Koppisetty Satya Sai, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6635 Tel

                                     1
                                                                   Dr. GRR, J
                                                                 crla_65_2013

            THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No.65 of 2013


JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/sole accused aggrieved by the

judgment dated 28.01.2013 in S.C.No.521 of 2011 passed by the

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar in

convicting him for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution was that the deceased was aged about

(26) years was working as Assistant Professor in Mallareddy Engineering

College, Medchal and the accused was the husband of the deceased. He

was also working in Bank of America as Assistant Manager. The deceased

performed love marriage with the accused in the year 2008. During their

conjugal life they were blessed with a son by name Sai Deep. After some

period, the accused started harassing the deceased. Due to unbearable

harassment, on 30.05.2011 at about 8:00 PM, the deceased committed

suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan with her chunni in her bed room and

died.

Dr.GRR,J

3. Basing on the report given by the father of the deceased, the

Inspector of Police, Alwal, registered a case vide Crime No.322 of 2011

under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC on 31.05.2011 at 12:00 hours. The

inspector recorded the statements of the complainant, elder sister of the

deceased and the neighbours of the deceased by visiting the scene of

offence. He conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough

sketch in the presence of the witnesses and seized the chunni used by the

deceased in committing the suicide. He gave a requisition to the MRO,

Shamirpet Mandal to conduct inquest over the body of the deceased. The

MRO conducted inquest in the presence of the witnesses at Gandhi

Hospital Mortuary. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was subjected to

Post Mortem Examination by the Assistant Professor, Department of

Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad, who opined

that the cause of death of the deceased was due to hanging. On 02.06.2011

at 9:00 PM, the accused was arrested and produced before the court for

judicial remand and after completing the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Alwal, filed charge sheet against the accused by deleting the name

of his mother as accused No.2 from the charge sheet due to lack of

sufficient evidence.

Dr.GRR,J

4. The case was taken cognizance by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Medchal, numbered it as PRC.No.76 of 2011 and committed

it to the Court of Sessions as the offence under Section 306 of IPC was

exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Cyberabad made over the matter to II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Cyberabad for conducting trial in accordance with law.

5. The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge framed charges against

the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and

conducted trial. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P6 and MO.1. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused

but a contradiction in the evidence of PW7 was marked as Ex.D1, in

support of the defence.

6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

trial court found the accused guilty for both the offences under

Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and to pay a

fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence under

Section 498-A IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous Dr.GRR,J

imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,

in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of

six (06) years for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

7. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the trial

court, the accused preferred this appeal contending that the trial court

convicted the accused basing on surmises and conjectures. The trial court

erred in convicting the accused for the reason that there was no explanation

from the accused for the deceased committing suicide and had thrown the

burden of proof on the accused. The trial court failed to see that the entire

burden of proof would lie on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable

doubt the guilt of the accused. It was not obligatory on the part of the

accused to explain the reason for committing suicide by the deceased. The

trial court erred in holding that the ingredients of Sections 498-A and 306

of IPC were proved. The trial court failed to see that the Ex.P1 - complaint

was lodged only on suspicion, due to suicide committed by the deceased, as

admitted by PW1 in his evidence. Ex.P1 - complaint was silent on the

aspect of harassment against the deceased and also there were no

allegations of abetment of suicide. The trial court failed to see that there

were several omissions and improvements in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2

on material aspects with regard to the alleged dowry demand and Dr.GRR,J

harassment and failed to see that PWs.1 and 2 admitted that since the date

of marriage there was no contact between them and the deceased, as the

deceased performed the marriage with the accused against the wishes of her

family. As such, trial court ought not to have believed the evidence of

PW1. The trial court failed to see that PW2 admitted that there were

disputes with regard to taking the son of the accused in adoption by PW2

and as such the evidence of PW2 ought not to have believed. The trial

court failed to see that a suicide note was available but the same was not

produced. As such, an adverse inference ought to have been taken by the

trial court against the prosecution and ought to have given benefit of doubt

to the accused. The trial court failed to consider that PWs.4 and 5 were

planted witnesses and the Inspector of Police who was a material witness

was not examined and also failed to consider the binding precedents cited

on behalf of the accused and prayed to set aside the judgment dated

28.01.2013 in S.C.No.521 of 2011 passed by the Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District, Cyberabad and to allow the Criminal Appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor.

Dr.GRR,J

9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued on the same lines as raised

in the grounds of appeal and relied upon several judgments of the Hon'ble

Apex Court. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

supported the judgment of trial court and contended that the burden would

lie on the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 113-A of the

Indian Evidence Act available for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and

the accused failed to rebut the said presumption.

10. To consider the merits of the contentions raised by both learned

counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, as the

accused was charged for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC,

it is considered necessary to extract the said provisions. Section 306 of IPC

is pertaining to 'Abetment of Suicide' and reads as under:-

"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."

11. Section 113-A is inserted by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment)

Act, 1983 (Act No.46) in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with effect from

25.12.1983, which reads as under:

"113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman:-

Dr.GRR,J

When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

Explanation: - For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

12. The presumption as to the abetment of suicide can be raised only if it

is shown that the husband or any relative of the husband of the woman had

subjected the woman to cruelty according to the terms defined in Section

498A of IPC and the suicide must be committed within seven (07) years of

her marriage and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the

Court is given a discretion to presume that such suicide had been abetted by

her husband or relative of her husband. It is a 'may presumption.'

13. Section 498-A of IPC reads as follows:-

"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation:-

For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--

Dr.GRR,J

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

14. On a perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, PW1 is the father of

the deceased, who lodged the complaint with regard to the death of the

deceased. His evidence was that he had two (02) daughters - Prabhavathi

(PW2) was his eldest daughter and the deceased Vidyavathi was his second

daughter Vidyavathi was married with accused No.1 three (03) years prior

to the date of his evidence on 17.12.2012. It was a love marriage; they

were blessed with a son and used to reside at Alwal. Vidyavathi was an

employee in Malla Reddy Engineering College as an Assistant Professor

and the accused was working in Bank of America. He stated that three (03)

months after her marriage, on one day Vidyavathi telephoned and informed

him that the accused was demanding a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs to purchase a

house flat near to his place of work and he informed her that he was a

retired person and was not having that much amount. He further stated that

when his wife, Smt. Kanaka Durga suffered with Heart attack and was

admitted in Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad and the same was informed to Dr.GRR,J

his daughter, Vidyavathi, she stated that her husband would not send her

unless the amount was given. He further stated that the accused and his

mother used to pressurise his daughter for the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs. On

30.05.2011 at 8:00 PM, a police constable informed him that his daughter,

Vidyavathi died in her matrimonial house at Balaji Nagar. They rushed to

the spot and noticed the dead body of her daughter placed on the ground

with a saree tied around the neck. On suspicion with regard to the death of

his daughter, he lodged Ex.P1 report against the accused and his mother on

31.05.2011. As per his evidence, the son of the deceased was living with

them since the death of his daughter.

15. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not attend the

marriage of his daughter as the same was not informed to him and he could

not give the correct date of marriage, none of his family members attended

the marriage; the marriage took place without his consent or the consent of

other family members. He never visited the house of his daughter,

Vidyavathi and his son-in-law. They never informed him anything and not

attended his house. They had not even attended when his wife suffered

with heart attack inspite of information. He admitted that he visited the

house of his deceased daughter only on 30.05.2011 after receiving

information about her death. He also admitted that he had not mentioned in Dr.GRR,J

Ex.P1 about the demand of Rs.20 Lakhs informed by his deceased daughter

and Ex.P1 report was drafted on the same night and handed over to the

Sub-Inspector of Police at the place of incident on 30.05.2011. He stated

that he had not noticed any suicide note at the scene of offence but on the

next date when he visited, Sub-Inspector of Police had shown him a suicide

note written by his daughter, that suicide note would read that nobody was

responsible for her death. Thus, though this witness stated that his daughter

telephoned and informed him about the demand of Rs.20 Lakhs by the

accused three (03) months after her marriage, stated that the same was not

mentioned in Ex.P1 report which was lodged by him.

16. His evidence would disclose that there were no contacts between

him and his deceased daughter after her marriage, as her marriage was

performed against his wishes and the wishes of his family and he had not

visited their house till he received the information about her death. His

evidence also would disclose that there was a suicide note written by his

deceased daughter and the same was shown to him by the Inspector of

Police and in the suicide note, the deceased mentioned that nobody was

responsible for her death.

Dr.GRR,J

17. The elder sister of the deceased by name Prabhavathi was examined

as PW2. She stated that the marriage of the Vidyavathi took place with the

accused three years prior to the date of her evidence and they used to reside

in Alwal, they were blessed with a son, her sister informed her that she was

treated as less than a maid servant and informed her that accused and his

mother used to harass her and accused No.1 also used to beat her. She

stated that on one occasion, the accused telephoned and informed her, his

intention to purchase a two wheeler and on that she asked him to call her

father. On 30.05.2011 at about 7:00 PM, her younger brother Tejendar

telephoned and informed her about Vidyavathi committing suicide. On

that she went to the house of the deceased and the accused, and noticed the

body of Vidyavathi placed on the ground with a mark in dark colour on her

neck and she stated that her father gave a report to the police.

18. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the marriage of her sister

was a love marriage and she could not give the date of marriage and she

was informed by her sister about the marriage three (3) months after the

same was performed, there were no talking terms between the accused and

the deceased with her father and other family members. She further

admitted that she used to visit the house of her deceased sister once in four

to five months. She also admitted that she had not visited the house of the Dr.GRR,J

accused prior to the death of her sister, as the accused instructed her not to

visit their house and she lastly visited the house of the deceased in the

month of February, 2011. She also admitted that she had not stated before

the police about the deceased informing her about the accused and his

mother treating her as less than maid servant and that they used to harass

her and the accused No.1 also used to beat her and that the accused

informed his intention to purchase a two wheeler. Thus, all these facts

were elicited as improvements which were not stated by her in her earlier

statement given to the police. She also further stated that her brother

visited the deceased on Saturday whereas she died on Monday i.e., two

(02) days prior to her death and her brother informed her that he found

everything normal on his visit. She stated that her father and brother were

living together. She stated that on the next day in the Police Station she

saw the alleged suicide note and that she did not remember the contents of

the suicide note, whether it contained that her sister wrote about nobody

was responsible for her death but remembered the last two sentences of the

suicide note as per which the custody of the son of the deceased was given

to her parents. She also admitted that she was having no children after her

marriage which took place about 8 ½ years back for which she took

treatment also. She was also having an intention to take the boy of the Dr.GRR,J

deceased in adoption but never asked the accused about the same but

requested her sister to give that boy in adoption to her.

19. Thus, the evidence of this witness also would disclose that she had

not visited the house of the accused after February 2011 but her younger

brother visited the house of the deceased two days prior to her death but the

deceased had not informed him anything and he found nothing suspicious

about the conduct of the accused or in the conduct of the deceased at that

time. Her evidence with regard to the harassment of the accused to the

deceased, the accused beating her and making a telephone to her expressing

his intention to purchase a two wheeler were all elicited as material

omissions which were also admitted by the Investigating Officer, examined

as PW9. Her evidence also would disclose that there was a suicide note

written by the deceased and that she had seen the same in the Police Station

on the next day. Though she stated that she did not remember the contents

of the suicide note and she remembered only the last two sentences as per

which the custody of the child of the deceased was given to her parents, it

shows that she selectively remembered only that part which matters to her.

The said suicide note was not placed by the prosecution before this Court.

When the witnesses PWs.1 and 2 admitted that there was a suicide note and

they had seen the same in the Police Station, there is no explanation from Dr.GRR,J

the prosecution as to why the same was not produced before the Court. As

such, an adverse inference needs to be taken that if the said document was

produced, it would go against the prosecution case. As such, benefit should

be given to the accused for withholding the said document as per

Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act.

20. The neighbours of the deceased were examined as PWs.3 and 7.

Both these witnesses only stated that the deceased died by committing

suicide by hanging but had not stated any reasons for her committing

suicide. PW7 specifically stated that she did not know as to why the

deceased committed suicide and stated that the accused and the deceased

used to live happily and they were blessed with a son and that both were

employees. As such, their evidences were not material with regard to the

cause of the death of the deceased.

21. The other witness examined was the scene of offence panch as PW4

and his evidence would only disclose that the police prepared the scene of

offence panchnama and rough sketch, and seized MO.1 - Chunni, which

was used by the deceased for committing suicide by hanging.

22. PW5 is the panch witness for the inquest panchnama. She opined

that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment by her husband Dr.GRR,J

and mother-in-law and the inquest was conducted by the Tahsildar but had

not stated on what basis she came to such opinion. In her cross-

examination, she admitted that she was related to PW1 and the other panch

witness was also her cousin brother and both of them visited the Mortuary

at the request of PW1 and attested on the panchanama. She admitted that

she had no personal knowledge about the harassment but as per the

discussions there between PW1 and his wife, she came to such an opinion.

23. PW6 is the Tahsildar of Shamirpet Mandal and she stated that on the

requisition given by the SI of Police, Alwal, she conducted inquest on the

dead body of Vidyavathi in the presence of the witnesses and the opinion of

the inquestdars was incorporated in the inquest panchanama.

24. PW8 is the Doctor who conducted Post Mortem Examination on the

body of the deceased and he stated that he observed ante mortem dark red

pressure abrasions i.e., ligature mark measuring 23 x 4 cms placed

obliquely on and above thyroid cartilage running upwards and backwards

on both sides of the neck and the cause of death to the best of his

knowledge and belief was due to hanging.

25. PW9 is the Sub-Inspector of Police of Alwal Police Station at the

relevant time and he stated about the investigation conducted by him. In Dr.GRR,J

his cross-examination, he admitted all the omissions extracted in the

evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Though PW1 stated that he was informed by the

police about the death of the deceased and PW2 also stated that she found

police at the scene of offence when they reached there, PW9 stated in his

cross-examination that neither he nor the Inspector of Police went to the

scene of offence on the night of 30.05.2011 and stated that he did not

remember whether he was having any information about the death of

deceased prior to receiving Ex.P1 report. He also admitted that the date of

complaint was not mentioned in Ex.P1.

26. Though, PWs.1 and 2 stated that they received information about the

death of the deceased on 30.05.2011 between 8:30 PM to 9:00 PM, lodged

a complaint on 31.05.2011 at 12 noon. No reasons were given for the said

delay. The delay in lodging the report gives rise to a suspicion that it was

lodged after deliberations between them. The observation of the trial court

that Ex.P1 report was given immediately after the occurrence of the offence

was contrary to the facts on record. The trial court placed much

importance on the aspect that the accused failed to give any explanation for

the suicide committed by his wife in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination. It

observed that in the nature of the offences more in particular when the

deceased and accused were living alone, it was for the accused to explain Dr.GRR,J

under what circumstances his wife committed suicide and his silence would

be of no help to him. The accused gave a detailed explanation in his

Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination as to the reason for PWs.1 and 2 having a

grudge against him and speaking falsehood, though, not stated about any

reasons for committing the suicide by his wife.

27. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of

Maharashtra1 wherein it was held that:

"25. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is, that the appellant failed to give any explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. By now it is well-settled principle of law, that false explanation or non-explanation can only be used as an additional circumstance, when the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. However, it cannot be used as a link to complete the chain. Reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]"

Thus, the non-explanation by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

examination can be taken only as an additional link to fortify the finding

but not as a link to complete the chain of circumstances to be proved

against the accused. The burden always lies on the prosecution to prove

that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty as per the terms

referred in Section 498-A of IPC to draw a presumption under

(2021) 5 SCC 626 Dr.GRR,J

Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act. But the burden cannot be placed on

the accused to explain the circumstances which led the deceased to commit

suicide as contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu Vs. State

of West Bengal2 held that:

"15. 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."

29. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment

of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Ude Singh and Others Vs. State of

Haryana3 wherein it was held that:

"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.

(2010) 1 SCC 707

(2019) 17 SCC 301 Dr.GRR,J

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 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."

30. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal

Jaiswal and another4 held that:

"the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a

(1994) 1 SCC 73 Dr.GRR,J

finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."

31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State

(Government of NCT of Delhi)5 held that:

"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 accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of 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."

It also held that:

"16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite 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 (2001) 9 SCC 618 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.

17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act

(2009) 16 SCC 605 Dr.GRR,J

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" (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition).

18. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.

19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar's case (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.

32. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment

of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Shaik Ibrahim and others Vs. State

of Andhra Pradesh6 wherein referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex

Court in Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh7 held that:

2004 SCC Online AP 1422

(2002) 5 SCC 371 Dr.GRR,J

"the Supreme Court while considering the ingredients of Section 107 held that instigating a person to do a thing denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite, and, further held that presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant for instigation. The Supreme Court also held that words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of moment, such as "to go and die" cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea."

33. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs.

State of Maharastra and Ors.8 stated that there must be some positive

action proximate at the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which

led or compelled the person to commit suicide. The evidence of witnesses

would not disclose any positive act committed by the accused to instigate

or in aiding the deceased in committing suicide and the allegation of

harassment itself is not sufficient to sustain a charge under Section 306 of

IPC.

34. But, in the present case, there is no evidence that the accused uttered

any words to abet the deceased to commit suicide or instigated her or

intentionally aided her in committing the act of suicide. There is no

evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended to instigate the

deceased to commit suicide. Unless ingredients of instigation or abetment

to commit suicide are satisfied, the accused cannot be convicted under

Section 306 of IPC. The prosecution should also establish clear mens-rea

AIR 2021 SC 1 Dr.GRR,J

on the part of the accused to commit the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not sufficient to convict the accused either

for the offence under Section 306 or for the offence under Section 498-A of

IPC. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not specific to prove that the accused

subjected the deceased to cruelty by his wilful conduct so as to drive the

deceased to commit suicide or harassed her to meet any unlawful demand

for any property, to attract the definition of "cruelty" under Section 498-A

of IPC.

35. The trial court committed an error in placing the burden upon the

accused to give a satisfactory explanation for the deceased committing

suicide and recording the conviction and sentence on the failure of the

accused to provide such explanation. Thus, this Court finds it fit to allow

the appeal by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded by

trial court against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and

306 of IPC.

36. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside the

conviction and sentence recorded in judgment dated 28.01.2013 in

S.C.No.521 of 2011 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-

cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Dr.GRR,J

Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar in convicting the accused for the offences under

Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.

37. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the offences under Sections

306 and 498-A of IPC. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and

the fine amount paid is liable to be refunded to the accused.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J

December 09, 2022 SS Dr.GRR,J

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.65 of 2013

December 09, 2022

SS