LexMANKAMMA versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 14 S.C.R. 1152 A MANKAMMA v. STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal No. 1198 of 2003) 8 OCTOBER 8, 2009 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 306 - Abetment of suicide - c Conviction of mother-in-law uls. 306 for abetting suicide of her daughter-in~law by courls below - Correctness of - Held: · Evidence of witnesses as also last letter written by deceased to her husband and letter written by deceased'slsister-in-law to her brother and deceased, does not show that deceased D committed suicide only and only because of the so-called ill- treatment by mother-in-law - With regard to offence uls. 306 much stronger evidence is required - Evidence falls shorl of the required standard of proof- Thus, findings by courts below set aside and accused is acquitted. E The question which arose for consideration in this appeal is whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the accused-mother-in-law for the offence punishable u/s. 306 IPC on the allegation that she abetted the suicide of her daughter-in-law. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Ordinarily this Court would not interfere in the matter by re-appreciating the evidence as this Court normally does not go into the task of re-appreciating the G · evidence. However, when it is found that the evidence has been appreciated in a mechanical manner and without proper consideration of facts and circumstances on record this Court in the interest of justice re-appreciates H 1152 r'- .. "'"· MANKAMMA v. STATE OF KERALA 1153 .., the evidence. [Para 2) [1156-C-D] A 2.1. Considering the evidence of all the witnesses namely PW 1, PW 2-father of deceased, PW 3-brother of deceased, PW 4-classmate of deceased and PW 10- sister-in-law of deceased, it does not come out that the deceased committed suicide only and only because of B the so-called ill-treatment by the mother-in-law. What was that ill-treatment, how often she was ill-treated by the mother-in-law has remained mystery and has not been brought out in ~vidence of any of these witnesses. [Para c 7) [1159-A-C] 2.2. The prosecution heavily relied upon the last letter written by deceased to her husband which appears .,.. to be in the nature of suicide note. The only portion in this letter against the accused is that the accused has D been called a horrible lady and that she did not approve of anything done by the deceased. The deceased had llllJlll"' also written that the child should not be given in the custody of the accused. The letter clearly suggests that the deceased was completely dis-illusioned about her E husband with whom she had eloped much against the will of her parents and further that her husband did not ~take notice of her very existence and did not bother ~ -about her at all. Insofar as the reference to the accused is concerned, the reference is by way of the instruction F- ... , to her husband that her child should not be given in the custody of the accused as she was horrible. Other letter is the letter written by a loving sister to her younger brother and his wife to mend their ways. The author has proved it. It becomes clear from the letter that the G husband of the deceased had become a drunkard. She had advised her brother not to drink and not to start humiliating quarrels and fighting. True, it is stated to the effect that the mother should be comfortable and she H - 1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A should be made happy and the mother did not know how ~ to talk and all of them had suffered the pain because of the talks of their mother. However, the daughter is careful enough to write that it should not be taken seriously and nobody should feel about it, and being the mother she B should be ignored. This witness has written in the letter that_ Amma may say something without knowing consequence of the same. These letters are not sufficient to hold that she was so bad and she ill-treated the deceased so much that the deceased was driven to c commit suicide only because of these factors. [Para 8] [1159-C, 1160-A-H, 1161-A] 2.3. In the matter of offence u/s. 306 IPC much stronger evidence is expected than what is presented. The evidence about what happens within the four corners .._ D of walls is not available to the Investigating Agency. But in this case, very strangely, the Investigating Agency has not proceeded against the husband against whom ther
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.