Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 r/w s.4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act – Abetment to suicide – Mere harassment without any positive action on part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to offence u/s.306 IPC – On facts, wife of appellant consumed pesticide and died – Appellant had quarrel with his wife on the incident date – But no material on record that appellant played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide – On the contrary, even appellant also had tried to commit suicide by consuming pesticide – There being no material indicating abetment of suicide, the Courts below erred in convicting appellant u/s.306 IPC – Conviction of appellant u/s.306 IPC and s.4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act accordingly quashed and set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The appellant has been convicted mainly for the offence under Section 306 IPC. It is true that on the day of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant herein – accused and thereafter both, the appellant and the deceased consumed pesticide. Even the appellant – accused also consumed pesticide and he was hospitalised for four days and was discharged from the hospital after four days. However, unfortunately the wife died. The earlier quarrels between the husband and the wife on the allegation that the appellant-accused was having illicit relationship with another woman has not been established and proved by the prosecution. Even the daughter of the appellant has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The marriage between the appellant-accused and the deceased took place before 25 years. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act shall not arise. [Paras 7.1, 8][191-F-H; 192-A-C]
2.1. Now so far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, in a case where if any person instigates other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.[Para 9] [192-C-E]
2.2. Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. In the instant case, the allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence. There is no other material on record which indicates abetment. There is no material on record that the appellant-accused played an active role by an act of instigating the deceased to facilitate the commission of suicide. On the contrary, in the present case, even the appellant-accused also tried to commit suicide and consumed pesticide. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no other material on record which indicates abetment, both the High Court as well as the trial Court have committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. [Para 9.1][192F-H; 193-A]
3. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court, as also, the judgment and order passed by the trial Court convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and Section 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, are hereby quashed and set aside. [Para 10][193-B] Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC
707 : [2009] 15 SCR 836 – relied on.
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : [2009] 13 SCR 230 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.