VELLADURAI versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 187 · Decided: 14-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
187
VELLADURAI
v.
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 953 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2021
[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
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
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.
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
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
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
   [2021] 6 S.C.R. 187
187
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
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
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
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]
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
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,
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-
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
hereby quashed and set aside. [Para 10][193-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
189
Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC
707 : [2009] 15 SCR 836 – relied on.
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government o

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