Madras High Court
Kaliraj vs State Rep. By on 9 June, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.12761, 12763, 12769, 12770 of 2022 & 949 of 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18942 of 2022
1.Kaliraj
2.Gomathiammal @ Gomathi ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 5
Vs.
1.State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Sivagiri Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
In Crime No.280 of 2020. ... 1st Respondent/Complianant
2.Michealraj ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of
charge sheet in S.C.No.394 of 2022 on the file of learned Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court at Tirunelveli and quash the same as against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 5 herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Mariappan
for Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj
For R1 : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.V.Sasikumar
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18946 of 2022
1.Hariprakash
2.Belchidayana Mary @ Belcy
3.Vanishri @ Shrivani ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4
Vs.
1.State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Sivagiri Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
In Crime No.280 of 2020. ... 1st Respondent/Complianant
2.Michealraj ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of
charge sheet in S.C.No.394 of 2022 on the file of learned Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court at Tirunelveli and quash the same as against the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Mariappan
For R1 : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.V.Sasikumar
COMMON ORDER
These petitions have been filed by the petitioners to quash the
proceedings in charge sheet in S.C.No.394 of 2022 on the file of learned
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Tirunelveli.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:
The deceased is the daughter of the defacto complainant. The
fifth accused is the mother of the first accused. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were
working as Constables in Trichy Armed Reserved police. The deceased was
studying IIIrd year in St. Xavier College, Palayamkottai and she was residing
in hostel. Initially, the deceased was the friend to the first accused. Later they
become lovers. On one occasion, the deceased went to Trichy in search of the
first accused. She demanded him to marry her. At that time accused Nos.1 to 5
present in the house and they stated that they belonged to separate caste. So no
marriage can be performed. They pushed the deceased out of the house. So
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
she committed suicide leaving a suicide note. On that basis a complaint has
been given by the defacto complainant and case was registered in Crime No.
280 of 2020. After completing the investigation, final report was also filed
implicating all the accused persons under Section 306 IPC.
3.Seeking quashment of the above said FIR, all the accused persons are
before this Court, but of course with different petitions. Accused Nos.2 to 4
are the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18946 of 2022 and Accused Nos.1 and
5 are the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18942 of 2022.
4.When the matter is taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as the defacto complainant would submit that compromise
has been reached between the parties and they have also filed a joint
compromise memo. Accused persons as well as the defacto complainant are
present before this Court on that time. This Court made enquiry with the
parties. But this Court raised doubt whether offence under Section 306 IPC
can be compounded with the defacto complainant, father of the deceased. So
both sides agreed to argue the matter on merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
5.The defacto complainant also present before this Court in person and
on enquiry, he stated that he does not want to pursue the matter further, since
unfortunate has happened to his daughter, which was invited by herself, for
which, he does not want to blame these petitioners. But, however, such a sort
of contention should not weigh the mind of this Court. So the matter was
heard on merits.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon various judgments
to sustain their points as to whether in the factual circumstances of the case,
the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are attracted.
1.Judgment of this Court in the case of Arockiasamy Vs. State reported in
2014(3) CTC 404.
2.Judgment of this Court in the case of Jeyanthi @ Karolina & Others Vs.
State reported in 2017 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 123.
3.Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Vs. State
reported in 2011 (2) MWN (Crl.) 173 (SC).
4.Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Madhan Mohan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
Singh Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2010 (3) SCC (Crl.) 1048.
5.Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala
Vs. Unnikrishnan Nair & Others reported in 2015 (9) SCC (Crl.) 639.
7.Before we go into the legal issue, now let us take the fair issue. The
suicide note alleged to have been left by the deceased has also been produced.
Two suicide notes are available in the typed set of papers. Both of them reads
as under:
“Appa Amma Amma ugakitta onnu sollanum na
ungalukku theriyama oru thappu pannithan. Na ungala
Yamathala enaya na Yamathikitten Amma Avan enakku
venum Amma ellame panniten. Ipo vendannu solluran
sethuralam pola irukku yarukittayum poi sollavum
mudiyala. Amma na ungakitta onnu sollanum, na
ungalukku theriyama oru thappu pannitten, Ethukku
amma padikka vacheenga neenga naan nalla padippen,
velaikku povennu than padikka vacheenga. Athu suthama
nadakathu amma na saga poren viky illama ennala vala
mudiyathu. Avana na rempa nampunen ana avan enakku
kudutha parisu thukki erinchuttaqn. Athan ipti irruken
amma sethurulam pola thohuthu manasu remba kastama
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
irukku. Ipidiye iruntha na sethuruven amma en savukku
vicky than karanam avan unmaiyana namd Kaliraj
police amma. Ipdi oru ponna yamathi ithu pannathukku
thookku thandanai kodukkanum engalukkulla ellame
mudingiruchu.”
“vd; bgah; bu$pdh ehd; igaid Love
gz;nzd;/ mtd; bgah; fhspuh$h (v)
tpf;ndc&;/// mtDk; ehDk; Love gz;nzhk;
Mdh/// ,g;ngh rhjp ghj;J mtd; mt';f
mk;kh mtd; ez;gh;fs; vy;nyhUk; vd;d
fGj;j g[Lr;R btspna js;sp tpl;lh';f.
mt';f Friendsla buhk;g Important Hari Anna/
Beky Akka. Sri Vani Akka. mtndhl mk;gh ,t';f
vy;nyhUk; vd; rht[f;F fhuzk;/ vd;ndhL
thH;f;if nghdJf;Fk; ,t';fjhd; fhuzk;
mt';f vy;nyhUk; PPolice Trichyla Wrk Pantranga
vd;d khjphp ve;j bghz;Qqf;Fk; elf;ff;
TlhJ/ ,jw;F jf;f eltof;if vLf;fQqk;/
v';f mk;kh. mg;gh ahiua[k; ,Jy
rk;ke;jg;gLj;jf;TlhJ/ ,J ehd; gz;z jg;g[/
vd; rht[f;F Kgf;f fhuzk; fhspuh$h. Hari
Anna, Sri Vani Akka, Belcy Akka ,t';fs jtpu
mtndhl mk;kh Kf;fpa fhuzk;/ ehd; rhf
nghnwd;/ 6379@
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
Reading of these two contradictory statements shows that originally, the
deceased was having some issue with the first accused. But, later the first
accused refused to marry her. On what ground the above said refusal was
made by the first accused is matter for consideration by the trial Court.
Whether the first accused drove the deceased to commit suicide cannot the
matter for consideration, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. No doubt the statement of the defacto complainant before this Court
even though supporting the first accused, reading of the above said suicide
note does not even remotedly indicate the innocence of the first accused. A
specific word has been used by the deceased stating that “mtd; vdf;F
ntQqk; mk;kh vy;yhnk gz;zpl;lhd;”. This line of the deceased at the
time of suicide itself indicate further depression of the deceased. Meaning of
the words can only the matter for consideration by the trial Court. So whether
the first accused as mentioned above created circumstances to commit suicide,
must be tried to its logical conclusion by the trial Court. I absolutely find no
reason to quash the proceedings so far as first accused is concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
8.With regard to the other accused, we find absolutely no implication in
the first suicide note. But in the second note, she has implicated 2 to 5, even
though the 5th accused is mother of the first accused and accused Nos.2 to 4
are no way connected in the affairs. They are sharing a common premises
along with the first accused at the time of occurrence. It has been brought to
the notice of this Court that in search of the first accused, the deceased went to
the premises, where the Armed Reserved Police Personnel are having
residence. At that time some sort of wordy altercation took place between
them and the accused Nos.2 to 4 came there to stop the issue. So they have
also been implicated. Absolutely, they did not share any common intention or
sharing the issue between the deceased and the first accused. So their presence
caused their implications. Merely stating that these persons are responsible for
her to commit suicide, are not sufficient to enough to direct them to undergo
the process of trial. Mere so, the mother is also implicated, stating that she
was pushed out of the house by all the persons.
9.The defacto complainant has stated before this Court at the time of
enquiry that on a phone call received from the first accused they went to his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
house and took the deceased to their house and later only she committed
suicide. After the death only they found third suicide note kept in the bag. So
this statement is also made by him before the Investigating Officer at the time
of investigation, which was recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. So the
question which arises for consideration is whether the second suicide note is
sufficient enough to direct the accused Nos.2 to 5 to undergo the trial process.
In this circumstances only, Section 306 IPC is required to be extracted.
“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.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Punishment—Imprisonment for 10 years and fine—
Cognizable—Non-bailable— Triable by Court of Session
—Non-compoundable.”
10.We can leave the other cases from re-consideration except the
Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Madhan Mohan
Singh Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2010 (3) SCC (Crl.) 1048 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs.
Unnikrishnan Nair & Others reported in 2015 (9) SCC (Crl.) 639, since
those cases have been contested after full trial. But these two cases have been
tested while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the case
of Madhan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat, the suicide note left by the
deceased was taken into account to coming to the conclusion that there was no
intention on the part of the above petitioner to cause death by suicide.
Similarly, in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Unnikrishnan Nair & Others, the
Honourable Supreme Court, by relying upon earlier Judgment in Kishori Lal
Vs. State of M.P., following observation has been made.
“10. The aforesaid provision was interpreted in Kishori
Lal V. State of M.P. By a two-Judge Bench and the
discussion therein is to the following effect: (SCC P.799,
Para 6)
“6.Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The
offence of abetment is a separate and distinct
offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing
of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do
that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
omission, the doing of that thing. These things are
essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word
'instigate' literally means to provoke incite, urge on
or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The
abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or
intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of
Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act
abetted is committed in consequence of abetment
and there is no provision for the punishment of such
abetment, then the offender is to be punished with
the punishment provided for the original offence.
'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence
abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of
which a person is charged with the abetment is
normally linked with the proved offence.”
In that case also a suicide note was left by the deceased was taken into
account and finding that the allegations were not sufficient enough to attract
the commission of abetment of suicide, it was allowed.
11.Therefore, as I mentioned earlier, the second note left by the
deceased contradicts the first note. Absolutely, accused Nos.2 to 5 were not
implicated. Why then the deceased tried to implicate these accused Nos.2 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
5, has also been stated by the defacto complainant at the time of hearing. As
mentioned above, he has stated that at the time of above said wordy quarrel
accused Nos.2 to 5 also came in support of the first accused. Only on that
ground they have been implicated. Even as per the statement of the defacto
complainant, absolutely accused Nos.2 to 5 were not involved in the above
said issue between the first accused and deceased. Out of loss of mind it
appears that she wanted to implicate accused Nos.2 to 5 also in this case. So I
am of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings against
accused Nos.2 to 5 will be injustice and clear abuse of process of the law and
Court. On that ground the petition filed by the accused Nos.2 to 5 are liable to
be allowed and so far as the petition filed in respect of the first accused is
liable to be dismissed.
12.Therefore, the proceedings of charge sheet in S.C.No.394 of 2022 on
the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Tirunelveli, is hereby
quashed in respect of the accused Nos.2 to 5. The trial Court shall proceed
with the trial in respect of the accused No.1 and conclude the same.
Accordingly, the criminal original petition in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18942 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
is partly allowed and the criminal original petition in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18946
of 2022 is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
09.06.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM
To
1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of 2022
G.ILANGOVAN,J.
TM
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18942 & 18946 of
09.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
