| CITATION | (2013) 2 MLJ(Crl) 650 |
| YEAR OF JUDGMENT | 2009 |
| PLAINTIFF | Mani or Manikandan |
| RESPONDENT | State by Inspector of Police |
| STATUTES REFERRED IN THIS CASE | Section 417, 306 IPC |
| BENCH | MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA |
INTRODUCTION
Section 417 of the IPC addresses discipline for Cheating This section outlines the discipline for the crime of infidelity, which is defined in Section 415 IPC. Whoever cheats shall be penalized with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one time, with a fine, or with both. Now Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) section 318 talks about discipline for cheating imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three times, with a fine, or with both.
Section 306 of IPC is about assist of self-murder This section criminalizes the act of abetting the commission of self-murder. It states that anyone who abets the commission of self-murder can be penalized with imprisonment for over ten times, and may also be liable to a forfeiture.” assist” means encouraging or instigating someone to commit self-murder. At present it’s under BNS section 108 which says that if any person commits self-murder, whoever abets the commission of similar self-murder, shall be penalized with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten times, and shall also be liable to fine. Imprisonment for 10 times and a fine. Triable by Court of Session.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The complainant was condemned under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his woman. The execution contended that the complainant quarrelled with the departed and was last seen with her before her death. The case of the execution is that a love affair prevailed between the Appellant/ indicted and the departed, Devi for six months, before the date of circumstance and that the Appellant indicted, on a false pledge to marry the departed, convinced her and had sexual intercourse, due to which, the departed came pregnant and that on 07.09.2007 and 08.09.2007, when the departed demanded the Appellant/ indicted to marry her, the Appellant/ indicted refused to marry her and being dejected by similar turndown, the departed married self-murder on 08.09.2007 at about 11.00 a.m. at her hearthstone, by tone offering herself and latterly, she succumbed to burn injuries on 12.09.2007 at 10.00 a.m. in the Sanatorium. Hence, the Appellant indicted was charged covered for the offense under Section 306 of IPC.
ISSUE RAISED
Whether the execution had proved the case against the indicted beyond all reasonable dubieties grounded on particular substantiation.
Whether the execution has proved the charges under Sections 306 and 417 of IPC, by establishing the constituents.
Whether the conviction of the Appellant for the offenses and charges is justified, by satisfying the necessary constituents of the offense’s charges for.
ANALYSIS
Ratio Decidendi In a case grounded on particular substantiation, the circumstances projected by the execution should be proved beyond reasonable dubieties and have a close link forming a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the indicted. The court set up that the execution failed to prove the circumstances beyond all reasonable dubieties and acquitted the complainant. The procedure in recording the dying protestation has not been duly done and as per the Rule, the hand of the declarant has to be attained in the statement and when it cannot be done, the thumbprints have to be fixed and when thumbprints couldn’t be attained, the print of the toes either the left or right has to be taken and when no explanation has been given about the same, it creates a mistrustfulness regarding the recording of the same. About the evidentiary value of the dying protestation of the departed, it’s applicable to relate to Section 32(1) of the Substantiation Act, 1872, which reads as under-
“Cases in which statement of applicable fact by person who’s dead or cannot be set up, etc. is applicable. — Statements, written or verbal, of applicable data made by a person who’s dead, or who cannot be set up, or who has come unable to give substantiation, or whose attendance cannot be carried without a quantum of detention or expenditure which under the circumstances of the case appears to the court unreasonable, are themselves applicable data. Assist of self-murder- If any person commits self-murder, whoever abets the commission of similar self-murder, shall be penalized with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten times, and shall also be liable to fine. ” therefore, the essential constituents of an offense under Section 306 of IPC are that( i) any person married self-murder, (ii) similar commission of self-murder was by the consequence of an assist, (iii) the assist was made by the indicted. Further, to have the charge under Section 306 of IPC, the execution has to prove that(a) the victim of the offense committed self-murder, (b) the indicted abetted the commission of self-murder and similar assist being one under Section 107 of IPC. In this case, the execution has failed to prove the introductory component that the death of the victim was due to self-murder. Section 417 of the IPC prescribes discipline for the offense of cheating as defined under Section 415 of the IPC. Section 415 IPC. Cheating – Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or concurrence that any person shall retain any property, or designedly induces the person so deceived to do or forget to do anything which he’d not do or forget if he weren’t so deceived, and which act or elision causes or is likely to beget damage or detriment to that in person in body, mind, character or property, is said to cheat’.
JUDGMENT
The Committal Court, after complying with the procedure under Section 207 of CrPC having set up that the case was simply triable by a Court of Session, had committed it to the train of the star District and Sessions Judge, Chennai and the Court had taken the case and made over the case to the Trial Court. The Trial Court erred in concluding that it was a case of self-murder by tone-sacrifice, whereas the substantiation of the Post-Mortem Doctor would suggest that it could be due to accidental death coupled with the fact there was no substantiation about smell or trace of kerosene on the clothes and body of the departed and also at the place of circumstance. In a case of assistance to self-murder, the execution is bound to prove the death of the departed as a suicidal bone and in this case, there’s no respectable material to rebut the original interpretation of the disquisition that the departed caught fire accidentally while cuisine. In this regard, the medical substantiation is also not in conformity with the interpretation of the execution. Further, the Doctor who had first admitted the victim to the Hospital hadn’t stated anything about the smell of kerosene set up on the body or the clothes of the victim. The Croaker who had conducted the necropsy had deposed that the victim had suffered burn injuries on the anterior portions and that the pelvis, cranium, brain and spinal column were normal and complete and had also editorialized that the victim could have suffered the burn injuries due to accidental fire while cuisine. Further, the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the First Information Report and prepared the observation mahzor and attained statements from the neighbours, had deposed that the person who had informed about the incident had told him that the youngish family of the victim, Nagalakshmi had informed him that her family sustained burn injuries while cooking and she’s the factual eye substantiation to the circumstance, whereas for reasons best known she wasn’t examined in the Court on the side of the execution. There’s also a distinction in the substantiation of deposed that he’d accidentally seen the departed and the Appellant talking together at the house of the departed when he went to collect donations for the Aadi Festival, but he didn’t bruit anything as to the date, timing or day particulars as to his visit to the house of the departed. Another issue, which was left out to be proved by the execution is that the Appellant indicted was responsible for the gestation of the victim. A positive result of the DNA Test would have constituted deciding substantiation against the Appellant indicted. As per the medical substantiation, the foetus was five months old and the coitus of the foetus was determined as manly. There was ample occasion for conducting a DNA Test of the foetus and subjugating the Appellant indicted for DNA analysis to prove the maternity of the child. In the case on hand, DNA Test wasn’t done, which is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. However, there would have been some deciding substantiation, favouring the execution, if a DNA Test had been done. Final Decision was made and the court acquitted the complainant due to the execution’s failure to prove the case beyond all reasonable dubieties.
CONCLUSION
The court is of the considered view that in case of multiple dying affirmations, they should be harmonious with each other and if there’s any inconsistency between the multiple affirmations, the protestation, pointing the guilt alone, cannot be taken into consideration and all the affirmations have to be scrutinized with great care along with other accoutrements and attendant circumstances. The Trial Court grossly erred in unriddling the before statements as the dying affirmations of the departed and acting upon the same. Then should be fraudulent or dishonest persuading of a person by deceiving him the person so deceived should be convinced to deliver any property to any person, or concurrence that any person shall retain any property or the person so deceived should be designedly convinced to do or forget to do anything which he’d not do or forget if he weren’t so deceived. Golden rules of felonious justice are that jubilation still grave cannot take the place of evidence and further graver the offense the execution has to prove the guilt of the indicted beyond all reasonable dubieties and the Courts can not condemn the indicted on bare conjectures and presuppositions. In the light of the opinions appertained to over and given the below conversations and reasons and on an overall analysis of the substantiation placed on record, having regard to the chances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the execution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the indicted beyond all reasonable dubieties and that the Trial Court committed a grave error in condemning the Appellant indicted in this case, grounded on similar antithetical and inconsonant substantiation. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and judgment is liable to be set away and accordingly, the Appellant is entitled to vindication.
REFERENCES
This article is written by Riya Dama student of Jitendra Chauhan College of Law, University of Mumbai and an Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.