-1-

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAGALIR NEETHI MANDRAM,

(FAST TRACK MAHILA COURT), VILLUPURAM.
Present : Tmt. K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, B.A.,B.L.,
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,Villupuram.

Wednesday 19th day of April 2017

Sessions Case No.176/2015

(P.R.C.No.6/2015 of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram and

Crime No.22/2010 of Kedar P.S.).

Complainant The Inspector of Police,

Kedar P.S.
Crime No.22/2010.

Name of the Accused A1. Venmathi

W/o.Pushparaj

A2. Ambika
W/o.Arumugam

A3. Parthipa
D/o.Arumugam
Charges framed against the accused A1 to A3 have abetted the deceased to
commit suicide punishable U/s.306 IPC

Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge A1 to A3 are not found guilty.

U/s.306 IPC.

Sentence of the Order:

In the result, for the reasons
aforementioned this Court is of opinion
that the charge leveled against A1 to A3
U/s.306 IPC is not proved beyond all
reasonable doubt by the prosecution
and A1 to A3 are not found guilty and
A1 to A3 are acquitted U/s.235 (I)
Cr.P.C. No material object seized by the
prosecution.
 -2-

The Sessions Case came up for final hearing before me on 10.04.2017 in the
presence of Tmt.K.Alphonsa, B.A., B.L., Special Public Prosecutor for the state
and of Thiru.Kalpattu.V.Raja, Advocate for A1 to A3 and after hearing their
arguments and upon perusing the relevant documents and having stood over for
consideration till this day, this Court has passed the following..........
JUDGMENT

The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

According to prosecution, the deceased Devi and the accused persons A1 to
A3 belong to Kedar Village. The deceased Devi was studying B.Sc., 3rd year at
Thyagaraja Arts College at Chennai during the material point of time. A3, Parthiba
was also studying at Chennai and was staying along with the deceased in the
same hostel. While so, A1 & A2 used to talk ill about the deceased in the village
that she was having illicit relationship with on Pushparaj, the husband of A1
Venmathi. A3 also used to talk ill about the deceased in the hostel that she was
having illicit relationship with her sister's husband Pushparaj. Aggrieved by this,
on 27.3.2010 the deceased Devi came to her native village from the hostel and
again A1 & A2 on seeing her abused her with filthy words. Due to this, the
deceased Devi got frustrated. On 28.3.2010 at about 7.00 pm., Devi committed
suicide by pouring kerosene and set fire on herself. She was taken to the hospital
for treatment and on 31.3.2010 at about 9.40 pm., the deceased Devi succumbed
to burn injuries. Hence, A1 to A3 were charged for the offence punishable U/s.306
IPC.
2. Investigation:
Upon receipt of Ex.P1 complaint on 1.4.2010 at about 8.15 am., the then
Sub-Inspector of Police, Kedar P.S. (PW10) registered a case in Cr.No.22/2010 U/s.
174 Cr.P.C. The FIR is marked as Ex.P5. He then proceeded to Government
Hospital , Pondicherry and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the
presence of witnesses and Panchayathars. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P6.
He then gave requisition letter (Ex.P8) for subjecting the body of the deceased for
postmortem. He then proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared the
observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and rough sketch (Ex.P7) in the presence of
witnesses Ramesh and Nagasamy. He then examined few witnesses in the place
of occurrence. He then altered the case in to 306 IPC and submitted the
alteration report (Ex.P8) to the Court. On 2.4.2010 at about 12. 00 hrs., arrested
 -3-

A1 & A2 near Village bus stop and subjected them to judicial custody. Since, A3
was released on Anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras her arrest
was not made. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, Kedar P.S. (PW11) took up the
case for investigation recorded the statements of Meena, Dr.Baskar, H.C.
Rammoorthi and Dr.Devakar. Upon completing the investigation had laid the final
report against the accused persons.
Trial:
3. On receipt of the final report along with the relevant records, relied by
the prosecution the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram has taken the case on
file of his Court as P.R.C. No.6/2015, U/s. 306 IPC. The copies of records relied by
the prosecution were furnished to the accused U/s.207 of Cr.P.C at free of cost.
4. As the offence U/s. 306 IPC is triable by the Court of sessions, the
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram submitted the entire records to the Principal
Sessions Judge, Villupuram U/s.209(a) of Cr.P.C. and the case was taken on file in
the Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram as S.C.No.176/2015 and subsequently
made over to the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram for disposal
according to law.
5. When the accused appeared before this Court, after hearing arguments
of both sides and after careful consideration of records and statements, this court
framed charge against A1 to A3 U/s. 306 IPC read over and explained to him in
Tamil, to which the accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. This Court
ordered for trial.
6. The prove the case of prosecution PW1 to PW11 were examined, Exhibits
P1 to P9 were marked. On the defence side no oral or documentary evidence
were let in.
7. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
PW1 (Mannar) had deposed that, “ ehd; bflhh; fpuhkj;jpy; trpj;J tUfpnwd;/
vdf;F K:d;W gps;isfs;/ ,uz;L bgz;. xU Mz;/ ,we;Jnghd njtp vd; 2tJ kfs;/
vd; kfs; njtp brd;idapy; jpahfuh$h fiyf;fy;Y}hp gp/v!;/!p 3k; Mz;L goj;J te;jhh;/
vd; kfs; rhjpr;rhd;W bgWtjw;fhf jd;Dila gh!;nghh;l; ir!;nghl;nlh th';fp mDg;g
brhy;ypapUe;jhh;/ g[ifg;glj;ij 1k; vjphpapd; fzth; jhYf;fh mYtyfj;jpy; ntiy ghh;j;J
te;jthplk; bfhLj;J mDg;gpndd;/ me;j g[ifg;glj;ij jd; fzthplk; ghh;j;j 1k; vjphp eP
me;j bgz;iz itj;jpUf;fpwhah vd;W mrp';fkhf jpl;oa[s;shh;/ kWehs; 1k; vjphp jd;
FHe;ijia vd; tPl;ow;F miHj;J te;J nghl;Ltpl;L g[ifg;glj;ija[k; v';fsplk;
 -4-

bfhLj;J gjpy; brhy;Yk;go Twpdhh;/ ehd; 1k; vjphpaplk; g[ifg;glj;ij ehd; jhd;
bfhLj;J mDg;gpndd; vd;W brhd;ndd;/ mjw;F 1k; vjphp ePna cd; bgz;iz
Tl;of;bfhLf;fpwhah vd;W mrp';fkhf jpl;odhh;/ clnd 1k; vjphpapd; khkpahh; vd;
tPl;ow;F te;J 1k; vjphpia miHj;J brd;Wtpl;lhh;/ mjd;gpwF 1k; vjphpapd; fzth; te;J
v';fsplk; kd;dpg;g[nfl;lhh;/ mLj;j ehs; 1.2 vjphpfs; vd; tPl;ow;F te;J rz;il
nghl;Ltpl;L nghdhh;fs;/ 3k; vjphpa[k; vd; kfSk; xd;whf M!;lypy; j';fp goj;J
te;jhh;fs;/ 1k; vjphp jd; j';ifahd 3tJ vjphpaplk; brhy;yp jd; fztiu vd; kfs;
njtp itj;jpUg;gjhf M!;ly; KGtJk; gug;gpa[s;shh;/ 2010k; tUlk; 27k; njjp vd;
kfs; tPl;ow;F te;jJ/ vd; kfs; vjphpfs; tPl;od; tHpahf ghj;U:k; brd;wnghJ mth;fs;
jpl;oa[s;shh;fs;/ 28k; njjp ,ut[ Rkhh; 7/00 kzpastpy; vd; kfs; mtkhdk; jh';fhky;
kz;bzz;iz Cw;wp bfhSj;jpf;bfhz;lhh;/ eh';fs; Kz;oak;ghf;fk; kUj;Jtkidf;F
miHj;J brd;nwhk;/ m';fpUe;J g[Jr;nrhp bghpa M!;gj;jphpf;F miHj;J brd;W rpfpr;ir
mspj;njhk;/ 31k; njjp ,ut[ 9/00 kzp ,Uf;Fk; ,we;Jtpl;lhh;/ mjdhy; M$h; vjphpfs; kPJ
ehd; g[fhh; bfhLj;njd;/ me;j g[fhh; m/j/rh/M/1 MFk;/ nghyPrhh; vd;id tprhhpj;jhh;fs;/ ”
PW2 (Ambika) had deposed that, “ ehd; bflhh; fpuhkj;jpy; trpj;J
tUfpnwd;/ ,we;Jnghd njtp vd; kfs;/ m/rh/1 vd; fzth;/ vd; kfs; njtp brd;idapy;
M!;lypy; j';fp goj;Jte;jhh;/ rhjpr;rhd;wpjH; bgw vd; kfs; g[ifg;glk; nfl;oUe;jhh;/ 1k;
vjphpapd; fzth; g[c;&guh$; jhYf;fh mYtyfj;jpy; ntiy ghh;j;J te;jhh;/ mthplk;
g[ifg;glj;ij bfhLj;J mDg;gpndd;/ 1k; vjphp me;j g[ifg;glj;ij ghh;j;Jtpl;L eP me;j
bgz;iz itj;jpUf;fpwhah vd;W mrp';fkhf jpl;oa[s;shh;/ mjd;gpwF 1k; vjphp vd;
tPl;ow;F jd; FHe;ijia miHj;Jf;bfhz;L te;J nghl;Ltpl;L mrp';fkhf jpl;odhh;/
ePna cd; kfis Tl;of;bfhLf;fpwhah vd;W jpl;odhh;/ mjd;gpwF 1k; vjphpapd; khkpahh;
FHe;ijia J}f;fpf;bfhz;L brd;Wtpl;lhh;/ 1k; vjphpiaa[k; miHj;J brd;whh;/ eh';fs;
g[c;&guh$; ntiyf;F brd;Wtpl;L te;jgpwF mthplk; nfl;nlhk;/ mg;nghJ mth; jd;
kidtp bra;jjw;F kd;dpg;g[ nfl;lhh;/ nkYk;. jd; kidtpia moj;J fz;oj;Js;shh;/
mjdhy; nfhgk; bfhz;L 1k; vjphp jd; j';ifahd 3k; vjphpf;F nghd; bra;J ele;j
tpguj;ij brhy;ypa[s;shh;/ 3k; vjphp vd; kfis ghh;j;J Vd; vd; khkh eP itj;jpUf;fpwhah
vd;W mrp';fkhf ngrpapUf;fpwhh;/ mjdhy; vd; kfs; mtkhdk; jh';fhky; v';fs; tPl;ow;F
te;Jtpl;lJ/ 3k; vjphp jd;id jpl;odhh; vd;W brhy;yp mGjJ/ ,ut[ neuk; vd; kfs;
vjphpfs; tPl;od; tHpahf ghj;U:k; brd;wnghJ 1.2 vjphpfs; mrp';fkhf jpl;oapUf;fpwhh;fs;/
vd; kfs; tPl;ow;F te;J mGJbfhz;oUe;jhh;/ 28k; njjp fhiyapy; 1.2 vjphpfs; kPz;Lk;
 -5-

v';fs; tPl;ow;F te;J mrp';fkhf jpl;odhh;fs;/ eh';fs; v';fs; kfis rkhjhdk; bra;J
itj;jpUe;njhk;/ Mdhy; v';fs; kfs; clk;gpy; kz;bzz;iz Cw;wpf;bfhz;L
bfhSj;jpf;bfhz;lhh;/ mtiu M!;gj;jphpf;F miHj;J brd;nwhk;/ m';fpUe;J g[Jr;nrhp
muR kUj;Jtkidf;F miHj;J brd;nwhk;/ 31k; njjp ,ut[ vd; kfs; ,we;Jtpl;lhh;/
mjdhy; vd; kfs; fhty;epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLj;jhh;/ nghyPrhh; vd;id tprhhpj;jhh;fs;/ ”
PW3 (Murugan) had deposed that, “ ehd; bflhhpy; trpj;J tUfpnwd;/
,we;Jnghd njtp vd; j';if/ vd; j';if brd;idapy; goj;J te;jhh;/ 3tJ vjphpa[k;
mtUld; goj;J te;jhh;/ 1k; vjphpapd; fztiu vd; j';if itj;jpUg;gjhf vjphpfs;
mtiu mrp';fkhfngrpajhy; mtkhdk; jh';fhky; vd; j';if kz;bzz;iz Cw;wp
jw;bfhiy bra;Jbfhz;lhh;/ nghyPrhh; vd;id tprhhpj;jh;fs;/ ”
PW4 (Dhaiyanayaki) had deposed that, “ ehd; bflhh; fpuhkj;jpy; trpj;J
tUfpnwd;/ ,we;Jnghd njtpia bjhpa[k;/ mth; Xufj;jp kfs;/ M$h; vjphpfs; v';fs;
Ciur;nrh;e;jth;fs;/ vd; Xufj;jp $hjpr;rhd;W bgWtjw;fhf njtp nghl;nlhit vjphp
btz;kjpapd; fzth; g[c;&guh$Plk; bfhLj;jhh;/ me;j nghl;nlhit vjphp btz;kjp
ghh;j;Jtpl;L eP njtpia itj;jpUf;fpwha; vd;W rz;il nghl;oUf;fpwhh;/ btz;kjp j';if
3k; vjphp ghh;j;jpgh njtpa[ld; brd;id fy;Y}hpapy; goj;Jf;bfhz;oUe;jhh;fs;/ mth;
njtpa[ld; gof;Fk; rf khz.khztpfsplk; njtp jd; mf;fh ftiu
itj;Jf;bfhz;oUg;gjhf brhy;yp mrp';fg;gLj;jpapUF;fpwhh;/ ,e;j tptuj;ij njtp
jd;bgw;nwhhplk; TwpapUf;fpwhh;/ mg;nghJ vd; Xufj;jp mtiu tPl;ow;F fpsk;gp tUk;go
brhd;dhh;/ 28k; njjp njtp vjphfs; tPl;od; tHpahf ghj;U:kpw;F brd;wpUf;fpwhh;/ mg;nghJ
mk;gpfht[k;. btz;kjpa[k; mtiu mrp';fkhf jpl;oapUf;fpwhh;fs;/ njtp nfhgk; jh';fhky;
v';fsplk; te;J brhd;dJ/ eh';fs; bjUtpy; ngrpf;bfhz;oUf;Fk;nghJ njtp tPl;oDs;
brd;W kz;bzz;iz Cw;wpf;bfhSj;jpf;bfhz;oUf;fpwhh;/ gpwF tPl;ow;F gpd;gf;fkhf
brd;W Kj;JfpUc;&zd; tPl;L mLg;gpypUe;J beUg;g[ fl;ilia vLj;J clk;gpy;
itj;Jf;bfhz;oUf;fpwhh; mg;nghJ ehfrhkp vd;gth; jz;zPh; Cw;wp jPiaiz
mizj;jpUf;fpwhh;/ eh';fs; vy;nyhUk; Xor;brd;W mtiu lhl;lhVrp tz;oapy;
kUj;Jtkidf;F miHj;Jf;bfhz;L nghndhk;/ mjD}h; tUk;nghJ Mk;g[yd;R vjphpy;
te;J mtiu Mk;g[yd;rpy; Vw;wpr;brd;W Kz;oak;ghf;fk; kUj;Jtkidapy; nrh;j;njhk;/
m';fpUe;j nghyPrhh; v';fis tprhhpj;jhh;fs;/ m';F rpfpr;ir mspf;f KoahJ vd;W
brhd;djhy; ghz;or;nrhp muR kUj;Jtkidf;F eh';fs; 5 ngh; njtpia
miHj;Jf;bfhz;L nrh;j;njhk;/ 30k; njjp njtp ,we;Jtpl;lhh;/ 1k; njjp bflhh; nghyPrhh;
 -6-

v';fis tprhhpj;jhh;fs;/ ”
PW5 (Govindhan) had deposed that, “ ehd; bflhhpy; trpj;J tUfpnwd;/
,we;Jnghd njtpia bjhpa[k;/ mth; vd; khkh kfs;/ M$h; vjphpfis bjhpa[k;/ mth;fs;
v';fs; Ciur;nrh;e;jth;fs;/ Rkhh; 5 tUlj;jpw;F Kd;g[ njtp bfhSj;jpf;bfhz;ljhf vd;
khkpahh; jfty; brhd;dhh;/ clnd ehd; rk;gt ,lj;jpw;F nghndd;/ njtpia lhl;lhVrp
tz;oapy; Vw;wpf;bfhz;L Kz;oak;ghf;fk kUj;Jtkidf;F brd;Wbfhz;oUe;njhk;/
mg;nghJ mjD}h; fpuhkk; tUk;nghJ 108 Mk;g[yd;R vjphpy; te;jJ/ mjpy;
Kz;oak;ghf;fk; kUj;Jtkidf;F njtpia miHj;J brd;nwhk;/ m';fpUe;J ghz;or;nrhp
muR kUj;Jtkidf;F miHj;J brd;nwhk;/ m';F njtp ,we;Jtpl;lJ/ vd;d
fhuzj;jpw;fhf njtp ,we;Jtpl;lhh; vd;W bjhpahJ/ njtp vjw;fhf jw;bfhiy
bra;Jbfhz;lhh; vd;W bjhpahJ/ ”
PW6 (Nagasamy) had deposed that, “ ehd; bflhh; fpuhkj;jpy; trpj;J tUfpnwd;/
vd;dplk; fhl;lg;gLk; Mtzj;jpYs;sJ vd;Dila ifbahg;gk; jhd;/ bflhh; nghyPrhh;
rk;gt ,lj;jpw;F te;J rk;gt ,lj;ij ghh;itapl;L ghh;it kfrh; kw;Wk; khjphp
tiuglk; jahh; bra;jhh;fs;/ vd;Dld; unkc;& vd;gtUk; rhl;rpf;ifbahg;gk; nghl;lhh;/
ghh;it kfrh; m/j/rh/M/2 MFk;/ ”
PW7 (Dr.Baskaran) had deposed that, “ehd; jw;nghJ uh$hKj;ijah
kUj;Jtfy;Y}hp kUj;Jtkid rpjk;guj;jpy; KJepiy gl;lg;gog;g[ goj;J tUfpnwd;/ fle;j
28/3/2010k; njjp ,ut[ 8/15 kzpastpy; Kz;oak;ghf;fk; muR kUj;Jtfy;Y}hp
kUj;Jtkidapy; mtru rpfpr;ir gphptpy; gzpapy; ,Ue;jnghJ bflhh; Ciur;nrh;e;j
ijay;ehafp vd;gth; jd; kfs; njtp vd;gtiu rpfpr;irf;fhf miHj;J te;jhh;/ mtiu
tprhhpj;jjpy; mnj ehsd;W khiy 6/00 kzpastpy; jd; tPl;oy; kz;bzz;iz
Cw;wpf;bfhz;L jhnd gw;witj;Jf;bfhz;ljhf Twpdhh;/ gpwF mtiu nky;rpfpr;irf;fhf
cah;kUj;Jtkidf;F mDg;gp itf;fg;gl;lJ/ vd;dplk; miHj;J tUk;nghJ nehahsp
Rw;WNHy; mwpe;jtuhft[k;. RaepidnthLk; fhzg;gl;lhh;/ ehd; tH';fpa tpgj;J gjpntL
efy; m/j/rh/M/3 MFk;/ ”
PW8 (Meena) had deposed that, “ ehd; r';fuhg[uk; tl;lk;. ehfy;Foapy; trpj;J
tUfpnwd;/ rk;gtj;jpd;nghJ brd;id jpahfuh$ fy;Y}hpapy; goj;J te;njd;/ ,we;Jnghd
njtp vd;Dld; goj;J te;jhh;/ 3tJ vjphp ghh;j;jpghit bjhpa[k;/ mth;ntW fy;Y}hpapy;
goj;J te;jhh;/ mth; v';fs; ~h!;lypy; j';fp goj;J te;jhh;/ ehDk;;. njtpa[k; xU
miwapy; j';fpapUe;njhk;/ ghh;j;jpgh ntW miwapy; j';fpapUe;jhh;/ njtp ,we;Jtpl;lhh;
 -7-

vd;W nfs;tpg;gl;nld;/ mth; vjw;fhf jw;bfhiy bra;Jbfhz;lhh; vd;W bjhpahJ/

mtUf;F vd;d gpur;rid ele;jJ vd;W vdf;F bjhpahJ/ ”
PW9 (Dr.S.Diwakar) had deposed that, “ ehd; g[Jitapy; murpdh; bghJ
kUj;Jtkidapy; rl;lk; rhh;e;j kUj;JtJiwapy; KJepiy kUj;Jtuhf 8 Mz;Lfs;
xg;ge;j mog;gilapy; gzpahw;wptpl;L jw;nghJ tpLg;gpy; ,Uf;fpnwd;/ fle;j 1/4/2010k;njjp
kjpak; gzpapy; ,Ue;jnghJ bflhh; fhty;epiya cjtp Ma;thshplkpUe;J fpilj;j
ntz;Lnfhspd;go njtp vd;w 20 taJ kjpg;g[ila bgz;zpd; rlyj;jpd; nky; mnj
jpdk; kjpak; 12/15 kzpf;F rlyf;Tuha;t[ bjhl';fpndd;/ mr;rlyk; jiyik fhtyh;
vz;/899 V/uhkK:h;j;jp trkpUe;J milahsk; fhz;gpf;fg;gl;lJ/ mr;rlyk; xU
KGtsh;r;rpaile;j Rkhuhd nghc&hf;Fld; Toa bgz;zpd; rlykhFk;/ fUtpHpfs;
,uz;Lk; ey;y epiyapy; fhzg;gl;ld/ iftpuy; ef';fs; btspwpf;fhzg;gl;ld/ kuz
tpiug;g[ cly; KGtJk; gutp fhzg;gl;lJ/ btspg;g[w fha';fs; nky; ,Ue;jthwpahd
kw;Wk; MHkhd jPf;fha';fs; Kfk; KGtjhft[k;. fGj;J. khh;gpd; nky;g[wj;jpYk;. KJfpd;
KGtJkhft[k;. tapw;wpd; nky;g[wj;jpYk;. ,uz;L iffspYk;. ,uz;Lfhy;fspYk;. rPH;
nfhh;j;J fhzg;gl;ld/ ,ju mwpFwpfs; K:r;R FHypy; ePh; nfhh;j;J fhzg;gl;lJ/ ehto
vYk;g[ ey;y epiyapy; ,Ue;jJ/ EiuaPuy;fs; ,uz;Lk; kpFe;j brwpt[lDk;. ePh;nfhh;j;Jk;
fhzg;gl;lJ/ ,iug;ig fhypahf ,Ue;jJ/ mjd; cl;$t;t[ btspwpf;fhz;gl;lJ/ fh;gg
; ig
fhypahf ,Ue;jJ/ fUj;J ,we;j egh; mtUf;F Vw;gl;l bgUkstpyhd jPf;fhaj;jpd;
gpd;tpisthy; rPH; nfhh;j;jjpdhy; ,we;jpUf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W fUj;J Twpa[s;nsd;/ ehd;
tH';fpa gpnuj ghpnrhjid mwpf;if m/j/rh/M/4 MFk;/ ”
PW10, had deposed that, upon receipt of Ex.P1 complaint on 1.4.2010 at
about 8.15 am., the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Kedar P.S. registered a case in
Cr.No.22/2010 U/s. 174 Cr.P.C. The FIR is marked as Ex.P5. He then proceeded
to Government Hospital, Pondicherry and conducted inquest over the body of the
deceased in the presence of witnesses and Panchayathars. The inquest report is
marked as Ex.P6. He then gave requisition letter (Ex.P8) for subjecting the body
of the deceased for postmortem. He then proceeded to the place of occurrence
and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and rough sketch (Ex.P7) in the
presence of witnesses Ramesh and Nagasamy. He then examined few witnesses
in the place of occurrence. He then altered the case in to 306 IPC and submitted
the alteration report (Ex.P8) to the Court. On 2.4.2010 at about 12. 00 hrs.,
arrested A1 & A2 near Village bus stop and subjected them to judicial custody.
 -8-

Since, A3 was released on Anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras
her arrest was not made. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, Kedar P.S. (PW11)
took up the case for investigation recorded the statements of Meena, Dr.Baskar,
H.C. Rammoorthi and Dr.Devakar. Upon completing the investigation had laid the
final report against the accused persons.
When the accused persons were examined with regard to the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them in evidence U/s.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., they
denied the complicity in the Crime as a whole. On the defence side no oral or
documentary evidence were let in.
Points for Consideration:
8. Upon careful consideration of the evidence and materials on record,
the following points arise for consideration,
1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt?
9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution
has established its case through oral and documentary evidence. He further
submitted that this case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the
accused persons and considering the nature and gravity of the offence the
accused persons shall be convicted.
10. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the accused persons would
contend that the entire prosecution case bristled with suspicious circumstances
and the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case. Hence, the
benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused persons and the accused persons
deserves to be acquitted.
Decision and reason for Decision:
11. Arguments on both sides heard. In order to appreciate the merit of
rival contention in a right perspective it is necessary to advert to the evidence on
record which has been thoroughly discussed.
12. Analysis of Evidence:
According to prosecution, the deceased Devi and the accused persons A1 to
A3 belong to Kedar Village. The deceased Devi was studying B.Sc., 3rd year at
Thyagaraja Arts College at Chennai during the material point of time. A3,
Parthiba was also studying at Chennai and was staying along with the deceased in
the same hostel. While so, A1 & A2 used to talk ill about the deceased in the
 -9-

village that she was having illicit relationship with one Pushparaj, the husband of
A1 Venmathi. A3 also used to talk ill about the deceased in the hostel that she
was having illicit relationship with her sister's husband Pushparaj. Aggrieved by
this, on 27.3.2010 the deceased Devi came to her native village from the hostel
and again A1 & A2 on seeing her abused her with filthy words. Due to this, the
deceased Devi got frustrated. On 28.3.2010 at about 7.00 pm., Devi committed
suicide by pouring kerosene and set fire on herself. She was taken to the hospital
for treatment and on 31.3.2010 at about 9.40 pm., the deceased Devi succumbed
to burn injuries. Hence, A1 to A3 were charged for the offence punishable U/s.306
IPC.
The prosecution had examined 11 witnesses and Exhibited 9 documents in
this case. Out of the said witnesses PW1 & PW2 are the parents of the deceased,
PW3 is the sister of the deceased, PW4 & PW5 are close relatives of the deceased.
According to PW1 to PW5 the deceased Devi committed suicide since A1 & A2
abused her by saying that she was having illicit relationship with the husband of
A1. A3 had also spoken ill about the deceased in the hostel where they were
staying together at Chennai. Aggrieved by this, the deceaed Devi committed
suicide. PW6 is the observation mahazar witness. PW7, Dr.Baskar attached to
Government Hospital, Mundiyampakkam had spoken about issuing Ex.P3 Accident
Register for the deceased on 28.3.2010. PW8, Meena was according to
prosecution stayed along with the deceased and A3 in the same hostel. She was
examined by the prosecution to speak about the incident taken place in the hostel
on 25.3.2010. But, she did not support the prosecution case and was declared
hostile. PW9, Dr.Diwakar attached to Government Hospital, Pondicherry had
spoken about conducting postmortem over the body of the deceased. His report
is marked as Ex.P4 in which he had opined that the deceased had died of septic
complication of extensive burns. No independent witnesses were examined to
speak about that A1 & A2 abused the deceased on 28.3.2010. Moreover, nothing
is mentioned in Ex.P3 Accident Register copy about the history of case. If really,
the deceased Devi had committed suicide because of the accused persons, the
same would have been stated to the doctor by the deceased or by the person who
brought the deceased to the hospital for treatment. Moreover, the above case was
initially registered only U/s.174 Cr.P.C. If really, the accused persons had
instigated the deceased to commit suicide, the case would have been registered
 -10-

only U/s. 306 IPC and it is not necessary to register the case as suspicious death.
Moreover, the alteration report was sent to the Court only on 20.5.2010 though
the Sub-Inspector of Police, had deposed that the alteration report was prepared
on 2.4.2010. Moreover, the alleged occurrence took place on 28.3.2010 at about
7.00 pm., and the complaint was lodged only on 1.4.2010. It is also admitted by
PW10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kedar P.S. till 1.4.2010 he did not receive any
complaint from the deceased family and that he had received information only
from the hospital. Moreover, the FIR was sent the Court only on 2.4.2010 at
about 3.20 pm., for which no plausible explanation given by PW10. If really, the
accused persons were responsible for the death of the deceased, a complaint
would have been lodged against the accused persons immediately after the
alleged occurrence. Moreover, the investigating officer failed to take steps for
recording the dying declaration of the deceased when she was admitted in the
hospital for treatment. Moreover, there is discrepancy about the place of
occurrence. In the inquest report (Ex.P6), the place of occurrence is mentioned
as Mariyamman Kovil Street. But, in the rough sketch (Ex.P7) it is mentioned as
Pillaiyar Kovil Street. Furthermore, there is improvements in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses. Though, PW1 in his evidence had stated about giving the
passport size photograph of his daughter to the husband of A1 for applying
community certificate and on seeing the photograph, A1 abused her husband and
the deceased family, the same is not mentioned neither in the complaint nor in the
161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. PW1 also deposed that A3 had humiliated the
deceased in the hostel, that she was having ill legal intimacy with her sister's
husband. But, the same is not mentioned neither in the complaint nor in the 161
Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. PW2, in her evidence had stated that A1 had spoken
about the deceased to A3 through phone, and on 28th A1 & A2 came to the house
of PW1 and abused them. But, the same is not reflected in her statement
recorded by the police. Again, PW4 though in her evidence stated that she had
seen the occurrence, but in her statement it is not mentioned that PW4 had seen
the occurrence. Again, in the statement of PW5 it is not mentioned that he had
taken the deceased in his TATA ACE vehicle to the hospital. Hence, the
prosecution witnesses had made improvements in their evidences which do not
find place neither in the complaint nor in their statements recorded by the police.
Moreover, the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness to speak
 -11-

about the alleged occurrence. In fact, the investigating officer had included the
name of PW8 Meena and PW7 Dr.Baskar only after the charge sheet was returned
by the Court for compliance. According to prosecution PW8 was staying along
with the deceased in the hostel and witnessed A3 talking ill about the deceased to
other inmates, which made the deceased to get frustrated and commit suicide.
The next incident according to prosecution was taken place in the house of PW1
which also made the deceased to get frustrated and commit suicide. But, PW8 did
not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Moreover, the
prosecution failed to prove that PW8 was staying along with the deceased in the
hostel and any such incident had taken place. None other hostlers were examined
by the prosecution to establish the above incident. The second incident was also
not established by the prosecution. The prosecution witnesses had spoken certain
facts which do not find place neither in the complaint nor in their statements
recorded by the police. Moreover, Dr.Baskar attached to Mundiyampakkam
hospital examined as PW7, in his cross examination had stated that while the
deceased Devi was admitted in the hospital on 17.11.2010 she was able to speak.
If that so, the investigating officer should have taken steps to record the dying
declaration of the deceased to establish the reason for her to take such drastic
step to end her life. Even, in Ex.P3 Accident Register nothing is mentioned about,
what made the deceased to commit suicide, though she was in fit state of mind
and was able to speak. Even assuming that the evidence of prosecution witnesses
are taken in to consideration about the alleged incidents, even then offence
U/s.306 IPC would not be attracted. To prove the offence U/s. 306 IPC, the Apex
Court in a catena of decisions has laid down the following ingredients which must
be available so as to constitute the offence:
1. What constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of consequence. (Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2001-9 SCC
618) 2. There should be reasonable certainty to incite the consequence which
must be capable of being spelt out. (Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2001-
9 SCC 618). (3). A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. (Ramesh Kumar
v. State of Chhattisgarh 2001-9 SCC 618 = 2002-5 SCC 371). (4). The presence of
mensrea is necessary concomitant for instigation. Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh
Sengar v. State of M.P. 2002-5 SCC 371). (5). Use of the words by itself will not
 -12-

constitute instigation. (Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2010-1

SCC 750). (6). There is a difference between to provoke, to goad, to instigate
(Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh 2001-9 SCC 618). (7). The accused must
have played an active role Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal
2010-1 SCC 707). (8). Without a positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid the conviction cannot be sustained. (Gangula Mohan Reddy v.
State of Andhra Pradesh 2010-1 SCC 750).
From a close reading of these judgment, it could be culled out that for

establishing an offence U/s.306 IPC, essentially, the prosecution has to prove that

the accused persons had mensrea to instigate or to aid the commission of suicide

by the deceased. Mere uttering of words which may even be provocative may not

constitute instigation or aiding to commit suicide. With these broad principles in

mind, if the facts of the presence case are looked in to, I find no materials at all on

record to hold that the accused persons had any mensrea in their mind either to

instigate or to drive the deceased to commit suicide. From the evidences of

prosecution witnesses it could be seen that there was no motive at all for the

accused persons to drive the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of any

acceptable evidence, it would be too difficult to believe that these accused would

have done anything actively to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, I

am of the firm view that it would not be safe to convict the accused persons on the

evidence available on record U/s. 306 IPC. Moreover, PW11, the investigating

officer had admitted in his cross examination that only after the relatives of the

deceased indulged in the road agitation, a case was registered against the

accused persons. Moreover, all the documents were dispatched to the court

belatedly and the same was also admitted by the first investigating officer. In

view of the above discussion, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the

case beyond reasonable doubt to convict the accused persons.

 -13-

13. In the result, for the reasons aforementioned this Court is of opinion

that the charge leveled against A1 to A3 U/s.306 IPC is not proved beyond all

reasonable doubt by the prosecution and A1 to A3 are not found guilty and A1 to

A3 are acquitted U/s.235 (I) Cr.P.C. No material objects seized by the prosecution.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist directly, typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 19th day of April 2017.
(Sd./-K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi)
Sessions Judge,
Magalir Neethi Mandram,
(Fast Track Mahila Court),
Villupuram.

PROSECUTION SIDE WITNESSES

P.W.1 Mannar

P.W.2 Ambika

P.W.3 Murugan

P.W.4 Dhaiyanayaki

P.W.5 Govindhan

P.W.6 Nagasamy

P.W.7 Dr.Baskar

P.W.8 Meena

P.W.9 Dr.Diwakar

P.W.10 Tr.Tamizhselvan, Inspector of Police.

P.W.11 Tr.Pradeepkumar, Inspector of Police.

PROSECUTION SIDE EXHIBITS

Ex..P.1 Complaint dated:01.04.2010.

Ex.P.2 Observation mahazaar dated:01.04.2010.

Ex.P.3 Accident Register of victim dated:28.03.2010.

 -14-

Ex.P.4 Post-mortem certificate dated:01.04.2010.

Ex.P.5 FIR dated:01.04.2010.

Ex.P.6 Inquest report dated:01.04.2010.

Ex.P.7 Rough sketch dated:01.04.2010.

Ex.P.8 Alteration report dated:02.04.2010.

Ex.P.9 Police requisition letter to conduct the postmortem test

dated:01.04.2010.

DEFENCE SIDE WITNESS AND EXHIBITS: NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL.

(Sd./-K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi)
Sessions Judge,
Magalir Neethi Mandram,
(Fast Track Mahila Court),
Villupuram.