Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14439
2025:KER:35619
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Puthiya Purayil Shaji S/o Chandran - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 3035 OF 2014
Decided On : 22-05-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.), SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH, SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE
For the Respondent : SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ, PP
SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.), SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH, SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE, SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ, PP
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or intentional aid, not merely allegations of cruelty.
Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A and 306 - Challenge to addition of charge - The petitioner, accused of cruelty leading to suicide, contested the trial court's addition of Section 306, arguing lack of evidence for abetment - The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient without proof of instigation or active involvement in the suicide - The trial court's order was set aside due to insufficient grounds for the added charge. (Paras 2, 5, 8)
(B) Abetment of Suicide - Legal standards - The court reiterated that to establish abetment under Section 306, there must be clear evidence of instigation or intentional aid leading to the suicide, not just allegations of cruelty or harassment. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced charges under Section 498A for cruelty against his wife, who committed suicide shortly after receiving a draft divorce agreement. The trial court added Section 306 based on perceived evidence of abetment.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of active instigation or aiding by the petitioner, leading to the conclusion that the addition of Section 306 was unjustified.
Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court could add charges based on the prosecution's application and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the charge of abetment of suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the addition of charges must be supported by evidence indicating the accused's active role in instigating the suicide, and mere allegations of cruelty do not suffice.
Result: The impugned order was set aside, and the Crl. M.C. was allowed.
ORDER :
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
This Crl.M.C has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) challenging Annexure A4 order passed by the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court - II, Kannur (for short, 'the trial court'), adding the charge invoking Section 216 of Cr. P.C.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No.128/2010 pending on the files of the trial court. He faces indictment for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant and the mother-in-law of the petitioner. The petitioner married the daughter of the 2nd respondent on 14.08.2005. After the marriage, they resided in the parental house of the petitioner. On 03.11.2005, the wife of the petitioner committed suicide by jumping into the well near the house where she was residing. The 2nd respondent filed Annexure A1 complaint against the petitioner, his brother and his friends before the trial court, alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of . The trial court forwarded the complaint to the Police. The Police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. After the investigation, the Police filed the final report before the trial court against the petitioner alone, alleging an offence under of the . The allegation in the final report is that the petitioner subjected the deceased to cruelty, both physically and mentally, and on account of the said cruelty, she committed suicide. The trial court received the final report on file and numbered the case as C.C. No.128/2010. The petitioner appeared before the trial court. The trial court framed charge under of the against the petitioner. He pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 11 were examined. Thereafter, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition as C.M.P. No.1175/2014 before the trial court under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. to add Section 306 of as well. The trial court, after hearing both sides, found that the materials on record would show that of was also involved, and accordingly, the said Section was added, invoking power under of Cr.P.C. as per Annexure A4 order. This Crl. M.C. has been filed challenging the said order.
3. I have heard Sri. M. Ramesh Chander, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor. Even though notice was issued to the 2nd respondent, there is no appearance.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a petition for alteration/ addition of charge under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained at the instance of the Public Prosecutor or the accused or the de facto complainant, and the addition/alteration of charge is strictly in the domain of the court. The learned counsel further submitted that there is absolutely no material on record to attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner, and hence, the impugned order is not legally sustainable. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that initially the crime was registered incorporating the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of and at the time of filing the final report, of was deleted without any valid reason. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the evidence let in by PWs 1 to 3, coupled with other materials on record, prima facie shows that of has also been attracted and hence the trial court was absolutely justified in invoking of Cr. P.C.
5. Section 216 of Cr.P.C (Section 239 of BNSS) confers jurisdiction on all courts to alter or add to any charge framed earlier, at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The alteration/addition of a charge may be done, if in the opinion of the court, there was an omission in the framing of charge or if upon prima-facie examination of the material brought on record, it leads the court to form a presumptive opinion, as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence [Dr. Nallapareddy Sri
