Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.205 of 2023Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore passed in SC.No.193 of 2019 dated 16.02.2023, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) & 306 of IPC. 2.The case of the prosecution was that the son of the accused married the deceased on 10.11.2008. For sometime, they had no issues. Thereafter, there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The accused is none other than own mother in law of the deceased. She also demanded huge dowry from the deceased. Therefore, on 20.08.2011, in the matrimonial house, she committed suicide by hanging herself. On a complaint, the respondent registered FIR in crime No.723 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) & 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court. 3.In order to prove the charges, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW14 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. The prosecution produced a material object as M.O.1. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked before the trial court. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial court found the Page 2 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498 of IPC and sentenced her to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. She was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused. 4.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that only on the basis of the Revenue Divisional Officer’s report, the trial court convicted the appellant. The Revenue Divisional Officer's report says that on the date of the alleged occurrence, there was quarrel between the appellant and the accused. However, no one has spoken about the same and the Revenue Divisional Officer mechanically found that only for the reason that there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased on the date of occurrence, she committed suicide. There are contradictions between the prosecution witnesses and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 306 of IPC since there was no abetment on the part of the Page 3 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023appellant soon before her death. Insofar as the charge under Section 498(A) of IPC, no one has spoken that there was cruelty committed by the appellant. Therefore, the entire conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court cannot be sustained and the same are liable to be set aside. 5.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that all the prosecution witnesses categorically deposed that there was cruelty committed by the appellant and on the date of occurrence also there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. Therefore, the deceased committed suicide on the matrimonial home, that too before completion of seven years from the date of marriage. Therefore, the prosecution proved the charges and the trial court rightly convicted the appellant. It does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6.Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all the materials placed before this Court.7.The appellant is the sole accused. No other family members were impleaded as accused for the offence punishable under Sections Page 4 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Father of the victim did not even whisper that on the date of the occurrence, there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. That apart, there is absolutely no allegation of dowry demand. At the time of marriage, the deceased was presented with jewels and other household articles. The mother of the victim was examined as PW2. She also did not even whisper that on the date of the occurrence, there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. The brother of the deceased was examined as PW2. He deposed that on the night of 20.08.2011 at 1.00 ‘o clock, he received phone call stating that the deceased committed suicide. Immediately, after the death of the deceased, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry. His report was marked as Ex.P14. On perusal of Ex.P14, it is revealed as follows:,e;neh;tpy; fhykhd nfhfpyhtpd; ,wg;gpw;F mtuJ fzth; kw;Wk; khkdhh; Mfpa ,UtUk; fhuzk; ,y;iy vd bjhpatUfpwJ/ nkYk;. nfhfpyhtpd; ehj;jdhh;fs; ,UtUk; kdjstpy; Jd;g[Wj;jpajw;fhd fhuzj;ij bjspthf rhl;rpfs; Fwpg;gpltpy;iy/ rhl;rpfs; bjhptpj;Js;sthW nfhfpyhtpd; khkpahh;. nkw;Twpa gpur;rpidfSf;fhf nfhfpyhit kdjstpy; Jd;g[Wj;jpaJk;. rk;gtk; Page 5 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023ele;j md;W khiy 6/00 kzpastpy; nfhfpyhtpw;Fk; mtuJ khkpahUf;Fk; thf;F thjk; Vw;gl;L mjdhy; jdp miwf;Fs; brd;W cl;g[wkhf jhH; nghl;Lf; bfhz;ltiu btF neuk; fjit jpwf;fhky; ,Ue;Jk;. nfhfpyhtpd; khkpahh; fjit jpwe;J ghh;f;fnth my;yJ mtuJ FLk;gj;jhh;fSf;F ve;jtpjkhd jftYk; bjhptpf;fhky; ,Ue;Js;sJ bjspthf bjhpatUtjhy; nfhfpyhtpd; ,wg;gpw;F mtuJ khkpahh; jhd; fhuzk; vd bjhpatUtjhy;. ,th; kPJ jf;f fphpkpdy; eltlf;if vLf;fyhk; vd bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;/8.The Revenue Divisional Officer concluded that on the date of the alleged occurrence, there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. However, on perusal of records, it is revealed that no one has spoken that on the date of the occurrence there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. The Revenue Divisional Officer was examined as PW11. During his cross examination, he did not even whisper that witnesses have spoken about the quarrel between the appellant and the deeased on 20.08.2011. Therefore, soon before her death, there was no quarrel and no abetment at the hands of the appellant herein. Page 6 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 20239.In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 it is held as follows :- “10. “Abetment” has been defined under Section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 107, 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 2 which has been inserted along with Section 107 reads as under: “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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] In Mahendra Singh [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157], the allegations levelled were as under:(SCC p.731, para 1) “1. … My Page 7 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023mother-in-law and husband and sisterin-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.” The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law. 12. The learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] . A three-Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered “you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like”. Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The Court in para 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) “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 Page 8 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023words 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.” 13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] 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 appears 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 Page 9 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. 14. The Court in Ramesh Kumar case [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema may necessarily be drawn. 15. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. 16. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2009) 11 Scale 24] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words 13/24 Crl.O.P.No.23516 of 2015 “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and selfrespect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be Page 10 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 17. 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 this 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 10.The above decision was followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.S.Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190 and it is relevant to refer paragraph 26 read of the said judgement :- “26. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation.” Page 11 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 202311.In the case of Karthik v. State by Inspector of Police, RPF, Egmore, Chennai reported in 2015 (3) MWN (Cr.) 21 in paragraphs 7 and 8 it is held as follows :-“7. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and another [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438], the Supreme Court has observed that the words "go and die" do not amount to instigation to commit suicide. The relevant observation is as under :- "At the time of framing of charge, the trial court thought it appropriate to associate the appellant herein as an accused because of the words he uttered to the deceased. We think that just on the basis of that utterance the Court of Session was in error in summoning the appellant to face trial. In the first place it is difficult, in the facts and circumstances, to come to even a prima facie view that what was uttered by the appellant was enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. Besides the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he ultimately ended his life. It cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the words Page 12 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023uttered by the appellant. For these reasons, the error is apparent requiring rectification. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the High Court and that of the Court of Session are thus upset. The appellant need not face the charge.” 12.Further in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2020) 10 SCC 200 in paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 18 it is observed as follows :-“15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. However, what transpires in the present matter is that both the trial court as well as the High Court never examined whether the appellant had the mens rea for the crime he is held to have committed. The conviction of the appellant by the trial court as well as the High Court on the theory that the woman with two young kids might Page 13 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023have committed suicide possibly because of the harassment faced by her in the matrimonial house is not at all borne out by the evidence in the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not show that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she was forced to take such a step on his account. 16. The necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 306 IPC were considered in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465] where explaining the concept of abetment, Dalveer Bhandari, J. wrote as under : “25. 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 this 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.” 17. While dealing with a case of abetment of suicide in Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal Page 14 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] , Dr M.K. Sharma, J. writing for the Division Bench explained the parameters of Section 306 IPC in the following terms : (SCC p. 712, paras 12-13) “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence 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 the 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 there 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. 13. In order to bring a case within the purview 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 instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Page 15 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” 18. In Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana [Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, (2014) 12 SCC 595 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 127] , which again was a case of wife's unnatural death, speaking for the Division Bench, K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, J. rightly observed as under : (SCC p. 606, para 24) “24. We find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning of the High Court [Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997, decided on 27-5-2008 (P&H)] that “no prudent man is to commit suicide unless abetted to do so”. A woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment. The reasoning of the High Court that no prudent man will commit suicide unless abetted to do so by someone else, is a perverse reasoning.” 13.The above judgments are squarely applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove charge under Section 306 of IPC. Insofar as the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC, PW1 to Page 16 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023PW5 categorically deposed that there was quarrel in respect to the deceased not giving any birth to child. Therefore, the prosecution categorically proved the charge under Section 498(A) of IPC. However, in respect of the sentence for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC, considering the age of the appellant and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to modify the same. 14.In view of the above, the impugned judgment is modified as follows:(i) the order of conviction and sentence imposed for the offence under Section 306 of IPC is set aside. (ii) The conviction under Section 498(A) of IPC is hereby confirmed. (iii) so far, the appellant has incarcerated imprisonment for more than three months. The sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC is modified to the extent of the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant. Page 17 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 202315.In the result, this criminal appeal stands partly allowed. 22.08.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderlokPage 18 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023To1.Court of Sessions, Mahila Court/Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Perur Sub-Division,Sulur Police Station,3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court of MadrasPage 19 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.205 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.lokCrl.A.No.205 of 202322.08.2025Page 20 of 20