VELLADURAI versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 187, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
187
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 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
   [2021] 6 S.C.R. 187
187
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
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][192-
F-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]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
189
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.
Case Law Reference
[2009] 15 SCR 836
relied on
Para 5.3
[2009] 13 SCR 230
referred to
Para 5.3
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 953 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2019 of the High
Court 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 judgment
and order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras, Bench at Madurai in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 417 of 2009,
by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by
the appellant herein – original accused and has confirmed the judgment
and order  of  conviction  passed  by  the  learned  trial  Court  convicting
the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him
to undergo three years RI, the original accused has preferred the present
appeal.
2. That the appellant herein – accused married with the deceased
25 years prior to the occurrence; that out of the said wedlock, they
had three children, one married daughter PW2, living separately and
their two sons working at Chennai and
Kerala. That on the day of
occurrence there was some quarrel between the deceased – wife of
the accused and the accused. That thereafter both the deceased as
well as the appellant herein consumed pesticide. However, the appellant
VELLADURAI v. STATE REPRESENTED BY
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
survived, but his wife died due to consuming the pesticide. The younger
brother of the deceased – PW1 lodged a complaint stating that the
accused is having intimacy with the other woman and therefore the
couple is used to quarrel and in this regard a panchayat was also
convened by elders prior to the occurrence and due to which on
7.5.2007 there was a quarrel and both of them consumed pesticide and
were taken to the local private hospital and the deceased died and the
accused discharged after four days. Therefore, it was alleged against
the accused that he has committed the offence under Section 306 IPC.
On conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the
appellant-accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
2.1 The learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant herein
for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo
7 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default of payment of
fine, three months simple imprisonment and also for the offence under
Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women
Act and sentenced him to undergo three years RI and to pay a fine of
Rs.2500/-, in default of payment of fine, three months simple
imprisonment.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant
herein – original accused preferred appeal before the High Court. By
the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has partly allowed
the said appeal,
however, confirmed the conviction for the offence under
Section 306 IPC, but reduced the sentence to three years RI.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, the original accused has preferred
the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that
the High Court has committed a grave error in dismissing the appeal
and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court
convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
5.1 It is further submitted that no ingredients of Section 306 IPC
are at all satisfied. It is submitted that it is not established and proved
that in fact the appellant abetted the commission of suicide. It is
submitted that it is also not in dispute that the quarrel had taken place,
but at the same time the accused also consumed pesticide along with
his wife. However, unfortunately the wife died. It is submitted that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
191
except the quarrel between the appellant-husband and the deceased-
wife on the day of occurrence, there is no further evidence making
out a case for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
5.2 It is further submitted that even PW2, the daughter also turned
hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
5.3 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions
of 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, it
is prayed to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the
impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below 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.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the
present appeal. It is submitted that on the day of occurrence quarrel
took place between the deceased and the appellant. It is submitted that
even earlier also quarrels took place as the appellant-accused was
having illicit relationship with another woman. It is submitted that
because of that there were frequent quarrels between the husband and
the wife and that is why the deceased committed suicide. It is submitted
therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, 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.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
7.1 The appellant has been convicted mainly for the offence
under Section 306 IPC. It is not in dispute that the marriage between
the appellant and the deceased took place before 25 years. It is also
not in dispute that out of the said wedlock, the deceased and the
appellant had three children, residing separately. 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
VELLADURAI v. STATE REPRESENTED BY
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
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. In light of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances and the evidence on record, it is required to be
considered, whether can it be said that the appellant-accused has
committed an offence under Section 306 IPC for which he has been
convicted?
8. As observed hereinabove, 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.
9. 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. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Amalendu
Pal (supra), 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.
9.1 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 learned trial Court have
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
193
committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under
Section 306 IPC.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated
03.07.2019 passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.
417/2009, as also, the judgment and order dated 04.12.2009 passed by
the learned 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.
11. By order dated 14.02.2020, the appellant herein-accused was
released on bail by this Court on the terms and conditions as may be
fixed by the trial Court. In view of this, his bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
12. The instant appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal allowed.
VELLADURAI v. STATE REPRESENTED BY
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [M. R. SHAH, J.]