RANGANAYAKI versus STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 452 · Decided: 13-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RANGANAY AKI 
v. 
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
OCTOBER 13, 2004 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I 860: 
S.302 read with s.109, Explanation-Murder-Abetment by instigation-
C Held, instigation must be with reference to the thing done and not to the 
· thing that was likely to have been done by the person who is instigated- · 
Further the act should be committed in consequence of abetment-On facts, 
there is no evidence of any abetment to the act committed, i.e. murder of the 
deceased-Conviction set aside. 
D 
Appellant-A-2, the first wife of the deceased, who had left the lat(er, at 
the relevant time was living with A-1. The deceased w11s living with his third 
wife whom he married after the death of his second wife. The prosecution 
case was that on the date of occurrence,A-1 came to the house of the deceased 
and called him to drink. A-1 gave the deceased brandy mixed with some 
E poisonous substance, after consuming which the deceased fainted and later 
died on the way to hospital. The village administrator, on ascertaining from 
the witnesses, that accused A-1 and A-2 mixed poison in the brandy and gave 
it to the deceased, gave a written report at the Police Station which led to the 
prosecution of the two accused. The trial court convicted A-1 under S:302 
IPC for murdering the deceased on the instigation of A-2. A-2 was convicted 
F under s.302 read with s.109 IPC and wa_s sentenced to imprisonment for life. 
On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction. 
In the appeal filed by A-2, it was contended that there was no evidence 
to attract s.109 IPC; and that the recoveries in no way related to articles 
purported to have been used for poisoning the deceased. On behalf of the 
G respondent-State, it was argued that evidence of PW-4, the son of the deceased, 
amply established that the appellant had motive to kill the deceased, as in the 
past the deceased had been several times assaulted by the appellant or by the 
_ persons engaged by her. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H. 
452 
,-
RAN GANA Y AKI v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
453 
HELD: 1. Under s.109 IPC the abettor is liable to the same punishment, A 
which may be inflicted on the principal offender; (1) ifthe act of the latter is 
committed in consequence of the abetment and (2) no express provision is 
made in the IPC for punishment for such an abetment. Whether there was 
. instigation or not is a question to be decided on the facts of each case. The 
instigation must be with reference to the thing that was done and not to the B 
thing that _was likely to have been done by the person who is instigated. It is 
only if this condition is fulfilled that a person can be guilty of abetment by 
instigation. Further, the act abetted should be committed in consequence of 
the abetment or in pursuance of the conspiracy as provided in the Explanation 
to Section l 09. Intentional aiding and active complicity is the gist of offence 
of abetment. [457-C-F; 458-BI 
C 
Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR (1988) SC 1883, 
referred to. 
2. In the instant case, so far as the appellant is concerned, the evidence . 
was alleged motive, recovery purported to have been made pursuant to the D 
confessional statement and the evidence of PW-4 that earlier the deceased 
was beaten on the instigation by the appellant. There is practically no evidence 
of any abetment to the actual act committed i.e. the murder of the deceased. 
The alleged motive is also not substantive. Some reference to past incidents 
has been made to prove motive. They do not prove any intention to murder the 
deceased much less than any instigation therefor. The purported recovery of E 
articles pursuant to disclosure made under.s.27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 
1872 is also of no consequence because nowhere aid the appellant said that 
the said articles were used for the purpose of poisoning the deceased. 
[455-H; 456-A; 458-C, DJ 
F 
Red v. Palmer (Shorthand Report at p.308 May, 1856) and Atley v. State 
ofU.P., AIR (1955) SC 807, referred to. 
3. In the circumstances the prosecution has not been able to bring home · 
the accusations so far as the appeHant is concerned. Conviction and sentence 
as imposed by trial court and confirmed by High Court are set aside. 
G 
[458-E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1505 
of2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.2002 of the Madras High Court H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2094] SUPP. 5 S.C.

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