REPORTABLE

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

JUDGMENT

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

2

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

3

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.  

4

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:

The  present  appellant  filed  a  complaint  to  the  Superintendent  of

Police after about two and a half months of the alleged incident. Allegation

6

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.  

7

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. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, November 28, 2008

8