ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J.
Sugavasi Chakradhar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6663 of 2022
Decided On : 05-09-2022
CRIMINAL PETITION - SECTION 438 CR.P.C. - SECTION 420 AND 306 IPC - PRE-ARREST BAIL - ABETMENT OF SUICIDE - INGREDIENTS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 306 IPC - CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF PRE-ARREST BAIL
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused of abetment of suicide under Sections 420 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (IPC), filed a petition for pre-arrest bail. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner harassed and instigated the deceased, leading him to commit suicide. The petitioner denied the allegations and argued that the complaint lacked the ingredients of Sections 420 and 306 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that a prima facie case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC was not established based on the complaint. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasized the requirement of a positive act of instigation or facilitation of suicide to constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint against the petitioner disclosed ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint did not contain specific allegations of instigation or facilitation of suicide by the petitioner. The court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 306 IPC, which requires an active role by the accused in abetting the suicide. The court also considered the fact that substantial investigation had been completed and that the petitioner was willing to cooperate with the investigation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions, including reporting to the police station weekly, not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and cooperating with the investigation.
JUDGMENT
Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking pre-arrest bail, by the petitioner/Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 653 of 2022 of Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 ('IPC' in short).
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, that the defacto complainant's son is used to do contractual works. He undertook a sub contract work in the name of Sahasra Infratech from Sudhakar Infra, for carrying out storm water drain works at Nellore. Sahasra Infratech was incorporated in the name of the complainant's daughter in law and Chakradhar's daughter. The son of the complainant and Chakradhar, together doing contractual works. After taking four bills, accused cheated his son without giving money and harassed by avoiding. His son faced severe stress and accused instigated his son to commit suicide. On 19.08.2022, his son explained the situation to one Rohit and his daughter in law that he is going to commit suicide. Thereafter, they sent one Narendra Reddy and when he went to that place and observed that the door was locked from inside. After seeing inside, the deceased was hanging to the ceiling fan, the said Narendra Reddy got his son down and taken to Manipal Hospital. After examined the deceased, the doctor declared him brought dead. Hence, the above crime was registered against the petitioner.
3. Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. S. Pranati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned Senior Counsel, in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds, contended that on a plain reading of the complaint no ingredients attracting Section 420 and 306 of IPC are found. Further, it is contended that the petitioner was apprehending arrest in the hands of the police basing on the false allegations. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2021) 2 SCC 427 and drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portion of the said judgment, which reads as under:
'49. Before we evaluate the contents of the FIR, a reference to Section 306 IPC is necessary. Section 306 stipulates that if a person commits suicide 'whoever abets the commission of such suicide' shall be punished with imprisonment extending up to 10 years. Section 107 is comprised within Chapter V IPC, which is titled 'Of Abetment'. Section 107 provides:
'107. Abetment of a thing-A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.-A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
Explanation 2.-Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
50. The first segment of Section 107 defines abetment as the instigation of a person to do a particular thing. The second segment defines it with reference to engaging in a conspiracy
Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2021) 2 SCC 427
Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 62
Kishori Lal vs State of M.P.(Kishori Lal) (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701
Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 359
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab 2005 SCC (Cri) 56
To constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must establish that a person committed suicide and that such suicide was abetted by the accused, requiring a positive act of abetment o....
Abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC requires proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to suicide, and mere harassment without any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence is in....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, along with the necessity of mens rea and an....
Point of law: Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in....
In cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment without a positive act proximate to the ....
Abetment under S.306 IPC requires explicit acts of instigation or support; mere humiliation is insufficient.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.