Section 306 IPC Indian Evidence Act Section 113A Abetment of Suicide Demand of Dowry and Cruelty Appeal against convictio/Appeal allowed.
R.MANIKANDAN Vs. STATE CRLA 105/16 01/03/23 [ ANAND JJ ]
[ MADRAS HIGH COURT ]
β’ Section 306 IPC Indian Evidence Act Section 113A Abetment of Suicide Demand of Dowry and Cruelty Appeal against conviction Evidence of father, brothers, sister and uncle of deceased showed that entire family was opposed to deceased marrying Appellant Neighbours stated that appellant and deceased were living happily and that they were not able to see any conflict between both of them Incident took place when the appellant was not in house Appellant did not run away nor absconded after incident and he, in fact, cut the shawl, in which, the deceased was hanging, brought down the deceased, attempted to sprinkle water in her face and informed the neighbours Evidence does not establish cruelty meted out by appellant to deceased Court below has virtually proceeded on an assumption that the appellant was the reason behind the suicide committed by deceased Held, how so ever high the suspicion is, the same cannot replace the test of proving the case beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution Impugned judgment of conviction, set aside Appeal allowed. [Paras 15, 16, 20 and 22]
Relevant Paras
15. The neighbours, who were examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer, have, in one voice, stated that the appellant and the deceased Rubini were living happily and that they were not able to see any conflict between both of them. The appellant, while giving the statement to the Revenue Divisional Officer, has stated that on 16.3.2008, there was a small misunderstanding between the appellant and the deceased Rubini while they were having food. There was some quarrel between each other. The next day, the appellant left the home and admittedly, the incident took place when the appellant was not in the house. The appellant has attributed this incident to the hyper sensitivity of the deceased Rubini and her over reaction for an innocuous incident.
16. The appellant did not run away nor absconded after the incident and he, in fact, cut the shawl, in which, the deceased was hanging, brought down the deceased, attempted to sprinkle water in her face and informed the neighbours. Thereafter, he also called KMF hospital and the deceased was taken to the hospital. From there, they were directed to go to the Government Hospital at Kothagiri where the deceased was declared ‘brought dead’ at about 11.45 AM. Hence, the appellant was very much available with the deceased after the incident and the conduct of the appellant does not show anything unnatural or point to any suspicion against the appellant.
20. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 does not establish any cruelty meted out by the appellant to the deceased Rubini. On the other hand, almost all the neighbours, who gave their statements to the Revenue Divisional Officer, have stated that the appellant and the deceased were living happily. The appellant had also cited an incident that took place the previous day, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered as an abetment for committing suicide and at the best, it can only be held to be hyper sensitiveness on the part of the deceased. This is on the presumption that it is this incident, which led to the commission of suicide by the deceased Rubini.
21. It must be borne in mind that the deceased Rubini never got any support from her family and it is not known as to whether there was any serious misgiving between the deceased Rubini and her family members and whether the same was also one of the contributing factors, which ultimately led to the commission of suicide by Rubini.
22. The Court below has virtually proceeded on an assumption that the appellant was the reason behind the suicide committed by Rubini. It is now too well settled that how so ever high the suspicion is, the same cannot replace the test of proving the case beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution.
23. In the light of the above discussions, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to interfere with the judgment rendered by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (FTMC), Ooty in S.C.No.4 of 2014, dated 25.11.2015 and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. The above criminal appeal is allowed. The appellant was enlarged on bail by this Court by an order dated 21.3.2016 vide Crl.M.P.No.1504 of 2016. In this judgment, since the appellant is acquitted from the charge under Section 306 of the Code, the bail bonds executed shall stand canceled and the fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.
click here for read the judgment
All rights reserved (πΈππ§ Saba Hasan )