M. VIJAYAKUMAR versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1054 · Decided: 21-02-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.T. RAVIKUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1054 : 2024 INSC 177
M. Vijayakumar 
v. 
State of Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Appeal No. 1078 of 2024)
21 February 2024
[C.T. Ravikumar* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Prosecution, if succeeded in establishing that there was mens rea 
on the part of the appellant to commit the offence rather to push the 
victim to commit suicide and to attract the offence u/s. 306, IPC.
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 – Abetment of suicide – Conviction 
u/s. 306, when sustainable – Prosecution case that the 
appellant and others abducted and wrongful confined the 
victim for repayment of the balance amount and the inability 
to withstand the torment, he committed suicide – Conviction 
of the appellant u/ss. 306, 342 and 365 by the trial court, 
however, the High Court acquitted him for the offence u/ss. 
342 and 365 but upheld conviction for the offence u/s. 306 – 
Sustainability:
Held: One has to consider the mens rea of the accused/convict 
to bring about suicide of the victim – It requires an active act or 
direct act which led the victim to commit suicide seeing no option; 
and the act must have been of such a degree intending to push 
the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide 
– Gravamen of the offence punishable u/s. 306, is abetting suicide 
– Abetment imposes a mental process of instigating a person or 
initially aiding a person in doing the offence – Evidence of the 
prosecution witness did not reveal existence of the element of 
mens rea on the part of the appellant abetting the deceased to 
commit suicide – There is nothing in their oral testimonies which 
would suggest that the appellant had instigated the deceased to 
commit suicide – Though the prosecution got a case that one 
person had witnessed the appellant taking the victim and wrongfully 
confining him in the said shop, the said person was not examined 
by the prosecution – At any rate, the fact is that the appellant was 
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
1055
M. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
already acquitted for the offence u/s. 342 and 365 IPC – s. 106 of 
the Evidence Act cannot be used to shift the burden of proving the 
offence from the prosecution to the accused – High Court erred 
in applying s. 106 – Thus, there is absolute absence of any basis 
for its application against the appellant in view of the evidence 
on record – Prosecution miserably failed to establish that the 
appellant had abetted the victim to commit suicide – Conviction 
of the appellant u/s. 306, IPC cannot be sustained – Appellants 
conviction u/s. 306 quashed and set aside and he is acquitted. 
[Paras 14, 17-22]
Criminal law – Mens rea – Meaning of:
Held: Mens rea means a guilty mind – As a general rule, every 
crime requires a mental element, the nature of which, will depend 
upon definition of the particular crime in question – Although it is 
impossible to ascribe any particular meaning to the term ‘mens 
rea’ as the circumstance to determine the existence of mens rea 
depends upon the ingredients constituting the particular offence 
and the expression used in the definition of the particular offence 
to constitute such offence. [Para 15]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 106 – Burden of proving fact especially 
within knowledge – Application of s. 106:
Held: Section 106 is an exception to the general rule laid down 
in s. 101 which casts burden of proving a fact on the party who 
substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue – s. 106 is not 
intended to relieve any person of that duty or burden – It says 
that when a fact to be proved, either affirmatively or negatively, is 
especially within the knowledge of a person, it is for him to prove 
it – s. 106 in its application to criminal cases, applies where the 
defence of the accused depends on his proving a fact especially 
within his knowledge and of nobody else – s.106 cannot be used 
to shift the burden of proving the offence from the prosecution 
to the accused – It can only when the prosecution led evidence, 
which, if believed, will sustain a conviction or which makes out a 
prima facie case, that the question of shifting the onus to prove 
such facts on the accused would arise. [Para 18]
Case Law Cited
M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy 
Superintendent of Police, [2011] 3 SCR 437 : (2011) 3 
SCC 626; Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, [2010] 
1056
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
10 SCR 351 : (2010) 8 SCC 628; Sawal Das v. State of 
Bihar, [1974] 3 SCR 7

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.