GOPALAN NAIR KRISHNA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P.Ws. 1 and 3 are the off springs of the marriage between Chandrika and first accused solemnised in 1974. Second accused is his sister and third accused is their brother's son. Due to reasons including poverty and death of her farther, Chandrika was not able to persuade her mother successfully, to get the promised dowry though she was sent often for that purpose by the first accused. The result was cruelty, ill-treatment and neglect in personal conduct and treatment while in station and through letters from the place of employment in the Air Force at Poona. For that reason the children were also disliked and neglected. Chandrika had to take shelter with her parents occasionally along with her children and once they had to be so for a continuous period of four years and was forced to contact his superiors to get maintenance against his wishes. Finally she had to come back to his house with the children in obedience to his telegram disobeying her mother who knew what is going to happen. By the end of December 1983 when Chandrika was in the house of the first accused who was also there on short leave, her people came as directed by him. But nothing happened except discourtesy towards them and cruelty towards Chandrika who was even asked to commit suicide. While so, on the evening of 25.1.84 at about 7 or 7.30 P.M. when the first accused was away at P0 and, second accused questioned the morality of Chandrika and started a quarrel. When she resented criminal intimidation and manhandling by accused 2 and 3 followed and it ended in exhortation to commit suicide suggesting the availability of poison inside the house with a further threat of murder otherwise. Frustrated by all these, Chandrika rushed to the room where she know a bottle of Ekalax was kept. Picking it up she went to the bath room and consumed a portion of it before it was snatched away by her mother in-law P.W. 21 on hearing cries of P.Ws. 1 and 3. Though neighbours took her to the hospital, she died at 10.10 P.M This is the version on which the three accused were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 323, 506(u) and 306 read with sections 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The Sessions Judge discarded Section 34. All the accused were convicted and sentenced under section 306 of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each with the aid of section 109. Accused 2 and 3 were further convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and seven years each under sections 323 and 506(u) permitting the sentences to be suffered concurrently. Appeal is by all the three accused.

(3.) Before entering the discussion, I may say that the Sessions Judge acted illegally in convicting and sentencing accused 2 and 3 separately for the offences under sections 323 and 506(u). So also, there was no necessity of invoking section 109 when section 306 itself consists of the offence of abetting suicide. Offences under sections 323 and 506(u) committed by accused 2 and 3 are parts of the intentional aiding commission of suicide. When they are convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 306 on account of these acts also, separate convictions and sentences for these offences will amount to triple penalty for the same offence. Therefore the conviction and sentence for these offences must necessarily go. The only question for consideration is whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the three appellants under section 306.