has convicted the sole Appellant/Accused as follows:-

Conviction under sectionSentence Awarded
Section 306 of IPCTo undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo two years of simple imprisonment.

The Trial Court ordered the sentences to run concurrently and has also granted set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the period of incarceration undergone by the Accused during investigation/trial.

3. The Accused / Appellant challenging the legality of the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court vide impugned judgment, has filed this Criminal Appeal.

4. The Prosecution case are briefly as follows:

a) The deceased, Bakkiya, is the daughter of P.W-1-Tmt.Suvarnamma and P.W-2-Thiru.Marappa. The marriage between the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 and the son of P.W-7-Thiru.Mahadevappa, by name Sivakumar, was an arranged marriage. Both parties belonged to the Lingayat community. The marriage took place two years and four months prior to the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 committing suicide. P.W-1 and P.W-2 were engaged in agriculture. They were residing in Udigala Village, Chamarajanagar, Karnataka. P.W-7- Thiru.Mahadevappa is a resident of Vazhaipalla Thottam, Panahalli Village, Byanapuram, near Thalavadi within Erode District, Tamil Nadu, engaged in agriculture.

b) After the marriage, Sivakumar the son of Thiru.Mahadevappa and the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 lived in Panahalli Village happily. In the course of her matrimonial life, Bakkiya became pregnant. She delivered a girl child in the Byanapuram Government Primary Health Centre near Thalavadi. On hearing the news of the birth of the child, Sivakumar went to the hospital. After discharge from the hospital, P.W-1 and P.W-2 brought with them their daughter, Bakkiya, and grand daughter to their place of residence at Udigala Village, Chamarajanagar, Karnataka. After following the customary practices, the wife and daughter were brought to the matrimonial home by Sivakumar, son of Thiru.Mahadevappa. While so, three days prior to the alleged date of occurrence on 16.10.2014, there was a marriage in Udigala Village, Chamarajanagar, Karnataka, where Sivakumar, son of Thiru.Mahadevappa, went for the marriage along with the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 and the newly born girl child. In the marriage function, Sivakumar, the Accused, informed her parents, P.W-1 and P.W-2, to take her with them, let her stay with them for 10 days, and then return to the matrimonial home. He also informed them that he was going to his maternal aunt's house. After three days, the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 insisted P.W-1 and P.W-2 to take her to the matrimonial home. Accordingly, P.W-2- father of Bakkiya (deceased), took her and her newly born child to the house of P.W-7, along with P.W-5 and P.W-6. They convened panchayath regarding the domestic issues between the newly married couple, the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 and the son of P.W-7. They also requested P.W-7 to look after the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2. After leaving her in the matrimonial home, P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-5 and P.W-6 left for Udigala Village, Chamarajanagar, Karnataka. The next day, they were informed by P.W-7- Thiru.Mahadevappa, that the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 committed suicid

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