CAUSE TITLE:
Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr Vs The Inspector Of Police
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
12 October 2022
JUDGE(S):
HON’BLE JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI
PARTIES:
Appellant(s): MARIANO ANTO BRUNO & ANR
Respondent: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SUBJECT
The case examined the scope and applicability of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code with respect to the evidence on record regarding the conduct of the accused. The court needs to determine if there was close proximity between the acts/instigation of the accused and the commission of suicide by the deceased.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
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.
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being
the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]
BRIEF FACTS
- The appellant no.1 and the deceased (both doctors) married each other in 2005 and the deceased gave birth to a male child in 2007.
- Appellant no. 1 was informed on 05.11.2014 that the deceased has collapsed inside the bathroom and was non-responsive. Immediately, Appellant 1’s father called for an ambulance.
- On reaching the site of the incident, appellant no.1 found the deceased unresponsive. The deceased passed away on the same day.
- Post mortem of the body was conducted on 06.11.2014 and it was found that the cause of death was asphyxia due to external compression of the neck.
- Based on the statement of Appellant no. 1, Chennai police filed an FIR owing to the unnatural death of the accused u/s 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr. P.C”).
- After three weeks, the mother of the deceased filed a complaint against the husband (Appellant 1), mother-in-law (appellant-2), and father-in-law of the deceased for offences punishable under section 498A and 306 IPC.
- The case of the prosecution is that the appellants abused the deceased for not bearing a child until 1.5 years of marriage. They compelled the deceased to participate in puja and was threatened upon refusal. When she finally gave birth to a male child, she was further mentally harassed by appellant no.1 to bear another child despite the fact that she suffered a miscarriage during her second pregnancy
- Deceased was subjected to continuous cruelty at the hands of the appellants.
- The charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Mahila Court, Chennai for trial. The trial court framed charges u/s 498A and 306 IPC and subsequently convicted the appellants i.e. the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased. The Father-in-law of the deceased was acquitted of all charges.
- Judgement of the trial court was upheld by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
Hence, the present appeal.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
- Allegation of cruelty was made for the first time in the complaint lodged by the mother of the deceased and there was no such allegation during 9 years of marriage. The relations between both families were cordial.
- It was vehemently argued that the deceased was suffering from bipolar disorder and this fact was not disclosed to the appellant at the time of marriage. Despite this non-disclosure, the appellant took good care of the deceased. Hence, it cannot be said that the deceased committed suicide due to abetment by the deceased.
- There is no sign of animosity between the families according to the statements recorded immediately after the death of the deceased.
- The trial court disregarded the testimony of the medical professional who treated the deceased a day before her death. The summary recorded by the doctor (P.W.-9) clearly records the history of depressive illness and suicidal attempts.
- The senior counsel for the appellants based his contentions relying on various judgments like Amalendu Pal Vs. State of West Bengal, Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana, Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. The state of Haryana.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
- The counsel contended that evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 clearly established that the appellants demanded more dowry after marriage and compelled the deceased to consume cow urine.
- That there is clear evidence indicating that the harassment by the appellants increased manifold post her abortion during the second pregnancy of the deceased in 2014.
- ANALYSIS
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed the essential elements required to constitute an offence Under section 306 IPC vis-à-vis section 107 IPC which defines abetment through various precedents.
- In S.S.Cheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr., it was held that clear mens rea along with an active or direct action towards committing the offence is required to convict a person under section 306.
- In Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, the court observed that the cause of suicide in cases of abetment to suicide remains unclear and involves complex features of human behaviour. “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.”
- Analyzing the facts of the present case, the court held that the statement of appellant no. 1 recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C is corroborated by the the summary of treatment report dated 04.11.14 by Dr. Shalini, Consultant Psychiatrist, PW-9.
- It was also noted by the Hon’ble Court that the FIR was lodged by appellant no. 1 due to the unnatural death of the deceased. Soon after, the sister of the deceased asked for custody of the appellant’s son which was refused. On such refusal, mother of the deceased gave an oral statement and alleged that the appellants derived the deceased to commit suicide and that she was harassed for insufficient dowry and not conceiving.
CONCLUSION
The High court erred in recording the finding that there is sufficient evidence for convicting the appellants under Section 306 IPC overlooking the fact that there is no evidence showing that the appellants harassed the deceased just before her death. The alleged action form the accused should be in close proximity with the suicide.
Hence, appeal allowed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
