- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dammu Sreenu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant (Accused 1) was prosecuted for abetting the suicide of Bitra Nagarjuna Rao under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution case was that Accused 1 had an illicit relationship with Accused 2—the wife of the deceased. After learning that Accused 2 spent the night away from the matrimonial home, the deceased quarrelled with her and requested her father to take her for counselling. Despite this, Accused 1 removed Accused 2 from her brother’s house and kept her with him for four days before returning her to her parents on 6-1-1996. Feeling humiliated by these events, the deceased expressed to family members that he preferred death and subsequently hanged himself during the night of 7/8-1-1996.
The police initially registered a case under Section 174 CrPC but converted it to Section 306 IPC after investigation. The trial court convicted both accused, sentencing each to five years’ rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the II-Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence to three years’ simple imprisonment. In revision, the High Court further reduced Accused 2’s sentence to one year (already served) but maintained the conviction and three-year sentence of Accused 1. The present Supreme Court appeal is solely by Accused 1 against that conviction and sentence. He was released on bail pending appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant’s conduct constituted “abetment of suicide” within the meaning of Sections 306 and 107 IPC.
- Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court, appellate court, and High Court warranted interference by the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC were absent.
- The deceased’s suicide was an independent act; the appellant neither instigated nor aided it.
- Without active participation or substantial assistance, the conviction under Section 306 IPC could not stand.
State’s Arguments
- Three courts had concurrently found the appellant guilty; their factual findings were sound and should not be disturbed.
- The evidence established a direct nexus between the appellant’s conduct and the deceased’s suicide, fulfilling the statutory requirements of abetment.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court closely examined testimonial evidence, particularly the unchallenged statement of PW-5 (brother of Accused 2) confirming the illicit relationship and the appellant’s assertion that he would continue visiting Accused 2. Family members’ testimonies showed that the deceased felt “insulted and humiliated” immediately after learning the appellant had forcibly taken his wife for four days. The Court observed:
- The appellant’s illicit relationship and overt acts created a situation of humiliation that drove the deceased to suicide, establishing a proximate nexus between the conduct and the fatal act.
- No suggestion was put to PW-5 disputing the illicit relationship, reinforcing its acceptance as fact.
- Temporal proximity—suicide occurred the day after Accused 2 was returned—supported a causal link.
- Given the concurrent findings of three lower courts, re-appreciation of evidence was disfavoured; no perversity or legal error was shown.
Consequently, the Court concluded the appellant’s behaviour fulfilled the elements of abetment under Section 306 IPC.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED; CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS’ SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UPHELD.
The appellant’s bail bond was cancelled and he was ordered to surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence. The decision affirms the lower courts’ concurrent findings but sets no new precedent beyond reinforcing that illicit conduct leading to humiliation can constitute abetment of suicide when a clear causal nexus is proven.
Dr. M.K Sharma, J.— The appellant herein filed the present appeal seeking for his acquittal from the order of conviction under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
2. The appellant herein allegedly had illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased, Bitra Nagarjuna Rao. The wife of the deceased was also made a co-accused in the same offence under Section 306 IPC and she was convicted for the aforesaid offence and was sentenced initially to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years which, however, later on was altered to one year of rigorous imprisonment by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The said sentence of one year has been served out by Accused 2, the wife of the deceased Bitra Nagarjuna Rao.
3. The prosecution has alleged in its case that the present appellant had developed an illicit intimacy with Accused 2, who was the wife of the deceased Bitra Nagarjuna Rao.
4. On the night of 31-12-1995, Accused 2, the wife of the deceased went out of her house and returned to her matrimonial home only on the next day. The deceased, Bitra Nagarjuna Rao was unhappy with the aforesaid conduct and so, naturally questioned her about her behaviour because of which there was a quarrel between the two.
5. Being disturbed and perturbed on account of the behaviour of his wife (Accused 2), the deceased, Bitra Nagarjuna Rao called the father of Accused 2 and asked him to take her away so as to give her proper counselling. Accordingly, she was taken away by her father.
6. On the same day the present appellant (Accused 1) came to the house of the deceased and when he was questioned by the inmates of the house of the deceased, he stated that he had illicit relations with the wife of the deceased and that he would keep coming to the house of the deceased so long as she does not object to the same. When he was told that Accused 2 had gone with her father, Accused 1 went to the house of the brother of Accused 2 and took her away despite the protest of PW 5, brother of Accused 2, in whose house his father kept her. The appellant took her away and brought her back to the house of her brother only after 4 days and to her parents' house on 6-1-1996.
7. Having come to know about the aforesaid incident, the deceased felt humiliated and insulted. He committed suicide by hanging himself in the intervening night of 7-1-1996 and 8-1-1996. It is also to be noted, at this stage, that prior to his suicide, the deceased, Bitra Nagarjuna Rao expressed before his brother that it would be better to die as he felt very much insulted and humiliated.
8. The deceased having committed suicide, his brother gave a report to the police which was registered as a case under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) which was, during the course of investigation, altered to a case of Section 306 IPC. The police after investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the accused. The accused however, denied the charge. Accordingly, he was tried under the aforesaid charges.
9. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and the appellant-accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he denied his involvement in the offence. The trial court appreciated the materials available on record and, thereafter, passed a judgment and order of conviction. It convicted the present appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs 100 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The trial court also convicted Accused 2 i.e wife of the deceased, under Section 306 IPC and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.
10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence the appellant as also the wife of the deceased filed a common criminal appeal in the Court of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1998. The said appeal was allowed in part and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court was altered and reduced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to 3 years' simple imprisonment. In revision the High Court maintained the order of conviction against the appellant-accused but altered the sentence of Accused 2 i.e the wife of the deceased to one year imprisonment which she has already undergone.
11. Now this appeal is, therefore, filed only by Appellant 1, who was convicted and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three years. An order to release Appellant 1 on bail was passed pursuant to which Accused 1 is on bail. The appeal was listed before us for hearing during the course of which we heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and were also taken through the records.
12. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, ingredients of abetment are totally absent as envisaged under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC and therefore, Accused 1 is liable to be acquitted. It was submitted by him that on a proper interpretation of the facts as also the provisions of Section 306 IPC it cannot be said that the appellant herein was in any manner responsible for abetting the suicide committed by the deceased which was an independent act of the deceased.
13. It was also submitted by learned counsel that the appellant did not in any manner substantially assist the deceased in committing the offence of suicide and since there was no such participation of the appellant in abetting the offence of suicide, the conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC is required to be set aside and quashed.
14. The aforesaid submissions were, however, refuted by learned counsel appearing for the State contending inter alia that there is a concurrent finding of facts by the three courts below finding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and, therefore, the said findings cannot be said to be in any manner as untenable or unjustified.
15. The fact that the appellant had illicit relationship with Accused 2, who was the wife of the deceased, is an admitted position for which there was no cross-examination on the point which was clearly stated by PW 5, who is the brother of Accused 2, in his statement on 2-1-1996 which is reproduced hereinbelow:
“On 2-1-1996 my father brought A-2 to my house at Tsunduru and he informed that she is having illicit contact with A-1 and to change her behaviour brought her to my house, to keep some time. On the same day evening A-1 came to my house and took away A-2. Some discussion took place between myself and A-1 regarding coming to my house. Due to fear, I could not resist taking away A-2.”
We have carefully examined the aforesaid statement of PW 5 and on perusal of the statement we do not find that any suggestion was made to the said PW 5 that there did not exist an illicit relationship between Accused 1 and Accused 2.
16. Besides, the close relatives of the deceased who were also examined as witnesses had categorically stated in their statements that on coming to know of the fact that Accused 1 has taken Accused 2 from the house of PW 5 and left her only on 6-1-1996 at her parents' house, the deceased stated before the said inmates of his house that because of the said insult and humiliation he does not like to live.
17. It is also proved that immediately thereafter in the night intervening 7-1-1996 and 8-1-1996 the deceased committed suicide. The aforesaid fact leads to only one conclusion that it is on account of humiliation and insult due to the behaviour and conduct of Accused 1 and Accused 2 that he proceeded to commit the suicide.
18. The facts which are disclosed from the evidence on record clearly establish that Accused 1 had illicit relationship with Accused 2 who is the wife of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that Accused 1 was visiting the house of the deceased to meet Accused 2 and that he even went to the house of the deceased when he came to know that the wife of the deceased was sent with her father for counselling and advice. He loudly stated that he would continue to have relationship with Accused 2 and would come to her house so long as she does not object to the same. He also took her away from the house of PW 5, her brother and kept her with him for 4 days. Immediately after the said incident the deceased committed the suicide. Therefore, there is definitely a proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of Accused 1 and Accused 2 with that of the suicide committed by the deceased.
19. Besides, there is clear and unambiguous finding of fact of the three courts that the appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC. Such findings do not call for any interference in our hand. This Court also does not generally embark upon reappreciation of evidence on facts which are found and held against the appellant.
20. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction as also the order of sentence passed against the appellant-accused. We uphold the order of the High Court and dismiss this appeal. The bail bond of the appellant-accused stands cancelled. He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining period of the sentence.
Alert