V. Adinarayana and Another vs State of A.P.

K.B. Siddappa, J.—A-1 is the husband of A-2. They were found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 306 r/w. Section 109, I.P.C. and each one is sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rupees 500/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for two months each under two counts. The sentences were directed to run concurrently under the two counts.

Hence, the Revision.

The petitioners/accused reside in the opposite direction of the house of PW-7 who was working as a Primary School Headmaster. The deceased Lakshmikanthamma and Krishnaveni are the wife and daughter of PW-7. The case of the prosecution is that there used to be quarrels between the two families at public tap for getting water. The marriage of the daughter of PW-7 i.e., the deceased Krishnaveni was fixed on 8-11 -1991. The petitioners/accused were threatening and abusing Smt. Lakshmikantharnma and Krishnaveni that they will reveal the illicit contacts of Krishnaveni to her would be husband. Therefore both the women went and jumped into a high level canal. Krishnaveni, the daughter of PW-7 drowned. But somebody rescued Smt. Lakshmikanthamma. Subsequently, it seems she committed suicide by setting fire on herself. Hence, the charge.

Both the Courts below on consideration of the evidence available on record and also the suicide note of Smt. Lakshmikanthamma, marked as Ex. P-2, held that the case u/s 306 r.w. Section 109, I.P.C. was made out and the sentences as mentioned above were passed.

Hence, the Revision.

Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused submitted that on the evidence available on record, the ingredients of Section 306 r/w. Section 109, I.P.C. are not made out. To bring home the guilt of the petitioners/accused, the ingredients of Section 107, I.P.C. are to be made out. There should be intentional aiding in the commission of suicide. There was only quarrel and threat by the petitioners/accused. They do not form or take the shape of intentional instigation or intentional aiding in the commission of suicide. There are no further words like, ''commit suicide'' etc., in the threat given by the petitioners/accused. Therefore, no case is made out for the said offence.

In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of Supreme Court in Shri Ram Vs. The State of U.P., . In that case, the Supreme Court held as follows:--

Different, considerations, however, arise in regard to Violet. The only part attributed to her is that on seeing Kunwar Singh she shouted. "The Vakil has come". It is difficult to believe that Violet was assigned the particular role especially when Sia Ram and his companions could themselves have detected the presence of Kunwar Singh more easily and with lesser ado. Violet''s brother Ramesh, a lad of 16, could have with greater ease and effectiveness played the swift role of alterting the assailants of Kunwar Singh. But the Sessions Court and the High Court have accepted the evidence that Violet did give the particular shout and in accordance with our usual practice we would not like to take a different view of these simple facts.

The question which then arises for consideration, a question to which the Sessions Court and the High Court have not paid enough attention, is whether the only inference which arises from the fact that Violet gave the particular shout is that by so doing, she intended to facilitate the murder of Kunwar Singh, Section 107 of the Penal Code which defines abetment provides to the extent material that a person abets the doing of a thing whom "Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing". Explanation 2 to the Section says that:--

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 facilites the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Thus, in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally" aided the commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. A person may, for example, invite another casually or for a friendly purpose and that may facilitate the murder of the invitee. But unless the invitation was extended with intent to facilitate the commission of the murder, the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime. Intentional aiding and therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107.

According to the above Judgment, intentional aiding and active complicity, is the gist of the offence u/s 107 I.P.C.

Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused on yet another Judgment of Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157 : 1996 Cri LJ 894, wherein it was held as follows:

...The charge u/s 306 I.P.C. is basically based on the dying declaration of the deceased which when translated reads as follows:

My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband''s elder brother''s wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.

Learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that but for the statement of the deceased there is no other pointed evidence from which it could be inferred that there was any abetment so as to bring the acts of the appellants within Section 306, I.P.C. under which the appellants have been punished. The dying declaration, per se, could not involve the appellants in offence punishable u/s 306, I.P.C, because it provides for abetment of suicide. Whoever abets the commission of suicide, and if any person commits suicide due to that reason, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Abetment has been defined in Section 107 I.P.C. to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a 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. Neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. The conviction of the appellants u/s 306, I.P.C. merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased is not sustainable. The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge.

The Judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above are quite clear as to the requirements to constitute abetment of suicide. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that even though threatening words were used by the petitioners/accused, those words are not sufficient to be described as instigating in the commission of the offence. I accept the contention, therefore, I am of the view that nc case is made out for the offence punishable u/s 300 r/w. Section 109 I.P.C. The accused are entitled to be acquitted. They are accordingly acquitted.

The Criminal Revision Case is allowed.