AP High Court Overturns Husband’s Conviction U/S 306 IPC, Says Single Instance Of Questioning Wife’s Morality Not Abetment Of Suicide
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Court docket lately put aside a conviction beneath Part 306 of IPC on the grounds that beating of the deceased and mere verbal humiliation upon accusations of marital infidelity, with none optimistic act to incite or instigate fee of suicide, doesn’t represent abetment of suicide.
Within the current case, the deceased’s husband and brother-in-law, suspecting her constancy, had allegedly insulted and overwhelmed her on the night time previous to her dying, which compelled her to commit suicide.
Noting that the act of beating the deceased on yester-night can’t result in the presumption that petitioners meant to push her to commit suicide, Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao noticed,
“There was no proof to the impact that the Petitioners both goaded or provoked or instigated or inspired her to commit suicide. Due to this fact, it is probably not proper to carry that the Petitioners have been responsible of abetment of suicide. The deceased felt insulted or humiliated as her brother-in-law and husband beat her on the pretext that she had not stored her matrimonial piousness. The motion of the Petitioners is in any other case not ordinarily anticipated to induce equally circumstanced particular person to commit suicide, the deceased was hypersensitive, as such, it might not be acceptable and correct to convict the Petitioners for abetment of suicide.”
The Court docket added,
“There was no seen and conspicuous presence of factor of mens rea within the case. The act and phrases of the petitioners, nonetheless, insulting or humiliating the deceased by stating that why ought to she reside, as she was main an immoral life, won’t by itself represent abetment of suicide. The phrases of the petitioners spoken to the deceased solely as soon as, a single occasion i.e., on the previous night time of committing suicide, can’t represent the petitioners exploiting the vulnerability of the deceased, making her really feel nugatory or undeserving of life, main her to commit suicide.”
Information:
The Court docket was coping with a revision petition assailing a Periods Court docket order upholding conviction of Petitioners by the trial courtroom.
The deceased was the spouse of Petitioner 1 and Petitioner no.2 was her brother-in-law. It was alleged that the night time of the incident, the Petitioners insulted and beat the deceased suspecting infidelity. Feeling humiliated, the deceased poured kerosene over her and set herself ablaze.
Within the hospital, her dying declaration was recorded which acknowledged: “My husband and his brother (my brother-in-law) Pitchayya beat me yesternight. They acknowledged that why ought to I lead this life and why mustn’t I die. Therefore I poured kerosene and set myself fireplace. My mother-in-law introduced me to the hospital.”
On this foundation, the petitioners have been convicted beneath Part 306 IPC.
Submissions:
Within the Excessive Court docket, the petitioners contended that the Courts beneath had erred in convicting them merely on the premise of the dying declaration with none assist from impartial sources. They additional argued that there was no direct or oblique participation on their half which might have abetted the fee of suicide. Moreover, they submitted that the Courts beneath must have seen that non-examination of the physician who attended the deceased was deadly to the prosecution case as there was no proof to find out her psychological situation which enabled her to make an announcement as to the offence.
Justifying the conviction, the State urged that there have been no materials irregularities or misreading of proof, and that the Court docket beneath had rightly upheld the conviction of the petitioners.
Court docket’s Findings:
On the outset, the Court docket established that whereas exercising jurisdiction beneath Part 397 r/w 401 of CrPC, the Court docket can’t invoke its revisional energy as a Second Appellate Court docket. Nonetheless, if there are manifest illegalities and curiosity of public justice requires interference to forestall an awesome miscarriage of justice, the Court docket can consider proof to come back to a simply conclusion.
So as to decide whether or not the case met the stipulations required to draw Part 306, the Court docket referred to a number of judgments, together with S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010), M. Mohan v. State (2011) and Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2020), Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025). A collective studying of those judgments set up that with a purpose to set up guilt beneath Part 306, there have to be an lively or optimistic act by the accused proximate to the incidence of dying which instigates the deceased and leaves her with no different choice however to commit suicide.
On the premise of those rulings, the Court docket held,
“On a scrupulous examination of the information and circumstances of the case, particularly dying declaration of the deceased, there was no optimistic motion proximate to the time of suicide on the a part of the Petitioners which lead or compelled the deceased to take the intense step of committing suicide. Due to this fact, the conviction beneath Part 306 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ sustained by the discovered Trial Court docket and upheld by the discovered Appellate Court docket are usually not legitimate and legally acceptable inasmuch as there was no optimistic act on the a part of the Petitioners to instigate or deliberately aided Chilukuri Mariyamma to commit suicide.”
Noting that the acts and phrases of the petitioners which made her really feel insulted can’t represent instigation to commit suicide, the Court docket allowed the Prison Revision Case and put aside the impugned order of the Appellate Court docket and the conviction handed down by the Trial Court docket.
Case Particulars:
Case Quantity: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.44 OF 2011
Case Title: Chilikuri Mariyadas v. The State of A.P
