Date:02/12/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/12/02/stories/2008120250240100.htm

Front Page

“Words uttered in anger can’t be ground for criminal instigation”

Legal Correspondent

Supreme Court dismisses plea by father against High Court verdict

Father had held remarks by daughter-in-law responsible for his son’s suicide
“No suicide note left behind to prove appellant’s allegation”

NEW DELHI: Words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention cannot be termed an instigation to commit a criminal offence, the Supreme Court has held.

A Bench comprising Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice Mukundakam Sharma gave the ruling while dismissing an appeal by a father who alleged that his son committed suicide within a few days of marriage after his wife called him “impotent” and “ugly”.

According to Sonti Rama Krishna, his son Venkateswara Rao was married to Shanti Shree on May 29, 2004, in Tirupati and the nuptial ceremony was fixed for June 2. The next day, Shanti in the presence of her in-laws allegedly told her husband that he was ugly and impotent and that he had spoilt her life.

Mr. Krishna said that suffering from mental agony, his son went to his village on June 6. Three days later he received a message that his son had committed suicide in a hotel room in Machilipatnam.

The appellant filed a complaint against Shanti for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment of suicide).

He alleged that the accused was solely responsible for the suicidal death of her husband. A single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the complaint and the present appeal was against this judgment.

The Supreme Court said the complaint was filed two-and-a-half months after the death of the appellant’s son. The marriage was an arranged one, both the bride and the groom had sufficient time to have glimpses of each other, and as such the allegation that Shanti dubbed the deceased “ugly” could not be believed.

The alleged grievance of the accused that the deceased was an ugly man could not have been noticed after marriage, for the first time on June 3 as the date of marriage was May 29. Further, there was no suicide note left behind by the deceased to substantiate the father’s allegation, the Bench said declining to interfere with the High Court judgment.