Explore a legal case where the court’s meticulous analysis of the concept of abetment in a suicide case is discussed. The court’s examination of the evidence and application of the law provides valuable insights into the challenges of establishing instigation leading to suicide in such situations. Stay tuned to unravel the complexities of abetment in suicide cases.
Facts
- Appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/-
- Appellant was also convicted for the offence under Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and sentenced to undergo three years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/-
- High Court partly allowed the appeal, confirmed the conviction under Section 306 IPC, but reduced the sentence to three years RI
- Original accused has preferred the present appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
- The deceased and the accused had a quarrel on the day of occurrence, leading to both consuming pesticide.
- Prior to the incident, there were allegations of the accused having intimacy with another woman, leading to frequent quarrels between the couple.
- A panchayat was convened by elders to address the quarrels between the deceased and the accused.
- The deceased died due to consuming pesticide, while the accused survived after four days of treatment.
- Both the deceased and the accused consumed pesticide after the quarrel on 7.5.2007.
- The accused and the deceased were married for 25 years and had three children together.
Also Read: Judicial Review of Delayed Writ Petition
Arguments
- PW2, the daughter, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case.
- Apart from the quarrel on the day of the incident, there is no other evidence to establish a case under Section 306 IPC.
- The appellant’s counsel argues that the High Court made a serious error in upholding the trial court’s decision to convict the accused under Section 306 IPC.
- No ingredients of Section 306 IPC are satisfied in this case.
- It is not proven that the appellant abetted the suicide.
- It is acknowledged that a quarrel occurred, but it should be noted that the accused also consumed pesticide along with his wife.
- Unfortunately, the wife passed away.
- No error has been committed by the courts below in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
- Frequent quarrels between the husband and wife led to the deceased’s suicide.
- A quarrel took place between the deceased and the appellant on the day of the occurrence.
- Previous quarrels occurred due to the appellant’s illicit relationship with another woman.
Also Read: Ownership Dispute: Legal Analysis on Admission and Decree
Analysis
- The appellant has made submissions relying on the decisions of the Court in the cases of Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi).
- The appellant prays for the appeal to be allowed and the impugned judgments convicting the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act to be quashed and set aside.
- The learned counsel representing the State has opposed the present appeal.
- The appellant has been convicted mainly for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
- Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something.
- The allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence.
- On the day of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant, and both consumed pesticide.
- The appellant also consumed pesticide and was hospitalized for four days, then discharged.
- Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence leading to suicide may not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.
- Instigation can be inferred if the accused by his acts or omission created circumstances leaving the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.
- The deceased and the appellant had three children out of their wedlock, residing separately.
- The learned counsel for the respective parties have been heard at length.
- The accused did not play an active role in instigating the deceased to commit suicide.
- There is no material on record indicating abetment by the accused.
- Both the High Court and the trial Court erred in convicting the accused under Section 306 IPC.
- The appellant-accused also attempted suicide by consuming pesticide.
Also Read: Interpretation of Statutory Limitation under Section 263(2)
Decision
- The bail bonds of the appellant-accused stand discharged.
- The present appeal is successful due to the reasons mentioned.
- The appellant was released on bail on 14.02.2020 by this Court with set terms and conditions.
- The instant appeal is allowed with the specified terms.
- The judgments dated 03.07.2019 by the High Court and 04.12.2009 by the trial Court are quashed.
Case Title: VELLADURAI Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (2021 INSC 477)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000953-000953 / 2021
