[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Murukan vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2025
2025:KER:95998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 263 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.01.2018 IN Crl.A NO.30 OF
2015 OF SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 17.01.2015 IN SC NO.121 OF 2009 OF COURT, ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
1 MURUKAN
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SASI, SEA KING HOUSE,
POTHAPPALLY VADAKKUM MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE
FROM KUNNUTHARAYIL VEEDU,VADAKKUM MURI,
KARUVATTA VILLAGE
2 SAVITHA
AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.MURUKAN, SEA KING HOUSE,
POTHAPPALLY VADAKKUM MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE
FROM KUNNUTHARAYIL VEEDU, VADAKKUM MURI,
KARUVATTA VILLAGE
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.KISHORE
SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HARIPPADU POLICE STATION,
ALAPUZHA DISTRICT, 690514
BY SMT. MAYA M.N - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 27.11.2025, THE COURT ON 11.12.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.263 of 2018 2
"C.R"
M.B.SNEHALATHA, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.263 of 2018
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th December, 2025
ORDER
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 Section 306
r/w 34 IPC. 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
Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC 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 it was contended that in Ext.P2 suicide note,
allegedly written by the deceased, there is nothing to suggest that the
accused were responsible for the death of Sasidharan and therefore, the
trial court and the appellate court went wrong in finding them guilty by
relying on Ext.P2. It was further contended that PW1, PW6 and PW7
were in inimical terms with A1 and A2 and therefore their versions
implicating the accused are not reliable and trustworthy. It was
contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that
there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the accused abetted
Sasidharan to commit suicide and there was no intentional aid, act or
commission on the part of the accused in instigating the deceased to
commit suicide and therefore the trial court and the appellate court went
wrong in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 IPC.
9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
contended that the trial court and the appellate court have analysed the
evidence in its correct perspective; that Ext.P2 suicide note of the
deceased Sasidharan coupled with the evidence tendered by the
prosecution witnesses, would clearly show that the accused physically
and mentally tortured and humiliated deceased Sasidharan, causing
great mental agony and pain to Sasidharan and drove him to commit
suicide. It was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the
accused intentionally aided and instigated Sasidharan to commit suicide
by physically and mentally harassing him and thus abetted him in
committing suicide and therefore, the conviction and sentence against
the accused warrant no interference by this Court.
10. The point for consideration is whether the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused for the offence
under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC warrants any interference by this Court.
11. Accused 1 and 2 are husband and wife. As per the
prosecution case, the deceased Sasidharan who is the father of A2
Savitha, committed suicide in between 5.30 pm of 16.7.2008 and 11.30
am of 17.7.2008 in his family house named Unnitharayil House situated
in Pothappalli South Muri, Kumarapuram Village. He was found hanging
in one of the rooms in the said house. Ext.P4 is the inquest report.
Ext.P3 is the postmortem certificate. In Ext.P3 postmortem certificate,
PW2 doctor who conducted the postmortem, has opined that death was
due to hanging. Further, it has been opined that the deceased had
consumed poison prior to death.
12. According to the prosecution, Sasidharan committed
suicide due to the physical and mental harassment and humiliation faced
by him from the accused 1 and 2, who are his son-in-law and daughter
and the accused abetted the commission of suicide by Sasidharan. In
support of the prosecution case that the accused abetted him to
commit suicide, the prosecution placed reliance on the versions of PW1,
6 and 7 and Ext.P2, Exts.P7, P8 and P8(a) documents.
13. PW1 is the brother of the deceased Sasidharan. According
to him, it was he who laid Ext.P1 first information statement, based on
which Ext.P5 FIR was registered. His version is that on 17.7.2008, while
he was on his way to Haripad, he received a phone call from the
husband of PW6 Smitha that his brother Sasidharan committed suicide in
the tharavad house named 'Unnitharayil house'. When he rushed there,
he could see his brother hanging in one of the rooms in the said house.
PW1 has further testified that prior to hanging himself, Sasidharan had
cut the veins of both hands. According to him, Ext.P2 suicide note was
seen kept on the table; that in Ext.P2 suicide note, Sasidharan had
stated that the accused Murukan (A1) and Savitha (A2) are responsible
for his death and his dead body shall not be shown to them. According
to PW1, up to seven months prior to the death of his brother Sasidharan,
the latter was residing in the house of A2 Savitha; that seven months
prior to the death of Sasidharan, A1 and A2 ousted Sasidharan from the
said house and from the business run in the shop rooms, which caused
great mental agony to the deceased. PW1 has further testified that on
6.7.2008 at about 5 pm, there was an attempt of mediation at the house
of A1 and A2 qua the disputes; that in the said mediation talk, the
siblings and the daughters of Sasidharan including the accused had
participated; that on that day, accused again quarrelled with deceased
Sasidharan and A1 Murukan pushed him down and Sasidharan was
taken to the hospital. According to PW1, his brother Sasidharan
committed suicide due to the mental agony suffered by him on account
of the fact that accused ousted him from the house and shop, which was
originally owned by Sasidharan and which he himself transferred in
favour of A2 Savitha. According to PW1, regarding the unnatural death
of his brother, he laid Ext.P1 first information statement to the Police.
He has further testified that the police had seized Ext.P2 suicide note
from the room wherein the deceased was found hanging.
14. PW6 is the elder daughter of the deceased Sasidharan.
According to her, A1 and A2 ousted Sasidharan from the house and the
shop and thereafter her father was residing with her. She has further
testified that in December 2006, after the marriage between A1 and A2,
her father gave the house named 'Seaking house' to A2 Savitha. In
addition to that, two shop rooms owned by him were also transferred in
the name of A2 Savitha, wherein Sasidharan was conducting a bakery
and wholesale business in groceries. According to PW6, the major
portion of the property of Sasidharan was given to A2 Savitha with the
hope, belief and understanding that A2 Savitha and her husband
Murukan (A1) will look after and take care of Sasidharan. But the
accused mentally and physically harassed Sasidharan and ousted him
from the house and also from the business run in the shop rooms. Her
further version is that on 06.07.2008 when she and her husband, her
sister Saritha and her husband, along with the siblings of Sasidharan,
had gone to the house of accused to discuss about the issue, accused
pushed her father Sasidharan to the ground and Sasidharan had to be
taken to the hospital. Again on 15.07.2008 they had again gone to the
house of accused to have another round of mediation talks. On that day
also, accused refused to permit Sasidharan to reside in the said house.
PW6 has further stated that on 15.07.2008 accused humiliated
Sasidharan by saying "എതയ നല മനഷ ർ ച കന. ഇത ന ച കതമലയല .
എവത ത ങല യ ചതക യ ". She has also testified that her father
had told her that on 8.7.2008, the brother of A1 Murukan intimidated
him. According to PW6, her father committed suicide due to the ill
treatment and unbearable mental agony caused by accused. Regarding
the incident which took place on 06.07.2008, A2 Savitha had laid a
complaint before the Haripad Police Station against Sasidharan and
others.
15. PW7 Saritha is the twin sister of A2 Savitha. She too
deposed more or less in the same line as that of PW6. According to her,
in connection with the marriage of A2 Savitha, Sasidharan gave the
family house named 'Seaking house' and two shop rooms to A2. Apart
from that her father also gave a sum of ₹8 lakhs to A2. PW7 has also
testified that the major portion of her father's property was given to A2
Savitha on the specific understanding that A2 would take care of the
father. According to her, earlier the business was being jointly managed
by her father and A1 Murukan. Later on, A1 Murukan ousted Sasidharan
from the business run in the said shops. Her further version is that on
6.7.2008, she along with other relatives had gone to the house of the
accused to have discussions in the said matter and on that day, A1
Murukan caught hold of Sasidharan on his neck and pushed Sasidharan
and he was taken to hospital. Regarding the incident which took place
on 06.07.2008, both Sasidharan and A2 Savitha had complained before
the Haripad Police Station. Subsequently, to resolve the issues, she
along with other relatives had again gone to the house of the accused on
15.7.2008. But the accused Murukan did not permit A2 Savitha to talk
with the father and humiliated him by saying "യ ച കരയ ".
According to her, on that day her father left the house of the accused by
crying. She has further testified that she also came to know that Vishnu
who is the brother-in-law of A1 Murukan intimidated her father.
According to PW7, her father committed suicide due to the mental agony
caused by the accused by ousting him from the house and shop and
thereby accused abetted the commission of suicide by her father. She
would also say that Ext.P2 is the suicide note written by her father.
16. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the accused
had the intention to provoke, incite, urge the deceased to commit
suicide.
17. At this juncture, it is apposite to examine the relevant
statutory provisions and judicial precedents bearing on the issue.
Section 306 IPC reads as under:
306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever
abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
18. Abetment is defined in Section 107 IPC, which reads as under:
"A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order
to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing
of that thing."
19. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC
618] the Apex Court held as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do "an act"."
20. In Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and another,
[(2021) 19 SCC 144], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: -
15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word
'instigate' is to bring about or initiate, incite someone
to do something.
21. In M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Po-
lice, [(2019) 3 SCC 315], the Apex Court observed as under: -
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under
S.306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the ac-
cused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit sui-
cide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased
by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the
abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of sug-
gesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instiga-
tion/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot
be convicted under S.306 IPC."
22. In Ude Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, [(2019) 17
SCC 301], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must
be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the
question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context
of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed
one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of
human behavior and responses / reactions. In the case of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be
looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of
suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by
another person would not suffice unless there be such
action on the part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an offending action
ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether
a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by
another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another; the
consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act
of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and
reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred,
instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed
suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused
is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be
safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by
his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which
leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to
commit suicide, the case may fall within the four - corners
of S.306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in
tarnishing the self -esteem and self - respect of the victim,
which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the
accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The
question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such
cases would be examined with reference to the actual
acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds
are only of such nature where the accused intended
nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a
particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment
of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or
annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the
deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may
be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of
delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is
required to be examined on its own facts, while taking
note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the
actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."
23. In Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025
KHC 6701) the Apex Court held that always a proximate incident or act
prior to suicide is a very relevant aspect in finding the death to be a di-
rect consequence of the acts of the person accused of abetting the sui-
cide.
24. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, [(1994) 1 SCC 73],
the Apex Court held as follows:
"If it transpires to the court that a victim committing
suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences in domestic life quite common to
the society to which the victim belonged and such
petulance, discord and differences were not expected to
induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given
society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court
should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the
accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide
should be found guilty".
25. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), [(2009)
16 SCC 605] the Apex Court observed as follows:
"Different individuals in the same situation react and
behave differently because of the personal meaning
they add to each event, thus accounting for individual
vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability
pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of
mental pain, fear and loss of self - respect. Each of
these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor
to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which
may either be an attempt for self - protection or an es-
capism from intolerable self."
26. In Prakash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
[2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835], the Apex Court held as under:
"14. S.306 read with S.107 of IPC, has been
interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well
- established. To attract the offence of abetment to
suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or
indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by
the accused, which must be in close proximity to the
commission of suicide by the deceased. Such
instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens
rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put
the victim in such a position that he / she would have
no other option but to commit suicide.
27. In M.Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, [(2011) 3 SCC 626] after analyzing a long line
of precedents, the Apex Court held that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence and also an active act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to
push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.
28. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, [(2010) 8 SCC
628] the Apex Court held that in order to bring out an offence under
Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated under Section 107
IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to drive the person to
suicide is required. It was held that the intention of the accused to aid or
to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for
attracting Section 306 IPC.
29. Bearing in mind the above well-settled position of law, as to
what constitutes abetment of suicide, let us see whether the accused
have committed the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
30. PW1, 6 and 7 have testified that it was due to the physical
and mental harassment of the accused that the victim Sasidharan
committed suicide. Their version is that though Sasidharan transferred
the ownership of his house and two shop rooms to the accused, who are
his daughter and son-in-law, the accused ousted him from the house and
from the business run in the said shop room, which caused mental agony
to Sasidharan. It is the further case of the witness that on 6.7.2008,
PW1, 6 and 7, along with the husbands of PW6 and PW7 and siblings of
Sasidharan had reached at the house of the accused to have a
settlement talk. A1 manhandled Sasidharan by pushing him to the
ground and he had laid a petition before the police. To substantiate the
prosecution case that on 06.07.2008 when PW1, PW6 along with other
relatives and Sasidharan had gone to the house of A1 and A2 and
accused pushed down Sasidharan, prosecution has produced Ext.P8(a)
petition register of the Haripad Police Station and marked Ext.P(a) entry
wherein it is seen recorded that on 06.07.2008 Sasidharan laid a petition
before the Sub Inspector of Police, Haripad Police Station, against the
accused herein. It is the case of the prosecution that, subsequent to
6.7.2008 there was another attempt of mediation talk on 15.7.2008 at
the house of accused and on that day accused humiliated Sasidharan.
According to the prosecution, the said insulting and humiliating words of
the accused caused mental pain and agony to Sasidharan, which drove
him to commit suicide. It is the case of the prosecution that in Ext.P2
suicide note Sasidharan has specifically stated that his dead body shall
not be shown to the accused and in Ext.P2, he has also stated that they
shall not be permitted to enter into the Unnitharayil house, namely his
family house, wherein he hanged himself.
31. It is also to be borne in mind that the prosecution did not
take any steps to show that Ext.P2 is the suicide note of the deceased
Sasidharan. No steps were taken by the prosecution to prove his
handwriting and signature. It is a lacuna on the part of the prosecution.
Even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted as true, it can be
seen that in Ext.P2 suicide note, there is no mention that the accused
are responsible for the commission of suicide by Sasidharan. Though
PWs 1, 6 and 7 have testified that in Ext.P2 suicide note Sasidharan has
stated that accused are responsible for his death, a reading of Ext.P2,
one cannot find such a sentence. It is true that in Ext.P2 it has been
stated that his body shall not be shown to the accused. The mere
mention in a suicide note that the dead body shall not be shown to
certain persons it cannot be presumed that they are responsible for the
commission of suicide. What prosecution could establish from the
evidence adduced is only to the effect that there was some property
dispute between the deceased Sasidharan and the accused. The
prosecution could not establish that the accused abetted the commission
of suicide by Sasidharan.
32. In S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr.,
[(2010) 12 SCC 190] and Patel Babubhai Manohardas v. State of Gujarat
(2025 KHC 6221) the Apex Court held that the abetment involves a
mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in
doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the
Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under S.306 IPC
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires
an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
33. The mere allegation of harassment without any positive
action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused
that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of S.306 IPC is
not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in
the ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of
instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the
status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a
situation for the victim to put an end to life.
34. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being
any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of
the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
35. The crucial ingredient of the offence of abetment of
suicide, namely, the element of mens rea in promoting the deceased to
commit suicide, is absent in this case. The evidence on record do not
reveal that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Even
if the version of PW1, 6 and 7 that the accused had stated to Sasidharan
'എവത ത ങല യ ചതക യ " that does not by itself is not a ground to
hold that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
36. There is no proximate incident or act prior to suicide to
establish that the death of Sasidharan was a direct consequence of the
acts of the accused and the accused abetted suicide. At the most, what
can be construed from the sentence in Ext.P2 suicide note that the dead
body shall not be shown to the accused is that deceased Sasidharan had
displeasure and anguish towards A1 and A2. None of the ingredients of
abetment of suicide so as to constitute the offence under Section 306
IPC have been established against the accused by the prosecution and
therefore, the accused are entitled to get an order of acquittal. Hence,
accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section
306 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed; A1 and A2
are found not guilty for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC and
they are acquitted. Their bail bonds stands discharged. Fine, if any
remitted by the accused shall be returned to the accused.
Registry shall transmit the records to the trial court forthwith.
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA,
JUDGE
ab
