Amudha vs. The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

2024 INSC 244 NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1642 OF 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 313 of 2024) Amudha                         … Appellant versus The State represented by the  Inspector of Police & Anr.             ... Respondents J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTS 1. The   appellant   is   accused   no.4,   who   has   been charged with an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’).  The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr. PC’) before the High Court   of   Judicature   at   Madras.     By   the   impugned judgment, the petition has been rejected.  Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2024.03.22 17:10:05 IST Reason: Criminal Appeal No.1642 of 2024                         Page 1 of 8 2. The   second   respondent   is   the   complainant.     The second   respondent   had   five   brothers   and   two   sisters. The deceased (Kanagasabha) was one of her two younger brothers.  All of them were married except the deceased. th On  5   March  2020,   the   deceased   allegedly   committed suicide   by   consuming   poison.     There   was   a   dispute between the deceased and his elder brother  Baskar @ Annamalai. Another brother of the deceased, Anandraj, had   constructed   a   new   house,   which   he   sold   to   the deceased.     However,   the   said   house   was   occupied   by Annamalai,   his   wife,   son,   and   daughter   Amutha (appellant).     According   to   the   case   of   the   second respondent, Annamalai refused to vacate the house and filed a civil suit against the deceased.  Though Annamalai (co­accused) failed in the suit, he declined to vacate the house.   Therefore, the deceased sought the intervention of   the   local   MLA.     However,   the   local   MLA   could   not resolve the dispute. The second respondent has made a general   allegation   that   Annamalai   and   his   family members,   including   the   appellant,   used   to   harass   the deceased by insulting him on the ground that he was a bachelor. They used to tell the deceased to go anywhere else and die.  Criminal Appeal No.1642 of 2024                         Page 2 of 8 3. After the charge sheet was filed, the appellant filed a petition   for   quashing,   which   was   dismissed   by   the impugned judgment.   SUBMISSIONS 4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that even by taking the statements of all the prosecution witnesses as correct, no offence is made out against the appellant.   The learned counsel pointed out that after her marriage, the appellant left for the USA th on 11  September 2019, and till the date of suicide, she continued to stay in the USA.   His submission is that there is nothing placed on record to show that during this period, the appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the appeal by submitting that without the Trial Court recording   oral   evidence,   one   cannot   conclude   at   this stage   that   no   case   of   commission   of   the   offence punishable   under   Section   306   of   IPC   was   made   out against the appellant.  The   second   respondent   did   not   appear   despite 6. service of notice.  Criminal Appeal No.1642 of 2024                         Page 3 of 8 OUR VIEW We   have   carefully   perused   the   statements   of   the 7. second respondent, her husband and other prosecution witnesses.     Apart   from   a   general   allegation   that   the appellant, her father and other family members used to insult the deceased and tell him to go out and die, there is   no   other   allegation   made   against   the   appellant. However, another incident was brought on the record by the witnesses. The marriage of the appellant was fixed on th 4  September 2019.  After reading the wedding card, the deceased objected to printing of his name on the card th without   his   consent.     Two   days   before   4   September 2019,   there   was   a   quarrel   between   the   family   of   the appellant and the deceased on the issue.   It is alleged that the appellant told the deceased not to attend the marriage. The   State   Government   has   placed   on   record   an 8. additional   affidavit   along   with   a   photocopy   of   the th appellant's passport. The photocopy shows that on 11 September 2019, the appellant left India from Chennai th and   reached   the   USA   on   12   September   2019.       On instructions, the learned counsel appearing for the first th respondent   accepted   that   till   5   March   2020,   the appellant never returned to India.  We may note here that in the charge sheet, no material is placed on record to Criminal Appeal No.1642 of 2024                         Page 4 of 8 show that any telephonic conversation occurred between th the appellant and the deceased between 12   September th 2019 and 5  March 2020. The other material placed on record is in the form of 9. four suicide notes allegedly written by the deceased.  In the said suicide note, there is a general allegation against the appellant and her family members (her father, mother and brother) that they are responsible for his suicide.  It is also stated therein that the local MLA had also given him a threat, and therefore, he committed suicide due to mental torture.  Taking the suicide note as it is, the same does   not   help   the   prosecution   at   all,   especially   when there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was in touch with the deceased on the telephone or in th th any other manner from 12  September 2019 to 5  March 2020. A   Bench   of   three   Hon’ble   Judges   in   the   case   of 10. 1 Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh,   after considering the provisions of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC, in paragraph 43, held thus:  “ 43. Keeping   in   view   the   aforesaid legal   position,   we   are   required   to address   whether   there   has   been abetment in committing suicide.  Be it clearly stated that mere allegation 1 (2017) 7 SCC 780 Criminal Appeal No.1642 of 2024                         Page 5 of 8

2 West Bengal ,  in paragraph 12, this Court held thus:  “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 2 (2010) 1 SCC 707 Criminal Appeal No.1642 of 2024                         Page 6 of 8 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   Merely on the allegation of suicide. 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. ”                    (emphasis added) 11. Taking   the   charge   sheet   as   correct,   we   find   that there   were   no   acts   of   incitement   on   the   part   of   the appellant proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide.  No act is attributed to the appellant proximate to the time of the suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.  Therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and 12. proceedings   in   P.R.C.   No.32/2021   (Charge   Sheet No.14/2021) pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate­II, Puducherry stands quashed as against the appellant.     We   make   it   clear   that   the   adjudication   is confined to only the case of the present appellant, and Criminal Appeal No.1642 of 2024                         Page 7 of 8 the   Trial   Court   is   free   to   proceed   against   the   other accused   in   accordance   with   the   law.     However,   the defences of the other accused are kept open.  The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 13. ..…………..………J. (Abhay S. Oka) ..…………..………J.       (Ujjal Bhuyan) New Delhi; March 22, 2024. Criminal Appeal No.1642 of 2024                         Page 8 of 8