'Tarnished Her Self Esteem': Madras High Court Invokes Suo Motu Revisional Powers, Holds Sexual Assaulter Guilty Of Abetment To Suicide

In a recent judgment, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has invoked its suo moto revisional powers to set aside the Sessions Court Order acquitting the accused of abetment to suicide. Justice B. Pugalendhi addressed the four corners of suo moto revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and held the accused guilty of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC along with other charges. In 2015, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul, had already held the accused guilty under Sections 354(Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 448 IPC (Punishment for house-trespass). Initially, a criminal appeal was filed by the accused under Section 374 CrPC against the charges under which he was convicted and sentenced by the trial court. While the High Court was considering his plea for suspension of sentence, the High Court came to the conviction that the trial court had erred in not appreciating the evidence adequately while acquitting the accused on the charge under Section 306 IPC. In the common judgment for the criminal appeal and the suo motu criminal revision petition, the court observed: "The High Court, under Section 401 Cr.P.C., is having the power to call for the records without the intervention of another agency. The High Court as an effective instrument in the administrative of criminal justice is duty bound to suo motu act where there is flagrant abuse of law. The nature of offence and the manner of disposal by the trial Court has prompted the Court to take up the suo motu Criminal revision petition for the ultimate social good of the community." Since the state didn't file an appeal against acquittal under S. 306 IPC, the court deemed it fit to reappreciate the evidence and accordingly directed the registry to file a suo moto criminal revision petition. The High Court had also appointed amicus curiae for assistance to outline the revisional powers of the court as well as the reasonableness in convicting the accused of minor offences in the absence of the primary charge under Section 306 IPC. After considering the submissions made by the Amicus which is given below, the court relied on Section 464 CrPC to reach the conclusion that the suo motu revision is not erroneous or unsustainable in law: "As per Section 211 of Cr.P.C., there is an obligation on the part of the Court at the time of framing charge to incorporate the relevant requirements, but, as per Section 215 of Cr.P.C., some sort of error visualizing in the format of charge would not make the trial redundant. Further, under Section 222 of Cr.P.C. the conviction under the minor offence than that of the accused had been charged, is found permissible and while in terms of Section 221 of Cr.P.C. even if there happens to be absence of charge against the accused, even then, he could be convicted and the aforesaid is duly cared for under Section 464 CrPC." Arguments Raised And Court's Observations According to the prosecution, the deceased woman was cradling her baby at midnight when the accused, who was also a neighbour, allegedly trespassed into the house of the deceased and attempted to rape her. The mother in law of the deceased, one of the prosecution witnesses, testified that she woke up hearing the noise of the deceased and accordingly scolded the accused. The accused left the house which was witnessed by one of the neighbours. Deeply affected by the incident, the deceased woman left the house soon thereafter along with her one and a half-year-old child, and committed suicide by consuming oleander seeds. This was the case of the prosecution. According to the counsel for the accused, the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the viscera and the final report of the doctor who conducted the postmortem was not marked by the prosecution. He also alleged that the deceased was not having a good relationship with her husband and he wasn't examined by the Prosecution. It was his further contention that the accused had come there for getting a matchbox and when the mother-in-law witnessed the same, she scolded the deceased as a result of which she committed suicide. He vehemently argued for completely setting aside the conviction and submitted that the court's initiative to take suo moto revision was improper. Amicus made the submission that the evidence of the neighbour iterating that the deceased had expressed her intention to commit suicide after the incident can be admitted as dying declaration. To prove that there is a direct act for the incitement to the commission of suicide, Amicus relied on Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttranchal & Another, 2013 (1) SCC (Crl.) 146 and Ude Singh & Others vs. State of Haryana. On the suo moto revision, the court accepted the submissions made by amicus curiae, who relied on Nadir Khan vs. The State (Delhi Administration) 1976 AIR 2205 and Eknath...

'Tarnished Her Self Esteem': Madras High Court Invokes Suo Motu Revisional Powers, Holds Sexual Assaulter Guilty Of Abetment To Suicide

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

'Tarnished Her Self Esteem': Madras High Court Invokes Suo Motu Revisional Powers, Holds Sexual Assaulter Guilty Of Abetment To Suicide

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers