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.

ORDER :

M.B. SNEHALATHA, J.

1. This revision Petition has been filed by the accused challenging the judgment in Crl.A No.30/2015 of Sessions Court, Alappuzha by which it confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them by the trial court in S.C No.121/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (“ IPC ” for short).

2. In brief the prosecution case is that Sasidharan, who is the father of A2 and father-in-law of A1, committed suicide by hanging in his tharavad house between 5.30 pm of 16.7.2008 and 11.30 am of 17.7.2008 due to the mental and physical harassment and humiliation of the accused. According to the prosecution, accused abetted the commission of suicide by Sasidharan and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC .

3. Initially, pursuant to Ext.P1 first information statement given by PW1, Ext.P5 FIR was registered by PW8 under the caption 'unnatural death' and FIR was sent to the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate. Subsequently, PW8 filed Ext.P6 report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Haripad incorporating Section 306 r/w Section 34 IPC and arraigned the revision petitioners herein as accused and the crime was investigated. After completing the investigation, PW9 filed final report against the accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Haripad for the offence punishable under r/w 34 . The case was subsequently committed to Court of Sessions, Alappuzha, which in turn made over it to the Assistant Sessions Court, Alappuzha for trial. The trial court framed charge under r/w 34 of against the accused. Charge was read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and faced trial. In substantiation of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW9, marked Exts.P1 to P9 and identified MOs 1 to 7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 (1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (Cr.P.C for short). Accused denied all the incriminating evidence against them and maintained that they are innocent and they were falsely implicated.

4. As the trial court found that it was not a fit case for acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C, accused were called upon to enter on their defence and to adduce any evidence, which they might have in support thereof. On the side of the accused, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked.

5. After trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of ₹25,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months each. Set off as provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C was also allowed.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, though the accused preferred appeal as Crl.A No.30/2015 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence against both accused, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused assails the conviction and sentence on the ground that there is absolutely no evidence to show that they abetted and instigated the deceased Sasidharan to commit suicide; that the prosecution failed to prove that Ext.P2 is in the handwriting of deceased Sasidharan. Further