C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) A. 3 in P. R. C. No. 72 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate (East and North), Ranga Reddy District, filed this petition to quash PRC registered against him and two others for an offence under Section 306 I. P. C.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that Kalyani (the deceased) felt humiliated and committed suicide because her marriage with A1 was cancelled after its settlement, so A-1 and his father A2 and paternal uncle (A-3, the petitioner) are liable for punishment under Section 306 IPC. , for the suicide of the deceased.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since there is nothing on record to show that petitioner is responsible for the death of Kalyani (the deceased) or that petitioner had a role to play in the settlement of marriage between A. 1 and Kalyani, the question of petitioner abetting the suicide of Kalyani does not arise.

( 4 ) abatement in Section 306 IPC has to be understood with reference to its definition given in Section 107 I. P. C. While considering the scope of Section 107 IPC the Supreme Court in C. B. I. K VS. V. C. SHUKLA1, observed, in Para 50 at Page 1423 as follows:". . . A person abets the doing of a thing when he does any of the acts mentioned in the following three clauses. (i) instigates that person to do that thing. (ii) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that things. (iii) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. So far as the first two clauses are concerned it is not necessary that the offence instigated should have been committed. For understanding the word aid in the third clause it would be advantageous to see Explanation 2 in Section 107 IPC, which reads thus: "whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of the act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act" It is thus clear that under the third clause when a person abets by aiding, the act so aided should have been committed in order to make such aiding an offence. . . . . "clauses (i) and (ii) extracted above do not apply to this case because no instigation by or conspiracy between the petitioner and the other accused is alleged by the prosecution. The third clause also is not attracted because no aid was given by the petitioner to the deceased when she committed suicide. Aiding suicide by a person can only be by positive acts of assisting in procuring the material required for suicide, like a person supplying rope or other material for hanging, when a person expresses his desires to commit suicide by hanging, or supplying weapon or material like drugs, poison, etc. , when the person intending to commit suicide asks such aid, or if a person suggest the modes in which suicide can be committed like jumping into a river, lake or well, etc. , to a person who intends to commit suicide.

( 5 ) IN SIA RAM VS. STATE OF U. P. 2, the Supreme Court held that in order to constitute abatement, the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. It is clearly held that mere proof that the crime could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirement of Section 107ipc. Various High Courts have taken a view that merely because a person committed suicide by feeling insulted or humiliated, due to the comments or utterances made by the accused, the accused cannot be said to be guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC. In DEVRAJ VS. STATE OF H. P. 3, a partner in a firm committed suicide due to the other partners [accused] taking away large sums of money out of partnership fund for various purposes and their not rendering an account to the deceased, and for not permitting the deceased utilizing the profits. The other partners in the firm, who are accused of an offence under Section 306 IPC for the suici

Click Here to Read the rest of this document