Madras High Court
Selvi vs The State Represented By on 16 November, 2021
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 16.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDRA
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
Selvi ...Appellant
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Suramangalam Police Station,
Salem. ...Respondent
(Cr.No.234/2012)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to set
aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.50 of 2014
dated 25.07.2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
------
JUDGMENT
The criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Salem, in S.C.No.50 of 2014 dated 25.07.2019 finding the appellant guilty for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
the offence under Section 306 of IPC and convicting and sentencing her to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
months.
2 The brief facts of the case is as follows:- P.W.1 who is the
husband of the deceased is the resident of No.30, Kabilar Street, Old
Suramangalam, Salem. P.W.5 Renukadevi is the daughter-in-law of the
deceased and P.W.4 Bharathi is son of the deceased. P.W.4 was running an
unregistered chit and he had suffered loss in the business and thereby he had
borrowed an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh from the appellant after executing a
blank pronote and he had repaid major part of the amount, six months prior to
the occurrence on 03.03.2012, the appellant had gone to the house of the
deceased and had abused and threatened her and P.W.4 had given a complaint
against the appellant, due to which, there was animosity between both
families. While so, on 03.03.2012 at about 12.00 noon when P.W.l husband of
the deceased had come back home, the deceased Chinnaponnu and P.W.5
were at home and they had informed that the accused had come to their house
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
and had threatened them saying how dare they have given complaint against
her after receiving money from her and that she will fill the blank pronote
given by her son for a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs and would file a case against
them and send them all to jail and she also threatened she will bring hirelings
and ransack their house and further harassed them saying that it is better for
all of them in their family to die. The appellant had further abused them in
front of several other persons and had humiliated the deceased, due to which,
the deceased at around 2.00 p.m. on the same day, committed suicide by
consuming potion made of oleander seeds.
3 The respondent based on the complaint given on the same day i.e.
03.03.2012 by P.W.1 husband of the deceased, registered a case in
Cr.No.234/2012 under Section 174 Cr.PC. During the course of investigation
the case was altered to one under Section 306 IPC. The respondent after
completing investigation filed a final report before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Salem. The case was taken up on file in P.R.C.No.32 of
2013 and finding that the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the
learned Judicial Magistrate after furnishing copies to the accused under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the learned Principal District and
Sessions Court Salem, and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Salem, taken the case on file in S.C.No.50 of 2014 and made over the same to
the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem for trial. The Trial Court,
after perusing the materials available on record framed charges against the
appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
4 To substantiate the charges, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1
to P.W.13 were examined and Exs.P1 to 11 were marked and no material
object was exhibited. After completing examination of prosecution witnesses,
the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. based on the
incriminating materials, for which, the appellant/accused denied the same and
pleaded not guilty. On the side of the accused, she examined herself as D.W. 1
and no documentary evidence was marked. The Trial Court, after analysing
the materials available on record and after hearing both the learned counsel,
found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC
and convicted her accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
5 Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
Trial Court, the appellant is now before this Court with the present criminal
appeal.
6 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the case of the prosecution is filled with contradictions, inconsistencies,
exaggerations and embellishments. There is no direct eye witness to the facts
and occurrence that the accused had abetted the victim to commit suicide.
The Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant without there being any
positive evidence to show that the appellant abetted the deceased to commit
suicide. In order to prove the charge against the accused, prosecution is bound
to prove the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of IPC. In order to hold
the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, prosecution is
bound to prove that there was intention of the accused to aid or instigate or
abet the deceased to commit suicide and the prosecution is bound to establish
that the accused had mens rea. The learned counsel would further submit that
even though prosecution has examined several witnesses, they are only
hearsay witnesses and they could not have witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
husband of the deceased is only a hearsay witness and he has not seen the
occurrence. Even though P.W.5 one Renuka had deposed that she was present
at the scene of occurrence, taking into consideration of the evidence of P.W.1,
the husband of the deceased, her presence, at the time of occurrence, is highly
doubtful. The learned counsel would further submit that it is the admitted case
of the prosecution witnesses that P.W.4/Bharathi son of the deceased had
conducted chit and suffered loss and due to which, he had borrowed money
from several persons and there were several disputes with regard to the same.
The learned counsel would further submit that the complaint has been
preferred after much deliberation and though the deceased is stated to have
died on 03.03.2012 at 2.00 p.m., the complaint had been given to the
respondent only at 19.45 hours and further the complaint has reached the
Court only on 31.01.2013, after about 10months and there is no explanation
for the delay.
6.1 The learned counsel would further submit that it is the case of the
prosecution that the deceased and her son had borrowed money from the
appellant and had failed to repay the amount on account of which the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
appellant is alleged to have abused the deceased and insulted and humiliated
her with filthy language. He would further submit that insulting the deceased
by using abusive language will not by itself constitute an abetment of suicide
and there should be a concrete evidence capable of suggesting that the
accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
Assuming without admitting the act of the accused, however insulting the
deceased by using abusive language will not by itself constitute abetment of
suicide. The prosecution is bound to prove that the accused had mens rea. A
person who is alleged to have given money to another person will not expect
or want the person who has borrowed money to die. Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, the accused cannot be
convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
6.2 In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant
relied on the following judgments:
1. M.Arjunan Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 2019 3
SCC 315
2. V.Venkataraman vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in
(2015)3 MLJ (Crl) 669.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
3. Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 200
7 Mr.E.Raj Tilak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent would submit that it is the case of the
prosecution that the son of the deceased had borrowed money from the
appellant and since he was unable to repay the same, the appellant had
harassed the family members of the deceased due to which, they have given a
complaint to the Police prior to the occurrence. Coming to know about the
complaint, the appellant had gone to the house of the deceased and had
abused and humiliated the victim and her family using vulgar language and
thereby abetted the deceased to commit suicide, due to which, the deceased
committed suicide by consuming potion made of oleander seeds. He would
further submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable
doubts and hence would pray to dismiss the appeal.
8 Heard Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent and carefully perused the materials available on
record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
9 The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the evidence of the
witnesses:
(i) PW1 is the husband of the deceased is the informant in this case,
he had deposed that he is residing at Door No.30, Kabilar Street, Old
Suramangalam and his wife name is Chinnaponnu and he got 2 sons and 3
daughters, he was running tiffin centre. He knows the accused, his son
Barathi was running a private chit due to which he ran into loss and severe
debts and they were running the family with great difficulty. He further
deposed that they had received loan of Rs.1lakh from the accused and they
were paying interest, since the accused had demanded meter interest they
were unable to repay the amount and they had not paid the interest for
6months. The accused had abused and threatened them and unable to bear
the humiliation, they had given a complaint against the accused to the
officials. On 03.03.2012, when his wife was alone at home, the accused had
come to their house and had abused his wife and humiliated his wife, she had
threatened his wife saying how dare she would give a complaint against them,
after taking money from her and threatened that she will fill the empty pronote
for Rs.15lakhs and file a case against her. When he had came back home he
had seen his wife lying down with shivering, when he had enquired her, she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
had told him that the accused had spoken ill of her and had humiliated her
and had informed him, there is no purpose in living, he had consoled his wife
and asked her not to cry. His wife had told him that she is going to bathroom
and she did not come back. Since she did not return, he had gone there and
opened the bathroom and found oleander seeds. When he had enquired her
she had told him that unable to bear the humiliation of the accused, she had
done so. Later he had attempted to give water to her and she was unable to
drink and he had found her dead. He had further deposed that it was 2.00pm
and they went to the police station at 7.45pm and preferred the
complaint/Ex.P1.
(ii) P.W.2 is a relative of P.W.1 and she had deposed that the
deceased is her husband's aunt and that family of the deceased had taken loan
of Rs.1.00 lakh from the accused and that since they were unable to repay the
loan, the accused had gone to the house of the deceased and abused her, due
to which, the deceased had consumed potion made of oleander seeds and was
lying unconsciously in the bathroom and she was aware of the accused having
spoken ill of her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
(iii) P.W.3 is yet another relative of the deceased and she had deposed
that on 03.02.2012 at about 12.00 noon the accused had gone to the house of
the deceased and abused her and that around 2.00 p.m. the son of the
deceased called her saying that his mother was lying unconscious and when
she gone there, she had seen the relatives of the deceased lifting her from the
bathroom and keeping her in the room and the person nearby have told that
the victim was already dead. She had seen oleander seeds in the bathroom.
She had further deposed that since the accused had threatened the deceased
that she will file a case against her and her family members for recovery of
Rs.15.00 lakhs, the deceased had committed suicide. In her cross
examination, she had stated that the son of the deceased P.W.4/Bharathi was
running a chit fund in Salem and he was running chit to the tune of
Rs.30,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1.00 lakh and he stayed at his in-law's house
at Tiruchengode and she knows the accused. P.W.4 had been conducting chit
for 7 to 8 years and he was also working as Electrician. She had further stated
that 20 to 30 persons have subscribed the chit run by the husband of the
deceased and that those persons used to demand money from the deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
(iv) P.W.4 is the son of the deceased and he had deposed that he had
been running chit business from the year 2004 for about 5 or 6 years and he
had suffered loss and he had borrowed money from the accused after
executing a pronote and paid interest more than the principal and he was
unable to pay the interest and six months prior to the present occurrence, the
appellant/accused had come to his house and had abused him with filthy
language and unable to bear the harassment, he had sent a petition to the
Chief Minister's Special Cell, the District Collector, the Commissioner, the
Superintendent of Police, Assistant Commissioner, Sooriyamangalam and to
the Inspector of Police. Further, he had deposed that he had also given
complaint to the District Collector in person and that on the date of occurrence
in the morning the accused was summoned by the Assistant Commissioner's
Office for enquiry and on the day he heard that the accused had come to their
house and had abused his mother and his sister-in-law and threatened them
saying that she would file a case based on the blank pronote by filling the
same for Rs.15.00 lakhs through her relative Advocate Tamilselvi and unable
to bear the harassment and humiliation, his mother had consumed potion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
made of oleander seeds and committed suicide. In his cross examination, he
had admitted that during the year 2007, the accused and her husband had
subscribed Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- chit run by him and he had repaid the
amount to them. He had further deposed that he suffered loss in the chit and
he had borrowed an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh from the accused. He had further
in his cross examination admitted that he was living at Tiruchengode.
(v) P.W.5 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She had deposed
that her mother-in-law was living with her and the accused was living in the
next street. She had further deposed that her brother-in-law Bharathi/P.W.4
had borrowed an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh from the accused and he had been
paying the interest regularly and they paid interest more than the principal
amount and at one occasion they were unable to pay the interest in time. On
03.03.2012 at 12.00 p.m. the accused had come to their house and abused her
family members and her mother-in-law unable to bear the harassment had
consumed potion made of oleander seeds and committed suicide. In her cross
examination, she had deposed that her brother-in-law/P.W.4 had gone to his
in-law's house four years back and he and his wife had come home coming to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
know of the death of her mother-in-law. She further deposed that she was
present along with her mother-in-law and on her information P.W.1/her father-
in-law had given the complaint.
(vi) P.W.6 Lakshmi is neighbour of the deceased she had deposed that
she knows the accused and on 03.03.2012, when she had gone to the house of
the deceased, she had seen the accused abusing the deceased with filthy
language and she had returned back home and since she was having pressure
she took tablet and was lying down and after some time, she heard some noise
and she heard that the victim had consumed the potion made of oleander
seeds.
(vii) P.W.7 is the Mahazar witness and he had deposed that on
03.03.2012 when he was standing in front of the house, the respondent
prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P2.
(viii) P.W.8 is another son of the deceased and he had deposed that on
03.03.2012 he had gone to work and he had come back to his house for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
taking lunch and at that time P.W.5 his wife had informed him that the
accused had come to their house and abused family members filthily and he
had taken food and his wife informed that his mother was sleeping in the
room and that after having food he had gone to the Bathroom, where he had
seen his mother lying unconscious and when he lifted his mother, he had
found his mother lying dead and that he had seen oleander seeds and
thereafter, he along with his father had gone to the Police Station and given
the complaint.
(ix) P.W.9 is a relative of the deceased and he had deposed that P.W.4
was running a chit business and he suffered loss and borrowed an amount of
Rs.1.00 lakh from the accused and repaid the interest and that since time was
bad for P.W.4, he had gone and stayed in his mother-in-law's house at
Tiruchengode and that on 03.03.2012 he had gone out for work. He had
further deposed that the accused had earlier 2 or 3 times threatened P.W.4 to
repay the debt and that P.W.4 had given the complaint against the accused
before the Soormanagalam Police Station and he came to know that on
03.03.2012, the accused had come to the house of the deceased and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
threatened her saying that she would fill the blank pronote and file a case
against her and her family members. He had further deposed that the accused
had also abused the deceased and her family members, due to which she had
committed suicide by consuming poison and he came to know about the same
when he had come back home for lunch.
(x) P.W.10 is the Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent Police
Station. He has deposed that on 03.03.2012 at 12.00 noon when he was in the
Police Station, P.W.1 had given a complaint/Ex.P1 based on which he had
registered a case in Crime No.234 of 2012 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.P3/FIR. He had later forwarded the FIR to the RDO and the copies to the
higher authorities and thereafter he had taken the body of the deceased to
Government Hospital, Salem, and given request Ex.P4 for conducting autopsy
and the report sent along with the body was marked as Ex.P5. On
04.03.2012, inquest was conducted in presence of the witnesses and the
report was marked as Ex.P6. Thereafter he had gone to the scene of
occurrence and prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P2 and rough sketch/Ex.P7
and thereafter examined the witnesses and he came to know that the victim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
committed suicide, since the accused had threatened to register a case based
on the blank pronote and the victim being humiliated had committed suicide
by consuming potion made of oleander seeds and he has altered the section to
306 IPC and sent the alteration report/Ex.P8 to the Court. He had further
deposed that he had arrested the accused on 05.03.2012 and sent her to
remand. P.W.10 in his cross examination has deposed that there was no
reference in the CD file for having sent the FIR to RDO.
(xi) P.W.11 is the Inspector of Police and he had deposed that the
Sub Inspector of Police has registered the case and had conducted the
preliminary enquiry and handed over the file on 05.03.2012 for further
investigation. On 05.03.2012 at 6.00 a.m. he had gone to the place of
occurrence and on the same day at about 10.30 a.m. he arrested the accused
and sent her for remand.
(xii) P.W.12 is the Doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the body of
the deceased and he had deposed that he conducted autopsy on the body of
the deceased on 04.03.2012 at 10.00 a.m. and no external injuries were found
and nails of the deceased were found to be blue in colour and he had found
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
110 ml of greenish fluid in the intestine and he had given an opinion that the
deceased would appear to have died of effects of oleander poisoning. Post-
mortem report was marked as Ex.P9, viscera report was marked as Ex.P10
and the final opinion was marked as Ex.P11.
(xiii) P.W.13 is the Inspector of Police who has conducted further
investigation in this case and filed charge sheet before the Trial Court.
10 During questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused had
denied the charges and she had examined herself as D.W.1. She had deposed
that she has three children and she was doing milk vending business and she
had denied having given loan to the family of the deceased and having
threatened the family members of the deceased.
11 After hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, the
Trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused.
12 Now what is to be seen is whether the prosecution has proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt and whether the Trial Court is right in finding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
the appellant guilty and convicting her.
13 Before analysing the evidence in this case, this Court deems it
necessary to refer to the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the
appellant with regard to the law regarding abetment to suicide :-
(a). In M.Arjunan vs. The State of Tamilnadu reported in 2019 3
SCC 315, the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
“8. The essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 306 Indian Penal Code are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the
intention of the Accused to aid or instigate or abet the
deceased to commit suicide. 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 suggesting that the Accused intended by
such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless
the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are
satisfied, Accused cannot be convicted Under Section 306
Indian Penal Code. “
(b). In V.Venkataraman vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in (2015)3
MLJ (Crl) 669, this Court has held as under:
“31. The scope of Section 306 IPC has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
elaborately considered by this Court in MANI v. INSPECTOR
OF POLICE, GUINDY POLICE STATION, CHENNAI (supra).
32. It is relevant to note the following from 'MANI v.
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GUINDY POLICE STATION,
CHENNAI (supra).
"16. In the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Chapter XIV, in
Section 306 I.P.C. 'abetment of suicide' has been made an
offence.
17. Section 306 I.P.C. runs 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. The twin requirements for an offence under section 306
I.P.C. are (1) Suicide and (2) Abetment to commit suicide.
19. = = = = = = = =
20. = = = = = = = =
21. = = = = = = = =
22. = = = = = = = =
23. In Section 306 I.P.C., the word 'abetment' has not been
defined or explained. In Concise Oxford English Dictionary
(XI Edition 2004), 'Abetment' (Abet, Abets, Abetting, Abetted,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
Abettor) has been explained as 'encourage or assist
(someone) to do something wrong in particular to do crime'.
24. In Indian Penal Code, in Chapter V (Abetment), in
Section 107 'abetment of a thing' has been explained. Though
the word 'abetment' has not been defined in section 306
I.P.C., to understand its meaning, we can refer to section 107
I.P.C.
25. Section 107 I.P.C. runs as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing 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.
Explanation 1:-- A person who, by willful misrepresentation,
or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound
to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.'
Explanation: Whoever either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that thing."
26. It is seen that in statutorily explaining the word
'abetment' (See section 107 I.P.C.) what the word abetment
connotes in general English has been kept in view.
27. In RATTANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL'S 'commentaries on the
Indian Penal Code' (32nd Edition) (2010), at page 1735-
1736, 'abetment', has been commented as under:
''2 Abetting Suicide
The gravamen of the offence punishable u/s. 306 I.P.C. is
abetting suicide. Section 107, I.P.C. defines abetment as
comprising:
(a) instigation to commit the offence;
(b) engaging in conspiracy to commit the offence, and
(c) aiding the commission of an offence. Abetment thus
necessarily means some active suggestion or support to the
commission of the offence. The word 'instigate' literally
means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to
do an act and a person is said to instigate another when he
actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means,
or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of
express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or
encouragement. It is also not necessary that the instigation
should be only in words and may not be conduct."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
28. In RANDHIR SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF
PUNJAB (AIR 2004 SC 5097) : (2004) 13 SCC 129,the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person
or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In
case of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process
of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More
active role which can be described as instigating or aiding
the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said
to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306
IPC."
29. In RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AIR
2001 SC 3837 : (2001) 9 SCC 618): LNIND 2001 SC 2368,,
'instigation' has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex court as
under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must
be used to that effect. or what constitutes instigation must
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence.
Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. the present one is not a case where
the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued
course of conduct created such circumstances that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
deceased was left with no other option except to commit
suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred.
A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said
to be instigation."
30. In S.S. CHHEENA v. VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN &
ANOTHER (2010) 12 SCC 190: LNIND 2010 SC 746 : (2011)
1 MLJ (Crl) 547, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:
"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 Section 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."
31. In AMALENDU PAL @ JHANTU v. STATE OF WEST
BENGAL AIR 2010 SC 512 : (2010) 1 SCC 707 : LNIND 2009
SC 1978 : (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl) 109,, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has opined as under:
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section
306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence
adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and
harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no
other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be
borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide
there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to
the commission of suicide. 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 let
or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in
terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.''
32. In VIJAY KUMAR RASTOGI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(2012) CRI. L.J. 2342 : LNIND 2012 RAJ 9 the Rajasthan
High Court observed as under:
"10 The word 'urge' means to advice or try hard to persuade
somebody to do something, to make a person to move more
quickly or in a particular direction, specially by pushing or
forcing such person. Therefore, a person instigating another
has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
In order to prove abetment, it must be shown that the accused
kept on urging or annoying the deceased by words, taunts or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
willful omission or conduct which may even be willful silence,
until the deceased reacted, or pushing the deceased by his
words or willful omission or conduct to make the deceased
move forward more quickly in a forward direction. Secondly,
the accused had the intention to provoke or urge or
encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the
manner noted above. Undoubtedly the presence of mens rea
is the necessary concomitant of instigation."
33. In VIJAY KUMAR RASTOGI V. State of Rajasthan
(supra), it was also observed as under:
"13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section
306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the person who is said to
have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an
active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to
facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of
abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be
proved and established by the prosecution before he could be
convicted under Section 306 IPC.
34. The offence of abetment requires 'mens rea' (guilty mind).
There must be intentional doing/aiding or goading the
commission of suicide by another. Otherwise, even a mere
casual remark, something said in routine and usual
conversation will be wrongly construed or misunderstood as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
'abetment'.
35. In GANGULA MOHAN REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. AIR
2010 SC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (Crl.) 917 :LNIND 2010 SC 3 :
(2010) 2 MLJ (Crl)410, it was held that to attract section 306
I.P.C., there must be clear 'mens rea' to commit offence.
36. In CHITRESH KUMAR CHOPRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF
NCT OF DELHI AIR 2010 SC 14 : (2010)3 SCC (CRI.) 367):
LNIND 2009 SC 1663 : (2010) 1 MLJ (Crl) 143, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court opined as under:
"This court had an occasion to deal with this aspect of
abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the
word "instigation" and "goading". The court opined that
there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the
doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability
pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own
idea of self- esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is
impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing
with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of
its own facts and circumstances."
37. In M. MOHAN v. D.S.P., KARAIKUDI AIR 2011 SC 1238 :
(2011) 3 SCC 626) : LNIND 2011 SC 246 : (2011) 4 MLJ
(Crl) 273 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate
or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
45. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this court are clear that in order to convict a
person under section 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 this act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
38. In STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ORILAL JAISWAL AIR
1994 SC 1418 : (1994) SCC (CRI.) 107) : LNIND 1993 SC
772 : (1994) 1 MLJ (Crl) 187, the Hon'ble Apex Court
cautioned as under:
''The Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts
and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in
the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted
out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by
committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim
committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and difference in domestic life, quite common to the
society, to which the victim belonged and such petulance,
discord and difference were not expected to induce a
similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
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."
39. Generally, the person who commits suicide used to/liked
to leave a suicide note naming certain person as responsible
for his committing suicide. Merely because a person has been
so named in the suicide note we are not to immediately jump
to the conclusion that he is an offender under section 306
I.P.C.
40. The contents of the suicide note and other attending
circumstances have to be examined to find out whether it is
abetment within the meaning of section 306 I.P.C. read with
section 107 I.P.C. There may be a case where in the suicide
note victim had named a person, who is responsible for his
committing suicide, but, on proper analysis, section 306 I.P.C.
may not be attracted to him.
41. Recently, in RAJAMANNAR v. STATE REP. BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SEVVAPET, POLICE STATION,
THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT (Crl. O.P. No. 8230/2014 dated
3.4.2014) A-2 introduced A-1 to the deceased as a person
who will get railway jobs for money. Relying on this, the
deceased collected money from many and gave it to A-1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
Ultimately, A-1 cheated him. The job seekers pressurised the
deceased to return their money. Under these circumstances,
the deceased and his family members have committed suicide
and the deceased left a suicide note that A-2 is responsible
for their death. A-2 was arrested for an offence under section
306 I.P.C.
42. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, this Court
came to the conclusion that prima facie section 306 I.P.C. is
not attracted towards A-2 and observed as under:
"7. On reading the entire suicide note from the beginning to
end, it is seen that A-1 duped Sugumar, who received money
from many persons. They have asked him and humiliated him.
Unable to bear this humiliation, Sugumar committed suicide.
8. For an offence under Section 306 IPC, there are twin
requirements, namely, suicide and abetment to commit
suicide. No need to explain what is suicide. But what is
abetment has to be understood. It is not stated in Section 306
IPC. It is 'instigation', 'provocation', compelling a person to
do certain things or not to do certain things. This may be by
words, deeds or writing or even by signs. May be humiliation,
degrading a person in the presence of others. The act must be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
such that it must force, desire, compel a person to take the
extreme decision. But, it must be a positive act. Thus, the act
alleged to have committed on the part of the accused must
have played a key role for the victim to take a decision to
commit suicide.
9. If a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student
commits suicide because of his poor performance in the
examination, a client commits suicide because his case is
dismissed, the lady, examiner, lawyer respectively cannot be
held to have abetted the commission of suicide. For the
wrong decision taken by a coward, fool, idiot, a man of weak
mentality, a man of frail mentality, another person cannot be
blamed as having abetted his committing suicide. Now, in this
case, the suicide note shows that unable to bear the
humiliation given by the job seekers, Sugumar committed
suicide. For this, petitioner cannot be blamed. Further, no act
or deed in the nature of a positive act forced Sugumar and
his family members emanated from the petitioner to force
them to commit suicide. The conclusion would be Sugumar
died like a coward. Instead of protecting the family, he
perished like an unsuccessful man in life foolishly he also
took along with him his other family members also. For this,
how can the petitioner be directly blamed."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
43. If a person makes an ordinary joke or a casual remark in
routine course of ordinary life and when the victim commits
suicide, that will not attract section 306 I.P.C. The
circumstances under which the incriminating words spoken
and the type and nature of the victim have also to be
considered. Some positive act must have emanated from the
accused towards the victim. And should be in the nature of
forcing or urging the victim to take the extreme decision. If
nothing had came from the accused, the accused cannot be
blamed for the extreme decision taken by the victim.
44. Simple abuses are not sufficient to provoke the victim to
commit suicide. It will not attract section 306 I.P.C. Simply
because the lender has demanded repayment of his money, if
the debtor commits suicide the creditor cannot be said to
have abetted his suicide. Section 306 I.P.C. is not attracted
towards him.
45. Mere reprimanding does not amount to instigation. The
words stated in a fit of anger will not amount to abetment.
Casual remark of husband towards his wife in the ordinary
course of life will not amount to abetment to commit suicide.
Because they did not say so with any mens rea. (see SWAMY
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
PRAHALDAS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1995 Suppl.
(3) SCC 438).
46. In NARESH MAROTRAO v. UNION OF INDIA ( 1995
Crl.L.J. (Bom :LNIND 1994 BOM 465, the deceased poured
kerosene on her body and set fire to herself in the presence of
the accused. But the accused did not do anything, he did not
put off the fire and saved the deceased. It was held that the
accused cannot be held liable under section 306 I.P.C. read
with 107 I.P.C. and he has not committed any offence at all.
47. Sometimes, the decision to commit suicide might be taken
by the victim himself/herself, unaccompanied by any act or
instigation etc. on the part of the accused. A person may die
like a coward. On his failure in the examination, a student
may commit suicide. They are weak minded. They are persons
of frail mentality. For their foolish mentality/decision,
another person cannot be blamed."
(c). In Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2020) 10
SCC 200, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
16. The necessary ingredients for the offence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
under section 306 IPC was considered in the case SS
Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan1 where explaining the
concept of abetment, Justice Dalveer Bhandari wrote as
under:-
“25. 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 this Court is clear that in
order to convict a person under Section 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.”
17. While dealing with a case of abetment of suicide
in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal2, Dr.
Justice M.K. Sharma writing for the Division Bench
explained the parameters of Section 306 IPC in the
following terms:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also
assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim
had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an
end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or
indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
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.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview
of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in
the commission of the said offence, the person who is said
to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played
an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain
act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act
of abetment by the person charged with the said offence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
must be proved and established by the prosecution before
he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
18. In the case Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana3,
which again was a case of wife’s unnatural death, speaking
for the Division Bench, Justice K.S.P. Radhakrishnanan
rightly observed as under:-
“24. We find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning
of the High Court that “no prudent man is to commit
suicide unless abetted to do so”. A woman may attempt to
commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression,
financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of
domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and
need not be due to abetment. The reasoning of the High
Court that no prudent man will commit suicide unless
abetted to do so by someone else, is a perverse reasoning.”
14 P.W.1 husband of the deceased had deposed that on the date of
occurrence (i.e. on 13.03.2012) he came to know from his wife that when she
was alone in the house, the appellant/accused had come to his house and
threatened his wife and his wife had told that there is no useful purpose for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
her to live and he has consoled her and his wife had gone to bathroom and she
did not come back and when he went to bathroom he had had seen his wife
lying unconscious inside the bathroom having consumed mixture made of
oleander seeds. As per the evidence of P.W.1, except him, no one was else
present in the house and he has not referred about the presence of
P.W.5/Renuka. He is also a hearsay witness with regard to the occurrence. He
has not stated anything about the alleged words spoken by the
appellant/accused. The evidence of other witnesses are also in the nature of
hearsay evidence and none of them have personally witnessed the alleged
abusive words used by the appellant/accused. Even assuming it to be true, the
appellant/accused had used abusive language against the deceased humiliating
her, such act by itself would not constitute the offence of abetment of suicide.
Further, on scrutinising the entire evidence on record, there is nothing to
suggest that the accused had mens rea and she intended by such act of
instigating the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be
found guilty and convicted under Section 306 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
15 Having scrupulously assessed the evidence on record and having
examined the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm
opinion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable
doubt and the trial Court had erred in convicting the appellant. The appellant
is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
16 Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction
and sentence passed in S.C.No.50 of 2014 dated 25.07.2019 by the learned
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, is set aside. The appellant/accused is
acquitted from the charges tried in the above sessions case and bail bond, if
any, executed by the appellant/accused shall stand cancelled.
16.11.2021
cgi/ tsh
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non speaking order
To
1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.
2. The Inspector of Police, Suramangalam Police Station, Salem.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDRA
cgi/ tsh
Crl.A.No.516 of 2019
16.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
