Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
M. Lakshmi Kiran & 2 Others – Appellant
Versus
Sate of A. P. & Another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2410 of 2016
Decided On : 14-06-2022
CRIMINAL PETITION - SECTION 482 CRPC - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 306 READ WITH 34 IPC AND 4 (V) AND (VI) OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION OF RAGGING ACT, 1997 - SUICIDE - ABETMENT - INGREDIENTS - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS - INTENTION AND INVOLVEMENT OF ACCUSED - CONTIGUITY, CONTINUITY, CULPABILITY AND COMPLICITY OF ACTS OR OMISSIONS - REMOTE ACTS OR OMISSIONS - NO NEXUS BETWEEN ACCUSED AND SUICIDE - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Deceased, a medical student, committed suicide due to alleged harassment by her mother (1st petitioner), her mother's paramour (a.2), and others. Petitioners 2 and 3, mother and maternal aunt of 1st petitioner, were also accused of harassing the deceased. The deceased left a suicide note accusing her mother and a.2 of causing her mental depression and leading her to suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no direct involvement of petitioners 2 and 3 in the commission of suicide and that the accusations against them were vague and bald. The court held that the acts alleged against petitioners 2 and 3 were not indictable acts and that the proceedings against them were an abuse of process of court.
Issues: Whether the accusations against petitioners 2 and 3 were sufficient to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be a direct involvement of the accused in the commission of suicide and that the acts or omissions of the accused must be proximate, continuous, culpable, and complicit. The court found that the accusations against petitioners 2 and 3 were remote and did not establish a nexus between them and the suicide.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition in part and quashed the proceedings against petitioners 2 and 3, while dismissing the petition against the 1st petitioner.
JUDGMENT
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. - This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC'), is filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No.2 of 2016 on the file of the additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and 4 (v) and (vi) of the andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Ragging act, 1997. Petitioners herein are a.1, a.4 and a.6 in the said case.
2. On the strength of a report lodged by 2nd respondent herein, police registered a case in crime No.37 of 2014 of Tadepalli police station and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet, which was registered as P.R.C. No.2 of 2016 before the learned Magistrate.
3. The brief facts of the case are that 1st petitioner/ a.1 is mother of deceased G.Krishna Priya; a.2 is paramour of a.1; a.3 is cousin of a.2; 2nd petitioner/a.4 is mother, a.5 is father, 3rd petitioner/a.6 is younger maternal aunt, and a.7 is brother, of a.1. a.8 is classmate of the deceased.
Persons shown at sl.Nos.9 to 11 of the charge sheet are classmates of the deceased and a.8, and as no case is made out against them, police deleted their names from the case.
2nd respondent/informant is father of the deceased. In the year 1983, he married L.W.5-Dr.T.Padmaja Rani and they were blessed with one son. In the year 1990, he again married 1st petitioner/a.1 as second wife and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter (who is deceased) and she was studying 3rd year MBBS course in Katuri Medical College, Chinakondrupadu village, Prathipadu mandal at the time of occurrence of the incident. For some time, 2nd respondent/informant and 1st petitioner/a.1 resided in rented house of a.3 at Kakumanuvarithota, Guntur. a.2 used to visit house of a.3 frequently and developed friendship with 2nd respondent/informant and 1st petitioner/a.1 and became a family friend. Later, 2nd respondent/informant purchased another house for 1st petitioner/a.1 and the deceased at Butchaiah Thota, Guntur and shifted them to that house. a.2 continued to visit house of 1st petitioner/a.1 and maintained rapport with her. about 3 years prior to the date of incident, misunderstandings arose between 2nd respondent/informant and 1st petitioner/a.1, and they started living separately on their own accord.
a.2 developed illegal intimacy with 1st petitioner/a.1 and used to visit house of a.1 often, for which the deceased expressed her unwillingness. But, 1st petitioner/a.1 quarreled with the deceased and sent her out from the house. On that, the deceased started living with 2nd respondent/informant, who used to drop her near old bus stand for college bus to go to medical college and bring back by 5.00 PM.
a.8 is classmate and close friend of the deceased. The deceased shared her entire feelings with a.8. a.8 joined with a.1 to a.7 and started insulting the deceased at the college before other students, pointing out her family and personal issues, as the deceased is daughter of 2nd wife, and humiliated her and also insisted the deceased to live with 1st petitioner/a.1.
On 11.2.2014, at about 6.30 PM, at the request of the deceased, 2nd respondent/informant dropped her at the house of L.W.6-B.anisha Priya. at about 7.43 PM, the deceased sent 3 messages to 2nd respondent/informant intimating that she was going to commit suicide and she left suicide note in 'SPM note book', and she left house of L.W.6-B.anisha Priya without intimation, and committed suicide by jumping into Krishna River.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned assistant Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent-State and Sri T.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for 2nd respondent/informant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, it is essential that all the ingredients of the offence under Section 107 IPC have to be made out; that th
The offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC requires a direct involvement of the accused in the commission of suicide and that the acts or omissions of the accused must be proximate, con....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the offence of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a clear mens rea and an active or direct act leading the deceased to c....
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 ....
In matrimonial disputes, vague allegations against relatives cannot sustain charges under IPC; specific evidence of instigation or aid is required for abetment of suicide.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mens rea and direct or active instigation for the offence of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC. The judgment also emphasizes....
Abetment under S.306 IPC requires explicit acts of instigation or support; mere humiliation is insufficient.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
