Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Supreme Court Quashed FIR against Husband in Suicide Case - Lack of Evidence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has quashed proceedings against the accused in a landmark judgment delivered today. The case, Criminal Appeal No.901 of 2017, revolved around the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and challenges to proceedings pending under Sections 417, 498(A), 306, 406, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The apex court granted special leave and examined the matter meticulously before arriving at its decision.

The core issue of the case centered around the evidence required to establish suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. In its ruling, the court observed, “To attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence to substantiate the existence of suicide. It should be followed by abetment, as required under Section 107 of the IPC. The court found no merit in the evidence put forth to substantiate suicide, highlighting the deceased’s health issues and apparent marital discord. Consequently, the proceedings were quashed due to lack of material evidence under Section 306 IPC.

Another crucial aspect that emerged from the judgment was the importance of prompt complaint by a police officer complainant. The court questioned the delayed complaint, which was made only after the cremation, raising doubts about its validity. The court noted, “The de facto complainant being a police officer himself has not given a complaint promptly after the death. On the contrary, he himself performed the cremation the next day, and gave the complaint on 18.04.2009.”

The court, in its wisdom, acquitted the accused due to insufficient material evidence and lack of proof of suicide. Consequently, the appeals by the de facto complainant against the accused were dismissed. The court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 901, thereby setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.

Date of Decision: 9th August, 2023

YADDANAPUDI MADHUSUDHANA RAO  vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS

Latest Legal News