Holding

The appellant’s conduct established a clear proximity and nexus with the deceased’s suicide, justifying conviction under Section 306 IPC.

Summary

The appellant, Dammu Sreenu, had an illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased, Sitra Nagarjuna Rao. After the wife was taken away for counseling, the appellant forcibly removed her from her brother's house and kept her for four days, after which the deceased, feeling humiliated, expressed a desire to die and subsequently hanged himself. Both the appellant and the wife were charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetting suicide; the trial court sentenced each to five years rigorous imprisonment, later reduced on appeal to three years simple imprisonment for the appellant and one year rigorous for the wife (already served). The appellant contended that his conduct did not constitute abetment and that the suicide was an independent act, seeking acquittal. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, found a clear proximity and nexus between the appellant's actions and the deceased's suicide, and upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal and ordering the appellant to surrender.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant's conduct amounts to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Whether there is sufficient proximity and nexus between the appellant's actions and the deceased's decision to commit suicide.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 174, s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 107, s. 306

Subjects

abetment of suicideSection 306 IPCproximity and nexusconviction upheldcriminal appealillicit relationshipsuicideevidence appraisal

Judgment

I
:.
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 858
..
A DAMMU SREENU
v.
STATE OF A.P.
(Criminal Appeal No.681 of 2003)

MAY 28, 2009
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S.
CHAUHAN, JJ.]

PENAL CODE, 1860:
c
Section 306 - Abetment to commit suicide - Wife of
deceased had illicit relationship with accused No. 1 -
Deceased felt humiliated and insulted - Charge sheet against
the wife and her paramour - Convicted and sentenced to five
D years rigorous imprisonment - On appeal, sentence reduced
to three years simple imprisonment - In revision wife's
sentence reduced to one year which she had already
undergone - On appeal by the other accused, Held: There
is definitely a proximity and nexus between the conduct and
behaviour of accused with the suicide committed by the
E
deceased - Also there is clear and unambiguous findings of
fact of three courts that the appellant is guilty of offence under
s. 306 /PC - Such findings do not call for any interference -
'f
Order of High Court convicting and sentencing the accused ;;i

upheld - Accused to surrender to serve out the remaining
F period of the sentence.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 681 of 2003.

From the Judgment & Order dated 05.02.2003 of the High
G ..._
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in Criminal Revision
Case No. 862 of 2000.
-·
A.T. Rao and A. Subba Rao for the Appellants. ·

H 858
,,(
DAMMU SREENU v. STATE OF A.P. 859

..
D. Ramakrishna Reddy and D. Bharathi Reddy for the A
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. The appellant
herein filed the present appeal seeking for his acquittal from B
the order of conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') whereby he was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.

c
2. The appellant herein allegedly had illicit relationship with
the wife of the deceased Sitra Nagarjuna Rao. The wife of the
deceased was also made a co-accused in the same offence
<'
under Section 306 IPC and she was convicted for the aforesaid
offence and was sentenced initially to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years which, however, later D
on was altered to one year of rigorous imprisonment by the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh. The said sentence of one year _has
been served out by Accused No. 2, the wife of the deceased
Sitra Nagarjuna Rao.

3. The prosecution has alleged in its case that the present E
appellant had developed an illicit intimacy with Accused No. 2,
who was the wife of the deceased Sitra Nagarjuna Rao. On the
~
'y night of 31.12.1995, accused No. 2, the wife of the deceased
went out of her house and returned to her matrimonial home -
only on the next day. The deceased, Sitra Nagarjuna Rao was F
unhappy with the aforesaid conduct and so, naturally
,' questioned her about her behaviour because of which there
was a quarrel between the two. Being disturbed and perturbed
on account of the behaviour of his wife (Accused No. 2), the
. ,deceased, Sitra Nagarjuna Rao called the father of Accused G
~~ No. 2 and asked him to take her away so as to give her proper
counseling. Accordingly, she was taken away by her father. On
the same day the present appellant (Accused No. 1) came to
the house of the deceased and when he was questioned by
the inmates of the house of the deceased, he stated that he H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 9 S.C.R. ;..

A had illicit relations with the wife of the deceased and that he
would keep coming to the house of the deceased so long she
does not object to the same. When he was told that Accused
No. 2 had gone with her father, Accused No. 1 went to the house
of the brother of Accused No. 2 and took her away despite the
B protest of PW-5, brother of AccusEd No. 2, in whose house his
father kept her. The appellant took tier away and brought her
back to the house of her brother only after 4 days and to her
parents' house on 06.01.1996.

4. Having come to know about the aforesaid incident, the
c deceased felt humiliated and insulted. He committed suicide
by hanging himself in the intervening night of 7th and 8th
January, 1996. It is.also to be noted, at this stage, that prior to ,, .
t
his suicide, the deceased, Sitra Nagarjuna Rao expressed ~

before his brother that it would be better to die as he felt very
D much insulted and humiliated. The deceased having committed
suicide, his brother gave a report to the police which was
registered as a case under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (for short 'the CrPC') which was, during the course
of investigation, altered to a case of Section 306 IPC.
E
5. The police after investigation submitted a charge-sheet
against the accused. The accused, however, denied the
charge. Accordingly, he was tried under the aforesaid charges.
During the course of trial the prosecution examined as many '( ,,.
~

as 13 witnesses and the appellant-accused was also examined
F
under Section 313 of the CrPC wherein he denied his
involvement in the offence.

6. The trial court appreciated the materials available on
record and, thereafter, passed a judgment and order of
G conviction. He convicted the present appellant under Section
~-
306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment ·1:
for a period of five years with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The trial court
also convicted accused No. 2, i.e. wife of the deceased, under
H Section 306 IPC and sentenced her to undergo rigorous
DAMMU SREENU v. STATE OF A.P. 861
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
•
imprisonment for a period of five years. A

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order
of conviction and sentence the appellant as also the wife of the
deceased filed a common criminal appeal in the court of llnd
Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur which was registered as B
Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1998. The said appeal was allowed
in part and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial
court was altered and reduced by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge to 3 years simple imprisonment.

8. In revision the High Court maintained the order of c
conviction against the accused-appellant but altered the
sentence of Accused No. 2, i.e. the wife of the deceased to
one year imprisonment which she has already undergone.

9. Now this appeal is, therefore, filed only by appellant No. D
1, who was convicted and ordered to undergo simple
imprisonment for three years. An order to release appellant No.
1 on bail was passed pursuant to which Accused No. 1 is· on
bail. The appeal was listed before us for hearing during the
course of which we heard the learned counsel appearing for
... E
the parties and were also taken through the records.
'
10. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
)'
appellant, ingredients of abetment are totally absent as
envisaged under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 of the
IPC and, therefore, Accused No. 1 is liable to be acquitted. It F
was submitted by him that on a proper interpretation of the facts
.../,
as also the provisions of Section 306 IPC it cannot be said that
the appellant herein was in any manner responsible for abetting
the suicide committed by the deceased which was an
~ independept act of the deceased. It was also submitted by him G
that the apdeellant did not in any manner substantially assisted
the decea .ed in committing the offence of suicide and since
there was flo such participation of the appellant in abetting the.
offence of suicide, the conviction and sentence under Section·
306 IPC is required to be set aside and quashed. H
l
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 9 S.C.R.
,..
A 11. The aforesaid submissions were, however, refuted by
learned counsel appearing for the State contending inter alia
that there is a concurrent find of facts by three courts below
finding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC
and, therefore, the said findings cannot be said to be in any
B manner as untenable or unjustified.

12. The fact that the appellant had illicit relationship with
Accused No. 2, who was the wife of the deceased, is an
admitted position for which there was no cross-examination on
the point which was cleariy stated by PW-5, who is the brother
c of Accused No. 2, in his statement on 2.1.1996 which is
reproduced hereinbelow :
t
•
"On 2-1-1996 my father brought A2 to my house at
Tsunduru and he informed that she is having illicit contact ·
D with A 1 to change her behaviour brought her to my house
to keep some time. On the same day evening A 1 came •f
to my house and took away A2. Some discussion take
place between myself and A 1 regarding coming to my
. house. Due to fear, I could not resist for taking away A2." C=
'·
•...-
E
13. We have carefully examined the aforesaid statement
of PW-5 and on perusal of the statement we do not find that
any suggestion was made to the said PW-5 that there did not
exist an illicit relationship between Accused No. 1 and Accused •.'
No. 2. Besides, the close relatives of the deceased who were
F also examined as witnesses had categorically stated in their
statements that on coming to know of the fact that Accused No.
1 has taken Accused No. 2 from the house of PW-5 and left I
her only on 06.01.1996 at her parents house, the deceased •
stated before the said inmates of his house that because of t
l
G the said insult and humiliation he does not like to live. It is also -f.-

proved that immediately thereafter in the night intervening 7th
and 8th of January, 1996 the deceased committed suicide. The
aforesaid fact leads to only one conclusion that it is on account
of humiliation and insult due to the behaviour and conduct of
H
DAMMU SREENU v. STATE OF AP. 863
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 that he proceeded to A
commit the suicide.

14. The facts which are disclosed from the evid_ence on
record clearly establish that Accused No. 1 had illicit
relationship with Accused No. 2 who is the wife of the 8
deceased. It is also not in dispute that Accused No. 1 was
visiting the house of the deceased to meet Accused No. 2 and
that he even went to the house of deceased when he came to
know that the wife of the deceased was sent with her father for
counseling and advise. He loudly stated that he would continue C
to have relationship with Accused No. 2 and would come to her
house so long she does not object to the same. He also took
her away from the house of PW-5, her brother and kept her with
him for 4 days. Immediately after the said incident the
deceased committed the suicide. Therefore, there is definitely D
a proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of
Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 with that of the suicide
committed by the deceased. Besides, there is clear and
unambiguous findings of fact of three courts that the appellant
is guilty of the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Such findings
do not call for any interference in o;.ir hand. This Court also does E
not generally embark upon reappreciation of evidence on facts
which are found and held against the appellant.

15. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
case we are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order F
of conviction as also the order of sentence passed against the
accused-appellant. We uphold the order of the High Court and
dismiss this appeal. The bail bond of the accused-appellant
stands cancelled. He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the
remaining period of the sentence. G

G.N. Appeal dismissed.