Madras High Court

Unknown vs Prabu on 10 October, 2022

                                                                                  Crl.A.No.220 of 2018

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 10.10.2022

                                                        CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                 Crl.A.No.220 of 2018

                The State rep. by
                The Inspector of Police,
                Nettapakkam Police Station,
                Puducherry.
                (Crime No.20 of 2011)                                            ...Appellant

                                                         -Vs-

                Prabu S/o Narasappan                                             ... Respondent

                Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Code of
                Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of learned Assistant Sessions
                Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, dated 05.09.2017 in S.C.No.25
                of 2012 thereby acquitting the respondent/accused for the charge of offence
                punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

                                       For Petitioner    : Mr.V.Balamurugane
                                                           Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

                                       For Respondent    : Mr.R.Rajarajan




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page 1 of 9
                                                                                   Crl.A.No.220 of 2018



                                                     ORDER

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred as against the order of acquittal

in S.C.No.25 of 2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge / Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Pondicherry, dated 05.09.2017 thereby acquitted the respondent for

the offence under Section 306 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased had fell in love with

the respondent and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2011. After their

marriage they led the marital life in the upstairs of the appellant's house. They

lived happily for three months and thereafter, the father of the deceased had

presented 12 sovereigns of jewels and washing machine. Further, the jewels

presented by her father was pledged to meet out the expenses of her mother's

medical treatment. In this regard, the respondent picked up a quarrel with the

deceased. Further, the respondent demanded a portion of the building to run his

business. Therefore, the respondent used to harass the deceased, due to which,

she committed suicide on 03.03.2011. Hence the complaint.

3. Based on the complaint, the appellant registered FIR in Crime No.20

of 2011 for the offence under Section 306 IPC. After completion of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.220 of 2018

investigation they filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance for

the offence under Section 306 IPC by the trial Court.

4. On the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW16 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P11 were marked as exhibits and on the side of the respondent no one

was examined and no document was marked as Exhibits. The prosecution also

produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.3.

5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found

the respondent not guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC and acquitted

him. Aggrieved by the same the prosecution preferred this appeal.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) submitted that the

prosecution examined the father of the deceased (PW1) and mother of the

deceased (PW2). As per the statement of PW1 and PW2, they categorically

deposed that they presented jewels weighing 12 sovereigns in favour of the

deceased daughter. After their marriage, it was pledged by the father of the

deceased to meet out the medical expenses of PW2. Thereafter, he could not

redeem the same as such, the respondent used to harass the victim. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.220 of 2018

respondent also spoke to him that if he had married the other caste person, he

would have got more dowry. Therefore, it lead to the deceased to commit

suicide. Further, the trial Court without considering the same, acquitted the

respondent herein.

7. He would further submit that the victim was living with her parents

and they were eking out their livelihood by running a tea shop. The appellant

was working in a tailoring shop which is located opposite to the house of the

victim, they fell in love and got married. In fact, even before their marriage, she

got pregnant. In spite of difference in caste, they decided to get the deceased

married to the accused. However, the deceased pregnancy got aborted

subsequently. Only due to dowry harassment, the deceased committed suicide.

In fact, the accused also tortured the deceased for dowry and also demanding

two wheeler.

8. A perusal of records revealed that the prosecution had examined PW1

to 16 to bring the charge under Section 306 IPC against the sole accused

namely the respondent herein.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.220 of 2018

9. On perusal of the deposition of PW1 and PW2 revealed that they are

parents of the deceased and PW3 is the brother of the deceased. On receipt of

the complaint, the respondent registered FIR under Section 174 Cr.P.C., since

the deceased committed suicide within seven years from the date of her

marriage, enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Executive Magistrate. On

receipt of the enquiry report, the respondent altered the offence into 306 IPC

and filed final report.

10. It is also seen that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself

in upstairs of her parent's house. Even according to the PW1 to 3, the deceased

fell in love with the accused and got married and after marriage, the parents of

the victim presented 12 sovereigns of jewels. Thereafter, PW1 pledged the said

jewels to meet out the medical expenses of PW2. Therefore, there is no

evidence to show that the respondent demanded dowry from PW1 to PW3.

11. That apart, there is no evidence to show that the respondent abetted

or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There is no inducement by the

respondent before her death. In fact, the PW1 to PW3 did not even whisper that

the respondent induced and instigated the deceased to commit suicide. In the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.220 of 2018

absence of specific overt act regarding the inducement and abutment, the

respondent cannot be hold liable to be punished for the offence under Section

306 IPC.

12. It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 306 IPC is

hereunder;-

''306. abutment 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''.

Thus, it is clear that in order to convict any person for inducing to

commit suicide, it is to be established that the victim committed suicide only by

the instigation and inducement of the accused persons.

13. It is also relevant to extract provision under Section 113B of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, is hereunder;-

'' 113B. Presumption as to dowry death.---

When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.220 of 2018

harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

Explnation.-- For the purpose of this Section, ''dowry death'' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)''.

Thus it is clear that the action under Section 113 of Indian Evidence Act,

1872, can be dropped when it is proved that suicide has been committed within

seven years of marriage and that the husband or any relative, subjected the

deceased to cruelty. In fact, the deceased and the respondent were living

together happily in the first floor of her parents house. There was no complaint

of any dowry harassment or any cruelty of the deceased or by her parents.

Hence, there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution for dowry

harassment by the respondent.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court rightly held that before

holding the accused guilty for the 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