SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 1164

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indu Malhotra, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.
State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
Indrajit Kundu & Ors. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2181 OF 2009
Decided On : 18-10-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Suhaan Mukerji, Astha Sharma, Prastut Dalvi, M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Abetment of suicide – Whether acts committed by accused will constitute direct or indirect act of incitement to commission of suicide is a matter which is required to be considered in facts and circumstances of each case.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 read with Section 34 – Abetment of suicide – Common intention – Discharge of accused – By impugned order, High Court by recording finding that terming deceased as a call-girl, there was no utterance which can be interpreted to be an act of instigating, goading or solicitation or insinuation, deceased to commit suicide – Respondents are sought to be proceeded for charge under Section 306/34 mainly relying on suicide letters written by deceased girl and statements recorded during investigation – Present case does not present any picture of abetment allegedly committed by respondents – Suicide committed by victim cannot be said to be result of any action on part of respondents nor can it be said that commission of suicide by victim was only course open to her due to action of respondents – There was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of respondents to victim to commit suicide – There was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of respondents to victim to commit suicide – Judgment of High Court upheld – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6, 11, 13, 16 and 17)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is preferred by the State of West Bengal through Principal Secretary, Home Department, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in C.R.R.No.3473 of 2008. By impugned order, the respondents-accused were discharged of the charge framed against them under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Findings of Court:

Where accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an “instigation” may be inferred. To draw inference of instigation it all depends on facts and circumstances of the case, whether the acts committed by the accused will constitute direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide is a matter which is required to be considered in facts and circumstances of each case.

Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

R.Subhash Reddy, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the State of West Bengal through Principal Secretary, Home Department, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in C.R.R.No.3473 of 2008.

2. By the impugned order, the respondents-accused were discharged of the charge framed against them under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The victim, daughter of the de facto complainant was a painter and artist. To improve her proficiency in English, first respondent was appointed as her English teacher. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are his parents. There developed intimacy between the victim and first respondent – Indrajit in course of coaching. It is the allegation of the complainant that as the deceased victim and first respondent had decided to marry, to finalise the proposal of marriage the victim had gone to the house of first respondent on 05.03.2004. It is alleged that when the victim went to the house of first respondent, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are the parents of the first respondent came out to raise shouts and addressed the victim as a call-girl. The words uttered by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as per the de facto complainant are “you are a call-girl, why my son would marry you, we would give our son in marriage elsewhere”. It is alleged in the complaint that at that time, first respondent did not protest against the version of his parents and his daughter returned home and became mentally perturbed. On 06.03.2004 at about 1.00 p.m. the victim had committed suicide.

3. On the complaint of the de facto complainant, a case was registered in Jorabagan Police Station against respondents under Section 306 IPC and thereafter charge-sheet was filed.

4. There were two suicide notes. In one suicide note, the deceased has stated that parents of first respondent abused her in silly words by calling her a call-girl. In another note, which was addressed to the first respondent, has stated that the father of first respondent stigmatized her as a call-girl and first respondent has not responded to such utterances. Further it is stated that first respondent is a coward. After conducting investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 306/34 IPC against all the three accused. Case was committed to the 7th Fast Track Court, Sessions Court, Calcutta, numbered as Sessions Case No.11 of 2006.

5. Accused-respondents earlier filed application for discharge, the same was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 19.04.2007. Thereafter, respondents have filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court in C.R.R.No.1817 of 2007 which was disposed of with the direction to respondents-accused to raise all the points before the learned Trial Court. At the stage of framing of charges respondents have raised objections claiming that no case is made out against them to frame charge for the alleged offence under Section 306/34 IPC. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge by order dated 04.09.2008 overruled the objections of the respondents observing that as there is a probability of accused being convicted, charge can be framed. It is observed in the order that there is a reasonable likelihood for accused persons to be convicted under Section 306 IPC. Against the said order, respondents have approached the High Court again under Section 401/482 Cr.P.C. in C.R.R.No.3473 of 2008.

6. By the impugned order, the High Court by recording a finding that terming the deceased as a call-girl, there was no utterance which can be interpreted to be an act of instigating, goading or solicitation or insinuation, the deceased to commit suicide. By referring to the case law decided by this Court wherein similar utterances like, “to go and die” does not constitute an offence for abetment, allowed the application filed by the respondents. It is observed in the order that the act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive, will not by themselves suffice to consti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top