T.Ganeshkumar v. State Rep by

ORDER This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the Judgment dated 04.07.2023 in S.C.No.47 of 2021 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court / Additional Special Judge for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act cases, Coimbatore by which he was convicted for the offence under Section 498A and 306 IPC and sentenced him as follows: Offence under Section Sentence imposed Section 498A IPC To undergo 1 year RI and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo SI for three months Section 306 IPC To undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo SI for six months 2 (a). The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the victim got married on 02.12.2018 in the presence of elders of both the families; that they were living along with the appellant's parents and his sister; that after marriage the appellant had committed cruelty on the victim in many ways and had commented upon the complexion of the victim and that she was not beautiful; that due to continuous harassment and torture the victim decided to end her life and committed suicide by hanging on 07.01.2019 in her bedroom in the house of the appellant.

(b) P.W.1, the father of the victim, had lodged a complaint to the police (Ex.P1), which was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.15) under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the offences under Section 498(A) and Section 306 IPC were added. The investigation was conducted by P.W.16 to P.W.19. P.W.18 filed the final report against the appellant for the offences under Section 498(A) and 306 IPC.

(c) The trial Court framed two charges against the appellant under Section 498(A) and 306 IPC. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P27 to prove its case. The trial Court found the appellant guilty of both the charges and sentenced as stated in paragraph No.1 of this judgment.

¶3Mr.S.Ramajayam, the learned counsel for the appellant / accused submitted that the alleged occurrence took place within two months of the marriage; that the victim unable to bear petty family quarrels had committed suicide; that the appellant cannot be found guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC; that there is no evidence to show that the appellant committed cruelty of such a nature which would drive the victim to commit suicide or cruelty in connection with the dowry demand and therefore, the offence under Section 498(A) IPC is also not made out. The learned counsel further submitted that even if the prosecution case is accepted that the appellant had caused harassment by commenting upon the complexion of the victim, that would not amount to cruelty punishable under Section 498(A) IPC; and hence prayed for setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.

¶4The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, submitted that the victim's suicide note would indicate that she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the appellant; that P.W.8, the friend and relative of the victim, had corroborated the said fact; the fact that the victim had not accused any of the family members would show that her suicide note is truthful and can be relied upon; that since the victim was subjected to extreme cruelty, the appellant is guilty of abetment of suicide and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

¶5As stated above, the prosecution had examined 19 witnesses. P.W.1 is the relative of the victim. P.W.2 is the father of the victim. P.W.3 is the mother of the victim. P.W.4 is the elder brother of the victim. P.W.5 is the mother of the appellant. P.W.6 is the cousin brother of the victim. P.W.7 is the Mahazar witness. P.W.8 is the friend of the victim and would speak about the WhatsApp conversation between her and the victim. P.W.9 is the woman constable who had assisted the Investigation Officer. P.W.10 is the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem. P.W.11 is the Chief Manager of Bank of Baroda who would speak about the fact of the appellant pledging certain jewels. P.W.12 is the Head Constable who had assisted the Investigation Officer. P.W.13 is the Forensic Science Expert. P.W.14 is the Sub-Collector who had conducted enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. P.W.15 is the Sub-Inspector who had registered the FIR. P.W.16 to P.W.19 are the Investigation Officers.

¶6The prosecution had established that the appellant and the victim got married on 02.12.2018 in the presence of elders of both the families. The prosecution had established that the victim died due to hanging and had committed suicide. P.W.10, the Doctor who conducted postmortem, in his final opinion marked as Ex.P13 had stated that "the deceased would appear to have died of hanging". The prosecution had marked the suicide note of the appellant which was recorded in the diary as M.O.1. Therefore, the prosecution had established beyond doubt that the deceased died due to suicide by hanging.

¶7P.W.1 to P.W.4 are the close relatives of the victim. P.W.2, the mother of the victim, had deposed that the victim had told her that the appellant insulted the victim as her complexion was dark. P.W.1 speaks about going to the house of the appellant on hearing the incident, removing the body of the victim, taking her to the hospital and lodging of the complaint. P.W.3, the brother of the victim who also stated that the victim had told him that the appellant had insulted and humiliated the victim because she was dark in complexion.

¶8The suicide note of the victim reads as follows: "md;g[s;s mk;kht[f;F. vd;id kd;dprpLkh vd;dhy ; ,tu; ngrwij vy;yhk ; nfl;L jh';f Koay. ehd ; fc&;lg;gl;lhYk; epk;kjpah ,Uf;fyhk;D jhd; ehd; ,tiuf; fy;ahzk; gz;zpndd;. Vd;dhy ; ,td ; ngrp rhf mof;fwj jh';f Koay. ehd; mHfh ,y;y. nghdnghFJd;D thHf;if bfhLj;j khjpup ngruhd;. mk;kh. mg;ghit ey;yh ghu;j;Jf;f. bfh";r ehs; fc&;lkh ,Uf;Fk;. mg;g[wk; gHfpLk;. m';f te;J fc&;lg;gLj;j tpUk;gtpy;iy. mk;kh I yt; a{. mg;gh I kp!; a{. ehd; ,g;go gz;zpfpwJf;F ehd;. khkh. mj;ij mz;zp fhuzk; ,y;iy. mtu;fs; j';fs; tPl;Lg; gps;is khjpup jhd ; ghj;Jf;fpl;lh';f ehd ; ,g;go gz;zpajw;F ,tu;fs; fhuzk ; ,y;iy. ,tDf;F eP';fs ; vd;d fy;ahzk ; gz;zp bfhLj;jJ jg;g[. rhup jstha;Re;juk; mg;gh. rhup uh$yl;Rkp mk;kh. vd;id kd;dpr;rpU';f mz;zh. U:ngc& ; tpgpjh vd;id kd;dpr;rpL';f. vd;dhy ; ,tDld ; thH Koay. ,td ; ngrwj vd;dhy; jh';f Koay."

¶9P.W.14, the RDO does not stated in his report that the victim died due to any dowry demand. In any case, it is not the version of the any of the relatives namely P.W.1 to P.W.4 that the victim was harassed or subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand.

¶10It is well settled that in order to prosecute a person under Section 306 IPC, the cruelty must be of such a kind that the victim had no other option except to commit suicide. Admittedly, the victim had a good relationship with the appellant's parents and his sister. She had a good relationship with her own parents. Therefore, it cannot be said that she had no other option except to commit suicide due to the harassment and humiliation caused by the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Yadwinder Singh alias Sunny Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2332, has held that to attract the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be a direct incitement or encouragement by the accused, leaving the victim with no other option but to commit suicide. The relevant paragraph reads as follows: " 17. Thus, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC would stand fulfilled in the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement / incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. The act of investigation as alleged must be with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that she is left with no other option but to commit suicide."

¶11In this case as stated earlier there is no evidence to suggest that the allegations of humiliation / harassment caused to the appellant was with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that she is left with no other option but to commit suicide.

¶12Thus, this Court finds that the offence under Section 306 IPC has not been established by the prosecution. However, it is seen that the victim had made a suicide note in her diary. The suicide note is not disputed by the defense. She had stated that she was subjected to harassment by the appellant on account of her complexion. In fact, in the suicide note she had also stated that she had no grievance against the appellant's parents or his sister. Therefore, the suicide note cannot be said to be exaggerated. There appears to be truth in the suicide note.

¶13P.W.2 and P.W.3 have corroborated the contents of the suicide note and had deposed that the victim had told them about the humiliation suffered by her. Hence, this Court finds that the victim was subjected to cruelty of such a nature which had driven the victim to commit the suicide. The offence under Section 498(A) IPC is therefore made out. However, considering the overall circumstances and the nature of allegation against the appellant, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be met, if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him so far. It is reported that the appellant was a remand prisoner from 27.05.2019 to 17.07.2019 and after conviction from

04.07.2023 to 22.08.2023.

¶14Consequently, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 306 IPC and he is convicted of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. 16-02-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes bkn To

¶1Inspector of Police, C2 Race Course Police station, Coimbatore City, Cr.NO. 25/2019.

¶2The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court/Additional Special Judge for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. SUNDER MOHAN J. bkn

16-02-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN 1. T.Ganeshkumar S/O. Thalavaisundaram, No.10, Addis Street, Coimbatore. Appellant(s) Vs 1. State Rep By Inspector of Police, C2 Race Course Police station, Coimbatore City, Cr.NO. 25/2019. Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed Section 374 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in S.C.NO. 47/2021 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court/Additional Special Judge for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore and set aside the judgement dated 04.07.2023 and acquit the appellant from all the charges. For Appellant(s): M/s. S.Ramajayam For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Rajakumar Additional Public Prosecutor