State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Pasuvanthanai v. Alex

ORDER The State has prosecuted the respondents/accused before the Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Court), Thoothukudi, in S.C.No.173 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC that the respondents are responsible for the commission of suicide by the deceased, one Veeralakshmi, in Cr.No.43 of 2016. The trial Court, by Judgment dated 18.08.2024, acquitted the respondents from the charge that the prosecution has not established the case for the offence under Section 306 IPC against the respondents. Aggrieved over the same, the State has filed this application seeking leave to prefer an appeal.

¶2The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State submits that the prosecution has established its case by examining P.W.1 to P.W.18 and by marking the dying declaration of the deceased. The learned counsel, by relying on the dying declaration, submits that the deceased before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II (P.W.15) has stated that the respondents 2 and 3 have locked the house of the deceased from outside when the 1st respondent was inside, blackmailed her and therefore, she went to the extreme step of committing suicide by pouring kerosene. According to the learned Government Advocate, the prosecution has established the case through P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.8.

¶3The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) further submits that the commission of offence is not an isolated incident and it constituted continuous mental cruelty including illegal confinement, public shaming and character assassination, which drove the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, according to the learned Government Advocate, the accused have committed the offence under Section 306 IPC and they ought to have been convicted under this provision.

¶4The learned Government Advocate by referring to a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 9 SCC 734 (Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal and another) submits that the abetment can also be inferred from the circumstances, the conduct of the accused and the mental trauma inflicted on the victim. Therefore, according to the learned Government Advocate, the respondents/accused have caused public defamation and character assassination to the deceased and thereby, she was driven to take extreme steps of committing suicide. However, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in a proper and perspective manner and has acquitted the accused.

¶5Since the petitioner has made out a prima facie case, leave is granted.

¶6The Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order and post the appeal on 27.07.2026. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) is directed to file the evidence copy at the time of admission.

21.07.2026 ogy

B.PUGALENDHI, J. ogy CRL OP(MD)No.13829 of 2026 in CRL.A.(MD)SR.No.13784 of 2026

21.07.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 21.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI CRL OP(MD)No.13829 of 2026 in CRL.A.(MD)SR.No.13784 of 2026 State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Inspector of Police, Pasuvanthanai Police Station, Thoothukudi District. ... Petitioner/ Appellant/ Complainant Vs 1. Alex 2. Sannasi 3. MGR @ Chinna Mariappan ... Respondents/ A1 to A3 Petition filed under Section 419(4) of BNSS, to grant leave to file an appeal against the acquittal judgment passed by the Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Court), Thoothukudi District, in S.C.No. 173 of 2020 dated 18.08.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R1 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan For R2 : Mr.B.Mohan Kumar