Bail slip The appellant/ accused namely Sekar was directed to be released on bail as per the order of this court dated 26.8.2004 in Crl.M.P.No.9171/04 on the file of this court. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU Crl.A.No. 1055 of 2004 Sekar .. . Appellant VS State by Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode Police Station, Namakkal District ... Respondent PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 18.08.2004 made in S.C.No.27 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.III, Namakkal. For Appellant : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) J U D G M E N T The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.27 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.III, Namakkal. He stands convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo R.I for five months. He has been acquitted from the charge under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 498-A I.P.C. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: i. The appellant is the husband of the deceased Valarmathi (Hereinafter referred to as D.1) The appellant and D.1 had two children, one male and a female.(hereinafter referred to as D.2 and D.3.) The marriage between the appellant and D.1 was celebrated six years prior to the death of D.1. P.W.1 is the mother and P.W.2 is the father of D.1. At the time of marriage between the appellant and D.1, 8 sovereigns of gold jewels were presented by her parents as 'Seervarisai'. Four years after the marriage, again four sovereigns of gold jewels were presented besides a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Thereafter, the accused started harassing D.1. One month prior to the death of D.1, P.W.1 had gone to the house of D.1 and stayed with her. One day prior to the date of occurrence, there arose a domestic quarrel between D.1 and the appellant, in which it is alleged that the appellant fisted D.1 on her face twice and on her cheek. It is further alleged that at that time, the appellant told that he could be in peace only if she died. After the said quarrel, P.W.1 returned to her native place to inform P.W.2. Thereafter, P.W.2 contacted D.1 over phone, to whom, according to P.W.2, D.1 told that she was in troubles. Thereafter, on the same day, D.1 set fire to D.2 andD.3 and to herself. All the three died on 03.09.2003 between 9.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. P.W.4, and 7 are the neighbors of the deceased. On seeking smoke coming out of the house, P.W.7 rushed to the house of the deceased followed by P.W.4. They both saw D.1 to D.3 in charred condition. They were dead. On information by them, P.Ws 1 and 2 rushed to the village and after knowing the incident, P.W.1 proceeded to the Police Station and preferred a complaint to P.W.12 at 1.00 p.m at 03.09.2003. ii) P.W.12, on the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.651 of 2003 under Section 302 I.P.C and Section 174 Cr.P.C. He forwarded the complaint and the original First Information Report to Court and the case diary to P.W.13, for investigation. iii. P.W.13, was the then Deputy Superintendent of police. On taking up the investigation, he proceeded to the spot and prepared observation mahazar in the presence of P.Ws 5 and 6. He also prepared a rough sketch. He recovered a plastic can measuring 5 liters under a cover of Mahazar. He examined P.Ws 1 to 7 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He forwarded the recovered properties to the Court. He also made a request to P.W.8, the then Revenue Divisional Officer of Tiruchengode to hold inquest on the body of the deceased. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ iv. P.W.8, held inquest and prepared inquest reports. He forwarded the dead bodies for post mortem. P.W.9, Dr.Manoharaam, conducted autopsy on the body of all the three deceased. According to P.W.9, all the three died due to burn injuries. P.W.13, thereafter handed over the investigation to P.W.14, the then Inspector of police. P.W.14, collected medical records and photographs taken by P.W.10. On completing the investigation, finally he laid charge sheet. v. Based on the above, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C against the appellant. He denied the charges. Therefore, he was put on trial. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 14 witnesses were examined and 20 documents were exhibited. When the incriminating materials were put to the deceased, he denied the same. He gave a written statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C denying the allegations and explaining as to what made the deceased to commit suicide. vi. Having considered all the above, the trial Court acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. However, the trial Court found the appellant guilty under Section 306 I.P.C and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. It is against the same, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and also perused the records carefully. 4. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3. P.W.3 is the mother of the accused. She has stated that there were frequent domestic quarrels between the appellant and D.1. Similarly, P.W.2 has also stated that there were frequent quarrels between D.1 and the appellant. It has got nothing to do with any demand for money or property. From the narration of the facts stated by P.Ws 1 to 3, it could be inferred that the quarrels between the appellant and D.1 were only domestic due to some mis-understanding between them. Even P.W.2 has stated that when he contacted the deceased over phone, she told him that she was in troubles. He has also stated that there were only frequent quarrels. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit such quarrels are quite natural and even assuming that these quarrels were true, in the absence of any material on record to show that the deceased committed suicide as she was driven by such conduct of the accused, the offence under Section 306 would not be made out. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swami Prahaladdas Vs State of M.P. Reported in 1995 SCC (Crl.) 943, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere remark made by the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' will not constitute the real abetment to commit suicide as enshrined under Section 306 I.P.C. Similarly, the learned counsel relies on yet another judgment of a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat VS Sunilkumar Kanaiyalal Jain reported in 1997 Crl.L.J.2014 wherein also, the Division Bench has taken the view that the remarks made by the accused to his wife that 'it is better for her to die today than tomorrow' will not constitute abatement as provided under Section 306 I.P.C. Following those two judgments, a learned Judge of this Court ( Hon'ble Justice Sudanthiram) in Rukmani VS State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police reported in 2008(2) L.W.(Crl) 776 has also taken similar view to say that such words which are uttered during quarrels cannot be given literal meaning so as to say that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide. I am in full agreement with the above judgments. 6. Apart from that, the learned counsel relied on the recent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Sontui Rama Krishna VS Sonti Shanti Sree and another reported in A I R 2009 Supreme Court 923, wherein the Supreme Court has held that to constitute the abatement, it should be established by means of acceptable evidence by the prosecution that the accused had the animus to drive the woman to commit suicide. Mere uttering of words ' go and die' itself will not constitute such abetment. Applying the above principles, to assess as to whether the accused really had the animus and had driven the woman to commit suicide, the Court has to take into account the credibility of the circumstances. In this case, as I have already stated, except the evidence to the effect that there were frequent domestic quarrels between the appellant and D.1, there is no other material available on record to show that the appellant had the intention to drive the woman to commit suicide . It is also not on record that the deceased committed suicide because of any abatement on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 cannot be sustained as the prosecution has failed to bring home the alleged guilt of the appellant. In such view of the matter, I am inclined to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the lower Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. The bail bond, if any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. pal To 1. the Additional District sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.III Namakkal 2. do thro the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal 3. the Judicial Magistrate thiruchengode 4. do thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate Namakkal District 5. The Superintendent Central Prison, salem 6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. 1 cc to Mr.N. Manokaran, Advocate, Sr. 17536 Crl.A.No.1055 of 2004 KK (CO) kk 31/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/