CRL A/469/2020 of NARAYAPPA Vs STATE BY on 13 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The appeal challenges the judgment in S.C.No.10 of 2017 holding the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim/deceased had matrimonial differences with her husband and she was living with her parents; that on 08.05.2015, a panchayat was held in a common place to resolve another matrimonial differences between the brother of the deceased (P.W.5) and his wife; that during the panchayat, the first and second appellants, who are the parents of the wife of P.W.5 had abused the deceased and goaded her to die since they felt that she was responsible for the matrimonial differences between P.W.5 and his wife; that on 09.05.2015, the deceased, unable to bear the humiliation caused by the appellants, committed suicide by hanging. P.W.1/sister of the deceased gave a complaint to the respondent, which was registered in Crime No.267 of 2015 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the offence was altered to Section 306 IPC. on 09.05.2015. The investigation was conducted by P.W.15/Inspector of Police, who filed the final report as against the appellants under Section 306 IPC.

3. During trial, the prosecution had examined 16 witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P11. The defence examined D.W.1 and marked Ex.D1. The prosecution had also marked M.Os. 1 to 7. The Trial Court found that the appellants, by their act, had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased and held the appellants guilty and sentenced them as stated above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that even if the prosecution case is accepted to be true, the act of the appellants cannot be termed as one of abetment of suicide; that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that mere words ‘go and die’ are not sufficient to establish abetment; that the prosecution is bound to prove the cruelty of continuous nature, which had driven the victim to commit suicide since the victim had no other option; and that in the absence of evidence of that kind, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, submitted that P.Ws.1 to 4, who had witnessed the occurrence on 08.05.2015 have cogently deposed that the appellants abused the victim in filthy language, attacked her and also goaded her to die and therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that the third appellant died on 05.10.2023 and has produced the death certificate.

Hence, the appeal filed by the third appellant is dismissed as abated.

7. As stated above, it is the case of the prosecution that in a panchayat held to mediate the dispute between P.W.5 and his wife, the parents of P.W.5’s wife viz., the first and second appellants herein along with their relatives/appellants 3 and 4, had abused the victim in filthy language. In fact, all of them uniformly stated in their deposition as follows: @vjpupfs; vd;’j';ifiag; ghh;j;J vd;Dila bgz;izna eP';fs; thH itf;ftpy;iy vd; bgz;iz thH tpltpy;iy vd;why; eP';fs; ntW ahiua[k; thHtplkhl;Oh;fs;. eP';fs; bgw;nwhh; tPl;oy; ,Ue;Jbfhz;L ,g;go rz;il nghl;Lf;bfhz;L ,Ug;gjw;F v';nfahtJ ngha; rht[ vd;W brhy;yp 1?tJ vjpup ehuhazg;gh vd ; j';if ftpjhit jpl;odhh;/@

8. P.W.5 is the brother of the deceased who would state that his sister was humiliated by the act of the appellants which had forced her to commit suicide. P.W.6 is the husband of P.W.1 who corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.7 is another sister of the deceased who also corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. P.Ws.8 and 9 are the sisters of P.W.1 and they also corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5. P.W.10 is the husband of P.W.8 and he also corroborates the evidence of other witnesses. P.W.11 is the witness to observation mahazar Ex.P2. P.W.12 is the doctor who conducted postmortem on the deceased and issued postmortem report Ex.P5. P.W.13 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR and conducted a part of the investigation. P.W.14 is the Head Constable who assisted the investigating officer. P.W.15 is the Inspector of Police who arrested the accused and altered the offence in the F.I.R. P.W.16 is the investigating officer who filed the final report under Section 306 I.P.C.

9. As stated above, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is seen that it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased, was humiliated by the act of the appellants on 08.05.2015 and committed suicide on 09.05.2015. However, in the complaint given by P.W.1 on 09.05.2015, there is no reference to the alleged humiliation suffered by the deceased due to the act of the appellants. Four days later, the witnesses had improved their version and they accused the appellants of humiliating the deceased during the panchayat. In any case, this Court is of the view that even assuming that the occurrence took place as stated by the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4, the act of the appellants would not attract the offence of abetment of suicide. It is well settled that in order to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC, the accused must be guilty of cruelty of such a kind which had forced the victim to commit suicide and she had no other option. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a recent judgment in Yadwinder Singh alias Sunny v. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2332, has held that to attract the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be a direct incitement or encouragement by the accused, leaving the victim with no other option but to commit suicide. The relevant paragraph reads as follows: ‘17.Thus, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. The act of instigation as alleged must be with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that she is left with no other option but to commit suicide.’ In this case, however, the prosecution has not established any such facts so as to attract the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The victim had the option to complain against the appellants and there is no evidence to suggest that she had no other option except to commit suicide. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Court that the appellants are guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC is liable to be set aside.

10. For the reasons stated above, the judgment in S.C.No.107 of 2017 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, dated 15.10.2020 is set aside and the criminal appeal is allowed insofar as appellants 1, 2 and 4 are concerned and they stand acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants, shall be refunded to them. Bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand discharged. Appellants 1, 2 and 4 shall be released, if not required in any other case. 13.10.2026 Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mmi/nm To

1. The Inspector Of Police, Denkanikottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. mmi CRL A No. 469 of 2020 13.10.2026