AP High Court Overturns Husband's Conviction U/S 306 IPC, Says Single Instance Of Questioning Wife's Morality Not Abetment Of Suicide

In the present case, the deceased's husband and brother-in-law, suspecting her fidelity, had allegedly insulted and beaten her on the night prior to her death, which compelled her to commit suicide.

Noting that the act of beating the deceased on yester-night cannot lead to the presumption that petitioners intended to push her to commit suicide, Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao observed,

“There was no evidence to the effect that the Petitioners either goaded or provoked or instigated or encouraged her to commit suicide. Therefore, it may not be right to hold that the Petitioners were guilty of abetment of suicide. The deceased felt insulted or humiliated as her brother-in-law and husband beat her on the pretext that she had not kept her matrimonial piousness. The action of the Petitioners is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, the deceased was hypersensitive, as such, it would not be appropriate and proper to convict the Petitioners for abetment of suicide.”

The Court added,

“There was no visible and conspicuous presence of element of mens rea in the case. The act and words of the petitioners, however, insulting or humiliating the deceased by stating that why should she live, as she was leading an immoral life, will not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. The words of the petitioners spoken to the deceased only once, a single instance i.e., on the preceding night of committing suicide, cannot constitute the petitioners exploiting the vulnerability of the deceased, making her feel worthless or undeserving of life, leading her to commit suicide.”

Facts:

The Court was dealing with a revision petition assailing a Sessions Court order upholding conviction of Petitioners by the trial court.

The deceased was the wife of Petitioner 1 and Petitioner no.2 was her brother-in-law. It was alleged that the night of the incident, the Petitioners insulted and beat the deceased suspecting infidelity. Feeling humiliated, the deceased poured kerosene over her and set herself ablaze.

In the hospital, her dying declaration was recorded which stated: “My husband and his brother (my brother-in-law) Pitchayya beat me yesternight. They stated that why should I lead this life and why should not I die. Hence I poured kerosene and set myself fire. My mother-in-law brought me to the hospital.”

On this basis, the petitioners were convicted under Section 306 IPC.

Submissions:

In the High Court, the petitioners contended that the Courts below had erred in convicting them merely on the basis of the dying declaration without any support from independent sources. They further argued that there was no direct or indirect participation on their part which could have abetted the commission of suicide. Additionally, they submitted that the Courts below ought to have seen that non-examination of the doctor who attended the deceased was fatal to the prosecution case as there was no evidence to determine her mental condition which enabled her to make a statement as to the offence.

Justifying the conviction, the State urged that there were no material irregularities or misreading of evidence, and that the Court below had rightly upheld the conviction of the petitioners.

Court's Findings:

At the outset, the Court established that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 r/w 401 of CrPC, the Court cannot invoke its revisional power as a Second Appellate Court. However, if there are manifest illegalities and interest of public justice requires interference to prevent a great miscarriage of justice, the Court can evaluate evidence to come to a just conclusion.

In order to determine whether the case met the prerequisites required to attract Section 306, the Court referred to a host of judgments, including S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010), M. Mohan v. State (2011) and Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2020), Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025). A collective reading of these judgments establish that in order to establish guilt under Section 306, there must be an active or positive act by the accused proximate to the occurrence of death which instigates the deceased and leaves her with no other option but to commit suicide.

On the basis of these rulings, the Court held,

“On a scrupulous examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially dying declaration of the deceased, there was no positive action proximate to the time of suicide on the part of the Petitioners which lead or compelled the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide. Therefore, the conviction under Section 306 of 'the I.P.C.,' sustained by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court are not valid and legally acceptable inasmuch as there was no positive act on the part of the Petitioners to instigate or intentionally aided Chilukuri Mariyamma to commit suicide.”

Noting that the acts and words of the petitioners which made her feel insulted cannot constitute instigation to commit suicide, the Court allowed the Criminal Revision Case and set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Court and the conviction handed down by the Trial Court.

Case Details:

Case Number: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.44 OF 2011

Case Title: Chilikuri Mariyadas v. The State of A.P

Click Here To Read/Download Order