'Tarnished Her Self Esteem': Madras High Court Invokes Suo Motu Revisional Powers, Holds Sexual Assaulter Guilty Of Abetment To Suicide

Justice B. Pugalendhi addressed the four corners of suo moto revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and held the accused guilty of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC along with other charges. In 2015, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul, had already held the accused guilty under Sections 354(Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 448 IPC (Punishment for house-trespass).

Initially, a criminal appeal was filed by the accused under Section 374 CrPC against the charges under which he was convicted and sentenced by the trial court. While the High Court was considering his plea for suspension of sentence, the High Court came to the conviction that the trial court had erred in not appreciating the evidence adequately while acquitting the accused on the charge under Section 306 IPC.

In the common judgment for the criminal appeal and the suo motu criminal revision petition, the court observed:

"The High Court, under Section 401 Cr.P.C., is having the power to call for the records without the intervention of another agency. The High Court as an effective instrument in the administrative of criminal justice is duty bound to suo motu act where there is flagrant abuse of law. The nature of offence and the manner of disposal by the trial Court has prompted the Court to take up the suo motu Criminal revision petition for the ultimate social good of the community."

Since the state didn't file an appeal against acquittal under S. 306 IPC, the court deemed it fit to reappreciate the evidence and accordingly directed the registry to file a suo moto criminal revision petition.

The High Court had also appointed amicus curiae for assistance to outline the revisional powers of the court as well as the reasonableness in convicting the accused of minor offences in the absence of the primary charge under Section 306 IPC.

After considering the submissions made by the Amicus which is given below, the court relied on Section 464 CrPC to reach the conclusion that the suo motu revision is not erroneous or unsustainable in law: 

"As per Section 211 of Cr.P.C., there is an obligation on the part of the Court at the time of framing charge to incorporate the relevant requirements, but, as per Section 215 of Cr.P.C., some sort of error visualizing in the format of charge would not make the trial redundant. Further, under Section 222 of Cr.P.C. the conviction under the minor offence than that of the accused had been charged, is found permissible and while in terms of Section 221 of Cr.P.C. even if there happens to be absence of charge against the accused, even then, he could be convicted and the aforesaid is duly cared for under Section 464 CrPC."

Arguments Raised And Court's Observations

According to the prosecution, the deceased woman was cradling her baby at midnight when the accused, who was also a neighbour, allegedly trespassed into the house of the deceased and attempted to rape her. The mother in law of the deceased, one of the prosecution witnesses, testified that she woke up hearing the noise of the deceased and accordingly scolded the accused. The accused left the house which was witnessed by one of the neighbours. Deeply affected by the incident, the deceased woman left the house soon thereafter along with her one and a half-year-old child, and committed suicide by consuming oleander seeds. This was the case of the prosecution.

According to the counsel for the accused, the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the viscera and the final report of the doctor who conducted the postmortem was not marked by the prosecution. He also alleged that the deceased was not having a good relationship with her husband and he wasn't examined by the Prosecution. It was his further contention that the accused had come there for getting a matchbox and when the mother-in-law witnessed the same, she scolded the deceased as a result of which she committed suicide. He vehemently argued for completely setting aside the conviction and submitted that the court's initiative to take suo moto revision was improper.

Amicus made the submission that the evidence of the neighbour iterating that the deceased had expressed her intention to commit suicide after the incident can be admitted as dying declaration. To prove that there is a direct act for the incitement to the commission of suicide, Amicus relied on Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttranchal & Another, 2013 (1) SCC (Crl.) 146 and Ude Singh & Others vs. State of Haryana.

On the suo moto revision, the court accepted the submissions made by amicus curiae, who relied on Nadir Khan vs. The State (Delhi Administration) 1976 AIR 2205 and Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar vs. State of Maharashtra, 1977 AIR 1177 to show that the High Court while exercising its power under Section 374 Cr.P.C., can also exercise the revisional powers under Section 401 Cr.P.C. Additionally, under Section 399(i) Cr.P.C., the court can exercise the power of revision on its own as per the Amicus.

On the guilt of the accused under Section 306 IPC, the court noted that the abetment to suicide can either by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as defined under Section 107 of Indian Panel Code

…the accused had played an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem of the victim, by outraging her modesty, which had eventually drawn the victim to commit suicide and by the act of the accused, he had instigated the victim to commit suicide and further, there is a direct act for the incitement to the commission of offence", the court recorded in its judgment.

In its judgment, the court has cited Chitresh Kumar vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SCC 1446 and Amalendu Pal vs. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 in addition to those cited by the Amicus.

About the cogent proof of abetment to suicide, Amalendu Pal's case was quoted by Justice Parthiban which is as below:

"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."

Another observation in the said judgment was also reproduced by the court to establish that human actions have varying consequences on different individuals. In Amalendu Pal, it was held by the Supreme Court that:

"Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set ups, education etc. Even the response to the ill-action of eve-teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances."

Accordingly, the court held that the accused was guilty under Section 306 IPC and 448 IPC. The convicted was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay Rs 5000/- as fine.

"…in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence committed under Section 448 IPC. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The sentences shall run concurrently", the court concluded its judgment while allowing the suo moto revision and dismissing the criminal appeal filed by accused.

Additional Public Prosecutor M. Chandrasekaran appeared for the state while Advocate G. Karuppasamy Pandian appeared for the accused-appellant. Advocate A. Thiruvadikumar was appointed as the Amicus Curiae in the case.

Case Title: Nagarajan v. The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

Case No: Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015 and Crl. R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment