MURUGESAN Vs. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 21.11.2014 in S.C.No.175 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Court, Mahila Court, Coimbatore, in and by which, the appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced as tabulated hereunder: JUDGEMENT_105_LAWS(MAD)9_2016.html

(2.) The case of the prosecution leading to conviction of the appellant/accused is as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that absolutely, there is no evidence against the appellant/accused to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC. In order to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC, there should be an evidence to the effect that there is positive act on the part of the accused to induce or had intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The only evidence the prosecution has relied upon is the suicide note. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that on 23.12.2009 at about 4.30 p.m., P.W.10 recovered the suicide note from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, at about 5 p.m., P.W.10 altered the FIR from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to one under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that Ex.P-8 inquest report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer does not speak about the suicide note stated to have been seized by P.W.10. Learned counsel further submitted that none of the witnesses speak about the details with regard to the recovery of the suicide note from the scene of occurrence and hence, this creates a doubt on the suicide note. Learned counsel also submitted that the alleged suicide note does not contain any single word that the appellant/accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide, so as to attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC.