Madras High Court
Nagarajan vs State on 29 November, 2021
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
Nagarajan ... Appellant/Sole accused
versus
State
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Kannivadi Police Station,
Dindigul District.
(Cr.No.239 of 2003) ... Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the
Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magalir
Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul, in S.C.No.54 of 2007 on
29.05.2015.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Amicus Curiae
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
The State
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Kannivadi Police Station,
Dindigul District.
(Cr.No.239 of 2003) ... Revision Petitioner
versus
Nagarajan ... Respondent
/ Sole accused
Suo motu Criminal case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C.
seeking to set aside the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magalir
Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul, in S.C.No.54 of 2007 on
29.05.2015, acquitting the accused from the charge punishable under Section
306 IPC.
For Revision
Petitioner : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.54 of 2007 on the file of
the Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul. He was
charged for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
2. The trial Court, in conclusion of trial, by its Judgment dated
29.05.2015, found him not guilty for the offence under Section 306, however,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
found him guilty for the offences under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC,
convicted and sentenced him as follows:
(i) for the offence under Section 354 IPC, to undergo
simple imprisonment for three years and one month and to pay
a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
(ii) for the offence under Section 448 IPC, to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months.
As against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the
appellant preferred this Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015 along
with an application to suspend the sentence pending the appeal. This Court,
while admitting this appeal and also considering the petition for suspension of
sentence, found that the trial Court is erred by acquitting the accused for the
offence under Section 306 IPC. Further, this Court has felt that the evidence
with regard to the offence under Section 306 IPC was not properly appreciated
by the trial Court and therefore, it requires further examination and since the
State has not preferred any appeal as against the Judgment of acquittal for the
offence under Section 306 IPC, this Court directed the Registry to take suo
motu revision, accordingly, the Registry filed a Criminal Revision Case in
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
3. Mr.A.K.Alagarsamy, learned counsel, took notice on behalf of the
appellant and also entered appearance in the suo motu Criminal Revision Case.
4. Since the accused in both the Criminal Appeal and the Criminal
Revision Case is one and the same, both the Criminal Appeal and the Criminal
Revision Case are taken up together.
5. Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, learned counsel, representing
Mr.A.K.Azagarsami, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted
that the suo motu revision is an abuse of process of court and the appellate
Court, while exercising its power under Section 374 Cr.P.C., is not entitled to
take up a case on revisional jurisdiction, which is not vested with the Court at
the relevant point of time.
6. Considering the issue raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant, this Court appointed Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar as an Amicus Curiae to
assist this Court in the Criminal Revision Case.
7. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for considering the
case, are set out as hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
(i) The deceased Mariammal is the daughter-in-law of P.W.2-
Sarasawathi. She had two children, viz., Kavitha and Vanitha. She married
the only son of P.W.2, one Ganesan, as a second marriage. On 11.07.2003, at
late hours, when the deceased Mariammal was rocking the cradle of her 1 ½
year child, the accused, a neighbour, trespassed into the house of the deceased,
hugged her and attempted to rape her. On hearing the noise of the deceased,
P.W.2, mother-in-law of the deceased, woke up and scolded the accused and
therefore, the accused run away from the house of the deceased. P.W.3-
Kalarani, a neighbour, also witnessed the accused coming out of the deceased's
house and scolding of P.W.2 on the accused. Ashamed of this incident, the
deceased was crying and P.W.2 pacified her. But, in the morning, around 5 O'
clock, the deceased and the child were not available in the house. Therefore,
P.W.2 searched for her and enquired with her father as to whether she came to
their house.
(ii) The deceased Mariammal went to a School, where, her elder
daughter Vanitha [P.W.5] was studying in 3rd standard and attempted to take
P.W.5 along with her. But, in the absence of Warden, the Teachers did not
allow P.W.5 to leave the School. Therefore, the deceased along with her 1 ½
year child went to a nearby place and consumed oleander seeds and also
administered poison to her child. P.W.4, while grassing his cattle in the nearby
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
field at Kuivannayakkanpatti, found the deceased and her child lying in the
field and informed the same to P.W.1 – a watchman of Kuivannayakkanpatti
Panchayat. P.W.4 along with P.W.1 went to rescue them, where, they found
that the child was alive and took the child in a bi-cycle to Kannivadi
Government Hospital, where, the child was declared dead. Thereafter, P.W.1
lodged a complaint [Ex.P1] before the Kannivadi Police Station and the same
was registered in Cr.No.239 of 2003 on the file of the Kannivadi Police Station
on 12.07.2003 at about 3.00 p.m.
(iii) P.W.11-Palaniappan, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of
information, proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared a mahazar (Ex.P4)
and rough sketch (Ex.P6) in the presence of P.W.7-Raman and another and
also conducted inquest on the deceased Mariammal and after completing the
inquest, he made a request for postmortem through P.W.9-Head Constable. He
also conducted inquest on the child [Kavitha] and the inquest report of the
deceased is marked as Ex.P8 and he made a request for postmortem on child
[Kavitha] also. P.W.6-Dr.Ashok Babu conducted the postmortem on the
deceased Mariammal and preserved viscera and sent the same for analysis and
reserved his opinion vide Exs.P2 and P3. He also examined P.W.6-Dr.Ashok
Babu. Thereafter, the further investigation was carried out by P.W.12. P.W.12
examined the Doctor and other witnesses and after completing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
investigation, he filed a final report as against the appellant for the offence
under Section 306 IPC on 30.10.2003. The same was taken on file in PRC No.
13/2005 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul and committed to
the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram,
Fast Track Court, Dindigul, framed charges against the accused and examined
the witnesses in S.C.No.54 of 2007.
(iv) During the trial, 12 witnesses were examined and nine
documents were marked. P.W.1 is the Watchman of Kuivannayakkanpatti
Panchayat, who along with P.W.4, found the deceased and her child Kavitha
lying in the field, attempted to rescue the child Kavitha, who was alive and
also lodged a complaint in Ex.P1 before the Kannivadi Police Station. P.W.2
is the mother-in-law of the deceased, who is the witness to the previous day
occurrence, when the accused attempted to outrage the modesty of the
deceased and P.W.3, a neighbour, is the witness to the quarrel between P.W.2
and the accused. P.W.5-Vanitha is the another daughter of the deceased, who
was studying in 3rd standard at the time of occurrence. P.W.6-Dr.Ashok Babu
conducted the postmortem on the deceased Mariammal and her child Kavitha.
P.W.7 is the witness for the observation mahazar and P.W.8 is the brother-in-
law of the deceased Mariammal. P.W.9 is the Head Constable, who has taken
the viscera to the Forensic Department. P.W.10 is a hostile witness. P.W.11 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
the Investigating Officer, who conducted the preliminary investigation and
P.W.12 is the Inspector of Police, who conducted further investigation and file
the final report.
(v) The incriminating materials were put to the accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., but the accused denied the same. In conclusion of trial,
the trial Court found him guilty under Sections 448 and 354 IPC instead of
306 IPC and convicted and sentenced as stated supra. Aggrieved over the
same, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.
8. Heard Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, learned counsel representing
Mr.A.K.Alagusamy, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.M.Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State.
9. Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the prosecution has not established its case beyond any
reasonable doubt. The case of death has also not been established in this case
and final opinion of the Doctor is not marked. In the absence of viscera report
and final opinion of the Doctor, it cannot be concluded that the deceased died
by consuming poison.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
He further submitted that the entire case of the
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
prosecution rests upon the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the fact remains
that the deceased was not having a good relationship with her husband and the
non-examination of the deceased's husband is a material defect in this case.
According to P.W.3, on the previous day, both the deceased Mariammal and
the accused came out of her house and the same was witnessed by P.W.2-
Saraswathi and when P.W.2 questioned the accused, he replied that he came for
the purpose of getting a match box and therefore, it is the P.W.2, who scolded
the deceased, on account of which, the deceased committed suicide.
However, the trial Court, without having any materials, found this appellant
guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 354 IPC.
10. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the evidence of P.W.5-Vanitha would disclose that the deceased was not having
a good relationship with her husband and therefore, P.W.5 was admitted in the
hostel. It is further stated that since P.W.2 scolded the deceased, she had taken
the extreme step, for which, the respondent Police, without ascertaining the
case files, filed the final report in a mechanical manner. He further submitted
that the direction of this Court to take up suo motu Criminal Revision case for
the offence under Section 306 IPC is not proper. Further, the conviction under
Sections 354 and 448 of IPC without a specific charge is liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
11. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the State submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 would disclose
that the accused, a neighbour, trespassed into the house of P.W.2 and attempted
to outrage the modesty of the deceased Mariammal. Since the deceased
Mariammal protested and cried, P.W.2-Saraswathi, the mother-in-law of the
deceased, witnessed the occurrence, scolded the accused and the same was
witnessed by P.W.3 also. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 had made out a
specific case as against the accused that the accused entered into the house of
the deceased in the mid night and intercepted the deceased. P.W.5-daughter of
the deceased, who was studying in 3rd standard, has also stated in her evidence
that around 9.00 a.m. on 12.07.2013, her mother [deceased Mariammal] along
with her sister Kavitha came to her school and requested to come with her, but,
since the School Authorities refused to send her out, her mother [deceased
Mariammal] went alone and took out the extreme step. The accused, on the
previous day night, entered into the house of the deceased and attempted to
rape her, which was witnessed by P.W.3. and on the next day, the deceased had
committed suicide. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
prosecution has established its case sufficiently as against the accused for the
offence under Section 306 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
12. This court paid its anxious consideration on the rival
submissions made.
13. The deceased Mariammal was having two daughters. Her
husband, Mr.Ganesan, is a Drama Artist and he was not present at the time of
occurrence. The deceased Mariammal was living with her mother-in-law
[P.W.2]. On 12.07.2003, in the early morning hours at 01.00 a.m., the accused,
a neighbour, entered into the house of the deceased, hugged her and also
attempted to outrage her modesty and on the protest made by the deceased,
P.W.2 woke up and questioned the accused. The quarrel between P.W.2 and
the accused at odd hours was also witnessed by P.W.3, a neighbour and
consequent to that, the deceased went to a nearby field, consumed oleander
seeds and also administered poison to her child.
14. The respondent Police filed the final report for the offence under
Section 306 IPC and the trial court has also framed charges for the offence
under Section 306 IPC. But, the trial Court found this accused/appellant not
guilty for the offence under Section 306, however, found him guilty for the
offence under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as
stated supra. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been
filed by the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
15. This Court, while considering the matter at the time of
suspending the sentence, directed the Registry to take up suo motu revision
case and accordingly, Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
has been filed.
16. While at the time of arguments, Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian had
taken a stand that this Court does not have the power to initiate suo motu
revision. Therefore, this Court appointed Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned
counsel, as Amicus Curiae in order to assist the Court with regard to the
powers of the High Court to exercise suo motu revision and the conviction of
the accused under Section 354 IPC in the absence of the said charge.
17. With regard to the powers of the High Court to exercise suo
motu revision, the learned Amicus Curiae, by relying upon the Judgments of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nadir Khan vs. the State (Delhi
Administration) reported in 1976 AIR 2205, (ii) Eknath Shankarrao
Mukkawar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1977 AIR 1177, submitted
that the High Court, while exercising its power under Section 374 Cr.P.C., can
also exercise the revisional powers under Section 401 Cr.P.C and that apart,
under Section 399(i) Cr.P.C. can exercise the power of revision on its own.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
18. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that as per the
provisions of Section 401(1) Cr.P.C., the High Court can exercise the power of
the suo motu revision [on its own motion].
19. At this juncture, it is necessary to extract the provisions of
Section 401(1) Cr.P.C.
“401-High Court's powers of Revision – (1) In the case
of any proceeding the record of which had been called for by
itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court
may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a
Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court
of Session by Section 307 and, when the Judges composing the
Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall
be disposed of in the manner provided by Section 392.”
20. In view of the above provisions and the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court [as cited supra], the contention of the learned counsel for
the accused, that the suo motu revision taken by this Court is erroneous, is
unsustainable in law.
21. Admittedly, the accused had been charged under Section 306
IPC, but, the trial Court had chosen to convict the accused under Section 354
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
IPC in the absence of said charge. With regard to the same, the learned
Amicus Curiae submitted that the legal plea as to the sustainability of the
conviction for a minor charge in the absence of the said charge revolves
around the provisions of Sections 215, 221, 222 and 464 of Cr.P.C. The
purpose of framing of charge against the accused is to have proper
acquaintance of the allegation for which prosecution is initiated. As per
Section 211 of Cr.P.C., there is an obligation on the part of the Court at the
time of framing charge to incorporate the relevant requirements, but, as per
Section 215 of Cr.P.C., some sort of error visualizing in the format of charge
would not make the trial redundant. Further, under Section 222 of Cr.P.C. the
conviction under the minor offence than that of the accused had been charged,
is found permissible and while in terms of Section 221 of Cr.P.C. even if there
happens to be absence of charge against the accused, even then, he could be
convicted and the aforesaid is duly cared under Section 464 of Cr.P.C.
22. The learned Amicus Curaie further submitted that the
foundational facts as projected by the prosecution would certainly sustain the
charge under Section 306 IPC, but, subject to the court accepting the evidence
of P.W.2. Admittedly, it was the act of the accused which had induced/driven
the deceased to commit suicide. The instigation/intentional aid on the part of
the appellant/accused forcing her to commit the drastic act is the act of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
outraging the modesty. There is a certain live-link between the act of the
accused and the suicide. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC are clearly made
out on the factual background of the prosecution case. P.W.2-Saraswathi
would inform that the deceased/Mariyammal had made oral dying
declarations, expressing her intention to commit suicide, pursuant to the
incident/act of the accused in outraging the modesty of the victim. Further,
P.W.3-Kalarani and P.W.8-Ganesh had also spoken about the presence of the
accused at the odd hours and P.W.8 was also cross examined on the said lines.
23. It is further submitted that in the present case, the accused had
played an active role in tarnishing the self esteem of the victim, by outraging
her modesty, which had eventually drawn the victim to commit suicide.
Therefore, there is a direct act for the incitement to the commission of suicide.
Further, the fact that the accused had trespassed at the odd hours, is proved by
the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. The accused had in fact suggested to P.W.2 as
to she had misunderstood the incident during the cross examination.
Therefore, the sustainability of the charge under Section 306 IPC would also
depend upon these factors. In support of the same, the learned Amicus Curiae
relied on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Praveen Pradhan vs.
State of Uttranchal and another reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Crl.) 146 and Ude
Singh and others vs. State of Haryana.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
24. Heard the submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae.
25. The deceased Mariammal killed one of her daughters and
committed suicide, by consuming certain poisonous substance. P.W.6-
Dr.Ashok Babu, who conducted the post mortem of the deceased Mariammal
and the child Kavitha, in his evidence, has stated that the deceased died by
consuming oleander seeds. Though the viscera and his final opinion were not
marked by the prosecution, P.W.6-Dr.Ashok Babu in his evidence has stated
that based on the viscera, he gave his final opinion and as per his final opinion,
the deceased died by consuming oleander seeds. However, the Doctor [P.W.6]
was not cross examined by the accused.
26. P.W.1 and P.W.4 have identified the dead body on 12.07.2003 at
about 10.00 a.m. and also duly informed the Police. On the same day, in small
hours around 1.00 a.m., this appellant/accused entered into the house of the
deceased, hugged her and attempted to rape her and on the protest made by the
deceased, P.W.2, her mother-in-law, woke up, shouted at him and thereafter,
the accused left the house. P.W.2, in her evidence, has also stated that the
victim has stated her that she would not survive any more due to this incidence
and she also consoled her, but, even then, she has committed suicide. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
cross examination, a suggestion has been made on behalf of the accused that
the accused misbehaved with her daughter-in-law and P.W.2 misinterpreted the
same and lodged a complaint and thereby, the accused admitted the said
incidence projected by the prosecution.
27. As rightly contended by the learned Amicus Curaie, the accused
had played an active role in tarnishing the self esteem of the victim, by
outraging her modesty, which had eventually drawn the victim to commit
suicide and by the act of the accused, he had instigated the victim to commit
suicide and further, there is a direct act for the incitement to the commission of
offence.
28. At this juncture, it is necessary to note that if any person
commits suicide and the person who abets the commission of such suicide is
liable to be prosecuted and punished under Section 306 of Indian Panel Code.
The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as defined
under Section 107 of Indian Panel Code. The word “instigation” has been
discussed elaborately by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar
Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in AIR 2010 SCC
1446, which reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
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. Where the accused had, by his acts
or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide, in which case, an instigation may
have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot
be said to be instigation.
Thus, to constitute instigation, a person who
instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the
doing of an act by the other by goading or urging forward. The
dictionary meaning of the word goad is a thing that stimulates
someone into action; provoke to action or reaction to keep
irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts.”
Instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case and an
inference can also be drawn from the circumstances, which in fact have
created a situation leading the person to commit suicide.
29. In a similar circumstances, in dealing with an offence under
Section 306 IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ude Singh vs. State of
Haryana, in Crl.A.No.233 of 2010, dated 25.07.2019, has held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
“14.6. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt.
of NCT of Delhi): (2009) 16 SCC 605, this Court referred
to the decision in Ramesh Kumar (supra) and, while
pointing out the complexities related with the determination
of the question as to the cause of suicide, expounded on the
relevant principles in the following:-
"19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar
(supra), where the accused by his acts or by a
continued course of conduct creates such
circumstances that the deceased was left with
no other option except to commit suicide, an
"instigation" may be inferred. In other words,
in order to prove that the accused abetted
commission of suicide by a person, it has to be
established that:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying
the deceased by words, deeds or wilful
omission or conduct which may even be a
wilful silence until the deceased reacted or
pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds,
words or wilful omission or conduct to make
the deceased move forward more quickly in a
forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to
provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to
commit suicide while acting in the manner
noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens
rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
20. ………….The question as to what is the
cause of a suicide has no easy answers because
suicidal ideation and behaviours in human
beings are complex and multifaceted. Different
individuals in the same situation react and
behave differently because of the personal
meaning they add to each event, thus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
accounting for individual vulnerability to
suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern
depends on his inner subjective experience of
mental pain, fear and loss or 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 escapism from
intolerable self."
(Underling supplied for emphasis)
14.7. In the case Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.:
(2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court, after reference to several
past decisions, held as follows:-
"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."
(Underling supplied for emphasis)
15. Thus, “abetment” involves a mental process
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of instigating a person in doing something. A person abets
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
the doing of a thing when: (i) he instigates any person to do
that thing; or (ii) he engages with one or more persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (iii) he
intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing. These are essential to complete the abetment as a
crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke,
incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything.
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 behaviour 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
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 Section
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on
the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.
16.2. We may also observe that human mind
could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and
impact of one's action on the mind of another carries
several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with
differently by different persons; and so far a particular
person’s reaction to any other human’s action is concerned,
there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or
assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with
the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be
considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban
set ups, education etc. Even the response to the ill-action of
eve-teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary
for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-
confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to
be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances.
17. ............
18. ............
19. ............
20. ............
21. In the given set up and the respective position
of the parties, if the accused No. 1 continuously addressed
or called the deceased girl as his “wife”, in our view, the
utterance was not merely of teasing but of demeaning and
destroying the self-esteem of the young girl whose
engagement had broken and whose uncle was mocking her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to join him in matrimony. It was the act of humiliation of
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
highest order for the girl, who had personally suffered the
set-back of broken engagement, apart that she was unable
to clear even 10th standard examination. Obviously, she
was being ridiculed and taunted for her broken
engagement. The other accused persons chose to join the
accused No. 1 and aggravated the humiliation of the girl by
addressing her as younger brother's wife or aunt. There
remains nothing to doubt that the accused persons were
working with the common intention to harass and humiliate
the girl with reference to her broken engagement. The
significant part of the matter is that such taunting and
humiliation of the deceased at the hands of the accused
persons had not been a singular event or one-off affair but
had been a continuous feature, as amply established by the
prosecution witnesses. The incident of 05.05.1996 drew the
final straw when the hapless girl received the same taunts
from the accused persons and she even rebuked them. We
find no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW-2 Jai
Narain as regards the incident of 05.05.1996. Equally, there
is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW-11 Smt.
Krishna that her daughter wept the whole night after the
said incident; and on being frustrated and exasperated with
such humiliations, expressed her intention to end her life.
The fact of the matter remains that the victim girl ended her
life in the early morning very next day.
22. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are
satisfied that the present one had not been a case of a mere
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis eve-teasing, insult or intimidation but the continuous and
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
repeated acts and utterances of the accused persons were
calculated to bring disgrace to the village girl and to
destroy her self-esteem; rather the acts and utterances were
aimed at taking her to the brink of helplessness and to the
vanishing point of tolerance. It had not been a case of mere
intimidation or insult. The incessant intimidation and insult
of the innocent girl had been of instigation; and such
instigation clearly answers to the description of abetment of
suicide. Therefore, in our view, the accused Nos. 1 and 3
have rightly been held guilty of offence of abetment of
suicide.
23. The contention of the appellants that their
intention had never been to make her commit suicide is
required to be rejected because, as noticed above, the
hapless girl was intentionally chosen for humiliation by the
accused, who were otherwise involved in several litigations
with her parents. The accused persons also knew it that the
father of the girl was posted in his duty outside the village.
As noticed, the intention of the accused had only been to
drive the deceased to the brink of helplessness and
intolerance; they in fact succeeded in doing so on
05.05.1996, when the girl rebuked them for their
utterances. However, the victim girl found no way out
because the humiliation at the hands of accused had been
everyday affair; and, in the given set up of the society she
belonged to, any action against the accused by her family
was being avoided for the sake of her honour.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
24. The present case indeed represents a sordid
state of affairs in relation to the young girl in the rural
setting, whose honour and self-esteem got brutally violated
by none other but her own relatives, who found her to be
the soft- target to settle their scores with her parents. The
accused rather exhibited their denigrating mentality while
targeting the young girl, who was otherwise required to be
treated by them with affection and respect, for being their
niece and their cousin. The facts of this case lead only to
the conclusion that the accused persons had intentionally,
with their incessant acts and utterances, goaded the victim
girl to commit suicide. She indeed committed suicide
within few hours of her last and unbearable encounter with
the accused. The acts and deeds of the accused in the
evening of 05.05.1996 had been too proximate to the event
of suicide by 9 a.m. in the morning of 06.05.1996. As
testified by PW-11 Smt. Krishna, her daughter cried the
whole night for being unable to bear the daily humiliation
at the hands of the accused; and ended her life in the
morning.
25. For what has been discussed hereinabove and
having examined the matter in its totality, we find no reason
to consider any interference in the impugned judgment and
order dated 05.05.2008 in relation to the appellant Nos. 1
and 3.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
30. From the above, it is clear that the accused had instigated the
deceased to commit suicide and therefore, the charge framed against him under
Section 306 IPC is sustainable.
31. Further, it is the duty of every Court to award proper sentence
having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which, it was
executed or committed. The trial Court is expected to consider all relevant
facts and circumstances with the gravity of offence. The nature of crime, the
conduct of the accused and other attending circumstances, are also relevant in
deciding the case. The High Court, under Section 401 Cr.P.C., is having the
power to call for the records without the intervention of another agency. The
High Court as an effective instrument in the administrative of criminal justice
is duty bound to suo motu act where there is flagrant abuse of law. The nature
of offence and the manner of disposal by the trial Court has prompted the
Court to take up the suo motu Criminal revision petition for the ultimate social
good of the community. The High Court is not required to act any revision
merely through a conduit application at the instance of an aggrieved party.
32. In the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellant is liable to be convicted
for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Accordingly, the accused is found
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC and 448 IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,
in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence
under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
three months for the offence committed under Section 448 IPC. The period of
imprisonment already undergone by the accused is ordered to be set off under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The sentences shall run concurrently. The trial Court
shall secure the accused and confine him to prison to undergo the sentence.
33. This Court places its appreciation to Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar,
learned counsel, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, for his sincere efforts
in representing the case.
34. In the result, Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015 filed by the
appellant/accused is dismissed and suo motu revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248
of 2015 is allowed.
29.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ogy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
Pre-delivery Judgment in
Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015
and
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
29.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
