Beating Wife Over Suspected Fidelity Not Abetment Of Suicide | Andhra Pradesh HC Acquits Husband And Brother-In-Law | Court Finds No Instigation Or Mens Rea Under Section 306 IPC
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial and Appellate Courts in a case involving allegations of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that the evidence did not disclose any positive act on the part of the accused that could amount to abetment. The Court concluded that the conviction was not legally sustainable and directed that the impugned judgments be set aside.
The Criminal Revision Petition was filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Trial Court in S.C.No.300 of 2008 and the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29 of 2009. The petitioners were found guilty under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years along with a fine of Rs.500/- each, and in default, simple imprisonment for three months each.
According to the prosecution, the deceased, Chilukuri Mariyamma, was the wife of Petitioner No.1 and sister-in-law of Petitioner No.2. Their marriage had taken place two decades prior and they had three children. The prosecution alleged that Petitioner No.1 harassed the deceased physically and mentally from the beginning of their marriage, suspecting her fidelity. On the night of 14.02.2008, both petitioners allegedly beat the deceased, with Petitioner No.2 using a chappal. Feeling humiliated, she poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. She sustained 100% burns and succumbed to her injuries on 15.02.2008.
An FIR was registered based on the statement of the deceased recorded by P.W.9, the Sub-Inspector of Police, at the hospital. The case was initially registered under "Woman Burns" and later altered to Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. The police conducted investigation, seized material objects, and recorded statements. The inquest and autopsy confirmed the cause of death as burns.
A dying declaration was recorded by P.W.6, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, stating: "My husband and his brother (my brother-in-law) Pitchayya beat me yesternight. They stated that why should I lead this life and why should not I die. Hence, I poured kerosene and set myself fire. My mother-in-law brought me to the hospital."
The Trial Court relied on the dying declaration and other documentary evidence, convicting the petitioners. The conviction was upheld by the Appellate Court.
The petitioners contended that the conviction was based solely on the dying declaration without corroboration from other evidence. They argued that the mental state of the deceased was not verified by the attending doctor and that the prosecution failed to examine key witnesses. They also pointed out contradictions in the testimonies of P.W.6 and P.W.9 and the fact that P.Ws.1 to 4 did not support the prosecution case.
The State argued that the findings of the lower courts were valid and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there was no irregularity in the judgments and urged dismissal of the revision petition.
The Court began its analysis by noting the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., stating that "this Court cannot invoke its revisional power as a Second Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as laid down in the decision in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh." However, the Court clarified that it could interfere if there were manifest illegalities or a miscarriage of justice.
The Court considered the content of the dying declaration and remarked: "On a careful analysis and scrutiny of the dying declaration of Chilukuri Mariyamma, it can be easily discerned that there was no instigation done by any of the Petitioners goading Chilukuri Mariyamma to commit suicide."
Referring to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, and M. Mohan v. State, the Court reiterated: "Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained."
The Court stated the need for "a clear mens rea to commit the offence" and that "it also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option."
In its factual analysis, the Court stated: "There was no evidence that they had intentionally aided her to commit suicide. There is no evidence that the Petitioners committed abetment of suicide by criminal conspiracy."
The Court noted inconsistencies in evidence, particularly the simultaneous statements allegedly recorded by the Magistrate and the Sub-Inspector. It observed: "The words of the petitioners spoken to the deceased only once, a single instance i.e., on the preceding night of committing suicide, cannot constitute the petitioners exploiting the vulnerability of the deceased."
The judgment also addressed the psychological state of the deceased, observing: "The deceased felt insulted or humiliated... the action of the Petitioners is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide..."
The Court concluded: "The prosecution could not establish the guilty mind of the Petitioners... there was no visible and conspicuous presence of element of mens rea in the case."
The Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, stating: "The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Court dated 21.12.2010 in Crl.A.No.29 of 2009 on the file of learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C) Krishna, Machilipatnam. Consequently, the judgment of the learned Trial Court in S.C.No.300 of 2008 dated 09.03.2009 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandigama, is also set aside."
It further directed: "There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, Assistant Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Chilikuri Mariyadas & Anr. v. State of A.P.
Case Number: Criminal Revision Case No.44 of 2011
Bench: Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao
