Mere allegation of pressure or harassment will not attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC unless such actions compelled the victim to commit suicide.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - ABETMENT OF SUICIDE - SECTION 306 IPC - INTERPRETATION - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS - INSTIGATION OR ABETMENT - PRESSURE OR HARASSMENT ALONE NOT SUFFICIENT - MERE ALLEGATION OF HARASSMENT WILL NOT ATTRACT OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 306 IPC UNLESS SUCH ACTIONS COMPELLED THE VICTIM TO COMMIT SUICIDE.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against her for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The deceased, who worked as Secretary of a Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, allegedly committed suicide due to pressure from his higher officers, including the petitioner, who was the Chief Executive Officer.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that mere allegation of pressure or harassment will not suffice to attract the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. There should be instigation or abetment on the part of the accused, and the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim must have left the victim with no other alternative but to commit suicide.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's alleged pressure or harassment of the deceased amounted to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and M. Mohan v. State of Tamilnadu, which held that mere allegations of harassment without any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's bail petition, holding that a prima facie case was not made out against her since the complaint did not indicate about abetment or instigation made by her.

ORDER

1. This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is filed seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A3 in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.281 of 2022 of Chintalapudi Police Station, Eluru, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that wife of the deceased lodged complaint alleging that her husband i.e. the deceased worked as Clerk for nine years in Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society (hereinafter referred to as 'Society'), Pothunuru and that presently he is working as Secretary. It is further alleged that since there is delay in collection of loans, his higher officers have been pressurizing her husband for collection of loans. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 07.07.2022, the deceased went to office and when her husband did not receive her call, she telephoned to his colleague, Vidya Sagar and that one Suresh lifted the phone and asked the complainant to come to government hospital, Chintalapudi. When the complainant reached there she found her husband dead. It is alleged that due to the pressure made by the accused, the deceased committed suicide. Basing on the said complaint, the present crime is registered, in which petitioner is shown as A3.

3. Heard Sri O. Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and she is implicated in the crime with mistaken impression. He submits that a perusal of the complaint does not indicate with regard to abetment or instigation made by the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner herein is Chief Executive Officer and the deceased is Secretary of the Society and any instructions regarding recovery of loans and issuance of fresh loans will be given by the President of the society to the Secretary, as such petitioner directing the deceased does not arise. He also submits that in fact in view of the agricultural season, farmers are pressuring for loans. He further submits that on the alleged date of incident, petitioner and other officials of the society were on assignment tour to represent training programme organized by the society and since nothing is attributed against the petitioner, with regard to abetment or instigation made by the petitioner, petitioner may be granted pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition on the ground that investigation is at nascent stage.

6. A perusal of the complaint indicates that deceased has been working as Secretary in Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society and that initially he worked as Clerk and subsequently posted as Secretary to the Society and for the last three years he has been working as Secretary. While disbursing loans or collecting loans the procedure contemplated under Co-operative Societies Act, will be followed by the concerned officer. Therefore, the averments of the complaint with regard to the pressure made by the petitioner who is CEO may not arise for the reason that in case of any defaults, the President and Secretary will follow the procedure contemplated under the Co-operative Societies Act.

7. In Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2021 SCC Online SC 873 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere allegation of harassment will not attract offence under Sections 306 of IPC unless such actions compelled the victim to commit suicide. The relevant portion is incorporated hereunder:

'23. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are alle

Click Here to Read the rest of this document