The presence of clear mens rea with a direct or indirect acts that caused the deceased to commit suicide must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC – Supreme Court

Law Centrum

13 Oct 2022

The bench consisting of Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari has set aside the judgment passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2021 as well as judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai dated 26.03.2021 in S.C No. 209 of 2016. The court has cautioned that, the court of law while adjudicating is not to be guided by emotions of sentiments but the dictum is required to be based on analysis of facts and evidence on record. The supreme Court stated that, “the facts and evidence in the present case have not been squarely analysed by both the Trial Court as well as the High Court”.

Brief Facts

The genesis of the present appeal originates from the impugned order pronounced by the High Court whereby the High Court upheld the conviction of the Appellants by Mahila Court under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC.

The marriage between Dr. M. Amali Victoria (the deceased) and appellant was solemnised on 08.09.2005 (both parties are doctors). A male child was born out of wedlock in the year 2007. Appellant (husband of the deceased) has informed on 05.11.2014 that the deceased had collapsed in the bathroom of their home and was non-responsive. Immediately, an ambulance was called by the Father-in-law of the deceased. On reaching the site of the incident, Appellant No. 1 found the deceased having no pulse. Despite intervention from the neighbors of Appellant No. 1 who were doctors, the deceased could not be resuscitated and passed away on 05.11.2014. Post mortem of the body was conducted on 06.11.2014 and the cause of death was asphyxia due to external compression of the neck.

On 06.11.2014, FIR was filed based on the statement of Appellant No. 1 owing to the unnatural death of the deceased under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. After 3 weeks of the death of the deceased, the mother of the deceased lodged a complaint against the husband, mother-in-law, and the father-in-law of the deceased for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. Thereafter, the FIR was converted from Section 174 Cr.P.C to Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken. The said case was committed to Mahila Court, Chennai for trial. The Trial Court, after analysing the statement made by the prosecution witness and evidence of the defence, vide judgment and order dated 26.03.2021 convicted the Appellants i.e., the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and were sentenced, while acquitted the father-in-law of the deceased of all the charges.

Challenging the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the Appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2021 before the High Court. The same was dismissed with the observation that the Appellants have committed the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

Contentions on behalf of appellants and respondents

Appellants contended that the trial court and High court have proceeded with convicting the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased solely on the basis of the testimony of mother of the deceased alleging continuous harassment and mental cruelty by the appellants.

Respondents contended that constant harassment and cruelty instigated the victim to commit suicide leaving her only child.

Question posed for the consideration of Supreme Court

whether the conviction of the Appellants for the offence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC is sustainable or not?

Judgment

The court held that, “To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and Appellant No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. In the present case, both the elements are absent”.

“The presence of clear mens rea with an direct or indirect act that caused the deceased to commit suicide must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their 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”.

The underlying facts and evidence in the current case have been highlighted by the Supreme Court as having not been properly examined by both the Trial Court and the High Court:

1. The complaint against the appellants was filed after 3 weeks of the death of the deceased.

2. There is a lack of evidence with respect to offence alleged under Section 498A of the IPC meted out to the deceased by the Appellants.

3. There has been no marital discord between Appellant No. 1 and the deceased during their 9 years of married life.

4. There have been several emails exchanged between Appellant No. 1 and sisters of the deceased whereby the Appellant No. 1 was showered with praises for taking care of the deceased in the best possible manner and credit was also given to his parents for supporting the deceased in her career. Further, it was the sister of the deceased, who herself sent a mail to Appellant No. 1 saying “amali is fighting a disorder”

5. The deceased was suffering from bipolar order and also had suicidal ideas from few days before suicide. Further, the deceased was also undergoing treatment for depression as she was showing major symptoms of depression like tiredness, poor sleep pattern, demoralised feeling to name a few. The fact that deceased was suffering from bipolar disorder was concealed from the Appellant family during their marriage.

6. The Trial Court as well as the High Court did not take the evidence of, Psychiatrist into consideration while convicting the Appellants under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC.

7. The conviction of the appellants is solely based on the oral evidence of mother and sister of the deceased, who are interested witnesses.

8. The post mortem report does not give the cause of the death but on 15.12.14, the cause of the death is shown as Ashpyxia due to external compression.

The court has referred to and considered Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (2021 SCC OnLine SC 873), S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr ((2010) 12 SCC 190), M. Arjunan Vs. State, represented by its Inspector of Police ((2019) 3 SCC 315), and Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana ((2019) 17 SCC 301) while analysing the scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its corelation with Section 306 IPC.