REPORTABLE

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL No.1198 OF 2003      

MANKAMMA ...   Appellant(s)

                     Versus

STATE OF KERALA

...  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.

1.    This  appeal  is  filed  by  the  accused  Mankamma  

challenging her conviction for the offence punishable under  

Section 306,  IPC on  the allegation  that she  abetted the  

suicide  of  her  daughter-in-law,  Bindu.    All  the  three  

courts below have found her guilty of that offence.  The  

first two courts had awarded  her the rigorous imprisonment  

for two years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo  

rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.  

The High Court while confirming the sentence reduced the  

sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment and also reduced  

the amount of fine from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-.  

2. The prosecution case in extremely short conspectus  

is that Bindu was married to Prakasan, son of the appellant  

and it was a love marriage.  They belonged to different

communities and hence the marriage was not approved by the  

-2-

parents of Bindu.  So much so, Bindu ran away with Prakasan  

to get married .  The prosecution case reveals that there is  

one son born out of the wedlock.  Bindu was married in the  

year 1987 and was residing in the matrimonial house with her  

husband and the accused.  The incident in question had taken  

place on  15.06.1989 i.e.  just within  two years  of their  

marriage.   On  the  said  day   at  about  8.30  a.m.  it  was  

reported by PW1, Vijayan  that Bindu had committed suicide  

by pouring kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze.  On  

that   information  Crime  No.  189/1989  was  registered.  

Inquest was held and post mortum was also conducted.  PW9,  

the  Assistant  Commissioner  took  up  the  investigation  

initially  and  thereafter  PW11,  Sub-Inspector  of  Police,  

Jayendran K.,  completed the investigation and filed the  

chargesheet before  the Court.   In  all 11  witnesses were  

examined by the prosecution including the father, brother,  

sister-in-law of the deceased as also her friend, Ameer Jan.  

The allegation against the appellant are that because of her  

cruel  treatment  to  Bindu,  she  was  ultimately  driven  to  

commit suicide and that is how the accused had abetted her  

suicide and had committed offence under Section 306, IPC.  

There can be no doubt that all the three courts below have

held the appellant guilty on the basis of the evidence led  

before them.  Ordinarily we would not have interfered in the  

matter  by  re-appreciating  the  evidence  as  this  court  

normally does not go into the task of re-appreciating the

-3-

evidence. However, when it is found that the evidence has  

been appreciated in a mechanical manner and without proper  

consideration of facts and circumstances on record we  in  

the interest of justice re-appreciate the evidence.  That  

has happened here.

3. Mr. Jayanth Muthuraj, Learned counsel appearing on  

behalf  of  the  accused  painstakingly  took  us  through  the  

evidence. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution also  

relied on two letters, one written by Bindu to her husband  

and the other written by her sister-in-law to her and her  

husband.  In support of his argument learned counsel points  

out that Bindu after her elopement with her husband Prakasan  

was not in contact with her own family members because she  

had married into a different caste.

4. We were taken through the evidence of the relation  

witnesses  and  it  is  pointed  out  from  that  evidence  by  

learned  counsel  that  insofar  as  the  evidence  of  PW2,  

Kumaran, father of the deceased is concerned he is totally  

silent about his personal knowledge regarding the treatment

given by the accused to the deceased.  In his evidence he  

asserts that about two months prior to the death of Bindu  

when she came to his house she had told about the ill-

treatment by the accused since no money was given to  the  

baby of Bindu.  Very strangely, this witness kept quiet and  

did  not  bother  to  even  ask  his  son-in-law  about  the  

treatment meted out by his mother to Bindu.  He admits that

-4-

after the marriage for almost a year his family did not go  

to the house of  Prakasan  and they visited her only after  

about a year and there was no correspondence between the  

family.  It was only after the  delivery of Bindu that for  

the  first  time  this  witness  seems  to  have  visited  his  

daughter and son-in-law.  In his evidence he concedes “I was  

told that the accused had created trouble for not paying  

money but the in-laws and husband of Bindu did not speak to  

him directly in this regard.”  We are not much impressed by  

the evidence of this witness particularly because it does  

not  pin  point  that  it  was  only  because  of  the  cruel  

behaviour  on the part of the accused  that Bindu was driven  

to  commit  suicide.   Significantly  enough  in  his  cross-

examination it was asked to him as to whether his son-in-law  

Prakasan used to take drinks and smoke  ganja to which he  

replied that he did not know  whether Prakasan used to take

drink or smoke ganja.  Silence of this witness and his not  

making any complaint to the police or anybody else put the  

question mark on the credibility of this witness.

5.    The other evidence is that of PW1 Vijayan, who turned  

hostile.   However,  in  his  examination  in  Chief,  he  

significantly admits that on 15.6.1989 in the morning when  

he was in the house the accused came running and crying and  

told him that she heard some noise from the top of the house  

and she also stated that Bindu was not to be seen.  This  

version would clearly go against the prosecution.  If the

-5-

accused had strained relationship with the deceased, there  

was no reason to make a hue and cry about Bindu's dis-

appearance.  Moreover, she could not have any reason for  

crying before PW1. PW3, Satheeshan, who is the brother of  

Bindu deposed that 18 days prior to the incident when he had  

gone to the house of Bindu, she was crying.  On his asking  

repeatedly  he was told that she was beaten by her mother-

in-law.

Ordinarily, we would have expected the witness to  

react and to complain atleast to his father.  However, his  

father also did not say anything  complaining against this  

beating incident.  This is apart from the fact that PW3  

also kept quiet and had not chosen to lodge any complaint  

with the police.  He admits that though he saw deceased with

injury he did not tell this to any body.  That is very  

unnatural and should have been so realised by the courts  

below.  The other unnatural feature of the evidence of PW3  

is  that  he  never  talked  about  all  these  things  to  his  

brother  in  law,   Prakasan  which  would  be  a  relevant  

circumstance.  

6.      Insofar as the other evidence is concerned it is of  

PW4  Ameer  Jan   who  was  the  class-mate  of  Bindu.   Her  

evidence has been used for getting EX-P2 which is alleged to  

be a letter written by Bindu to her husband, as she claimed  

that she was conversant with the hand-writing of Bindu.  In  

her cross-examination, this witness admitted that Bindu had  

loved Prakasan very much and she was under the impression

   -6-

that  Prakasan was the person without bad habits and Bindu  

used to  hate people who had bad habits.  She also admitted  

that after marriage Bindu had not told  that Prakasan had  

bad habits and that her life with  Prakasan was very happy.  

She also admitted that Bindu had the habit of becoming upset  

with  any  unusual  incident.   PW4  does  not  appear  to  be  

helping the prosecution excepting proving the  letter which  

is EX P-2.  We will consider that letter a little later.   

7. The  evidence  of  PW10  Thankam  is  the  only  other  

evidence of the relation of the deceased.  She significantly

is  the  daughter  of  the  appellant.   She  only  proved  the  

letter EX-P8 written by her to both Bindu and  Prakasan.  

She admitted the contents of the letter. We will consider  

the letter a little later along with EX-P2. In her cross-

examination PW10 admitted that Bindu had never told her that  

accused  assaulted her and she understood that the accused  

was very cordial with Bindu and Bindu was unhappy in the  

beginning as she had to leave her house.  Significantly this  

witness was not declared hostile and therefore her version  

that the  relationship of the accused with Bindu was  very  

cordial  goes unchallenged.  Considering the evidence of all  

these witnesses, it does not come out that Bindu committed  

suicide only and only because of the so-called ill-treatment  

by  the  mother-in-law.   What  was  that  ill-treatment,  how  

often she was ill-treated by the mother-in-law has remained

-7-

mystery and has not been brought out in evidence of any of  

these witnesses.  

8. Learned counsel then took us firstly to the EX-P2 on  

which the prosecution has relied heavily.  This appears to  

be in the nature of suicide note or put it more correctly it  

happens  to  be  the  last  letter  written  by  Bindu  to  her  

husband.   The  following  contents  of  Ex  P-2  are  very  

relevant.

“My beloved  Prakasan, You need not worry, you should  

look after my child better. You have not done anything wrong  

but one thing is there, I asked you many times, shall I  

serve rice?  Shall I serve Tea? How many times, how many  

time I asked.  You have not even said yes or  

no to me.  If you do not like me, you can marry someone  

else, but you should look after after my child properly,  

that is enough.  You do not like me for the last many days.  

Now, I am not required.  I must get this.  I had been told  

everybody in the past that I should not go with him.  My  

parents had told me, that he may leave me after sometime.  

But, I did not obey their words and came on my own decision.  

Now, I am getting this gift.  I got my child, and now, I got  

a gift bigger than that.  Prakasan, you need not obey me,  

need not fear me, you can live whatever way you like.  When  

you came lat night, I would not disturb you by asking, where  

were you.  Now onwards, my disturbance would not be there.  

You are not able to do anything due to my existence.  So I  

leave according to my wishes.  Your mother is more horrible.

-8-

Whatever I do is wrong for her.  You should not given my  

child to her.  You can give my child to Thankamma sister  I  

know that she will look after my child properly.”

The only portion that we find in this letter against

the accused is that the accused has been called  a horrible  

lady and that she did not approve of anything done by the  

deceased.  The deceased  had also  written that  the child  

should not be given  in the  custody of the accused.  The  

letter  clearly  suggests  that  the  deceased  Bindu  was  

completely dis-illusioned about her husband with whom she  

had eloped much against the will of her parents and further  

that her husband did not take notice of her very existence  

and  did  not  bother  about  her  at  all.  Insofar  as  the  

reference to the accused is concerned, the reference is by  

way of the instruction to her husband that her child should  

not  be  given  in  the  custody  of  the  accused  as  she  was  

horrible.  We do not think that this expression is such a  

strong  expression  that  the  courts  could  come  to  the  

conclusion  that  it  was  only  and  only  because  of  the  

behaviour and the treatment of the accused to the deceased  

that she was driven to commit suicide.  This takes us to the  

other letter namely the EX-P8 which has been proved by its  

author.  When  we  see  that  letter  it  becomes  clear  that  

Prakasan, the husband of the deceased had become a drunkard.  

This is a letter written by a loving sister to her younger  

brother and his wife to mend their ways. She had advised her

-9-

brother not to drink and not to start humiliating quarrels

and fighting.  True, it is stated to the effect that the  

mother should be comfortable and she should be made happy  

and the mother did not know how to talk and all of them had  

suffered the pain  because of the talks of their mother.  

However, the daughter is careful enough to write that it  

should not be taken seriously and nobody should feel about  

it, and being the mother she should be ignored. This witness  

has  written  in  the  letter  that  Amma  may  say  something  

without knowing consequence of the same. We do not think  

that this letter which has painted the accused with black  

brush is sufficient to hold that she was so bad and she ill-

treated the deceased so much that the deceased was driven to  

commit suicide only because of these factors.

9. In the matter of offence under Section 306, IPC we  

would expect much stronger evidence than what is presented.  

True it is that the evidence about what happens within the  

four corners of walls is not available to the Investigating  

Agency. But in this case, very strangely, the Investigating  

Agency has not proceeded against the husband against whom  

there was a very strong suspicion.  The Investigating Agency  

has  instead  made  a  scapegoat  of  the  old  mother  perhaps  

trying to rely on the age old concept of bickerings between  

the  mother-in-law  and  daughter-in-law.  That  is  not  the  

universal truth.  The courts below should have therefore in  

such a matter appreciated the evidence with discerning eyes.

-10-

The evidence should have been weighed with more care and the  

finding should have been arrived at that for but such ill-

treatment  by  the  accused,  the  deceased  would  not  have  

committed suicide.  Such would be the standard of proof in  

the matter under Section 306, IPC.  It is indisputable true  

that the court has to appreciate the evidence with open mind  

and not being  driven by the age old concepts.  Applying all  

these principles we find that the evidence falls short of  

the required standard of proof.  We are, therefore, not in a  

position to agree with the courts below in so far as their  

findings are concerned.  In our opinion, the evidence in  

this case fell miserably short of the required standard of  

proof.  In that view we would allow the appeal and acquit  

the accused.  The judgments of the courts below are set  

aside and the accused is acquitted.  Her bail bonds are  

cancelled.

              ...................J.                                  (V.S.SIRPURKAR)

             ....................J.                          (DEEPAK VERMA)

New Delhi, October 8, 2009.