VELLADURAIversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                         [2021] 6 S.C.R. 187                           187


                          VELLADURAI                                   A
                                 v.
   STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 953 of 2021)
                      SEPTEMBER 14, 2021                               B
         [M. R. SHAH AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
      Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 r/w s.4(b) of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act – Abetment to suicide –
Mere harassment without any positive action on part of the accused     C
proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would
not amount to offence u/s.306 IPC – On facts, wife of appellant
consumed pesticide and died – Appellant had quarrel with his wife
on the incident date – But no material on record that appellant
played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain
act to facilitate the commission of suicide – On the contrary, even    D
appellant also had tried to commit suicide by consuming pesticide
– There being no material indicating abetment of suicide, the Courts
below erred in convicting appellant u/s.306 IPC – Conviction of
appellant u/s.306 IPC and s.4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act accordingly quashed and set aside.             E
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD:1. The appellant has been convicted mainly for the
offence under Section 306 IPC. It is true that on the day of
occurrence, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the
appellant herein – accused and thereafter both, the appellant and      F
the deceased consumed pesticide. Even the appellant – accused
also consumed pesticide and he was hospitalised for four days
and was discharged from the hospital after four days. However,
unfortunately the wife died. The earlier quarrels between the
husband and the wife on the allegation that the appellant-accused      G
was having illicit relationship with another woman has not been
established and proved by the prosecution. Even the daughter
of the appellant has not supported the case of the prosecution
and turned hostile. The marriage between the appellant-accused
and the deceased took place before 25 years. Therefore, the
                                                                       H
                                187
188           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A     presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act shall not
      arise. [Paras 7.1, 8][191-F-H; 192-A-C]
             2.1. Now so far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is
      concerned, in a case where if any person instigates other person
      to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other
B     person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is
      liable to be punished for the offence under Section 306 IPC for
      abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring
      a case within the provision 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
C     must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by
      doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Mere
      harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused
      proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide
      would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.[Para 9]
      [192-C-E]
D
            2.2. Abetment by a person is when a person instigates
      another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the
      accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances
      that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit
      suicide. In the instant case, the allegation against the appellant
E     is that there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence. There is
      no other material on record which indicates abetment. There is
      no material on record that the appellant-accused played an active
      role by an act of instigating the deceased to facilitate the
      commission of suicide. On the contrary, in the present case,
F     even the appellant-accused also tried to commit suicide and
      consumed pesticide. Under the circumstances and in the facts
      and circumstances of the case and there is no other material on
      record which indicates abetment, both the High Court as well
      as the trial Court have committed an error in convicting the
      accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. [Para 9.1][192-
G     F-H; 193-A]
             3. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court, as
      also, the judgment and order passed by the trial Court convicting
      the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and Section
      4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, are
H     hereby quashed and set aside. [Para 10][193-B]
          VELLADURAI v. STATE REPRESENTED BY                                189
               THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

      Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC                    A
      707 : [2009] 15 SCR 836 – relied on.
      Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT
      of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : [2009] 13 SCR 230 –
      referred to.
                                                                            B
                        Case Law Reference
[2009] 15 SCR 836                   relied on              Para 5.3
[2009] 13 SCR 230                   referred to            Para 5.3
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
                                                                            C
No. 953 of 2021.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2019 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras of Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal
(MD) No.417 of 2009.
      Arun Prakash, B. Balaji, Advs. for the Appellant.                     D
      Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Adv. for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.
                                                                            E
      1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras, Bench at Madurai in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 417 of 2009,
by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by
the appellant herein – original accused and has confirmed the judgment
and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court convicting        F
the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him
to undergo three years RI, the original accused has preferred the present
appeal.
       2. That the appellant herein – accused married with the deceased
25 years prior to the occurrence; that out of the said wedlock, they        G
had three children, one married daughter PW2, living separately and
their two sons working at Chennai and Kerala. That on the day of
occurrence there was some quarrel between the deceased – wife of
the accused and the accused. That thereafter both the deceased as
well as the appellant herein consumed pesticide. However, the appellant     H
190            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A     survived, but his wife died due to consuming the pesticide. The younger
      brother of the deceased – PW1 lodged a complaint stating that the
      accused is having intimacy with the other woman and therefore the
      couple is used to quarrel and in this regard a panchayat was also
      convened by elders prior to the occurrence and due to which on
      7.5.2007 there was a quarrel and both of them consumed pesticide and
B
      were taken to the local private hospital and the deceased died and the
      accused discharged after four days. Therefore, it was alleged against
      the accused that he has committed the offence under Section 306 IPC.
      On conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the
      appellant-accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
C            2.1 The learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant herein
      for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo
      7 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default of payment of
      fine, three months simple imprisonment and also for the offence under
      Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women
D     Act and sentenced him to undergo three years RI and to pay a fine of
      Rs.2500/-, in default of payment of fine, three months simple
      imprisonment.
             3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant
      herein – original accused preferred appeal before the High Court. By
E     the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has partly allowed
      the said appeal, however, confirmed the conviction for the offence under
      Section 306 IPC, but reduced the sentence to three years RI.
            4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the High Court, the original accused has preferred
F     the present appeal.
            5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that
      the High Court has committed a grave error in dismissing the appeal
      and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court
      convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
G            5.1 It is further submitted that no ingredients of Section 306 IPC
      are at all satisfied. It is submitted that it is not established and proved
      that in fact the appellant abetted the commission of suicide. It is
      submitted that it is also not in dispute that the quarrel had taken place,
      but at the same time the accused also consumed pesticide along with
      his wife. However, unfortunately the wife died. It is submitted that
H
          VELLADURAI v. STATE REPRESENTED BY                                 191
         THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [M. R. SHAH, J.]

except the quarrel between the appellant-husband and the deceased-           A
wife on the day of occurrence, there is no further evidence making
out a case for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
       5.2 It is further submitted that even PW2, the daughter also turned
hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
       5.3 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions       B
of this Court in the cases of Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal,
reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707; and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, it
is prayed to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the
impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below convicting          C
the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC read with
Section 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
      6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the
present appeal. It is submitted that on the day of occurrence quarrel
took place between the deceased and the appellant. It is submitted that      D
even earlier also quarrels took place as the appellant-accused was
having illicit relationship with another woman. It is submitted that
because of that there were frequent quarrels between the husband and
the wife and that is why the deceased committed suicide. It is submitted
therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, no error has been
committed by the courts below in convicting the accused for the offence      E
under Section 306 IPC read with Section 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition
of Harassment of Women Act.
       7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
                                                                             F
      7.1 The appellant has been convicted mainly for the offence
under Section 306 IPC. It is not in dispute that the marriage between
the appellant and the deceased took place before 25 years. It is also
not in dispute that out of the said wedlock, the deceased and the
appellant had three children, residing separately. It is true that on the
day of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the          G
appellant herein – accused and thereafter both, the appellant and the
deceased consumed pesticide. Even the appellant – accused also
consumed pesticide and he was hospitalised for four days and was
discharged from the hospital after four days. However, unfortunately
the wife died. The earlier quarrels between the husband and the wife
                                                                             H
192             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A     on the allegation that the appellant-accused was having illicit relationship
      with another woman has not been established and proved by the
      prosecution. Even the daughter of the appellant has not supported the
      case of the prosecution and turned hostile. In light of the aforesaid facts
      and circumstances and the evidence on record, it is required to be
      considered, whether can it be said that the appellant-accused has
B
      committed an offence under Section 306 IPC for which he has been
      convicted?
            8. As observed hereinabove, the marriage between the appellant-
      accused and the deceased took place before 25 years. Therefore, the
      presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act shall not arise.
C
             9. Now so far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is
      concerned, in a case where if any person instigates other person to
      commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person
      commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be
      punished for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetting the
D     commission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring a case within the
      provision 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 instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission
E     of suicide. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Amalendu
      Pal (supra), mere harassment without any positive action on the part
      of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the
      suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.
              9.1 Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another
F     to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had,
      by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased
      was left with no other option except to commit suicide. In the instant
      case, the allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel on
      the day of occurrence. There is no other material on record which
      indicates abetment. There is no material on record that the appellant-
G     accused played an active role by an act of instigating the deceased to
      facilitate the commission of suicide. On the contrary, in the present case,
      even the appellant-accused also tried to commit suicide and consumed
      pesticide. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances
      of the case and there is no other material on record which indicates
H     abetment, both the High Court as well as the learned trial Court have
           VELLADURAI v. STATE REPRESENTED BY                               193
          THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [M. R. SHAH, J.]

committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under          A
Section 306 IPC.
       10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated
03.07.2019 passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.
417/2009, as also, the judgment and order dated 04.12.2009 passed by        B
the learned trial Court convicting the accused for the offence under
Section 306 IPC and Section 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, are hereby quashed and set aside.
      11. By order dated 14.02.2020, the appellant herein-accused was
released on bail by this Court on the terms and conditions as may be        C
fixed by the trial Court. In view of this, his bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
       12. The instant appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

                                                                            D
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                      Appeal allowed.




                                                                            E




                                                                            F




                                                                            G




                                                                            H