Madras High Court | Conviction Under Sec.306 & 417 IPC Set Aside | Consensual Relationship and Absence of Proximate Instigation Negate Cheating and Abetment
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan overturned the conviction of an appellant previously sentenced under Sections 306 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court had imposed rigorous imprisonment and fines for abetment of suicide and cheating. On appeal, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove deception or abetment beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the relationship between the appellant and the deceased was consensual, that no promise of marriage at inception was established, and that the alleged suicide note lacked proximate evidence of instigation. The Court accordingly acquitted the appellant, directed his release, cancelled his bail bond, and ordered refund of the fines paid.
The proceedings arose from events between 2012 and 2018, when the appellant and the deceased, colleagues at a Chennai-based information technology company, entered into a romantic relationship. The prosecution’s case was that the appellant induced the deceased into repeated sexual relations on a promise of marriage. Over time, she allegedly conceived on several occasions and, at the appellant’s instance, terminated her pregnancies.
In February 2018, the appellant became engaged to another woman. The deceased, upon learning this, confronted him. The prosecution recorded that he refused to marry her, leading to humiliation and emotional distress. On 9 February 2018, she was found dead by suicide at her residence. A purported suicide note was subsequently produced by her sister, containing detailed accounts of their relationship.
The father of the deceased lodged a complaint with J-5 Sastri Nagar Police Station. An FIR was registered under Sections 417, 376, and 306 of the IPC. After investigation, a final report was filed, and the matter was taken up by the Sessions Court, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai, as S.C.No.52 of 2021.
At trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses, marked twenty-five documents, and produced one material object. The defence examined none. The trial court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 376 IPC, holding that the sexual relationship was consensual and not obtained under a false promise. However, it convicted him under Section 306 IPC, sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹50,000, and under Section 417 IPC, sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000.
The appellant challenged this judgment through Criminal Appeal No.230 of 2023 before the High Court of Madras. He contended that the suicide note was belatedly introduced, not authenticated through an expert witness, and unreliable. He argued that there was no evidence of deception or instigation and that family objections due to religion and age differences prevented the marriage. It was further claimed that he himself attempted suicide when unable to marry the deceased, and that his actions did not amount to either cheating or abetment.
The prosecution maintained that the appellant induced the deceased into a long-term relationship under the pretext of marriage, administered abortion pills, and betrayed her by arranging another engagement. It argued that the suicide note, corroborated by expert opinion, and testimonies of family members established his liability under Sections 306 and 417 IPC.
The court stated: “There is absolutely no evidence to show that at the inception of their relationship, the appellant promised that he would marry the deceased. No prudent person can have physical relationship for a period of six years on the pretext of marriage.” It was further observed: “Though the deceased got pregnant and subsequently as directed by the appellant, she consumed pills to abort her pregnancy, there is no evidence to show that the appellant and the deceased had physical relationship on the pretext of marriage.”
Regarding Section 417 IPC, the court extracted Section 415 IPC and observed: “In order to prove the offence to cheat, the accused must have deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security viz., the accused must have done so dishonestly.” The court held: “In the case on hand, the appellant absolutely had no intention to cheat the deceased and there is no evidence to show that the appellant induced the deceased by any deception.”
On Section 306 IPC, the court reviewed the requirements of instigation under Section 107 IPC. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the judgment recorded: “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.” The judgment further stated: “Though it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, it has significance in this case due to the facts and circumstances as stated supra.”
“Even assuming that Exs.P3 and 4 are correct and genuine, this Court does not find any act of incitement on the part of the appellant proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide.”
The judgment noted: “In criminal jurisprudence, the burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. When two views are possible and the one favourable to the accused is equally plausible, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused.”
The High Court directed: “Accordingly, the Judgment passed in S.C.No.52 of 2021 dated 30.11.2022 by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai, is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all charges in S.C.No.52 of 2021 for the offences under Section 306 and 417 of IPC. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is otherwise required in connection with any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded. Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Abdu Kumar Rajarathinam, Senior Counsel for Mr. Vikram Veerasamy
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Raja Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Rubhan Anthony Rathnaraj v. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, J-5 Sastri Nagar Police Station, Chennai
Case Number: Crl.A.No.230 of 2023
Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
