The absence of clear evidence of instigation to commit suicide precludes conviction under Section 306 IPC while confirming guilt under Section 498A IPC for cruelty.

JUDGMENT

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai, dated 18.04.2017 made in S.C.No.17 of 2015.

2.The appellant is the sole accused, who has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:

The sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

3.The case of prosecution as it appears from the records is that PW1, who is the father of the deceased is a resident of Mullipattikarai Village; The deceased is his daughter, who has been married to the accused before 8 years of the occurrence; the accused was in the habit of consuming alcohol and was harassing the deceased; due to that misunderstanding, the deceased had gone to her father's house and was residing there; the defacto complainant compromised and convinced his daughter and sent her back to the house of accused; on 21.09.2013, at about 8:30 p.m., the deceased called PW1 and told him that the accused had manhandled and tortured her by abusing that she should not live; even before PW1 arrived, at about 12 hours, the deceased had committed suicide in the kitchen.

4.As the charge sheet has been filed and the accused denied his involvement, he was subjected to trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the accused was found guilty under Sections 498(A) and 306 and he was convicted and sentenced as stated supra.

5.Aggrieved over that, the accused has filed this appeal.

6.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no material evidence to prove that the appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide and there is a delay of 6 ½ hours in filing the complaint and registering the FIR; the trial Court has relied on the words of the interested witnesses, without seeking for any corroboration of independent witnesses; the accused himself was not present at the time of occurrence and he had gone to the hospital to attend his mother's treatment, but that was not considered by the trial Court; in various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court it is held that frequent domestic quarrels alone do not constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC, unless there is a clear intentional aid or instigation; the prosecution has not proved before the Court that there was any demand for dowry or cruelty as defined under Section 498(A) IPC, hence the conviction of the accused should be set aside.

7.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that PW1, who is the father of the accused has stated about the unhappiness of his daughter due to the harassing habit of the accused; PW6 has also witnessed the harassment made by the accused to his wife in front of the public; he has stated that he had even pacified the accused, but he did not heed; PW7 also corroborated the same; the son of the deceased was eight years old, who has been examined as PW11 and he has stated that his father was in the habit of manhandling his mother and on the day of occurrence, there was a fight in his family and his mother died. As the events proximating suicide of the deceased will show the active involvement of the accused in abetting the deceased to commit suicide, it is right for the trial Court to fix the guilt against the accused under Sections 498(A) and 306 IPC.

8.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and carefully perused the records.

9.The fact that the deceased, Amsavalli was the wife of the accused is not den