Sonti Rama Krishna Vs.
Sonti Shanti Sree & ANR. [2008] INSC 2041 (28 November 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 (Arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No. 770 of 2007) Sonti Rama Krishna ...Appellant Versus Sonti
Shanti Sree and Anr. ...Respondent
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Challenge
in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court allowing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code').
The respondent No.1
filed a petition for quashing the prosecution against her in PRC No.1/05 on the
file of learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam. The
High Court by the impugned order allowed the application quashing the
proceedings.
3.
A
complaint was filed by the appellant who is father of Venkateswara Rao
(hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') who was a highly qualified person
and was employed in Kendriya Vidhyalaya at Machilipatnam. The allegations in
the complaint were that his marriage was performed with the accused-respondent
No.1 on 29.5.2004 at Tirupathi. It is alleged that while the accused was fair
in complexion, the deceased was not good looking. It is stated that while the
family of the accused had informed that a house site stood in the name of the
accused and that she had 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and that they would
perform the marriage in a grand scale and pay Rs.25,000/- towards the bride's
clothes, subsequently, they changed their mind and promised to pay the sum of
Rs.25,000/- to the bride after nuptials. Nuptials were fixed at the house of
the accused on 02.06.2004. On the next day morning the accused is alleged to
have openly in the presence of the mother and sister of the deceased and other
relatives, insulted the deceased stating that he was impotent, that her life
was spoiled and that she did not accept the marriage. The accused is alleged to
have heckled her husband that it was better to die rather to live as an
impotent husband and spoil her life. According to the complainant, the deceased
informed his mother and sister that the accused did not allow him to cohabit,
stating that she was not interested in marrying an ugly person. Feeling ashamed
and humiliated by the rude and unjust behaviour, and the attitude of the
accused, the deceased is said to have suffered mental agony. He, however,
stayed for the next two days at Vijayawada and thereafter returned to his
native place along with his mother and sister on 05.06.2004, while the accused
did not come with him. On 06.06.2004, the deceased is said to have left his
native village Turakapalem even without informing the complainant and members
of his family. On 09.06.2004, the complainant received a message from
Innakudurupet Police Station that the deceased had committed suicide.
According to the
complainant, the accused was solely responsible for the suicidal death of her
husband and that she had abetted in his committing suicide. It was alleged that
since the deceased was insulted by the accused, he felt ashamed and committed
suicide and that the acts and omissions of the accused had driven the deceased
to commit suicide. The intentional instigation and cruel conduct of the accused
had prompted the deceased to commit suicide. On being informed, both the
accused and her mother are alleged to have come to Machilipatnam. The accused
removed her Mangalasutram from her neck, had thrown only the black beads on the
dead body keeping the gold suthrams with her and left the place stating that
she had no connection with the family of the complainant and the Almighty had fulfilled
her desire. It was alleged that, thereafter, the accused did not visit the
house of the complainant and also did she attend the funeral ceremony of her
husband.
4.
Questioning
the issuance of process in proceedings, respondent No.1 filed a petition before
the High Court. It was stated that even if allegations in the complaint are
accepted as true, the abusive language alleged to have been used by the accused
on 3.6.2004 could not have led to suicide as the deceased had come back to his
native village after staying three days in the house of the accused and on
9.6.2004 the dead body was recovered from a lodging house where the accused had
stayed under an assumed name and after giving a false address.
5.
The
stand of the present appellant was that the harsh and abusive language used by
the accused was the cause of suicide and therefore the High Court ought not to
have interfered in the matter. The High Court found that the ingredients of
Section 306 IPC which relate to abetment of suicide have no application to the
facts of the case.
6.
In
support of the appeal, learned counsel submitted that the High Court should not
have gone into the merits of the case and it should not have interfered in the
manner done.
7.
Learned
counsel for respondent No.1 on the other hand submitted that there were
suppressions at every stage by the appellant. The true purpose was to harass
respondent No.1 and her family members. On their own showing, huge demands for
dowry were raised and the suicide, if any, was not because of any abusive
language used by respondent No.1. As is admitted by the prosecution, the
deceased stayed for three days in the house of accused and thereafter came to
his own village. For strange reasons instead of staying in his own house in
Machilipatnam, he stayed at a lodging house under false name and fictitious
address. If he was really hurt and had any grudge from the abusive language of
the accused as contended in the complaint, he could have committed suicide
immediately after the so called abuses were made. Even otherwise, he could have
done so at his home, after reaching his native village. But he did not do that.
He also did not commit suicide in his place of stay at Machilipatnam and
committed suicide at a lodging house. All this goes to show that there was no
abetment of suicide.
8.
Section
306 deals with abetment of suicide and Section 107 deals with abetment of a
thing. They read as follows:
5 "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.
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 willful misrepresentation or by willful 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
facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
9.
Certain
factual aspects need to be noted:
10.
The
present appellant filed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police after about
two and a half months of the alleged incident. Allegation was that the police
did not register a complaint. Ultimately, the complaint was filed on 26.8.2004.
Initially on the basis of information lodged, enquiry in terms of Section 174
of the Code, was conducted and the police started the proceedings. It is to be
noted that at different points of time, different versions have been given. In
the first stage during investigation under Section 174 of the Code it was stated
that the accused had come to the village with the deceased. Interestingly,
there was no suicide note.
Admittedly, marriage
was an arranged one. If that is so, it is not believable that the deceased and
the accused had not met. The alleged grievance of the accused that the deceased
was an ugly man could not have been noticed after marriage, for the first time
on 3.6.2004. The date of marriage was 29.5.2004. It is fairly well settled that
words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention cannot be
termed as instigation.
11.
Additionally,
there was no suicide note in the present case. As noted earlier different
versions of death were given. At the earlier stage, during investigation, under
Section 174 of Code, the version was that the accused had accompanied the
deceased to the native home, but subsequently stand was that the accused did
not accompany the deceased because the latter was bad and ugly looking.
12.
Though,
normally threshold interference should not be made under Section 482, in the
aforesaid background, this is not a case where any interference is called for
with the order, by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed.
............................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
...........................................J
Back
Pages: 1 2
