REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1198 OF 2003
MANKAMMA ... Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the accused Mankamma
challenging her conviction for the offence punishable under
Section 306, IPC on the allegation that she abetted the
suicide of her daughter-in-law, Bindu. All the three
courts below have found her guilty of that offence. The
first two courts had awarded her the rigorous imprisonment
for two years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.
The High Court while confirming the sentence reduced the
sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment and also reduced
the amount of fine from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-.
2. The prosecution case in extremely short conspectus
is that Bindu was married to Prakasan, son of the appellant
and it was a love marriage. They belonged to different
communities and hence the marriage was not approved by the
-2-
parents of Bindu. So much so, Bindu ran away with Prakasan
to get married . The prosecution case reveals that there is
one son born out of the wedlock. Bindu was married in the
year 1987 and was residing in the matrimonial house with her
husband and the accused. The incident in question had taken
place on 15.06.1989 i.e. just within two years of their
marriage. On the said day at about 8.30 a.m. it was
reported by PW1, Vijayan that Bindu had committed suicide
by pouring kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze. On
that information Crime No. 189/1989 was registered.
Inquest was held and post mortum was also conducted. PW9,
the Assistant Commissioner took up the investigation
initially and thereafter PW11, Sub-Inspector of Police,
Jayendran K., completed the investigation and filed the
chargesheet before the Court. In all 11 witnesses were
examined by the prosecution including the father, brother,
sister-in-law of the deceased as also her friend, Ameer Jan.
The allegation against the appellant are that because of her
cruel treatment to Bindu, she was ultimately driven to
commit suicide and that is how the accused had abetted her
suicide and had committed offence under Section 306, IPC.
There can be no doubt that all the three courts below have
held the appellant guilty on the basis of the evidence led
before them. Ordinarily we would not have interfered in the
matter by re-appreciating the evidence as this court
normally does not go into the task of re-appreciating the
-3-
evidence. However, when it is found that the evidence has
been appreciated in a mechanical manner and without proper
consideration of facts and circumstances on record we in
the interest of justice re-appreciate the evidence. That
has happened here.
3. Mr. Jayanth Muthuraj, Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the accused painstakingly took us through the
evidence. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution also
relied on two letters, one written by Bindu to her husband
and the other written by her sister-in-law to her and her
husband. In support of his argument learned counsel points
out that Bindu after her elopement with her husband Prakasan
was not in contact with her own family members because she
had married into a different caste.
4. We were taken through the evidence of the relation
witnesses and it is pointed out from that evidence by
learned counsel that insofar as the evidence of PW2,
Kumaran, father of the deceased is concerned he is totally
silent about his personal knowledge regarding the treatment
given by the accused to the deceased. In his evidence he
asserts that about two months prior to the death of Bindu
when she came to his house she had told about the ill-
treatment by the accused since no money was given to the
baby of Bindu. Very strangely, this witness kept quiet and
did not bother to even ask his son-in-law about the
treatment meted out by his mother to Bindu. He admits that
-4-
after the marriage for almost a year his family did not go
to the house of Prakasan and they visited her only after
about a year and there was no correspondence between the
family. It was only after the delivery of Bindu that for
the first time this witness seems to have visited his
daughter and son-in-law. In his evidence he concedes “I was
told that the accused had created trouble for not paying
money but the in-laws and husband of Bindu did not speak to
him directly in this regard.” We are not much impressed by
the evidence of this witness particularly because it does
not pin point that it was only because of the cruel
behaviour on the part of the accused that Bindu was driven
to commit suicide. Significantly enough in his cross-
examination it was asked to him as to whether his son-in-law
Prakasan used to take drinks and smoke ganja to which he
replied that he did not know whether Prakasan used to take
drink or smoke ganja. Silence of this witness and his not
making any complaint to the police or anybody else put the
question mark on the credibility of this witness.
5. The other evidence is that of PW1 Vijayan, who turned
hostile. However, in his examination in Chief, he
significantly admits that on 15.6.1989 in the morning when
he was in the house the accused came running and crying and
told him that she heard some noise from the top of the house
and she also stated that Bindu was not to be seen. This
version would clearly go against the prosecution. If the
-5-
accused had strained relationship with the deceased, there
was no reason to make a hue and cry about Bindu’s dis-
appearance. Moreover, she could not have any reason for
crying before PW1. PW3, Satheeshan, who is the brother of
Bindu deposed that 18 days prior to the incident when he had
gone to the house of Bindu, she was crying. On his asking
repeatedly he was told that she was beaten by her mother-
in-law.
Ordinarily, we would have expected the witness to
react and to complain atleast to his father. However, his
father also did not say anything complaining against this
beating incident. This is apart from the fact that PW3
also kept quiet and had not chosen to lodge any complaint
with the police. He admits that though he saw deceased with
injury he did not tell this to any body. That is very
unnatural and should have been so realised by the courts
below. The other unnatural feature of the evidence of PW3
is that he never talked about all these things to his
brother in law, Prakasan which would be a relevant
circumstance.
6. Insofar as the other evidence is concerned it is of
PW4 Ameer Jan who was the class-mate of Bindu. Her
evidence has been used for getting EX-P2 which is alleged to
be a letter written by Bindu to her husband, as she claimed
that she was conversant with the hand-writing of Bindu. In
her cross-examination, this witness admitted that Bindu had
loved Prakasan very much and she was under the impression
-6-
that Prakasan was the person without bad habits and Bindu
used to hate people who had bad habits. She also admitted
that after marriage Bindu had not told that Prakasan had
bad habits and that her life with Prakasan was very happy.
She also admitted that Bindu had the habit of becoming upset
with any unusual incident. PW4 does not appear to be
helping the prosecution excepting proving the letter which
is EX P-2. We will consider that letter a little later.
7. The evidence of PW10 Thankam is the only other
evidence of the relation of the deceased. She significantly
is the daughter of the appellant. She only proved the
letter EX-P8 written by her to both Bindu and Prakasan.
She admitted the contents of the letter. We will consider
the letter a little later along with EX-P2. In her cross-
examination PW10 admitted that Bindu had never told her that
accused assaulted her and she understood that the accused
was very cordial with Bindu and Bindu was unhappy in the
beginning as she had to leave her house. Significantly this
witness was not declared hostile and therefore her version
that the relationship of the accused with Bindu was very
cordial goes unchallenged. Considering the evidence of all
these witnesses, it does not come out that Bindu committed
suicide only and only because of the so-called ill-treatment
by the mother-in-law. What was that ill-treatment, how
often she was ill-treated by the mother-in-law has remained
-7-
mystery and has not been brought out in evidence of any of
these witnesses.
8. Learned counsel then took us firstly to the EX-P2 on
which the prosecution has relied heavily. This appears to
be in the nature of suicide note or put it more correctly it
happens to be the last letter written by Bindu to her
husband. The following contents of Ex P-2 are very
relevant.
“My beloved Prakasan, You need not worry, you should
look after my child better. You have not done anything wrong
but one thing is there, I asked you many times, shall I
serve rice? Shall I serve Tea? How many times, how many
time I asked. You have not even said yes or
no to me. If you do not like me, you can marry someone
else, but you should look after after my child properly,
that is enough. You do not like me for the last many days.
Now, I am not required. I must get this. I had been told
everybody in the past that I should not go with him. My
parents had told me, that he may leave me after sometime.
But, I did not obey their words and came on my own decision.
Now, I am getting this gift. I got my child, and now, I got
a gift bigger than that. Prakasan, you need not obey me,
need not fear me, you can live whatever way you like. When
you came lat night, I would not disturb you by asking, where
were you. Now onwards, my disturbance would not be there.
You are not able to do anything due to my existence. So I
leave according to my wishes. Your mother is more horrible.
-8-
Whatever I do is wrong for her. You should not given my
child to her. You can give my child to Thankamma sister I
know that she will look after my child properly.”
The only portion that we find in this letter against
the accused is that the accused has been called a horrible
lady and that she did not approve of anything done by the
deceased. The deceased had also written that the child
should not be given in the custody of the accused. The
letter clearly suggests that the deceased Bindu was
completely dis-illusioned about her husband with whom she
had eloped much against the will of her parents and further
that her husband did not take notice of her very existence
and did not bother about her at all. Insofar as the
reference to the accused is concerned, the reference is by
way of the instruction to her husband that her child should
not be given in the custody of the accused as she was
horrible. We do not think that this expression is such a
strong expression that the courts could come to the
conclusion that it was only and only because of the
behaviour and the treatment of the accused to the deceased
that she was driven to commit suicide. This takes us to the
other letter namely the EX-P8 which has been proved by its
author. When we see that letter it becomes clear that
Prakasan, the husband of the deceased had become a drunkard.
This is a letter written by a loving sister to her younger
brother and his wife to mend their ways. She had advised her
-9-
brother not to drink and not to start humiliating quarrels
and fighting. True, it is stated to the effect that the
mother should be comfortable and she should be made happy
and the mother did not know how to talk and all of them had
suffered the pain because of the talks of their mother.
However, the daughter is careful enough to write that it
should not be taken seriously and nobody should feel about
it, and being the mother she should be ignored. This witness
has written in the letter that Amma may say something
without knowing consequence of the same. We do not think
that this letter which has painted the accused with black
brush is sufficient to hold that she was so bad and she ill-
treated the deceased so much that the deceased was driven to
commit suicide only because of these factors.
9. In the matter of offence under Section 306, IPC we
would expect much stronger evidence than what is presented.
True it is that the evidence about what happens within the
four corners of walls is not available to the Investigating
Agency. But in this case, very strangely, the Investigating
Agency has not proceeded against the husband against whom
there was a very strong suspicion. The Investigating Agency
has instead made a scapegoat of the old mother perhaps
trying to rely on the age old concept of bickerings between
the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. That is not the
universal truth. The courts below should have therefore in
such a matter appreciated the evidence with discerning eyes.
-10-
The evidence should have been weighed with more care and the
finding should have been arrived at that for but such ill-
treatment by the accused, the deceased would not have
committed suicide. Such would be the standard of proof in
the matter under Section 306, IPC. It is indisputable true
that the court has to appreciate the evidence with open mind
and not being driven by the age old concepts. Applying all
these principles we find that the evidence falls short of
the required standard of proof. We are, therefore, not in a
position to agree with the courts below in so far as their
findings are concerned. In our opinion, the evidence in
this case fell miserably short of the required standard of
proof. In that view we would allow the appeal and acquit
the accused. The judgments of the courts below are set
aside and the accused is acquitted. Her bail bonds are
cancelled.
……………….J.
(V.S.SIRPURKAR)
………………..J.
(DEEPAK VERMA)
New Delhi,
October 8, 2009.