JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records made in S.C.No.308 of 2016 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur @ Ponneri order, dated 09.02.2021 and acquit the appellant by allowing the above Criminal Appeal.) 1. On 07.06.2013, when P.W.10 was on duty at the M5 Ennore Police Station, P.W.1, Sivakami, appeared before him and lodged a complaint to the effect that her deceased husband, namely Vaidyanathan, had disputes with her sister's husband, namely Anjappan and on an earlier occasion, the said Anjappan had hit him with chappals and gave a complaint against her husband himself and under the said circumstances, in view of the disputes, her husband was found hanging in the fan with the help of saree as on 06.06.2013 and at about 12.45 A.M, when she woke up to answer natures call, she noticed him and immediately raised an alarm and they brought him down and upon taking him to the nearest hospital, he was pronounced as dead. 2. On the strength of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.292 of 2013 was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter, was taken up for investigation and after completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant herein for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur took the case on file as P.R.C.No.11 of 2014 and on appearance of the accused and furnishing of the copies as per Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur. 3. The case thereupon was taken on file as S.C.No.308 of 2016 and was made over to the Trial Court. After considering the materials on record, the Trial Court framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and upon being questioned, the accused denied the charge and stood trial. 3. The case thereupon was taken on file as S.C.No.308 of 2016 and was made over to the Trial Court. After considering the materials on record, the Trial Court framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and upon being questioned, the accused denied the charge and stood trial. Thereafter, to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined the de-facto complainant/wife of the deceased, namely Sivakami, as P.W.1 and she turned hostile; one of the neighbours, by name Rajamanikkam, was examined as P.W.2; one Subramani and Nagamuthu, who were mahazar witnesses were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4; one Veeramuthu, who was the cousin brother of the deceased Vaidyanathan, who was examined as P.W.5; one Senthil, younger brother of P.W.5, was examined as P.W.6. It is pertinent to state here that P.Ws.1 to 6 all turned hostile. One Rajkumar Police Constable, who took the body for postmortem, was examined as P.W.7; one Balasubramanian, who conducted the postmortem and issued the final opinion, was examined as P.W.8; one Anand, who took over the case from one Sundaresan and laid Final Report, was examined as P.W.9 and thereafter, M.Sundaresan, who registered the F.I.R and conducted the investigation, was examined as P.W.10. 4. The prosecution also marked Exs.P-1 to P-13. Upon being questioned about the incriminating circumstances and material evidence on record, as per Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution and the learned Counsel for the accused and by a judgment, dated 09.02.2021, found that even though all the witnesses, in this case, namely P.Ws.1 to 6, have turned hostile, the prosecution has still produced Ex.P-10, suicide note of the deceased person, which clearly imputes an allegation against the accused that he was responsible for the commission of suicide and on the strength of Ex.P-10, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is laid before this Court. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is laid before this Court. 5. Heard Mr.V.Karthic, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent. 6. The learned Senior Counsel, taking this Court through the charge framed as well as the evidence on record, would submit that in this case, P.Ws.1 to 6 turned hostile. The only piece of evidence available on record is Ex.P-10. He would further submit that even a reading of the Ex.P-10 would clearly narrate the various instances and the deceased had finally said that feeling humiliated, he did not want to further live in this world. Further suicide note also imputes allegations against his own mother, sister etc., going against him. Therefore, he would submit that even taking Ex.P-10 on its face value, the same cannot be read to impute any instigation with the positive act on behalf of the accused to have goaded or enticed, the victim to commit suicide and it cannot be said that the deceased had no other go and was driven to the only possible decision of committing suicide. Therefore, he would submit that in this case, even taking the suicide note on the face value, no offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 7. The learned Senior Counsel also placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in Jambu Vs. State(2022) 1 lw (Cri) 326, wherein, the learned Judge of this Court had elaborately discussed all the relevant judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court on the law relating to instigation/abetment of suicide and had detailed the circumstances, in which, the appellant can be said to have instigated the victim to commit suicide and submitted that by applying ratio of the said judgment, the appellant cannot be convicted in this case. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that even though the witnesses have turned hostile, the prosecution has marked Ex.P-10 and the signature of the deceased was also compared and proved by the experts. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that even though the witnesses have turned hostile, the prosecution has marked Ex.P-10 and the signature of the deceased was also compared and proved by the experts. A reading of the Ex.P-10 would clearly show that the deceased was driven by the grabbing of his shop and he also suffered ignominy at the hands of the appellant and that the same is the proximate cause for his committing suicide and the appellant/accused is solely responsible for the commission of suicide by the part of the victim and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of either side and perused the material records of the case. Before adverting to the facts of this case, as rightly relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel, this Court, in the judgment of Jambu Vs. State (cited supra), the learned Judge had categorically delineated the various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.Arjunan Vs. The State of Tamilnadu (2019) 3 SCC 315 , V.Venkataraman Vs. State of Tamilnadu MANU/TN/2488/2015, Randhir Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab MANU/TN/2488/2015 Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 , S.S.Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr., (2010) 12 SCC 190 Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCc 707 , Vijay Kumar Rastogi Vs. State of Rajasthan 2012 (2) ILR (Raj) 231, Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (2010) 1 SCC 750 , Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 , M.Mohan Vs. D.S.P., Karaikudi (2011) 3 SCC 626 , State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73 , Rajamannar v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Sevvapet, Police Station, Thiruvallur District (Crl.O.P.No.8230 of 2014, dated 03.04.2014) etc., and has dealt with the law relating to abetment of suicide. 10. As a matter of fact, the relevant paragraph of the three judge bench judgment in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh (cited supra) has been extracted and in the said paragraph, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:- "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". 10. As a matter of fact, the relevant paragraph of the three judge bench judgment in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh (cited supra) has been extracted and in the said paragraph, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:- "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect. or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. the present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." Therefore, it would be clear that the mere unsavory happenings and the disputes between the accused and the victim by itself would not amount to an act of instigation, but, the act of instigation should be a positive act of goading, urging forward, provoking, inciting or encouraging the accused to commit suicide. This apart, the said act should be proximate cause for the suicide of the victim. 11. Now, coming to the case on hand, a careful perusal of the Ex.P-10, suicide note reads that the accused Anjappan has more money, everybody is listening only to Anjappan. Everybody is humiliating him and all the relatives have hit him with chappals, brooms etc., and are turning tables as if he has done the same. The said Anjappan is also hand in glove with the Police because he is in a political party and therefore, the Police is also foisting cases against him. Therefore, he is unable to stand to his reputation in the society and is forced to live a shameful life. He had glorious past, he was in Singapore for 15 years and earned a lot and performed the marriages of his children and brought up everybody in the family. Now all the members of the family have discarded all his good work and toil. His image stands tarnished everywhere. He had glorious past, he was in Singapore for 15 years and earned a lot and performed the marriages of his children and brought up everybody in the family. Now all the members of the family have discarded all his good work and toil. His image stands tarnished everywhere. Therefore, he does not want to live in this world. Therefore, he is committing suicide. After stating that the deceased also says that strong action has to be taken against the accused Anjappan and he is only responsible for his death and how he had grabbed his shop has to be investigated. 12. A cumulative reading of the said suicide note clearly explains several reasons for his coming to the conclusion even though the victim finally says that action should be taken against the accused, the suicide note, even if it is taken on face value, does not disclose any positive act on the part of the accused to goad or incite him to commit suicide. Secondly, on a perusal of the reasons shown in the suicide note, it cannot also be concluded that having got no further option, he was driven to the extreme step of committing suicide on account of any act of the accused herein. In view of the absence of both the said allegations, even though certain allegations are made against the accused in the suicide note, it cannot be concluded that the said acts are the proximate cause instigating the victim to commit the suicide and therefore, the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, even on a reading of the Ex.P-10 and taking its contents to be correct on the face value. Over and above the same, even the wife of the deceased, who was examined as P.W.1, had herself turned hostile in this case and there is no evidence on record to convict the appellant. 13. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the findings of the Trial Court that the appellant/accused is guilty for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is unsustainable and accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed. 14. In view thereof, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 13. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the findings of the Trial Court that the appellant/accused is guilty for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is unsustainable and accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed. 14. In view thereof, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.308 of 2016 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ponneri vide order, dated 09.02.2021 is set aside. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant is ordered to be refunded. It is seen that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was directed to be deposited by this Court and the appellant has deposited the same to the credit of Crime No.1092 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur. The appellant is entitled for refund of the said sum.