Supreme Court of India
VELLADURAI versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 14 September 2021
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
1
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
4
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
VELLADURAI
v.
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE(Criminal Appeal No. 953 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 r/w s.4(b) of Tamil NaduProhibition of Harassment of Women Act – Abetment to suicide –Mere harassment without any positive action on part of the accusedproximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide wouldnot amount to offence u/s.306 IPC – On facts, wife of appellantconsumed pesticide and died – Appellant had quarrel with his wifeon the incident date – But no material on record that appellantplayed an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certainact to facilitate the commission of suicide – On the contrary, evenappellant also had tried to commit suicide by consuming pesticide– There being no material indicating abetment of suicide, the Courtsbelow erred in convicting appellant u/s.306 IPC – Conviction ofappellant u/s.306 IPC and s.4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition ofHarassment of Women Act accordingly quashed and set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The appellant has been convicted mainly for theoffence under Section 306 IPC. It is true that on the day ofoccurrence, there was a quarrel between the deceased and theappellant herein – accused and thereafter both, the appellant andthe deceased consumed pesticide. Even the appellant – accusedalso consumed pesticide and he was hospitalised for four daysand was discharged from the hospital after four days. However,unfortunately the wife died. The earlier quarrels between thehusband and the wife on the allegation that the appellant-accusedwas having illicit relationship with another woman has not beenestablished and proved by the prosecution. Even the daughterof the appellant has not supported the case of the prosecutionand turned hostile. The marriage between the appellant-accusedand the deceased took place before 25 years. Therefore, the
187
A
B
C
DE
F
GH
Apresumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act shall notarise. [Paras 7.1, 8][191-F-H; 192-A-C]
2.1. Now so far as the offence under Section 306 IPC isconcerned, in a case where if any person instigates other personto commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the otherBperson commits suicide, the person causing the instigation isliable to be punished for the offence under Section 306 IPC forabetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bringa case within the provision of Section 306 IPC, there must be acase of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, theperson who is said to have abetted the commission of suicideCmust have played an active role by an act of instigating or bydoing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Mereharassment without any positive action on the part of the accusedproximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicidewould not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.[Para 9][192-C-E]D
2.2. Abetment by a person is when a person instigatesanother to do something. Instigation can be inferred where theaccused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstancesthat the deceased was left with no other option except to commitsuicide. In the instant case, the allegation against the appellantEis that there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence. There isno other material on record which indicates abetment. There isno material on record that the appellant-accused played an activerole by an act of instigating the deceased to facilitate thecommission of suicide. On the contrary, in the present case,Feven the appellant-accused also tried to commit suicide andconsumed pesticide. Under the circumstances and in the factsand circumstances of the case and there is no other material onrecord which indicates abetment, both the High Court as wellas the trial Court have committed an error in convicting theaccused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. [Para 9.1][192-GF-H; 193-A]
3. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court, asalso, the judgment and order passed by the trial Court convictingthe accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and Section4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, areHhereby quashed and set aside. [Para 10][193-B]
Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC707 : [2009] 15 SCR 836 – relied on.
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCTof Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : [2009] 13 SCR 230 –referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 953 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2019 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Madras of Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal(MD) No.417 of 2009.
Arun Prakash, B. Balaji, Advs. for the Appellant.
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature atMadras, Bench at Madurai in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 417 of 2009,by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred bythe appellant herein – original accused and has confirmed the judgmentand order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court convictingthe accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentencing himto undergo three years RI, the original accused has preferred the presentappeal.
2. That the appellant herein – accused married with the deceased25 years prior to the occurrence; that out of the said wedlock, theyhad three children, one married daughter PW2, living separately andtheir two sons working at Chennai and Kerala. That on the day ofoccurrence there was some quarrel between the deceased – wife ofthe accused and the accused. That thereafter both the deceased aswell as the appellant herein consumed pesticide. However, the appellant A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Asurvived, but his wife died due to consuming the pesticide. The youngerbrother of the deceased – PW1 lodged a complaint stating that theaccused is having intimacy with the other woman and therefore thecouple is used to quarrel and in this regard a panchayat was alsoconvened by elders prior to the occurrence and due to which on7.5.2007 there was a quarrel and both of them consumed pesticide andBwere taken to the local private hospital and the deceased died and theaccused discharged after four days. Therefore, it was alleged againstthe accused that he has committed the offence under Section 306 IPC.On conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against theappellant-accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.C
2.1 The learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant hereinfor the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo7 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default of payment offine, three months simple imprisonment and also for the offence underSection 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of WomenDAct and sentenced him to undergo three years RI and to pay a fine ofRs.2500/-, in default of payment of fine, three months simpleimprisonment.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the appellantherein – original accused preferred appeal before the High Court. ByEthe impugned judgment and order, the High Court has partly allowedthe said appeal, however, confirmed the conviction for the offence underSection 306 IPC, but reduced the sentence to three years RI.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court, the original accused has preferredFthe present appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted thatthe High Court has committed a grave error in dismissing the appealand confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Courtconvicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.G5.1 It is further submitted that no ingredients of Section 306 IPC
G5.1 It is further submitted that no ingredients of Section 306 IPCare at all satisfied. It is submitted that it is not established and provedthat in fact the appellant abetted the commission of suicide. It issubmitted that it is also not in dispute that the quarrel had taken place,but at the same time the accused also consumed pesticide along withhis wife. However, unfortunately the wife died. It is submitted thatH
except the quarrel between the appellant-husband and the deceased-wife on the day of occurrence, there is no further evidence makingout a case for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
5.2 It is further submitted that even PW2, the daughter also turnedhostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
5.3 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisionsof this Court in the cases of Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal,reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707; and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State(Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, itis prayed to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside theimpugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below convictingthe appellant-accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC read withSection 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed thepresent appeal. It is submitted that on the day of occurrence quarreltook place between the deceased and the appellant. It is submitted thateven earlier also quarrels took place as the appellant-accused washaving illicit relationship with another woman. It is submitted thatbecause of that there were frequent quarrels between the husband andthe wife and that is why the deceased committed suicide. It is submittedtherefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, no error has beencommitted by the courts below in convicting the accused for the offenceunder Section 306 IPC read with Section 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibitionof Harassment of Women Act.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length.
7.1 The appellant has been convicted mainly for the offenceunder Section 306 IPC. It is not in dispute that the marriage betweenthe appellant and the deceased took place before 25 years. It is alsonot in dispute that out of the said wedlock, the deceased and theappellant had three children, residing separately. It is true that on theday of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the deceased and theappellant herein – accused and thereafter both, the appellant and thedeceased consumed pesticide. Even the appellant – accused alsoconsumed pesticide and he was hospitalised for four days and wasdischarged from the hospital after four days. However, unfortunatelythe wife died. The earlier quarrels between the husband and the wife A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aon the allegation that the appellant-accused was having illicit relationshipwith another woman has not been established and proved by theprosecution. Even the daughter of the appellant has not supported thecase of the prosecution and turned hostile. In light of the aforesaid factsand circumstances and the evidence on record, it is required to beconsidered, whether can it be said that the appellant-accused hasBcommitted an offence under Section 306 IPC for which he has beenconvicted?
8. As observed hereinabove, the marriage between the appellant-accused and the deceased took place before 25 years. Therefore, thepresumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act shall not arise.C
9. Now so far as the offence under Section 306 IPC isconcerned, in a case where if any person instigates other person tocommit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other personcommits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to bepunished for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetting theDcommission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring a case within theprovision of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and inthe commission of the said offence, the person who is said to haveabetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role byan act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commissionEof suicide. As observed and held by this Court in the case of AmalenduPal (supra), mere harassment without any positive action on the partof the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to thesuicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.
9.1 Abetment by a person is when a person instigates anotherFto do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had,by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceasedwas left with no other option except to commit suicide. In the instantcase, the allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel onthe day of occurrence. There is no other material on record whichindicates abetment. There is no material on record that the appellant-Gaccused played an active role by an act of instigating the deceased tofacilitate the commission of suicide. On the contrary, in the present case,even the appellant-accused also tried to commit suicide and consumedpesticide. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstancesof the case and there is no other material on record which indicatesHabetment, both the High Court as well as the learned trial Court have committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence underSection 306 IPC.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated03.07.2019 passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.417/2009, as also, the judgment and order dated 04.12.2009 passed bythe learned trial Court convicting the accused for the offence underSection 306 IPC and Section 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition ofHarassment of Women Act, are hereby quashed and set aside.
11. By order dated 14.02.2020, the appellant herein-accused wasreleased on bail by this Court on the terms and conditions as may befixed by the trial Court. In view of this, his bail bonds shall standdischarged.
12. The instant appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H