Supreme Court of India

Mariano Anto Bruno vs Inspector Of Police on 12 October, 2022

Author:
Krishna Murari

Bench:
Krishna Murari
,
M. R. Shah

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2022

MARIANO ANTO BRUNO & ANR. ….. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ….. RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 31.01.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras

(hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of

2021 filed by the Appellants herein seeking to set aside the order of

conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai

(hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) in S.C No. 209 of 2016 under

Sections 498A
and
of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to

as “
IPC
”). The Appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for

a period of 3 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of which to

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

POOJA SHARMA

Date: 2022.10.12

16:31:12 IST

Reason:

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under
Section
498A
IPC and to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 years with a

fine of Rs. 25,000/- each in default of which to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 3 months under
Section 306
IPC. By

impugned judgment, the High Court upheld the conviction of the

Appellants for the offence under
Sections 498A
and
IPC.

2. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as

follows:

2.1 The marriage between Appellant No. 1 and Dr. M. Amali Victoria

(hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was solemnised on 08.09.2005

and a male child was born out of wedlock in the year 2007. On the

professional front, both parties are doctors. Appellant No. 1 was

informed on 05.11.2014 that the deceased had collapsed in the

bathroom of their home and was non-responsive. Immediately, an

ambulance was called by the father of Appellant No. 1. On reaching the

site of the incident, Appellant No. 1 found the deceased having no pulse.

Despite intervention from the neighbors of Appellant No. 1 who were

doctors, the deceased could not be resuscitated and passed away on

05.11.2014. Post mortem of the body was conducted on 06.11.2014 and

the cause of death was asphyxia due to external compression of the

neck.
2.2 On 06.11.2014, The Respondent Police registered FIR No. 1865 of

2015 at Police Station K2, Ayanavaram, District Kilpauk, Chennai based

on the statement of Appellant No. 1 owing to the unnatural death of the

deceased under
Section 174
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as “
Cr.P.C
”).

2.3 After 3 weeks of the death of the deceased, PW-1(the mother of

the deceased) lodged a complaint against the Appellant No.1, Appellant

No. 2(mother-in-law), and the father-in-law of the deceased for the

offences punishable under
Sections 498A
and
IPC. Thereafter, the

FIR was converted from
Section 174
Cr.P.C to
Sections 498A
and
IPC.

2.4 It was the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the

deceased with Appellant No. 1 was solemnised in the year 2005 and

since the deceased was not having a child for 1.5 years, the appellants

abused her and compelled her to participate in the Pooja and on the

refusal of the same, she was threatened by the appellants that she

would die. Subsequently, the deceased gave birth to a male child

named Rosando by caesarean in the year 2007. Further, the Appellant

No. 1 caused immense mental torture to the deceased by compelling

her to have another child in spite of the fact that the deceased had a
miscarriage with her second pregnancy. The deceased was made to do

all the domestic household work and was subjected to continuous

cruelty at the hands of the appellants. Due to the same reason, the

deceased was driven to commit suicide on 05.11.2014.

3. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was

filed and cognizance was taken. Since the offences are triable by the

Court of Session, the said case being SC No. 209 of 2016 was

committed to Mahila Court, Chennai for trial.

4. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the

offences under
Sections 498A
and
IPC. The appellants pleaded not

guilty and therefore they came to be tried for the aforesaid offence.

5. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution examined 15

witnesses. From side of the defence, no witnesses were examined. The

statement of the appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C.

6. The Trial Court, after analysing the statement made by the

prosecution witness and evidence of the defence, vide judgment and

order dated 26.03.2021 convicted the Appellants i.e., the husband and

mother-in-law of the deceased for the offences under
Sections 498A
and
IPC and were sentenced as stated herein above. The Trial Court

acquitted the father-in-law of the deceased of all the charges.

7. Challenging the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the

Appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2021 before the High Court.

The same was dismissed with the observation that the Appellants have

committed the offence under
Sections 498A
and
IPC and the Trial

Court rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellants

herein. The Respondent police were directed to send the appellants to

undergo the remaining period of sentence. Being aggrieved by the High

Court order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

8. We have heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, Learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

Contentions on behalf of the Appellants:

9. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the

allegations of cruelty have been made for the first time in the complaint

made by the mother of the deceased and there is not even a whisper of

these allegations in over 9 years of marriage by the deceased or her

family. On the contrary, the relations between the Appellants and his

family, and the deceased and her family were extremely cordial.
10. It was vehemently submitted that the deceased was suffering from

bipolar disorder and this fact was not disclosed to the petitioner at the

time of marriage. In spite of the non-disclosure of the same, Appellant

No. 1 took good care of the deceased and it cannot be alleged that the

deceased committed suicide due to abetment by the Appellants.

11. It was further submitted that the complaint has been made

belatedly with an ulterior motive which is also reflected in/from the initial

statements of family members of the deceased made soon after her

death.

12. It was next submitted that there were no signs of animosity

between the families when their statements were being recorded

immediately after the death of the deceased. However, one of the sisters

of the deceased asked for the custody of Appellant No.1’s son (rights

over the property) and on refusal, the complaints started.

13. It was further submitted that the courts below completely

disregarded the testimony of PW-9 who was the medical professional,

who treated the deceased on 04.11.2014 ie., one day before her death.

The summary recorded by PW-9 clearly records the history of

depressive illness in the past, suicidal attempts, and suicidal ideas.
14. It was also submitted that the courts below have proceeded with

convicting the appellants solely on the basis of the testimony of PW-1 to

PW-3 alleging continuous harassment and mental cruelty by the

appellants.

15. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in
Amalendu

Pal Vs. State of West Bengal1
,
Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana2
,

Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab
3,
Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State

of Haryana4
.

Contentions on behalf of the Respondents:

16. Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondents submitted that the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 has clearly

established that after marriage, all the accused persons demanded more

dowry and also stated how the deceased was abused and humiliated for

not conceiving and compelled her consume cow urine in the name of

‘Pooja’.

17. It was further submitted that the Trial Court as well the High Court

has weighed all relevant factors, including the nature of the charge, the

1 (2010) 1 SCC 707
2 (2020) 15 SCC 359
3 (2020) 10 SCC 200
4 (2019) 17 SCC 301
gravity of the offence and penalty, and the nature of evidence while

convicting the Appellants under
Sections 306
and
498A
IPC.

18. It was also submitted that PW-1 to PW-3 have consistently stated

about the nature of harassment and incident which instigated the victim

to commit suicide leaving her only child.

19. It was next vehemently submitted that there is clear evidence to

show that after the abortion of second pregnancy in 2014, the abuse,

harassment, and instigation by the accused persons increased many

folds.

20. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the learned

counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire records.

21. The genesis of the present appeal originates from the impugned

order pronounced by the High Court whereby the High Court upheld the

conviction of the Appellants under
Sections 306
and
498A
of IPC. Taking

that into account, it is necessary to advert to the essential ingredients of

Section 306
IPC.
22.
Section 306
of IPC reads as under: -

“306. Abetment of suicide: - If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine.”

23. Abetment is defined under
Section 107
of IPC which reads as
under:-

“107. Abetment of a thing:- A person abets the
doing of a thing, who -

First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of
that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing;
or

Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1- A person who by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily
causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure,
a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing.

Explanation 2- Whoever, either prior to or at the time
of the commission of an act, does anything in order to
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby
facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the
doing of that act.”
24. While analyzing the provisions of
Section 306
IPC along with the

definition of abetment under
Section 107
IPC, a two-Judge Bench of this

Court in
Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another
5 has

observed as under:-

“13. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an
offence as a person committing suicide goes beyond
the reach of law but an attempt to suicide is considered
to be an offence under
Section 309
IPC. The abetment
of suicide by anybody is also an offence under
Section
IPC. It would be relevant to set out
Section 306
of
the IPC which reads as under :-

“306. Abetment of suicide. —If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

14. Though, the
IPC
does not define the word
‘Suicide’ but the ordinary dictionary meaning of
suicide is ‘self-killing’. The word is derived from a
modern latin word ‘suicidium’ , ‘sui’ means
‘oneself’ and ‘cidium’ means ‘killing’. Thus, the word
suicide implies an act of ‘self-killing’. In other words,
act of death must be committed by the deceased
himself, irrespective of the means adopted by him in
achieving the object of killing himself.

15.
Section 306
of IPC makes abetment of suicide a
criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the
same.

16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word
‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to
do something. This Court in the case of Ramesh

5 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873
Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh1 has defined the
word ‘instigate’ as under :-

“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do an act.”

17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-

relation with
Section 306
IPC has been discussed
repeatedly by this Court.
In the case of
S.S.Cheena Vs.
Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr6
, it was observed as
under:-

“Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without a positive
act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid
in committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the legislature and
the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme
Court is clear that in order to convict a person
under
Section 306
IPC there has to be a clear
mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires
an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option
and that act must have been intended to push
the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide.”

25. The ingredients of
Section 306
IPC have been extensively laid out

in
M. Arjunan Vs. State
, represented by its Inspector of Police 7 which

are as under: -

“The essential ingredients of the offence under
Section
I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the
accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to
commit suicide. The act of the accused, however,
insulting the deceased by using abusive language will
not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There

6 (2010) 12 SCC 190
7 (2019) 3 SCC 315
should be evidence capable of suggesting that the
accused intended by such act to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied,
accused cannot be convicted under
Section 306

I.P.C.”

26. In order to convict an accused under
Section 306
IPC, the state of

mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to

determining the culpability. With regard to the same, a two-judge bench

of this Court in
Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana
8 observed as

under:-

“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement
to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be
disputed that the question of cause of a suicide,
particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of
suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted
and complex attributes of human behavior and
responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for
abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for
cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement
to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide,
mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by
another person would not suffice unless there be such
action on the part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an offending
action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.
Whether a person has abetted in the commission of
suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from
the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another; the
consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the
act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained

8 (2019) 17 SCC 301
and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-

referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been
hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise
not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be
safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and
by his continuous course of conduct creates a
situation which leads the deceased perceiving no
other option except to commit suicide, the case may
fall within the four-corners of
Section 306
IPC. If the
accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-
esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually
draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may
be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of
mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases
would be examined with reference to the actual acts
and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds
are only of such nature where the accused intended
nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger,
a particular case may fall short of the offence of
abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on
irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds
until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a
particular case may be that of abetment of suicide.
Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human
behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its
own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding
factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of
the accused and the deceased.”

27. In the backdrop of the above discussion, we may now advert to the

facts of the present case to test whether the conviction of the Appellants

for the offence under
Sections 306
and
498A
IPC is sustainable or not.
28. The marriage of Appellant No. 1 and the deceased was

solemnised in the year 2005 and a male child named “Rosando” was

born out of the wedlock in the year 2007. It is pertinent to mention that

both, Appellant No. 1 and the deceased are reputed doctors by

profession working in the State of Tamil Nadu. There has been no

animosity between the families of Appellant No. 1 and the deceased

throughout their marriage. Infact, after the marriage, Appellant No. 1

came to know that the deceased was suffering from bipolar disorder.

Subsequently he also came to know that she had suicidal tendencies

right from her student days and had undergone treatment under a

psychiatrist at Thirunelveli, Tamil Nadu.

29. At this stage, it may be relevant to refer to the statement made by

Appellant No. 1 under
Section 313
Cr.P.C which is as under:

“My wife had mental illness right from her young age.
She had undergone treatment several times as an in-
patient even while she was studying. She had even
attempted suicide several times. They had got her
married suppressing the above facts. I became aware
of these facts only after the marriage when I
confronted my mother-in-law and my wife’s sister
regarding the above, my mother-in-law had left for
America. It was I who had treated my wife for 9 years
thereafter. I had managed to ensure that the effects of
the disease are contained to the minimum possible.
She continuously had Bipolar Disorder, Depression,
Phobias, Hallucination and Suicidal tendency. She had
been taking several medicines continuously for these.”
The fact stands corroborated by the summary of treatment report dated

04.11.14 by Dr. Shalini, Consultant Psychiatrist, PW-9 which is

reproduced below:-

“Dr. Amali Victoria/32/F MBBS, MD(psy), Asst Prof IMH
W/o Mr. Mariano Bruno / 36/ M Mch (Neuro) Surgeon
Mx 7 years A/NC/N/ 1 Son 7/M

 Couple present together

 Wife C/o sadness for past 1 month, after being posted in female
ward @ IMH

o Feels tired, not interested in working
o Feels demoralized, incapacitated
o Poor sleep

 She had felt well until 6 weeks, suddenly turned more and more
desparate.

 No H/o hypothyroidism

 H/o similar depressive illness in the past (+)

o H/o episode during MBBS, had attempted suicide, had
taken treatment with a psychiatrist at Thirunelvelli,
admitted in ICU, TMC.

o 2nd episode post partum
o 3rd episode present

 C/o suicidal ideas past two days – hence husband has brought
her for consultation today

 Client’s husband wants to go in for 2 nd child, where as amali
fears that she may not be able to cope up. Feels helpless,
hopeless and worthless

 She wants to quit her job, but fears parents in law will leave her
and go back to native place. She feels she will not be able to
take care of her son or other future kids on her own.
 Husband says he had requested for a second opinion because
he feels she is getting very quiet and inactive at home. She had
previously consulted her psychiatrist colleague at IMH also. But
husband wants a second opinion as she has been talking of
committing suicide for the past 2 days.

 Amali Counselled
Advised free T3, TSH
Rx
Cap. Prodep (20) 1-0-0
Tab Eliwel (25) 0-0-1
x 10 days

 To come with TFT report for review after 10 days

 To continue the therapy for sense of worthlessness”

30. Within few weeks of marriage, the Appellant No. 1 wrote an email

to the deceased’s mother and sister seeking their help in order to take

care of the deceased but the deceased’s mother refused to help and she

left for United States. Subsequently, with the help of Appellant No. 1, the

health condition of the deceased improved and she finished her post-

graduation in 2013 with a gold medal and subsequently, started working

in the year 2014. The relationship between the families were cordial and

the deceased was very affectionate towards the Appellant’s family and

there are no evidence of cruelty or harassment meted out to her by the

Appellants.

31. In the year 2014, the deceased suffered a miscarriage, due to

which she started showing signs of depression and further took
treatment on 04.11.2014 from Dr. Shalini ie, PW-9, who prescribed

certain medications. However, the deceased passed away on

05.11.2014 after she was found unconscious in the bathroom.

32. With respect to bipolar disorder with which the deceased was

suffering, it refers to a disorder associated with episodes of mood swings

ranging from depressive lows to manic highs. Some of the symptoms of

bipolar disorder are as follows:

 Feeling sad, hopeless or irritable most of the time
 Lack of energy
 Difficulty in concentrating and remembering things
 Loss of interest in everyday activities
 Feelings of emptiness or worthlessness

Indeed, each suicide is a personal tragedy that prematurely takes the life

of an individual and has a continuing ripple effect, dramatically affecting

the lives of families, friends and communities. However, the court of law

while adjudicating is not to be guided by emotions of sentiments but the

dictum is required to be based on analysis of facts and evidence on

record.

33. Coming to the case at hand, FIR was lodged by Appellant No.1

due to the unnatural death of the deceased, soon thereafter, one of the

sisters of the deceased asked for the custody of the son of Appellant

No.1 and on refusal of the same, the mother of the deceased gave an
oral statement after 3 weeks of the death of the deceased alleging that

the Appellants caused the death of the deceased and that she was

subject to constant harassment at the hands of the Appellants due to

insufficient dowry and the Appellants constantly abused the deceased for

not conceiving. It is thereafter, the FIR was converted from
Section 174

Cr.P.C to
Section 306
IPC. Charges were framed and after completion of

trial, the Trial Court convicted the Appellants under
Sections 306
and

498A
IPC. On Appeal, the High Court upheld the same. The operative

portion of the judgment reads as under: -

“16. Two things have to be proved by the prosecution
in order to sustain the appellants' conviction for the
offences under
Section 498(A)
and
IPC, as to
whether, the death of the deceased is unnatural and
as to whether the deceased committed suicide due to
harassment, inducement and abetment of the
appellants. In this case, as already stated, as per
the Medical evidence, it is clear that the victim
died unnaturally and the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3
proved that the appellants made harassment on
the victim and caused mental and physical cruelty.
Due to cruelty, the deceased has taken the
extreme step to end her life.

18. In cases of this nature, no independent witness
can be expected, because in India, the woman are
even well qualified persons, considering their family
reputation, they may not express certain things to any
third person or stranger and they can only say either to
their mother or sister or very close friend or well-

wishers. In this case, P.W.1 is the mother of the
deceased and P.W.2 is the elder sister of the
deceased. There are no medical records produced on
the side of the appellants to show that the deceased
was mentally disordered person or she is having
tendency of committing suicide. However, the
evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.10, would clearly
show that the deceased committed suicide due to the
continuous harassment and the mental cruelty made
by the appellants. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 to
P.W.3 are reliable and trustworthy, which inspires the
confidence of this Court to convict the appellants.
Testimony of interested witness cannot be per se
discarded and the Court has to adopt careful approach
and analyse evidence to find out the cogency and
credibility. This Court does not find out any reason to
disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and
evidence of P.W.2 was corroborated by the evidence
of P.W.10.

20. A careful reading of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3
and also the evidence of the Doctor who conducted
post-mortem proved that the victim was subjected to
harassment and cruelty made by the appellants. She
is well educated and working as a Psychiatrist in the
Government Mental Hospital, Kilpauk, she ended her
life by way of hanging. Therefore, this Court finds that
the appellants have committed the offence under

Sections 498(A)
and
IPC and the learned trial
Judge rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted
the appellants and therefore, there is no merit in this
case and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.”

34. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the High

Court erred in recording the finding that there is sufficient evidence for

convicting the appellants under
Section 306
IPC losing sight of the fact

that there exists no evidence on record indicating that the deceased was

meted out with harassment by the appellants just before her death. It is

well-settled that not only there has to be evidence of continuous

harassment, but there should be cogent evidence to establish a positive
action by the accused which should more or less be proximate to the

time of occurrence, which action can said to have led or compelled the

person to commit suicide.

35. In case at hand, not only the said positive action in close proximity

to the time of suicide is absent but also there is no evidence for any

continuous physical or mental torture meted out to the deceased by the

appellants. On the contrary, appellant no. 1 himself took the deceased to

consult a psychiatrist just a day prior to this incident obviously with the

intention to make her feel better. The said act can by no stretch of

imagination be said to be any such act which may lead the deceased to

commit suicide. Further, the allegations made by PW-1 to PW-3 in their

statement with respect to continuous harassment and torture of the

deceased by the appellants just after the marriage is not worthy of being

relied upon and has to be taken with a pinch of salt on account of fact

that throughout their 9 years of marriage, there has never been any

complaint or a whisper in this regard either by the deceased or her family

members who appeared as prosecution witnesses. Even the deceased

herself who was a qualified doctor never made any complaint in this

regard. It is really hard to believe that a well-educated and self-reliant

lady would take such things lying down for a substantially long period of

9 years.
36. To convict a person under
Section 306
IPC, there has to be clear

mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act

which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the

act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased

into such a position that he commits suicide. The prosecution has to

establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide

and Appellant No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased.

In the present case, both the elements are absent.

37. Now, so far as conviction under
Section 498A
IPC is concerned,

except the statement of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-3

recorded after the incident, there is no other evidence to establish the

allegation of any demand of dowry or ill treatment meted out to the

deceased during her marriage. The fact that there were cordial relations

between the families of Appellant No. 1 and the deceased is not

disputed. The deceased committed suicide on 05.11.2014 and the

complaint against the appellants were filed on 24.11.2014 i.e., 3 weeks

after the death of the deceased.

38. This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an

accused under
Section 306
IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine

the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence
adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment

meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to

put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of

alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts

of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of

harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time

of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the

person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of
Section 306
IPC is not

sustainable.

39. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of accused/appellants

produced the following witnesses:

 Mother of the deceased – PW-1
 Sister of the deceased – PW-2
 Brother of the deceased - PW-3
 Carpenter who broke open the bathroom door - PW-4
 servant maid working in the house - PW-5
 AC mechanic who accompanied the carpenter - PW-6
 Colleague of the deceased - PW-7
 Colleague of the deceased - PW-8
 Doctor who gave the treatment to the deceased on
04.11.2014 - PW-9
 Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body -
PW-10
 Doctor who declared the deceased as brought dead
on 05.11.2014 - PW-11
 Doctor who treated the deceased on abortion of the
second child - PW-12
 Auto driver - PW-13
 Sub-Inspector of Police - PW-14
 Inspector of Police who investigated the case – PW-15
40. PW-1 to PW-3 are interested witnesses, still, PW-3 categorically

stated that “the marriage between my sister Dr. Amali Victoria and Dr.

Bruno was a happy marriage”. Thus there exists material contradictions

not only in his own statements and also the statement of other two

witnesses.

41. PW-9, Dr. Shalini is the Psychiatrist who had given treatment to the

deceased on 04.11.2014. she had deposed that the deceased

expressed her disinterest in duty, complained of lack of sleep and not

feeling hungry and also had no interest over anything. Further, PW-9

stated that these were the symptoms of depression. PW-9 in her

summary of treatment report dated 04.11.2014 stated that the deceased

stated cause of sadness for the past 1 month was due to her posting at

the female ward @ IMH and she feels tired, is not interested in working,

poor sleep pattern to name a few. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention

that it was also noted in treatment summary by PW-9 that the deceased

had similar depressive illness in the past i.e., 1 st episode during MBBS

college days, had attempted suicide, 2 nd episode post-partum and

present is the third episode. The deceased had suicidal ideas before

going for the consultation with the psychiatrist on 04.11.2014 and the

same is evident from the summary of treatment. However, the evidence

of PW-9 i.e., the psychiatrist has not been considered by the Courts
below and conviction of the appellants were solely based on the oral

evidence of PW-1 to PW-3.

42. It is well settled that the Courts ought to be extremely careful in

assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence

adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted

out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing

suicide. Reference may be made to the judgment of a three-Judge

Bench of this Court in
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
9,

wherein this Court set-aside the conviction of the accused for the offence

under
Section 306
IPC as ingredients of
Section 306
IPC were not

satisfactorily proved. It was observed as under :-

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the
requirement of instigation though it is not necessary
that actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not
a case where the accused had by his acts or
omission or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased
was left with no other option except to commit
suicide in which case an instigation may have
been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

9 (2001) 9 SCC 618
21.
In
State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and
Anr.10
, this Court has cautioned that the Court should
be extremely careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case and the evidence
adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether
the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced
her to end the life by committing suicide. If it
transpires to the Court that a victim committing
suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences in domestic life quite
common to the society to which the victim
belonged and such petulance, discord and
differences were not expected to induce a
similarly circumstanced individual in a given
society to commit suicide, the conscience of the
Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding
that the accused charged of abetting the offence
of suicide should be found guilty.”

(emphasis supplied)

43. Accordingly, the facts and evidence in the present case which have

not been squarely analysed by both the Trial Court as well as the High

Court can be summarised as follows:-

1. The complaint against the appellants was filed after 3
weeks of the death of the deceased.

2. There is not a shred of evidence with respect to offence
alleged under
Section 498A
of the IPC meted out to the
deceased by the Appellants.

3. There has been no marital discord between Appellant No. 1
and the deceased during their 9 years of married life.

10 (1994) 1 SCC 73
4. There have been several emails exchanged between
Appellant No. 1 and sisters of the deceased whereby the
Appellant No. 1 was showered with praises for taking care
of the deceased in the best possible manner and credit was
also given to his parents for supporting the deceased in her
career. Further, it was the sister of the deceased, who
herself sent a mail to Appellant No. 1 saying “amali is
fighting a disorder”

5. The deceased was suffering from bipolar order and also
had suicidal ideas from few days before suicide. Further,
the deceased was also undergoing treatment for
depression as she was showing major symptoms of
depression like tiredness, poor sleep pattern, demoralised
feeling to name a few. The fact that deceased was suffering
from bipolar disorder was concealed from the Appellant
family during their marriage.

6. The Trial Court as well as the High Court did not take the
evidence of PW-9, Psychiatrist into consideration while
convicting the Appellants under
Sections 306
and
498A
of
IPC.

7. The conviction of the appellants is solely based on the oral
evidence of mother and sister of the deceased, who are
interested witnesses.

8. The post mortem report does not give the cause of the
death but on 15.12.14, the cause of the death is shown as
Ashpyxia due to external compression.
44. Having considered the aforesaid facts of the case in juxtaposition

with the
judgments
referred to above
and upon appreciation of evidence

of the eyewitnesses and other material adduced by the prosecution, we

are of the view that Trial Court wrongly convicted the Appellants and the

High Court was also not justified in upholding the conviction of the

Appellants under
Sections 306
and
498A
IPC.

45. As a result, the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2022 passed by

the High Court as well as judgment and order of the Trial Court dated

26.03.2021 are unsustainable and deserve to be set aside and are

hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled

against them.

46. The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.

...................................J.
(M. R. SHAH)

..................................J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)

NEW DELHI;

12TH OCTOBER, 2022

27