'Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Take Place Of Proof': Kerala HC Acquits Accused Charged With Abetment Of Suicide

The Kerala High Court recently held that in order to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC the prosecution must establish firstly that a suicide has been committed, and secondly that the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide, has played an active role in the same with such a mens rea.The Single Judge Bench of Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed that even if circumstantial evidence is being relied upon to prove the same in the absence of direct evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and the conclusion which is arrived after examining the chain of evidence must point towards the culpability of the accused and not to any other conclusion. The bench reiterated the settled position of law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, the Court found in the instant case that although the death of the deceased herein was an unnatural death, "...those are not reasons for finding a person guilty, unless the prosecution is able to prove beyond doubt that he is responsible for the death. It is the settled law that suspicion, however, grave it may be; cannot take the place of proof".As per the factual circumstances, a 28 year old woman who had been engaged to be married to a man named Ansal, was lured by the appellant herein, with whom she had been intimate with earlier, with the connivance of two others. The appellant, with the help of the two other accused persons, took the lady to Mysore, where they stayed in Room No.6 of Chirag Hotel. It was alleged that due to the torment and torture inflicted by the appellant to continue the relationship and her anxiety on spoiling the prospects of her proposed marriage pushed her to commit suicide by hanging herself in the said room on 1st September 1990. The appellant and the co-accused were accordingly, arraigned by the police in connection with the suicide, pursuant to their investigation. The matter before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta was committed to the Sessions Court which in turn made the case to the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kalpetta who held trial in the matter. The Additional Sessions Judge perused the the diary and death note written by the deceased, as well as 4 letters allegedly written by the appellant. It thus found that the appellant had put in all effort to continue his relationship with the deceased and in that attempt he sent letters to the man she had been engaged to, and thereby instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The trial culminated in conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. On 15.03.2006, the appeal was admitted. The sentence was suspended and the appellant was released on bail on conditions.It is the case of the appellant that in order to establish an offence of abetment to commit suicide, the prosecution is bound to prove the death was a suicide and the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide with sufficient mens rea, none of which could be found to have been proved by the prosecution herein. It was further contended that the aforementioned writings, the sample and specimen writings could not be proved to be that of the deceased and the appellant and thus, cannot be acted upon. The Public Prosecutor on the other hand, contended that the contents of the death note, the diary, and the letters allegedly written by the appellant would clearly indicate that the appellant had a definite plan to see that the deceased committed suicide, and that he did everything to sabotage the hope of the deceased to have a happy married life. The Court perused the decisions in a plethora of case laws such as Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana (1989), S.S.Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. (2010), Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2020), and Satbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2021) in order to ascertain the ingredients for constituting offence under Section 306 IPC. It noted that in the absence of direct evidence in the instant case, the following circumstances were relied upon by the prosecution to prove the charge against the appellant, namely the deceased committing suicide, the appellant having an illicit relationship with the deceased, her marriage proposal being spoilt by the appellant, the stay in Chirag Hotel, and the scribblings in the diary and death note being that of the deceased. The Court, relying upon precedents, noted that, "the evidence on record should prove beyond doubt that the proven circumstances lead to the only inference that the appellant had the intention to instigate (the deceased) to commit suicide and in consequence thereof, she had committed suicide". The Court observed that it is the fundamental principle of criminal law that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It added...

'Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Take Place Of Proof': Kerala HC Acquits Accused Charged With Abetment Of Suicide

Navya Benny

Tags