REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2022

MARIANO ANTO BRUNO & ANR. …..APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ….. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 31.01.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras

(hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of

2021 filed by the Appellants herein seeking to set aside the order of

conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai

(hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) in S.C No. 209 of 2016 under

Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to

as “IPC”). The Appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for

a period of 3 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of which to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section

1

498A IPC and to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 years with a

fine of Rs. 25,000/- each in default of which to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 3 months under Section 306 IPC. By

impugned judgment, the High Court upheld the conviction of the

Appellants for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

2.Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as

follows:

2.1The marriage between Appellant No. 1 and Dr. M. Amali Victoria

(hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was solemnised on 08.09.2005

and a male child was born out of wedlock in the year 2007. On the

professional front, both parties are doctors. Appellant No. 1 was

informed on 05.11.2014 that the deceased had collapsed in the

bathroom of their home and was non-responsive. Immediately, an

ambulance was called by the father of Appellant No. 1. On reaching the

site of the incident, Appellant No. 1 found the deceased having no pulse.

Despite intervention from the neighbors of Appellant No. 1 who were

doctors, the deceased could not be resuscitated and passed away on

05.11.2014. Post mortem of the body was conducted on 06.11.2014 and

the cause of death was asphyxia due to external compression of the

neck.

2

2.2On 06.11.2014, The Respondent Police registered FIR No. 1865 of

2015 at Police Station K2, Ayanavaram, District Kilpauk, Chennai based

on the statement of Appellant No. 1 owing to the unnatural death of the

deceased under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”).

2.3After 3 weeks of the death of the deceased, PW-1(the mother of

the deceased) lodged a complaint against the Appellant No.1, Appellant

No. 2(mother-in-law), and the father-in-law of the deceased for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. Thereafter, the

FIR was converted from Section 174 Cr.P.C to Sections 498A and 306

IPC.

2.4It was the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the

deceased with Appellant No. 1 was solemnised in the year 2005 and

since the deceased was not having a child for 1.5 years, the appellants

abused her and compelled her to participate in the Pooja and on the

refusal of the same, she was threatened by the appellants that she

would die. Subsequently, the deceased gave birth to a male child

named Rosando by caesarean in the year 2007. Further, the Appellant

No. 1 caused immense mental torture to the deceased by compelling

her to have another child in spite of the fact that the deceased had a

3

miscarriage with her second pregnancy. The deceased was made to do

all the domestic household work and was subjected to continuous

cruelty at the hands of the appellants. Due to the same reason, the

deceased was driven to commit suicide on 05.11.2014.

3.Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was

filed and cognizance was taken. Since the offences are triable by the

Court of Session, the said case being SC No. 209 of 2016 was

committed to Mahila Court, Chennai for trial.

4.The Trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the

offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The appellants pleaded not

guilty and therefore they came to be tried for the aforesaid offence.

5.In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution examined 15

witnesses. From side of the defence, no witnesses were examined. The

statement of the appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C.

6.The Trial Court, after analysing the statement made by the

prosecution witness and evidence of the defence, vide judgment and

order dated 26.03.2021 convicted the Appellants i.e., the husband and

mother-in-law of the deceased for the offences under Sections 498A and

4

306 IPC and were sentenced as stated herein above. The Trial Court

acquitted the father-in-law of the deceased of all the charges.

7.Challenging the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the

Appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2021 before the High Court.

The same was dismissed with the observation that the Appellants have

committed the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and the Trial

Court rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellants

herein. The Respondent police were directed to send the appellants to

undergo the remaining period of sentence. Being aggrieved by the High

Court order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

8.We have heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, Learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

Contentions on behalf of the Appellants:

9.Mr. Kapil Sibal, Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the

allegations of cruelty have been made for the first time in the complaint

made by the mother of the deceased and there is not even a whisper of

these allegations in over 9 years of marriage by the deceased or her

family. On the contrary, the relations between the Appellants and his

family, and the deceased and her family were extremely cordial.

5

10.It was vehemently submitted that the deceased was suffering from

bipolar disorder and this fact was not disclosed to the petitioner at the

time of marriage. In spite of the non-disclosure of the same, Appellant

No. 1 took good care of the deceased and it cannot be alleged that the

deceased committed suicide due to abetment by the Appellants.

11.It was further submitted that the complaint has been made

belatedly with an ulterior motive which is also reflected in/from the initial

statements of family members of the deceased made soon after her

death.

12.It was next submitted that there were no signs of animosity

between the families when their statements were being recorded

immediately after the death of the deceased. However, one of the sisters

of the deceased asked for the custody of Appellant No.1’s son (rights

over the property) and on refusal, the complaints started.

13.It was further submitted that the courts below completely

disregarded the testimony of PW-9 who was the medical professional,

who treated the deceased on 04.11.2014 ie., one day before her death.

The summary recorded by PW-9 clearly records the history of

depressive illness in the past, suicidal attempts, and suicidal ideas.

6

14. It was also submitted that the courts below have proceeded with

convicting the appellants solely on the basis of the testimony of PW-1 to

PW-3 alleging continuous harassment and mental cruelty by the

appellants.

15.Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Amalendu

Pal Vs. State of West Bengal

1

, Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana

2

,

Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab

3

, Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State

of Haryana

4

.

Contentions on behalf of the Respondents:

16.Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondents submitted that the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 has clearly

established that after marriage, all the accused persons demanded more

dowry and also stated how the deceased was abused and humiliated for

not conceiving and compelled her consume cow urine in the name of

‘Pooja’.

17.It was further submitted that the Trial Court as well the High Court

has weighed all relevant factors, including the nature of the charge, the

1 (2010) 1 SCC 707

2

(2020) 15 SCC 359

3 (2020) 10 SCC 200

4 (2019) 17 SCC 301

7

gravity of the offence and penalty, and the nature of evidence while

convicting the Appellants under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.

18.It was also submitted that PW-1 to PW-3 have consistently stated

about the nature of harassment and incident which instigated the victim

to commit suicide leaving her only child.

19.It was next vehemently submitted that there is clear evidence to

show that after the abortion of second pregnancy in 2014, the abuse,

harassment, and instigation by the accused persons increased many

folds.

20.We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the learned

counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire records.

21.The genesis of the present appeal originates from the impugned

order pronounced by the High Court whereby the High Court upheld the

conviction of the Appellants under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. Taking

that into account, it is necessary to advert to the essential ingredients of

Section 306 IPC.

8

22.Section 306 of IPC reads as under: -

“306. Abetment of suicide: - If any person commits

suicide, whoever abets the commission of such

suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to ten years,

and shall also be liable to fine.”

23.Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC which reads as

under:-

“107. Abetment of a thing:- A person abets the

doing of a thing, who -

First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or

persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if

an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of

that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing;

or

Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal

omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1- A person who by wilful

misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a

material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily

causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure,

a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that

thing.

Explanation 2- Whoever, either prior to or at the time

of the commission of an act, does anything in order to

facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby

facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the

doing of that act.”

9

24.While analyzing the provisions of Section 306 IPC along with the

definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC, a two-Judge Bench of this

Court in Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another

5

has

observed as under:-

“13. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an

offence as a person committing suicide goes beyond

the reach of law but an attempt to suicide is considered

to be an offence under Section 309 IPC. The abetment

of suicide by anybody is also an offence under Section

306 IPC. It would be relevant to set out Section 306 of

the IPC which reads as under :-

“306. Abetment of suicide. —If any person

commits suicide, whoever abets the

commission of such suicide, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to

ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

14. Though, the IPC does not define the word

‘Suicide’ but the ordinary dictionary meaning of

suicide is ‘self-killing’. The word is derived from a

modern latin word ‘suicidium’ , ‘sui’ means

‘oneself’ and ‘cidium’ means ‘killing’. Thus, the word

suicide implies an act of ‘self-killing’. In other words,

act of death must be committed by the deceased

himself, irrespective of the means adopted by him in

achieving the object of killing himself.

15. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a

criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the

same.

16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word

‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to

do something. This Court in the case of Ramesh

5 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873

10

Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh1 has defined the

word ‘instigate’ as under :-

“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,

incite or encourage to do an act.”

17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-

relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed

repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S.Cheena Vs.

Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr

6

, it was observed as

under:-

“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 intention of the legislature and

the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme

Court is clear that in order to convict a person

under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear

mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires

an active act or direct act which led the

deceased to commit suicide seeing no option

and that act must have been intended to push

the deceased into such a position that he

committed suicide.”

25.The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been extensively laid out

in M. Arjunan Vs. State, represented by its Inspector of Police

7

which

are as under: -

“The essential ingredients of the offence under Section

306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the

accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to

commit suicide. The act of the accused, however,

insulting the deceased by using abusive language will

not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There

6 (2010) 12 SCC 190

7 (2019) 3 SCC 315

11

should be evidence capable of suggesting that the

accused intended by such act to instigate the

deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of

instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied,

accused cannot be convicted under Section 306

I.P.C.”

26.In order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the state of

mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to

determining the culpability. With regard to the same, a two-judge bench

of this Court in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

8

observed as

under:-

“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there

must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement

to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be

disputed that the question of cause of a suicide,

particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of

suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted

and complex attributes of human behavior and

responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for

abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for

cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement

to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide,

mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by

another person would not suffice unless there be such

action on the part of the accused which compels the

person to commit suicide; and such an offending

action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.

Whether a person has abetted in the commission of

suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from

the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has

abetted commission of suicide by another; the

consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the

act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained

8 (2019) 17 SCC 301

12

and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-

referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward,

provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the

persons who committed suicide had been

hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise

not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly

circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be

safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.

But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and

by his continuous course of conduct creates a

situation which leads the deceased perceiving no

other option except to commit suicide, the case may

fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the

accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-

esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually

draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may

be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of

mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases

would be examined with reference to the actual acts

and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds

are only of such nature where the accused intended

nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger,

a particular case may fall short of the offence of

abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on

irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds

until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a

particular case may be that of abetment of suicide.

Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human

behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its

own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding

factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of

the accused and the deceased.”

27.In the backdrop of the above discussion, we may now advert to the

facts of the present case to test whether the conviction of the Appellants

for the offence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC is sustainable or not.

13

28.The marriage of Appellant No. 1 and the deceased was

solemnised in the year 2005 and a male child named “Rosando” was

born out of the wedlock in the year 2007. It is pertinent to mention that

both, Appellant No. 1 and the deceased are reputed doctors by

profession working in the State of Tamil Nadu. There has been no

animosity between the families of Appellant No. 1 and the deceased

throughout their marriage. Infact, after the marriage, Appellant No. 1

came to know that the deceased was suffering from bipolar disorder.

Subsequently he also came to know that she had suicidal tendencies

right from her student days and had undergone treatment under a

psychiatrist at Thirunelveli, Tamil Nadu.

29.At this stage, it may be relevant to refer to the statement made by

Appellant No. 1 under Section 313 Cr.P.C which is as under:

“My wife had mental illness right from her young age.

She had undergone treatment several times as an in-

patient even while she was studying. She had even

attempted suicide several times. They had got her

married suppressing the above facts. I became aware

of these facts only after the marriage when I

confronted my mother-in-law and my wife’s sister

regarding the above, my mother-in-law had left for

America. It was I who had treated my wife for 9 years

thereafter. I had managed to ensure that the effects of

the disease are contained to the minimum possible.

She continuously had Bipolar Disorder, Depression,

Phobias, Hallucination and Suicidal tendency. She had

been taking several medicines continuously for these.”

14

The fact stands corroborated by the summary of treatment report dated

04.11.14 by Dr. Shalini, Consultant Psychiatrist, PW-9 which is

reproduced below:-

“Dr. Amali Victoria/32/F MBBS, MD(psy), Asst Prof IMH

W/o Mr. Mariano Bruno / 36/ M Mch (Neuro) Surgeon

Mx 7 years A/NC/N/ 1 Son 7/M

Couple present together

Wife C/o sadness for past 1 month, after being posted in female

ward @ IMH

oFeels tired, not interested in working

oFeels demoralized, incapacitated

oPoor sleep

She had felt well until 6 weeks, suddenly turned more and more

desparate.

No H/o hypothyroidism

H/o similar depressive illness in the past (+)

oH/o episode during MBBS, had attempted suicide, had

taken treatment with a psychiatrist at Thirunelvelli,

admitted in ICU, TMC.

o2

nd

episode post partum

o3

rd

episode present

C/o suicidal ideas past two days – hence husband has brought

her for consultation today

Client’s husband wants to go in for 2

nd

child, where as amali

fears that she may not be able to cope up. Feels helpless,

hopeless and worthless

She wants to quit her job, but fears parents in law will leave her

and go back to native place. She feels she will not be able to

take care of her son or other future kids on her own.

15

Husband says he had requested for a second opinion because

he feels she is getting very quiet and inactive at home. She had

previously consulted her psychiatrist colleague at IMH also. But

husband wants a second opinion as she has been talking of

committing suicide for the past 2 days.

Amali Counselled

Advised free T3, TSH

Rx

Cap. Prodep (20) 1-0-0

Tab Eliwel (25) 0-0-1

x 10 days

To come with TFT report for review after 10 days

To continue the therapy for sense of worthlessness”

30.Within few weeks of marriage, the Appellant No. 1 wrote an email

to the deceased’s mother and sister seeking their help in order to take

care of the deceased but the deceased’s mother refused to help and she

left for United States. Subsequently, with the help of Appellant No. 1, the

health condition of the deceased improved and she finished her post-

graduation in 2013 with a gold medal and subsequently, started working

in the year 2014. The relationship between the families were cordial and

the deceased was very affectionate towards the Appellant’s family and

there are no evidence of cruelty or harassment meted out to her by the

Appellants.

31.In the year 2014, the deceased suffered a miscarriage, due to

which she started showing signs of depression and further took

16

treatment on 04.11.2014 from Dr. Shalini ie, PW-9, who prescribed

certain medications. However, the deceased passed away on

05.11.2014 after she was found unconscious in the bathroom.

32.With respect to bipolar disorder with which the deceased was

suffering, it refers to a disorder associated with episodes of mood swings

ranging from depressive lows to manic highs. Some of the symptoms of

bipolar disorder are as follows:

Feeling sad, hopeless or irritable most of the time

Lack of energy

Difficulty in concentrating and remembering things

Loss of interest in everyday activities

Feelings of emptiness or worthlessness

Indeed, each suicide is a personal tragedy that prematurely takes the life

of an individual and has a continuing ripple effect, dramatically affecting

the lives of families, friends and communities. However, the court of law

while adjudicating is not to be guided by emotions of sentiments but the

dictum is required to be based on analysis of facts and evidence on

record.

33.Coming to the case at hand, FIR was lodged by Appellant No.1

due to the unnatural death of the deceased, soon thereafter, one of the

sisters of the deceased asked for the custody of the son of Appellant

No.1 and on refusal of the same, the mother of the deceased gave an

17

oral statement after 3 weeks of the death of the deceased alleging that

the Appellants caused the death of the deceased and that she was

subject to constant harassment at the hands of the Appellants due to

insufficient dowry and the Appellants constantly abused the deceased for

not conceiving. It is thereafter, the FIR was converted from Section 174

Cr.P.C to Section 306 IPC. Charges were framed and after completion of

trial, the Trial Court convicted the Appellants under Sections 306 and

498A IPC. On Appeal, the High Court upheld the same. The operative

portion of the judgment reads as under: -

“16. Two things have to be proved by the prosecution

in order to sustain the appellants' conviction for the

offences under Section 498(A) and 306 IPC, as to

whether, the death of the deceased is unnatural and

as to whether the deceased committed suicide due to

harassment, inducement and abetment of the

appellants. In this case, as already stated, as per

the Medical evidence, it is clear that the victim

died unnaturally and the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3

proved that the appellants made harassment on

the victim and caused mental and physical cruelty.

Due to cruelty, the deceased has taken the

extreme step to end her life.

18. In cases of this nature, no independent witness

can be expected, because in India, the woman are

even well qualified persons, considering their family

reputation, they may not express certain things to any

third person or stranger and they can only say either to

their mother or sister or very close friend or well-

wishers. In this case, P.W.1 is the mother of the

deceased and P.W.2 is the elder sister of the

deceased. There are no medical records produced on

the side of the appellants to show that the deceased

18

was mentally disordered person or she is having

tendency of committing suicide. However, the

evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.10, would clearly

show that the deceased committed suicide due to the

continuous harassment and the mental cruelty made

by the appellants. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 to

P.W.3 are reliable and trustworthy, which inspires the

confidence of this Court to convict the appellants.

Testimony of interested witness cannot be per se

discarded and the Court has to adopt careful approach

and analyse evidence to find out the cogency and

credibility. This Court does not find out any reason to

disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and

evidence of P.W.2 was corroborated by the evidence

of P.W.10.

20. A careful reading of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3

and also the evidence of the Doctor who conducted

post-mortem proved that the victim was subjected to

harassment and cruelty made by the appellants. She

is well educated and working as a Psychiatrist in the

Government Mental Hospital, Kilpauk, she ended her

life by way of hanging. Therefore, this Court finds that

the appellants have committed the offence under

Sections 498(A) and 306 IPC and the learned trial

Judge rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted

the appellants and therefore, there is no merit in this

case and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.”

34.A bare perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the High

Court erred in recording the finding that there is sufficient evidence for

convicting the appellants under Section 306 IPC losing sight of the fact

that there exists no evidence on record indicating that the deceased was

meted out with harassment by the appellants just before her death. It is

well-settled that not only there has to be evidence of continuous

harassment, but there should be cogent evidence to establish a positive

19

action by the accused which should more or less be proximate to the

time of occurrence, which action can said to have led or compelled the

person to commit suicide.

35.In case at hand, not only the said positive action in close proximity

to the time of suicide is absent but also there is no evidence for any

continuous physical or mental torture meted out to the deceased by the

appellants. On the contrary, appellant no. 1 himself took the deceased to

consult a psychiatrist just a day prior to this incident obviously with the

intention to make her feel better. The said act can by no stretch of

imagination be said to be any such act which may lead the deceased to

commit suicide. Further, the allegations made by PW-1 to PW-3 in their

statement with respect to continuous harassment and torture of the

deceased by the appellants just after the marriage is not worthy of being

relied upon and has to be taken with a pinch of salt on account of fact

that throughout their 9 years of marriage, there has never been any

complaint or a whisper in this regard either by the deceased or her family

members who appeared as prosecution witnesses. Even the deceased

herself who was a qualified doctor never made any complaint in this

regard. It is really hard to believe that a well-educated and self-reliant

lady would take such things lying down for a substantially long period of

9 years.

20

36.To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear

mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act

which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the

act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased

into such a position that he commits suicide. The prosecution has to

establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide

and Appellant No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased.

In the present case, both the elements are absent.

37.Now, so far as conviction under Section 498A IPC is concerned,

except the statement of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-3

recorded after the incident, there is no other evidence to establish the

allegation of any demand of dowry or ill treatment meted out to the

deceased during her marriage. The fact that there were cordial relations

between the families of Appellant No. 1 and the deceased is not

disputed. The deceased committed suicide on 05.11.2014 and the

complaint against the appellants were filed on 24.11.2014 i.e., 3 weeks

after the death of the deceased.

38.This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an

accused under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine

the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence

21

adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment

meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to

put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of

alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts

of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of

harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time

of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the

person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not

sustainable.

39.Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of accused/appellants

produced the following witnesses:

Mother of the deceased – PW-1

Sister of the deceased – PW-2

Brother of the deceased - PW-3

Carpenter who broke open the bathroom door - PW-4

servant maid working in the house - PW-5

AC mechanic who accompanied the carpenter - PW-6

Colleague of the deceased - PW-7

Colleague of the deceased - PW-8

Doctor who gave the treatment to the deceased on

04.11.2014 - PW-9

Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body -

PW-10

Doctor who declared the deceased as brought dead

on 05.11.2014 - PW-11

Doctor who treated the deceased on abortion of the

second child - PW-12

Auto driver - PW-13

Sub-Inspector of Police - PW-14

Inspector of Police who investigated the case – PW-15

22

40.PW-1 to PW-3 are interested witnesses, still, PW-3 categorically

stated that “the marriage between my sister Dr. Amali Victoria and Dr.

Bruno was a happy marriage”. Thus there exists material contradictions

not only in his own statements and also the statement of other two

witnesses.

41. PW-9, Dr. Shalini is the Psychiatrist who had given treatment to the

deceased on 04.11.2014. she had deposed that the deceased

expressed her disinterest in duty, complained of lack of sleep and not

feeling hungry and also had no interest over anything. Further, PW-9

stated that these were the symptoms of depression. PW-9 in her

summary of treatment report dated 04.11.2014 stated that the deceased

stated cause of sadness for the past 1 month was due to her posting at

the female ward @ IMH and she feels tired, is not interested in working,

poor sleep pattern to name a few. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention

that it was also noted in treatment summary by PW-9 that the deceased

had similar depressive illness in the past i.e., 1

st

episode during MBBS

college days, had attempted suicide, 2

nd

episode post-partum and

present is the third episode. The deceased had suicidal ideas before

going for the consultation with the psychiatrist on 04.11.2014 and the

same is evident from the summary of treatment. However, the evidence

of PW-9 i.e., the psychiatrist has not been considered by the Courts

23

below and conviction of the appellants were solely based on the oral

evidence of PW-1 to PW-3.

42.It is well settled that the Courts ought to be extremely careful in

assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence

adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted

out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing

suicide. Reference may be made to the judgment of a three-Judge

Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

9

,

wherein this Court set-aside the conviction of the accused for the offence

under Section 306 IPC as ingredients of Section 306 IPC were not

satisfactorily proved. It was observed as under :-

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,

incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the

requirement of instigation though it is not necessary

that actual words must be used to that effect or what

constitutes instigation must necessarily and

specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a

reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must

be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not

a case where the accused had by his acts or

omission or by a continued course of conduct

created such circumstances that the deceased

was left with no other option except to commit

suicide in which case an instigation may have

been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or

emotion without intending the consequences to

actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

9 (2001) 9 SCC 618

24

21. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and

Anr.

10

, this Court has cautioned that the Court should

be extremely careful in assessing the facts and

circumstances of each case and the evidence

adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether

the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced

her to end the life by committing suicide. If it

transpires to the Court that a victim committing

suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,

discord and differences in domestic life quite

common to the society to which the victim

belonged and such petulance, discord and

differences were not expected to induce a

similarly circumstanced individual in a given

society to commit suicide, the conscience of the

Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding

that the accused charged of abetting the offence

of suicide should be found guilty.”

(emphasis supplied)

43.Accordingly, the facts and evidence in the present case which have

not been squarely analysed by both the Trial Court as well as the High

Court can be summarised as follows:-

1.The complaint against the appellants was filed after 3

weeks of the death of the deceased.

2.There is not a shred of evidence with respect to offence

alleged under Section 498A of the IPC meted out to the

deceased by the Appellants.

3.There has been no marital discord between Appellant No. 1

and the deceased during their 9 years of married life.

10 (1994) 1 SCC 73

25

4.There have been several emails exchanged between

Appellant No. 1 and sisters of the deceased whereby the

Appellant No. 1 was showered with praises for taking care

of the deceased in the best possible manner and credit was

also given to his parents for supporting the deceased in her

career. Further, it was the sister of the deceased, who

herself sent a mail to Appellant No. 1 saying “amali is

fighting a disorder”

5.The deceased was suffering from bipolar order and also

had suicidal ideas from few days before suicide. Further,

the deceased was also undergoing treatment for

depression as she was showing major symptoms of

depression like tiredness, poor sleep pattern, demoralised

feeling to name a few. The fact that deceased was suffering

from bipolar disorder was concealed from the Appellant

family during their marriage.

6.The Trial Court as well as the High Court did not take the

evidence of PW-9, Psychiatrist into consideration while

convicting the Appellants under Sections 306 and 498A of

IPC.

7.The conviction of the appellants is solely based on the oral

evidence of mother and sister of the deceased, who are

interested witnesses.

8.The post mortem report does not give the cause of the

death but on 15.12.14, the cause of the death is shown as

Ashpyxia due to external compression.

26

44.Having considered the aforesaid facts of the case in juxtaposition

with the judgments referred to above and upon appreciation of evidence

of the eyewitnesses and other material adduced by the prosecution, we

are of the view that Trial Court wrongly convicted the Appellants and the

High Court was also not justified in upholding the conviction of the

Appellants under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.

45.As a result, the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2022 passed by

the High Court as well as judgment and order of the Trial Court dated

26.03.2021 are unsustainable and deserve to be set aside and are

hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled

against them.

46.The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.

...................................J.

(M. R. SHAH)

..................................J.

(KRISHNA MURARI)

NEW DELHI;

12

TH

OCTOBER, 2022

27