Madras High Court
Karthik @ Karthi vs State Rep. By on 17 June, 2022
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Judgment Reserved On Judgment Pronounced On
27.04.2022 17.06.2022
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
1.Karthik @ Karthi
2.Shanmugam
3.Shanthi ... Appellants
Vs.
State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Erode North Police Station,
Erode.
Crime No.119 of 2013 ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure
Code to set aside the order of conviction passed in S.C.No.113 of 2016
dated 26.12.2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge [Mahila Fast
Track Court], Erode.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
For Appellants : Mr.R.Karunakaran
For Respondent : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
The appellants/accused in S.C.No.113 of 2016 on the file of the
learned Sessions Judge [Mahila Fast Track Court], Erode were convicted by
judgment dated 26.12.2016 for the offence under Section 306 IPC and
sentenced them to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo two years simple imprisonment.
Against which, the present appeal is filed.
2. In the Trial Court, P.W.1 to P.W.13 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and
M.O.1 marked. On the side of the accused, no witnesses examined and no
documents marked.
3.The gist of the case is that one Manimozhi, daughter of P.W.1 and
P.W.2 committed suicide by hanging on 23.02.2013 in her house at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
Veerappanchathiram, Kothukarar Street, Erode. The appellants are the
close relatives, the appellants 2 and 3 are uncle and aunt, the first appellant,
their son is the customary groom of the deceased. The first appellant was
working in Coimbatore and his parents were in Erode. Since they did not
have any bank account for any transaction the bank account of the deceased
would be used. The appellants 2 and 3 pledged some jewels in her bank
account and received money. Further by their relationship they were very
close and the deceased was visiting the house of the appellants regularly.
There was some dispute with regard to the money transaction, for which
P.W.6/brother of the first accused lodged a complaint with the Erode North
Police Station, C.S.R.No.568 of 2012 was assigned and enquiry was held on
24.11.2012. Thereafter, the deceased refrained herself from visiting the
appellants' house. The appellants insisted her to visit them, make the
balance payment or redeem two sovereigns of jewels and hand over to them.
The deceased who was running a Share Consultancy, due to the aforesaid
police complaint her reputation and respect in the Society gone down and
she felt ashamed. Unable to bear any further, on 23.02.2013 when nobody
was at home she committed suicide by hanging using her dupatta.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
P.W.2/mother of the victim after going to Uzhavarsandhai, came back found
her daughter hanging and cried for help. In the meanwhile, P.W.1/father of
the deceased was informed who came there along with his second
wife/P.W.3, brought the deceased down and thereafter, lodged a complaint
to P.W.11, who received the complaint registered FIR/Ex.P9 in Crime
No.119 of 2013. Thereafter, P.W.12 took up investigation, visited the scene
of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P3, rough sketch/Ex.P10
and conducted inquest. He seized Ex.P2/suicide note left in the scene of
occurrence by Ex.P4/Seizure Mahazar. The body was sent for conducting
Postmortem. P.W.8/Postmortem Doctor conducted postmortem, gave his
report Ex.P6 and final opinion/Ex.P7 stating that the deceased died due to
hanging. Ex.P12/the admitted writings of the deceased was collected, sent
to handwriting expert and in the meanwhile, section was altered by
alteration report/Ex.P13. P.W.12 on his transfer handed over the
investigation to P.W.13, who conducted further investigation and thereafter
filed charge sheet in this case. The Trial Court on the evidence of the
witnesses and materials produced convicted the appellants as stated above.
Against which, the present appeal is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
4.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the
deceased was running a Share market business in Erode and for her
business, she requested the appellants to give their jewels. P.W.6 gave
jewels of around 7-1/2 Sovereigns to the deceased to help her. She pledged
the jewels, invested in her business and later she was unable to repay the
amount, for which P.W.6 lodged a complaint before the Erode North Police
Station on 24.11.2012, C.S.R.No.568 of 2012 was assigned, the deceased
was called for enquiry on the same day and gave an undertaking that by
December 2012 she would pay the amount of Rs.30,000/- and redeem the
jewels. Thereafter, she redeemed and handed over part of the jewels, the
balance jewels which she was to redeem, failed to do so. P.W.6 as well as
P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 admit that after the complaint by P.W.6 the
appellants and the deceased were not in talking terms and they never met
each other. He further submitted that prior to the occurrence there was no
quarrel, coercion or force by the appellants to hand over the balance jewels
or money. P.W.6/son of appellants 2 and 3 and brother of first appellant
resorted to legal remedy by lodging a complaint to the Erode North Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
Station, P.W.10 conducted enquiry, Ex.P8 series is the C.S.R. number
assigned to the complaint, undertaking given by the deceased, etc. Further,
it is seen that the first appellant given an acknowledgment on 11.02.2013 for
receipt of some portion of the jewels and cash of Rs.12,500/-.Thereafter, for
what reason she took the extreme step of suicide on 23.02.2013 is not
known.
5.He further submitted that P.W.1/father of the deceased,
P.W.2/mother of the deceased, P.W.3/step mother of the deceased and
P.W.4.sister of the deceased have stated about the earlier transaction and the
relationship between the appellants and the deceased. They had given
explanation as though the appellants 2 and 3, who are elders having no bank
account the deceased helped them to pledge their jewels and the money was
given since the first appellant is the customary bride groom and she was
promised that the first appellant would marry her. The Lower Court failed
to look into the evidence of P.W.6 and Ex.P8 series wherein it is proved that
the deceased obtained jewels from the appellants' family used the same for
her business and failed to repay, for which complaint was lodged and later
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
handed over part of the jewels and part amount. The entire case proceeds on
the suicide note/Ex.P2. Though it is stated that Ex.P2 came into existence
on the date of occurrence and recovered on the same day through Ex.P4,
strangely no mention of the letter is found in Ex.P3/observation mahazar,
Ex.P4/Seizure mahazar and Ex.P2 reached the Court only on 14.03.2013
nearly about after 21 days of the occurrence but no reason was given for the
delay. Further Ex.P2 is the disputed document, Ex.P2 and Ex.P12/two
notebooks have been sent to the Handwriting Expert as could be seen from
the evidence of the Investigating Officer which was returned by the Forensic
Department stating that the documents are insufficient and sought for
further documents. But for the reason best known, no steps were taken
thereafter to send Ex.P2 along with sufficient documents. He further
submitted that on bare perusal of Ex.P2, Ex.P12 and Ex.P8, in which the
signature of the deceased is found would clearly prove that Ex.P2 is a got up
document. The Lower Court heavily relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to
P.W.4, family members of the deceased and Ex.P2 in convicting the
appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
6.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellants
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar
Chopra vs. State [Government of NCT of Delhi] reported in [2010] 3 SCC
(Cri) 367 for the proposition that onus is on the prosecution to show the
circumstances which compelled the deceased to take the extreme step to
bring an end to his life. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in [2002] SCC (Cri) 1141 for the proposition that suicide
was not proximate to the quarrel thought the deceased was named in the
suicide note, hence suicide was not the direct result of the quarrel when the
appellant used abusive language and told the deceased to go and die.
7.The learned counsel for the appellants further relied upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Manikandan vs. State rep. by
Inspector of Police reported in [2016] 4 MLJ(Crl.) 240, wherein it was
held that 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 IPC read with section 107 IPC. There may be a case where in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
the suicide note victim had named a person, who is responsible for his
committing suicide, but, on proper analysis, section 306 IPC may not be
attracted to him. It is not the wish and willingness nor the desire of the
victim to die, it must be the wish of the accused, it is the intention on the
part of the accused that the victim should die that matters much. There must
be a positive act on the part of the accused. It need not be by words. It may
be by deeds. It may be by letters. But, at the same time, the decision of a
week minded or a woman of frail mentality cannot be misunderstood as
abetment. For one's foolish act another person cannot be made liable. He
also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ayyappan vs. State
rep. by Inspector of Police reported in [2016] 4 MLJ(Crl.) 460 for the
proposition that the offence of abetment requires mens rea [guilty mind],
there must be intentional doing/aiding or goading the commission of suicide
by another.
8.The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of M.Mohan vs. State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police reported in [2011] 2 SCC (Cri) 1, wherein it was held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
“44.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.
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.”
9.The learned Government Advocate submitted that P.W.1/father of
the victim lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 wherein there is a mention about the
suicide letter found in the scene of occurrence. He further submitted that
taking advantage of the relationship, the first appellant was moving very
closely with the deceased, further the appellants 2 and 3 were calling the
deceased as their daughter-in-law. The first appellant was working in
Coimbatore and the appellants 2 and 3 were in Erode, they are uneducated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
and they had no bank account. In order to help them, the deceased used to
pledge the jewels in her bank account and hand over the money to them.
Later the appellants projected as though the victim took the jewels, pledged
the same for her business and had not repaid the same. P.W.6/brother of A1
and son of A2 & A3 lodged a complaint before the Erode North Police
Station, wherein the deceased was called for enquiry and she was forced to
give an undertaking in the Police Station, by December 2012 she would pay
back the entire loan of Rs.30,000/-, redeem the 7-1/2 Sovereigns of jewels
and return back to the appellants' family which she was unable to do within
the stipulated time. He further submitted that thereafter deceased managed
to return portion of the gold jewels and cash on 11.02.2013 which was
received and acknowledged by the first appellant which infuriated the
deceased and made her to take the extreme step. Further, since the first
appellant who was closely moving with the deceased had seen her in the
opposite terms and that to, in the Police Station receiving the amount made
her to take the extreme decision. He further submitted that the younger
sister of the deceased got married, having children and settled with her
family, the victim was waiting for the first appellant to marry her, further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
she was forced for unreasonable settlement and that is the reason she
committed suicide by leaving a suicide note/Ex.P2. Further, the suicide note
was seized on the same day through Ex.P4 and sent for Handwriting Expert
along with Ex.P12 series. The Handwriting Expert finding that the materials
forwarded were not sufficient asked for further materials.
P.W.13/Investigating Officer failed to collect the document and send the
same, for which the victim family should not suffer. He further submitted
that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 are cogent and the other witnesses,
namely, P.W.5, P.W.7 have clearly stated about the preparation of
observation mahazar and seizure mahazar. P.W.10 is the Special Sub-
Inspector of Police who confirms about the earlier police complaint lodged
by P.W.6. P.W.8 is the Postmortem Doctor who confirms that the death of
the deceased was due to hanging. He further submitted that the Trial Court
on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and the materials produced have rightly
convicted the accused. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
10.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials
placed before this Court, it is seen that the deceased committed suicide by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
hanging on 23.02.2013, P.W.2/mother of the deceased was the first person
to see her hanging, immediately she cried for help, informed P.W.1/her
husband who along with P.W.3/his second wife came to the scene of
occurrence, brought down the deceased and lodged a complaint with the
respondent police. P.W.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who received the
complaint and registered FIR. P.W.4/sister of the deceased found
Ex.P2/suicide note in the nearby cot, which was seized through
Ex.P4/seizure mahazar. P.W.1 to P.W.4 state about the relationship and the
complaint lodged by the appellants' family against the victim seeking return
of money and jewels which according to the prosecution abetted the victim
to commit suicide. From the evidence of P.W.6/complainant in the earlier
case, it is seen that P.W.6 lodged a complaint to P.W.10 on 24.11.2012,
C.S.R.No.568 of 2012 was assigned, P.W.6 was examined and the deceased
appeared before the Erode North Police Station gave an undertaking that by
December 2012, she would hand over the jewels of A3 . As per the
complaint of P.W.6, Rs.30,000/- in cash is to be paid by the deceased which
was informed to P.W.1 but no steps was taken by him. This amount was
given by P.W.6 by pledging 7-1/2 sovereigns of gold jewels. Resorting to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
Police seeking for redemption of their jewels and money is normal.
Thereafter on 11.02.2013 the deceased appeared and handed over part of
the jewels and cash which was acknowledged by the first appellant in the
presence of the second appellant and P.W.1 as could be seen from Ex.P8.
On comparison of the signature of the deceased available in Ex.P8 and
Ex.P2 it is seen there is gross variation in the signature of the deceased. The
Handwriting Expert also returned back Ex.P2 without giving any finding.
The evidence of P.W.6 cut the root of the prosecution case for which there is
no answer. It is admitted by P.W.1 to P.W.4 that after the complaint was
lodged by P.W.6 on 24.11.2012 both the families were not in talking terms,
the victim stopped visiting the appellants' family and thereafter there was no
communication between them. There is nothing in the evidence to show that
the appellants are the reason for the victim to take the extreme step of
committing suicide on 23.02.2013. The Trial Court giving reason that the
appellants abetted the victim to commit suicide is without material. As held
by this Court as well as the Apex Court, before the death there must be some
material to connect the appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
11.In view of the above, this Court finds that the prosecution had
miserably failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond all
reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellants in S.C.No.113 of 2016 dated 26.12.2016 by the learned Sessions
Judge, [Mahila Fast Track Court], Erode is hereby set aside. The appellants
are acquitted from all the charges levelled against them.
12.In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed.
17.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
cse
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Erode North Police Station,
Erode.
2.The Sessions Judge,
[Mahila Fast Track Court], Erode.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
Pre-delivery judgment made in
Crl.A.No.6 of 2017
17.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
