Full Judgment Text
Reportable
2024 INSC 177
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4684 of 2019)
M. Vijayakumar Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Leave granted.
1.
This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 25.01.2019
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (for short the “High
Court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 667 of 2011 whereunder the appellant’s
conviction under Sections 342 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC
for short) was reversed and he was acquitted therefrom, but his conviction
for the offence under Section 306, IPC was confirmed. The sentence
imposed for the said conviction was reduced to three years rigorous
imprisonment from rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
Signature Not Verified
2. As a matter of fact, the appellant stood trial along with the four
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2024.03.06
13:45:06 IST
Reason:
others, including his father Muthu (A-3 ). The appellant and one
Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4684/2019 1
Ravichandran (A-2) stood trial for the offences under Sections 306, 342 and
365, IPC whereas the others were charged only for offences under Sections
342 and 306 IPC. After the trial, the appellant was convicted for all the
offences for which he stood the trial and at the same time all his co-accused
were acquitted from all the charges. As noticed hereinbefore, in the
appellant’s appeal the High Court confirmed the conviction under Section
306, IPC and acquitted him only of the other two offences. Hence, this
appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned
Standing Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu.
4. Before dealing with the contentions and the evidence on record
which ultimately resulted in the confirmation of the conviction of the
appellant under Section 306, IPC, certain relevant aspects of Section 306,
IPC with reference to certain relevant decisions are to be looked into.
There can be no doubt with respect to the position that to bring home a
charge under Section 306, IPC it is incumbent upon the prosecution to
establish :
a) That the victim of the offence committed suicide;
b) That the accused abetted the commission of suicide;
c) That the abetment attracts the ingredients under Section
107,IPC.
Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4684/2019 2
5. Section 107, IPC defines the offence of abetment and it is constituted
by any of the following:-
(a) instigation to commit the offence; or
(b) engaging in conspiracy to commit it; or
(c) intentionally aiding a person to commit it.
6. Now, bearing in mind the scope and ambit of Section 107, IPC and its
co-relation with Section 306, IPC and the decision of this Court in M.
1
Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and
2
in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat we will proceed to consider
the case. After referring to an earlier decision in Chitresh Kumar Chopra
3
v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) , this Court in M. Mohan’s case (supra)
analysed the meaning of the word ‘abetment’ and held in paragraphs 44
and 45 thus:-
“ 44. 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.
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to
1
(2011) 3 SCC 626
2
(2010) 8 SCC 628
3
(2009) 16 SCC 605
Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4684/2019 3
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/she committed suicide.”
7. In the decision in Madan Mohan Singh’s case (supra) this Court was
considering an appeal against dismissal of a petition filed under Section
482 Cr. PC to quash the FIR registered against the appellant therein under
different Sections of IPC including Section 306, IPC. For the purpose of this
case, it is only referred to paragraph 12 therein, insofar as it is relevant
which reads thus:-
“In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC
specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC
on the part of the accused with an intention to bring
about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of
that abetment is required. The intention of the accused
to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit
suicide is a must for this particular offence under
Section 306 IPC………”
8. Thus, an analysis of the provisions under Section 306, IPC with
reference to abetment as contemplated under Section 107, IPC and the
decisions in M. Mohan’s case (supra) and Madan Mohan Singh’s case
(supra) would reveal that while considering the question as to whether a
Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4684/2019 4
person can be convicted under Section 306, IPC or whether a conviction
thereunder could be sustained, one has to consider the mens rea of the
accused/convict to bring about suicide of the victim. Needless to say, that
it requires an active act or direct act which led the victim to commit suicide
seeing no option; and in other words, the act must have been of such a
degree intending to push the deceased into such a position that he/she
committed suicide. Bearing in mind the aforesaid position, we will analyse
the case of the prosecution and the evidence on record to find out whether
the prosecution had succeeded in bringing conviction to the appellant
under Section 306, IPC.
9. A brief reference to the prosecution case is required in the above
regard. As per the prosecution, the victim Senthil Kumar, while working as
a supplier in Salem Hotel belonging to one Muthu (A-3), borrowed an
amount of Rs. 2000/- from the appellant who is the son of A-3. It is the case
that the latter arranged it as a loan on the request of the deceased, from
one Kishore, Venkatachalpati Finance. The deceased failed to repay the
borrowed amount and then the finance company pestered the appellant for
repayment. Enraged by this, the appellant along with one Ravichandran (A-
2) kidnapped the deceased and brought him to the shop of A-2 and from
there took him and wrongfully confined him in the tailor shop of one
Sampath Kumar (PW-3), on 06.12.2002 demanding repayment of the
Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4684/2019 5
borrowed amount. For wrongfully confining him and thereby instigating
him to commit suicide, accused Nos. 3 to 5 had played their role along with
the appellant and A2. It is unable to withstand the torment that Senthil
Kumar committed suicide by hanging in the tailoring shop of PW-3.
Indisputably, this was the prosecution case. But the indisputable and the
undisputed position is that the prosecution which is supposed to establish
its case, as is put forth by it, failed to prove the same. No volume of
argument is required to come to such a conclusion as the very acquittal of
all the co-accused of the appellant by the trial Court and the acquittal of the
appellant of the conviction under Sections 342 and 365, IPC, by the High
Court as per the impugned judgment, would speak for itself. It is also an
undisputable position that despite the acquittal of the co-accused of the
appellant and thereafter, the appellant, as above, no appeal was preferred
against their acquittal. In the contextual situation it is also relevant to note
that though the aforementioned Kishore was cited as a witness for the
prosecution but was not examined. According to the prosecution one
Alexander had witnessed the appellant taking the deceased and
wrongfully confining him in the tailoring shop of PW-3, Smapath Kumar.
However, he was also not examined. In view of the aforesaid facts and the
judgments of the trial Court as also the High Court it can be indubitably
said that the case of the prosecution put forth that the deceased Senthil
Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4684/2019 6
Kumar was kidnapped and wrongfully confined in the tailoring shop of PW-
3 Sampath Kumar was not attempted to be established by the prosecution
by examining the aforesaid Kishore and Alexander and at any rate, case of
kidnapping and wrongful confinement against the appellant was
disbelieved by the High Court.
10. Bearing in mind the aforesaid circumstance that the contentions
against the conviction under Section 306, IPC have to be appreciated.
11. Through PW-2, who claimed to be the wife of the deceased Senthil
Kumar, the prosecution attempted to establish that one week prior to the
occurrence the appellant along with three others went to the house of the
deceased and created a ruckus and at that time PW-2 alone was there.
According to her, when the deceased came back home, she divulged the
entire episode to him. Further, she would depose that her husband had
received Rs. 2000/- for interest and it was to be repaid in instalments. She
would also depose that earlier, the deceased himself had deposited two
installments of Rs. 400/- each, towards the loan amount directly to the
aforementioned financial institution. She has also deposed that subsequent
to the appellant’s iniquitous visit as above, she asked him to come on
Wednesday and then paid him an amount of Rs.800/-.
12. PW-2 further deposed that while leaving the house, after that first
iniquitous visit, the appellant threatened that the deceased would be lifted
Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4684/2019 7
unless the balance amount is not returned. Going by the evidence of PW2
out of borrowed amount of Rs. 2,000/- an amount of Rs. 1,600/- was paid
back. Hence, going by the prosecution case the kidnapping and
consequential wrongful confinement was due to the failure on the part of
the deceased to repay the balance amount. But then, as noticed above, the
case of kidnapping and wrongful confinement was disbelieved by the High
Court and consequently, the appellant’s conviction under Sections 342 and
365, IPC was set aside and the conviction under Section 306, IPC alone was
sustained. It is in the aforesaid context that we have referred to and
analysed the provisions under Section 306, IPC and also referred to the
decisions in M. Mohan’s case (supra) and Madan Mohan Singh’s case
(supra). In the light of the provisions thus analysed with reference to the
said decisions the question to be considered is whether the prosecution
had succeeded in establishing that there was mens rea on the part of the
appellant to commit the offence rather to push the victim to commit suicide
and to attract the offence under Section 306, IPC.
13. While considering the said question it is relevant to take into account
the fact that though the prosecution had attempted to establish the case that
the appellant and the second accused herein had committed the offences
under Sections 306, 342 and 365, IPC. With the acquittal of the appellant
and the second accused under those offences there can be no case of
Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4684/2019 8
kidnapping or wrongful confinement of the deceased Senthil Kumar, by the
appellant. In paragraph 2.1 of the impugned judgment itself the High Court
took note of the prosecution case. It is only apropos to extract paragraph
2.1 which reads thus:-
“2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Senthil
Kumar had borrowed Rs.2,000/- from Vijayakumar (A1), which
Vijayakumar (A1) had borrowed from a Finance Company;
when Senthil Kumar did not return the money, the Finance
Company started mounting pressure on Vijayakumar (A1);
therefore, it is alleged that Vijayakumar (A1) and Ravichandran
(A2) abducted Senthil Kumar on 06.12.2002 and locked him up
in the tailoring shop of Sampath Kumar (PW3) and thereby
wrongfully restrained him demanding repayment of the
amount; unable to withstand the torment Senthil Kumar
committed suicide by hanging in the tailoring shop of Sampath
Kumar (PW3) on 06.12.2002.”
14. Thus, it is to be considered when the case put forth by the
prosecution is abduction and wrongful confinement of the appellant for
repayment of the balance amount and the inability to withstand the torment
as the instances for accusing the appellant for commission of the offence of
‘abetment of suicide’, how conviction under Section 306, IPC can be
sustained in the light of his acquittal under Sections 342 and 365, IPC.
15. In the contextual situation, in view of the analysis of the provisions
Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4684/2019 9
under Section 306, IPC and the decisions referred to supra, we will also
have to consider what is mens rea ? ‘Mens rea’ means a guilty mind. As a
general rule, every crime requires a mental element, the nature of which,
will depend upon definition of the particular crime in question. Although it
is impossible to ascribe any particular meaning to the term ‘mens rea’ as
the circumstance to determine the existence of mens rea depends upon the
ingredients constituting the particular offence and the expression used in
the definition of the particular offence to constitute such offence. It is only
th
appropriate to refer to Halsbury’s Laws of England (4 Edn., Vol-11, Para-
10), going by the same:
“…it is impossible to ascribe any particular meaning to the
term ‘mens rea’, concepts such as those of intention,
recklessness and knowledge which commonly used as the
basis for criminal liability and in some respects, it may be
said to be fundamental to it. Generally, subject to both
qualification and exception, a person is not to be made
criminally liable for serious crimes unless he intends to
cause or foresees that he will probably cause or at the
lowest he may cause the elements which constitute a crime
in question.”
Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4684/2019 10
16. In the decision in Director of Enforcement v. MCTM Corp. Pvt. Ltd.
4
& Ors. , it was observed that mens rea is a state of mind and held that under
the criminal law mens rea is considered as the “guilty intention” and unless
it is found that the ‘accused’ had the guilty intention to commit the crime, he
could not be held guilty of committing the crime.
17. In the case on hand the question to be considered is whether the
appellant had instigated as envisaged under Section 107, IPC, to commit
the offence under Section 306, IPC. It is in the said circumstances that we
have earlier referred to the ingredients to attract offence under Section
306, IPC. Essentially the gravamen of the offence punishable under Section
306, IPC, is abetting suicide. Abetment imposes a mental process of
instigating a person or initially aiding a person in doing the offence. In the
case on hand, the question is whether the appellant abetted the deceased
Senthil Kumar to commit suicide. The evidence of the prosecution witness
viz., PW-1 and PW-3 did not reveal existence of the element of mens rea on
the part of the appellant. There is nothing in their oral testimonies which
would suggest that the appellant had instigated the deceased Senthil
Kumar to commit suicide. In this context, it is to be noted that the victim
committed suicide inside the tailoring shop of PW-3 Sampath Kumar. He
would submit that on 06.12.2002 at about 06.30 pm he locked his shop and
4
AIR 1996 SC 1100
Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4684/2019 11
left the key of the shop with A-3, father of the appellant. Sampath Kumar
would further depose that he came to know about the commission of
suicide by Senthil Kumar inside his tailoring shop only in the next morning
by about 9 O’clock. We have already noted that though the prosecution got
a case that one Alexander had witnessed the appellant taking the victim
and wrongfully confining him in the said shop, the said Alexander was not
examined by the prosecution. At any rate, the fact is that the appellant was
already acquitted for the offence under Sections 342 and 365, IPC. It is also
to be noted that though A-3, Muthu, (the father of the appellant) was the
person to whom PW-3 said to have handed over the key of his shop, he was
acquitted by the trial Court and no appeal was filed against his acquittal.
The impugned judgment would reveal that even after acquitting the
appellant for the offences under Sections 342 & 365, IPC, the High Court
confirmed his conviction under Section 306, IPC, holding that the appellant
had failed to offer explanation as to how the deceased Senthil Kumar
entered into the tailoring Shop of PW-3 to commit suicide in terms of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
18. We are at a loss to understand as to how Section 106 of the Evidence
Act could be applied in the case on hand against the appellant in view with
facts narrated above. This Section is an exception to the general rule laid
down in Section 101 which casts burden of proving a fact on the party who
Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4684/2019 12
substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. Section 106 is not intended
to relieve any person of that duty or burden. On the contrary, it says that
when a fact to be proved, either affirmatively or negatively, is especially
within the knowledge of a person, it is for him to prove it. This Section, in
its application to criminal cases, applies where the defence of the accused
depends on his proving a fact especially within his knowledge and of
nobody else. In short, Section 106 cannot be used to shift the burden of
proving the offence from the prosecution to the accused. It can only when
the prosecution led evidence, which, if believed, will sustain a conviction
or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question of shifting the onus
to prove such fact(s) on the accused would arise. (See the decision in
5
Sawal Das v. State of Bihar ) .
19. In view of the exposition of law as above and in the absence of
anything to make Section 106 applicable to shift the onus on the appellant,
the High Court had committed an error in applying Section 106 of the
Evidence Act, in the instant case.
20. We have no hesitation, therefore, to hold that there is absolute
absence of any basis for its application against the appellant in view of the
evidence on record.
21. The upshot of the discussion is that the prosecution has miserably
5
AIR 1974 SC 778
Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4684/2019 13
failed to establish that the appellant herein had abetted the victim to
commit suicide. The conviction of the appellant under Section 306, IPC
cannot be sustained.
22. Resultantly this appeal stands allowed. The appellants conviction
under Section 306, IPC which was confirmed vide judgment dated
25.01.2019 passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.667/2011 is
quashed and set aside. Consequently, he stands acquitted of the offence
under Section 306, IPC. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds
are discharged.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.........................J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
.......................J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
New Delhi;
February 21, 2024.
Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4684/2019 14