LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

From a close reading of these judgments, it could be culled out that for establishing an offence under Section 306 I.P.C., essentially, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had mensrea to instigate or to aid the commission of suicide by the deceased. Mere uttering of words which may even be provocative may not constitute instigation or aiding to commit suicide. With these broad principles in mind, if the facts of the present case are looked into, I find no material at all on record to hold that the accused had any mensrea in their mind either to instigate or to drive the deceased to commit suicide. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, it could be seen that there was no motive at all for the accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide. It is no explained as to what prompted these accused to go over near the house of the deceased to call her in open to enquire about her alleged intimacy with A-1. In the absence of any acceptable evidence, it would be too difficult to believe that these accused would have done anything actively to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, I am of the firm view that it would not be safe to convict the accused on the evidence available on record under Section 306 IPC. Similarly, in respect of conviction under Section 509 IPC also, since it is too hard to believe the evidence of P.Ws1 and 2, the question of convicting them is not safe. In view of all the above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain the conviction. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed; conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted. Fine if any paid already is ordered to be refunded to the appellants. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :   27.1.2011

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.ARUMUGHASWAMY

 Criminal Appeal  No.460 of 2004


1.Mubarack
2. Auto Ismail
3. Hakkim ... Appellants


Vs.

The State rep. by Inspector of Police
B-12 Ukkadam Police Station
Coimbatore.   ... Respondent


Criminal Appeal filed under Section  374 of Cr.P.C.  against  the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore   in S.C.No.205 of 2003 dated 8.3.2004.
For Appellant :  Dr.V.Suresh
For Respondent: Mr.N.Kumanan
       Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

    JUDGMENT
The appellants/accused 1,2,5  stand convicted  for the offences under Section 306 IPC   and sentenced to undergo  rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each  in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and the appellants stand convicted for the offence under Section   509  IPC  and sentenced to undergo  simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each  in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each  and the said sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the  judgment of the learned  Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.205 of 2003 dated 8.3.2004.  Challenging the said conviction and sentence,  the appellants have  come forward with the present appeal.
2. The prosecution case is  as follows:-
P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents  of the deceased.  The deceased Pathymuthu  was married to one  Akbar Ali  eight years before.  Though they lived together as husband and wife for some time and subsequently, due to misunderstanding, she came out of the matrimonial home and started living along with P.Ws. 1 and 2 at Coimbatore.  It appears that  there were some attempts made to unite them which ended in futile. The accused in this case belong to the same locality.  On 18.12.2003, at about 11.00 p.m., while  P.W.1 was taking water in a nearby  water tap, A-2 appeared and wanted P.W.1  to call the deceased for an enquiry.  P.W.1 declined to do so  stating that a Muslim woman could not be called in such an odd hour for an enquiry.  However, A-2 pressurized  her to call the deceased. While the said transaction was going on, A-3, A-4 and A-5 also came to the spot. They joined with  A-2 and demanded that the deceased  should be called for the purpose of  an enquiry.  Due to the same, P.W.1 went to her house and brought  the deceased to the place where these accused were standing.  At that time, A-2  asked the deceased as to  whether she had illicit  intimacy  with A-1  by name Mr.Mubarack.  She answered in the negative.  Then A-2 asked A-5  to bring A-1  to the spot. Shortly, thereafter, A-5 brought A-1  to the place of occurrence.  In the presence of deceased and  P.Ws. 1 &2,  A-2 asked A-1 as to whether he had illicit intimacy with the deceased. A-1 answered in the affirmative. On hearing the same,  the deceased started crying denying the said statement.  The other accused viz., A-6, A-7 and A-8 also joined with the other accused. The deceased told them that the said statement made by A-1 was   false and that she had no illicit intimacy with A-1 at all.  After this conversation,  the  deceased  rushed to her house.  P.W.1  followed her.  But P.W.1 could not find the deceased. The children  at home  told P.W.1 that the deceased  had gone to upstairs.   P.W.1, therefore, rushed to the upstairs of the house. To his shock, she found the deceased  hanging by using her shawl  from the wooden beam.  P.W.1 tried to help the deceased.  The people from neighbourhood were also attracted  by the same. The deceased was removed from knot and rushed to the hospital. But the Doctor  declared her dead. Thereafter, P.W.1  proceeded to the police station on the next day i.e. on  19.12.2003 morning at 6.00 a.m. and preferred a complaint.
3. P.W.8,  who was the then Sub-Inspector of Police of B-12 Police Station,  registered a case on the said complaint in Crime No.109/2003 under Section 306 I.P.C. Ex.P1 is the printed F.I.R.  Investigation was thereafter taken up by P.W.9 who is the then Inspector of Police of the said Police Station.
4. P.W.9 proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar  and rough sketch and also held inquest on the body of the deceased. He examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded  their statements.  On completing  inquest,  through letter  under Ex.P1, he forwarded the body for  autopsy.  P.W.7  Dr.Gnanadurai who was the then Tutor of Forensic Medicine at Coimbatore Medical  College  conducted autopsy  on the body of the deceased and he found the following external injuries:-
"An oblique incomplete ligature mark of 21 cms x 1.5 cms seen encircling the upper part of front and sides  of the neck with a gap of 9 cms seen in the posterior aspect of neck, where it merges with the hairline.  The anatomical locations   of the  ligature marks are as follows:-
-3 cms below the right mastoid, 6 cms below the middle of the chin and 7 cms below the left mastoid.
-On blood less dissection of the neck, the base of the ligature mark is hard and parchment like.  There is no extra vasation of blood seen in the superficial  and deep planes of the neck.  Underlying neck structures are found normal.
-Hyoid  bone intact.
-Multiple superficial  surface incisions made all over the body reveals  nil other injury."

5. Ex.P15 is the post mortem  certificate.  He forwarded the viscera for chemical examination. Ex.P6 is the chemical analysis report. He opined that the deceased died due to suicidal hanging.  Ex.P7 is the final opinion. On completing the investigation , P.W.9 laid final report.  On committal, the case was tried by the Special Judge, Court for women in Sessions Case No.205 of 2003.
6. The trial court framed charges under Sections 147, 509 and 306 I.P.C.,  against  all the accused.  All the accused denied the charges and therefore,  they were put on trial.
7. During the trial of the case,  on the side of the prosecution, as many as 9 witnesses were examined and 11 documents were exhibited besides, 5 material objects. When the accused were questioned  in respect of the incriminating materials,  they denied the same.  However, they did not examine any of the witnesses  on their side.  Having considered all the above, the trial court  convicted  A-1, A-2 and A-5  and sentenced them as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. It is against the said   conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this court with this appeal.
8. In this appeal,  it is mainly contended  by the learned counsel for the appellants  that even  assuming that the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3 are  taken into consideration,  even then, offence under Section 306 IPC would not be attracted.  The learned counsel would  submit that absolutely  there has been no evidence  to show that there are required legal mental  element on the part of the accused to  drive  the  deceased to commit suicide.  He would further submit that none of the ingredients  as required under Section 306 I.P.C have been  established by the prosecution.  He would further submit that offence under Section 509  also would not be made out as against any of the accused. The learned counsel would take me through the evidence let in by the prosecution in extentio  to substantiate his contention.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that to prove the offence  under Section 306,   the Apex Court in a catena of decisions has laid down the following ingredients  which must be available  so as to constitute the offence:-

1.  What constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically  be suggestive of consequence.    Ramesh Kumar Vs.  State of Chhattisgarh (2001 (9) SCC 618)

2.  There should be reasonable certainty  to  incite  the consequence which must be capable of  being spelt out.  Ramesh Kumar Vs.  State of Chhattisgarh (2001 (9) SCC 618)

3.  A word uttered  in a fit of anger or emotion without intending consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.  Ramesh Kumar Vs.  State of Chhattisgarh (2001 (9) SCC 618)
   2002 5  SCC 371
4.   The presence of  mensrea is necessary concomitant for  instigation.  (SANJU  Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.)(2002 (5) SCC 371)

5. Use of the words by itself will not constitute instigation.   Gangula Mohan Reddy  Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010 (1) SCC 750)
6. There is a difference between  to provoke, to goad, to instigate  Ramesh Kumar Vs.  State of Chhattisgarh (2001 (9) SCC 618)

7. The accused must have played an active role (Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu  Vs. State of West Bengal) (2010 (1) SCC 707
8.  Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid the conviction cannot be sustained.  Gangula Mohan Reddy  Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010 (1) SCC 750)
10.  From a close reading of these judgments, it could be  culled out that for establishing  an offence under Section 306 I.P.C., essentially, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had  mensrea to instigate  or to aid the commission of suicide by the deceased.  Mere uttering of words which may even be  provocative  may not constitute  instigation  or aiding to commit suicide.  With these broad principles in mind, if the facts  of the present case are looked into, I find no material  at all on record to hold that the accused had any mensrea  in their mind either to instigate or to drive the deceased  to commit suicide.  From the evidence  of P.Ws. 1 and 2, it could be seen that there was no motive at all for the accused to drive the  deceased to  commit suicide.  It is no explained as to  what prompted these accused to go over near the house of the deceased to call her in open to enquire about her alleged intimacy  with A-1. In the absence of any acceptable evidence, it would be too difficult to believe that these accused would have done anything actively to drive the  deceased to commit suicide.   Therefore, I am of the firm  view that it would not be safe to convict the accused on the evidence  available on record under  Section 306 IPC. Similarly, in respect of conviction  under Section 509 IPC also,   since it is  too hard  to believe the evidence of P.Ws1  and 2, the question of convicting them is not safe.  In view of all the above,  I hold that the  prosecution  has failed to prove  the case beyond  reasonable  doubt   so as to sustain the conviction.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed;  conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are set aside and they are  acquitted.  Fine if any paid already is ordered to be refunded to the appellants.  The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.










Krr