Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57349
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J
Vijayalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL. R.C. No.805/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.Sankarasubbu
For the Respondents: A.Gopinath
An accusation of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC requires clinching evidence of positive acts of cruelty or harassment; mere allegations or the act of suicide itself are insufficient to substantiate the offence, particularly when post-mortem reports reveal no physical trauma consistent with allegations of assault.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 read with 401 - Revision against dismissal of protest petition - High Court's scope of interference - Finding that petition for further investigation was dismissed by Magistrate after considering materials and statements - No requirement to interfere when order is based on proper appreciation of evidence.
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - Ingredients to be established - Mere allegation of abuse without corroborative evidence or physical injury records - Suicide alone cannot lead to inference of abetment - Necessity of clinching materials to prove offence.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s son committed suicide by hanging. The petitioner alleged that the respondents (including police and relatives of the son's partner) physically and verbally abused the son, leading to suicide. A complaint filed for an offence under Section 306 IPC resulted in a 'Further Action Drop' report twice. The Magistrate dismissed the petitioner’s protest petition finding no prima facie case, specifically noting the absence of external injuries on the deceased, and this order is challenged in revision.
Findings of Court:
The court held that after a thorough review of the case files and witness statements, there was no evidence of physical or verbal abuse. The absence of external injuries on the deceased contradicted the petitioner's claim of physical assault. The court concluded that mere suspicion or inference is not enough to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate was justified in dismissing the protest petition and refusing to direct further investigation into the complaint of abetment of suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: To establish an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of active abetment. In the absence of physical evidence and credible witness statements indicating abuse, the court cannot interfere with the Magistrate’s finding that no prima facie case existed, even if the death by suicide is established.
Result: Revision dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition, factual background of the suicide, and procedural history of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding the existence of evidence for abetment of suicide. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence, necessity of external injury proof for physical abuse allegations, and standard for section 306 ipc. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
Civil Revision Case filed u/s 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the impugned order in Crl. M.P. No.756 of 2023 in RCS No.65 of 2023 in Crime No.36 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kivelur and direct the 1st respondent to proceed the complaint in Crl. M.P. No.756 of 2023 before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kivelur.
ORDER
Aggrieved over the order of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint in Crl. M.P. No.756/2023 filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 6.7.2023, the present revision has been filed assailing the said order.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the aforesaid complaint are as under :-
It is the case of the petitioner that her son, viz., Aravind Kumar and the 4th respondent herein, viz., Sivanandhani, were in love with each other and due to the persistent pestering of the 4th respondent, the petitioner’s son, since deceased and the 4th respondent, left their village and left their village on 11.1.2022 and went to Nagore and got married, since the parents of the 4th respondent were not willing for the said marriage. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 13.1.2022, respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6 came to the house of the petitioner and assaulted her and her daughter and her daughter, who was physically challenged, was sexually harassed by the 5th and 6th respondent and the said respondents left the place threatening the petitioner and her daughter with dire consequences.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the complaint submitted by her to the law enforcing agency did not evoke any response and contrarily, the Sub Inspector of Police threatened the petitioner favouring the respondents. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 19.1.2022, during night hours, the petitioner’s son, Aravind Kumar and the 4th respondent were dragged to the police station and through the high-handed acts of the 1st respondent, the Mangalsutra tied by the petitioner’s son to the 4th respondent was forcefully removed and the 4th respondent was allowed to go with respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner and her son were abused in filthy language and even demoralised to such an extent so as to contemplate committing suicide.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that due to the inhuman treatment meted out to the petitioner and her son, both physically and mentally by the respondents, in deep mental agony, turmoil and depression, the petitioner’s son, Aravind Kumar committed suicide by hanging himself during the early morning hours of 20.01.2022.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the abetment of the respondents had led to the petitioner’s son committing suicide and, therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint before the 1st respondent against respondents 2 to 6, but instead the 1st respondent registered the case in Crime No.36/2022 u/s 174 Cr.P.C., instead of registering the case u/s 306 IPC. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that the 1st respondent without conducting proper enquiry, urgently and with mala fide motive, prepared Further Action Drop Notice dated 8.3.2022 in RCS No.2/2022 and filed the same before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagapattinam.
6. It is the further averment of the petitioner that protest petition was filed by the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagapattinam against RCS No.2/2022 and t
