Madras High Court

V.Ramesh vs The State Rep. By The on 7 December, 2023

                                                                              Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    Dated      : 07.12.2023


                                                              CORAM


                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                                Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017


                     V.Ramesh                                   ...Appellant/Single Accused


                                                               Vs.

                     The State rep. by the
                     Inspector of Police,
                     Gobichettipalayam Police Station,
                     Crime No.312 of 2014,
                     Erode District.                                  ...Respondent/Complainant

                                  Criminal Appeal filed u/s.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
                     to set aside the conviction imposed in Judgment dated 26.04.2017 made in
                     S.C.No.37 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge
                     Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode.


                                        For Appellant     :     M/s.N.Manokaran
                                        For Respondent    :     Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
                                                                Additional Public Prosecutor

                     1/22



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

                                                            JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused challenging the

conviction and sentence imposed upon him, for the offence under Sections

498 (A), 323 and 306 of IPC passed vide judgment dated 26.04.2017 in

S.C.No.37 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode.

2.The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court as

follows:-

Conviction Sentence Section 498 (A) of To undergo three years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a IPC fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for Six months.

Section 323 of IPC To undergo one year of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.

Section 306 of IPC To undergo ten years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years.

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently

3. (i) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the

deceased got married in the year 2004 and they had two daughters, who

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

were aged eight and five years respectively; that the appellant started

demanding money and jewels from the deceased six months after the

marriage; that there were frequent quarrels between the deceased and the

appellant on account of the said dowry demand; that on 25.06.2014 and

30.06.2014, when the children were asleep, the appellant suspected the

character of the deceased beat her and tortured her; that he also demanded

the money on the same day; that unable to bear the torture given by the

appellant, the deceased decided to kill herself; that on 03.07.2014, after the

appellant who was a milk vendor left the house in the early morning,

she committed suicide by hanging.

(ii). It is the further case of the prosecution that when the appellant

returned home after delivering milk, he found the deceased hanging and

took her to the Government Hospital at Gobi. P.W.10, who first saw the

deceased issued Accident Register/Ex.P7 and Death Intimation/Ex.P8, in

which he had recorded that the deceased was brought dead by the appellant.

On the information given to P.W.4/the mother of the deceased, she went to

the Police Station at about 10 A.M. and lodged the complaint/Ex.P5.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

(iii). On receipt of the complaint, P.W.9/the Sub Inspector of Police,

registered the First Information Report/Ex.P6 in Crime No. 312 of 2014 for

the offences under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

P.W.4/the mother of the deceased had stated in the complaint that her

daughter/deceased, was subjected to harassment on account of dowry

demand and that three days before the occurrence (i.e) on 01.07.2014,

the appellant had tortured her and caused hurt; that she met the deceased

who complained about the cruelty committed by the appellant.

(iv). P.W.11/the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the FIR,

commenced the investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence and

prepared Observation Mahazar/Ex.P9. Thereafter, he seized the saree used

by the deceased for hanging suicide under Recovery Mahazar/Ex.P.11. The

saree was marked as M.O.5. He conducted an inquest between 12.00 Noon

and 2.00 P.M., on the same day in the presence of Panchayatharas and

thereafter sent the body for post mortem. P.W.13/Doctor conducted

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

post-mortem and issued post mortem certificate/Ex.P.14. P.W.13 issued

Final Opinion/Ex.P15, after obtaining Viscera Report. He had opined that

the “deceased would appear to have died of Hanging”. P.W.11 arrested the

appellant on the same day and examined a few witnesses. Thereafter, P.W.11

handed over the investigation to P.W.12. P.W.12 continued the investigation,

examined further witnesses and filed a Final Report on 08.10.2014, for the

offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the IPC before the learned

Judicial Magistrate No. I, Gopichatipalayam.

4. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the

case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Magalir Neethi

Mandran (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode, Erode District. The Sessions

Court framed three charges against the appellant for the offences under

Sections 498 (A), 323 and 306 of the IPC.

5. To prove the case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses as

P.W.1 to P.W.13 and marked fifteen documents as Exs.P1 to P15.

M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked as Material Objects on the side of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

prosecution. When the accused was questioned u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., on the

incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.

The appellant examined six witnesses as D.W.1 to D.W.6 and no document

was marked on the side of the appellant. Exs.C1 to C5 were marked as

Court documents.

6. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court

found that the accused was guilty of all three charges against him and

sentenced to imprisonment as stated earlier.

7. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred

this Criminal Appeal.

8 (a). Mr.N.Manoharan, the learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the complaint given by P.W.4 is an afterthought; that the

conduct of the accused would belie the prosecution case that the appellant

committed cruelty on the deceased and thereby abetted the commission of

suicide; that he had taken the victim to the hospital and it was P.W.4's

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

version that the Police was present at the hospital and had recorded a

statement; that the said complaint ought to have been treated as First

Information Report, which has been suppressed by the prosecution.

(b). The learned counsel further pointed out that P.W.4 and P.W.6/the

mother and sister of the deceased, though have deposed regarding the

alleged demand of dowry both their versions are highly improbable; that

neither of them has given any details about the nature of the demand and the

dates on which the alleged demand was made by the appellant; that the

evidence would show that the appellant was well to do and was earning well

in business and had sufficient properties to take care of himself and there is

no necessity for demanding dowry.

(c). The learned counsel also pointed out the evidence of

D.W.6/Mr.Sampathkumar and the suggestions made by the defence counsel

to the prosecution witnesses to the effect that the deceased had developed

illegal intimacy with one Karthick; that the appellant came to know of it and

he had informed P.W.4/the mother of the deceased, who scolded the victim,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

and that this led to the victim committing suicide.

(d). The learned counsel further pointed out that P.W.6/sister of the

deceased was working as a prosecutor and the entire complaint was filed at

her instance since she had a grudge against the appellant as he prevented the

deceased from interacting with P.W.6 who had married a person against the

wish of the family.

(e). The learned counsel also pointed out to the complaint said to have

been given by D.W.6 along with a few persons, in which they had stated that

the deceased committed suicide because the family members came to know

about her illicit relationship with the said Karthick; and that though P.W.11

and P.W.12 admit that they received the compliant, no investigation was

done.

(f). The learned counsel also relied upon the Judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mariano Anto Bruno Vs. The Inspector of

Police reported in AIR 2022 SC 4994 and Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of

Punjab reported in (2020) 10 SCC 200, in support of his submission that to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

prosecute a person for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, there must

be a positive act on the side of the accused to instigate or intentional aid the

victim to commit suicide.

9 (a). Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

per contra, submitted that both P.W.4 and P.W.6 have stated that the

deceased demanded dowry continuously; that the appellant and deceased

hardly lived happily for six months; that the deceased committed suicide

only on account of the said dowry demand and the defence case about the

alleged illicit intimacy of the deceased with another person is unbelievable.

(b) He further pointed out that D.W.6 is a friend of the appellant and

therefore, his evidence has no credibility; that the evidence of P.W.4 and

P.W.6, inspire confidence and nothing has been elicited in the cross

examination by the defence to disbelieve their evidence and therefore, the

Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for the offences charged against

him and hence, submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

11. On perusal of the records, this Court finds that out of thirteen

witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.4 and P.W.6, the mother and

sister of the deceased respectively have alone been examined to establish

the demand of dowry said to have been made by the appellant. P.W.1 is a

neighbour who had signed as a witness in the Observation Mahazar, turned

hostile. P.W.2 is another witness to the Observation Mahazar who turned

hostile. P.W.3 is a Constable who had assisted the Investigating Officer in

the recovery of Material Objects, the saree and the other articles which were

found on the body of the deceased. P.W.5 is the brother of P.W.4, who is said

to have assisted P.W.4 in making the complaint to the respondent. P.W.7 and

P.W.8 are brothers of the deceased who speak about going to the hospital on

hearing that the deceased was unwell. P.W.9 is the Sub Inspector of Police,

who registered the FIR. As stated earlier, P.W.10/Doctor, issued Accident

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

12. From the above narrative, it would be clear that the prosecution

case rests on the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.6. P.W.6/sister of the deceased

would state that she had given one sovereign of gold to P.W.4/mother of the

deceased, to hand it over to the deceased since she was subjected to

harassment on account of demand for jewels and money. However, there is

nothing in the evidence to suggest as to when she had handed over the said

jewels. She also would admit in the cross examination that she did not get

along well with the appellant as the appellant had opposed her marriage

with a person who did not belong to the same caste. P.W.6's evidence does

not suggest that the deceased ever complained to her directly about the

alleged demand for dowry. Her version is based on what P.W.4 told her

about the alleged cruelty meted out to the deceased by the appellant.

13. Therefore, ultimately it is only P.W.4 who had deposed about the

demand of dowry and cruelty in connection with the same. P.W.4's evidence

is that the appellant and the deceased were living happily only for six

months and thereafter, the appellant harassed and asked her to bring jewels

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

and money from her parent's house. It is the admitted case of P.W.4 that she

was working as a cook in a Noon Meal Scheme centre. It is seen from the

other evidence on record that the appellant owned properties and had his

own business. It is the version of P.W.4 that on 25.06.2014, the appellant

beat the deceased with hands and after receiving a phone call from the

deceased, she went to the house of the appellant and met the deceased on

01.07.2014. Further, she would state that at that time, the deceased told

P.W.4 that she was subjected to torture because the appellant suspected her

character. Admittedly, on that day, there was no demand for any dowry or

jewels. Except for vaguely stating that the appellant constantly asked for

money and jewellery earlier, there is nothing to infer from the evidence of

P.W.4 that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry

demand.

14. The charge under Section 498 (A) of IPC reads as follows:

''Mrhuhzpaplk; mtUila jhahhplk; brd;W eifa[k;. gzKk; th';fp tUk;go mof;fo rz;ilaplL ; mtiu Jd;g[Wj;jp te;Js;sPh; vd;Wk;. 25/06/2014 kw;Wk; 30/06/2014 Mfpa njjpfspy; ePh; Mrh(v) Mrhuhzpia elj;ijapd; kPJ re;njfg;gl;Lk;. gzk; th';fp tUkhW

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

nfl;L Mrh(v) Mrhuhzpia ifahy; moj;J rpj;utij bra;J mjd; K:yk; vjphpahfpa ePh; ,/j/r/gphpt[ 498

(m)d; fPH; jz;of;fj;jf;fJk; ,e; ePjpkd;wj;jhy;

tprhhpff; j;jf;fJkhd Fw;wj;ij ePh; g[hpe;Js;sjhft[k;//'' The above charge would indicate that the prosecution is not clear as to

whether the cruelty was in connection with dowry demand or whether there

was harassment because the appellant suspected the character of the

deceased. P.W.4's version that the deceased told her that the appellant

suspected the character of the deceased on 01.07.2014, confirms the fact

that the alleged demand of dowry is an afterthought.

15. In this context, we may analyse the evidence of the defence

witnesses examined on the side of the appellant. D.W.1 to D.W.4 are the

Nodal Officers working in a cell phone company. They were examined by

the defence to show that the deceased and one Karthick were talking to each

other frequently. However, D.W.1 to D.W.4 have stated that they were

unable to retrieve the records relating to the phone calls made in the two

numbers since the CDRs (Call Detail Records) would be maintained only

for one year. D.W.5 speaks about selling a SIM card to the deceased. D.W.6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

is a neighbour of the appellant. He speaks about lodging a complaint/Ex.D1,

before the respondent on 03.07.2014, wherein he had stated about the visit

made by P.W.4 on 01.07.2014 and about her scolding and beating the

deceased for having an illicit relationship with the third person. In the said

complaint about thirty others have also signed. Both the Investigating

Officers/P.W.11 and P.W.12 have admitted that they were aware of the

complaint given by D.W.6 and others and the said complaint was available

in the Police Station. Strangely both P.W.11 and P.W.12 have not

investigated into the said complaint. It is not their case that D.W.6 had given

a false complaint. Therefore, it is clear that the Investigating Officers have

ignored the version in the said complaint and have not taken any effort to

ascertain the truth.

16. This Court is of the view that since the allegation with regards to

the dowry demand is vague, the fact that P.W.4 herself has admitted that

there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased since the

appellant suspected her character, the fact that D.W.6 and others have made

a complaint which has been ignored by P.W.11 and P.W.12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

probablises the defence case that there was no cruelty either on account of

dowry demand or cruelty of such a nature which would drive a woman to

commit suicide.

17. Since this Court is of the view that cruelty has not been

established by the prosecution, the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is

also not made out. There is no evidence to suggest that the conduct of the

appellant was such that the deceased had no other option but to commit

suicide. It would be useful to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (cited supra)

which is extracted hereunder:

13. Section 107 IPC defines “abetment” and in this case, the following part of the section will bear consideration:

“107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First. — Instigates any person to do that thing; or * * * Thirdly. — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

14. The definition quoted above makes it clear that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing.

15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established.

To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. However, what transpires in the present matter is that both the trial court as well as the High Court never examined whether the appellant had the mens rea for the crime he is held to have committed. The conviction of the appellant by the trial court as well as the High Court on the theory that the woman with two young kids might have committed suicide possibly because of the harassment faced by her in the matrimonial house is not at all borne out by the evidence in the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not show that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she was forced to take such a step on his account.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

16. The necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 306 IPC were considered in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan where explaining the concept of abetment, Dalveer Bhandari, J. wrote as under : (SCC p. 197, para 25)

“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 v. State of W.B, Dr M.K. Sharma, J. writing for the Division Bench explained the parameters of Section 306 IPC in the following terms : (SCC p. 712, paras 12-13) “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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

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 must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”

18. In Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana which again was a case of wife's unnatural death, speaking for the Division Bench, K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, J. rightly observed as under : (SCC p. 606, para

24) “24. We find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning of the High Court [Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997, decided on 27-5-2008 (P&H)] 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,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017

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.”

18. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed

to establish the guilt of the appellant behind reasonable doubt and hence,

the Judgment of conviction passed in S.C.No.37 of 2016, dated 26.04.2017

on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram

(Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode is liable to be set aside.

19. As a result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellant is

acquitted of all the charges framed against him and he is directed to be set at

liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other

case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded.

The bail bond, if any, executed shall stand discharged.

07.12.2023

Index : Yes/No