Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
Vaddi Vijaya Kumari – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6784 of 2019
Decided on : 08-12-2023
Abetment - Suicide - IPC 306, 307 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court considered the provisions of IPC sections 306 and 307, and the definition of abetment under section 107. It highlighted the key legal principles from case laws such as Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, and S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan to interpret the concept of abetment. The court emphasized that for abetment, there must be instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, and the accused must have a clear mens rea to commit the offense. The court also relied on the dying declaration of the deceased to determine the absence of instigation or abetment by the accused. Based on these considerations, the court allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the proceedings in Sessions Case No.220 of 2019.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, who was accused of sexually harassing the first petitioner, committed suicide by setting himself ablaze. The police altered the section from 309 to 306 IPC after recording the deceased's statement. The deceased's family filed a protest petition, leading to the accused being committed to the Sessions Court. The accused filed a Criminal Petition to dismiss the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no specific allegation of abetment of suicide against the accused. The dying declaration of the deceased did not indicate instigation or abetment by the accused. The court also held that the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application for discharge, making the order of dismissal of the discharge petition nonest in the eye of the law. Therefore, the court allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the proceedings in Sessions Case No.220 of 2019.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged abetment of suicide by the accused and the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain the application for discharge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of specific allegations of abetment of suicide against the accused, the dying declaration of the deceased, and the lack of jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain the application for discharge.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the proceedings in Sessions Case No.220 of 2019.
ORDER :
First Petitioner is working as Teacher in Mandal Praja Parishad Primary School. The deceased, Padala Rathan Bharat, who is elected as Chairperson/ President of Parent-Teacher Association Standing Committee of the said School. 1st Petitioner’s husband is chronic patient, taking advantage of the situation, the deceased developed intimacy with the first petitioner/accused and thereafter he tried to molest her. Due to the unbearable harassment of the deceased, First Petitioner/Accused lodged a report against the deceased to the Gollaprolu Police Station on 10.11.2016, police registered a crime vide F.I.R. No.165 of 2016 under Section 354, 354 A, 354 D and 506 IPC, police arrested the deceased/accused and later he released on bail.
2. Be that as it may, the deceased by name Padala Ratan Bharat has committed suicide on 30.11.2016. The deceased who is accused in Crime No.165 of 2016, for the offence under Sections 354, 354A 354D and 506 IPC, who disgusted and set ablaze himself in the Mandal Praja Parishad Upper Primary English Medium School premises by pouring petrol, there by the school staff and neighbours has extinguished/ doused the fire and the deceased/ accused was shifted to Hospital, later to a Government General Hospital at Guntur. The police registered the crime as FIR No.172/2016 under Section 309 IPC and recorded the statement of the deceased/accused which reads thus:
On 10.11.2016, Vaddi Vijaya Kumari who was working as a Teacher in MPP School lodged a complaint against me on the charge of harassing her sexually and a criminal case was registered and I was sent to judicial custody and I enlarged on bail on 17.11.2016. I being felt sad of the incident and with a view to commit suicide purchased 2 ltrs of petrol at 2.30 pm., and set myself ablazed in front of all at MPP School (Girls). On noticing this, the staff doused the flames by pouring water. My fully burnt skin peeled out and I was admitted to GGH.
3. It appears that after recording the statements of deceased family, the police altered the Section from 309 to 306 IPC.
4. After investigation, the police have laid the charge sheet/final report before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gollaprolu.
5. The deceased wife and his father filed a protest petition before JMFC, Pithapuram in crime No.172 of 2016 stating that the police have not investigated the case properly and the investigation is a table investigation and prayed to take the cognizance of the complaint and to punish the petitioners/accused herein.
6. After recording the sworn statement, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance against petitioners/accused A1 to A6 for the offence under Section 306 IPC and allotted PRC No.18/2018 and committed the accused to Sessions Court as the offence is triable by Sessions Court.
7. On committal to the Sessions Court the PRC was registered as Sessions case and made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Pithapuram. Now the SC No.220 of 2019 was assailed in the present Criminal Petition on the following grounds (1) On entire reading of complaint, there are no ingredients of Section 107.
8. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents/ complainant would submit that ingredients are applicable and contends that petitioners herein filed discharge petition under Section 245 (2) Crl.P.C. and the same was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram by an order dated 13.05.2019. Now, the petitioner is precluded from filing the petition under Section 482 Crl.P.C., hence prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
9. In the above said context, the Sections that are germane for consideration is 306 and 307 IPC, which reads thus:
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for abetment of suicide, there must be a clear mens rea to commit the offense, and the accused must have instigated, conspired, or intentional....
The court established that mere allegations of humiliation without concrete evidence do not suffice to constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC; instigation or intentional aid must....
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 ....
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or incitement by the accused, which was not present in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish a clear mens rea and active act to push the deceased into a position to commit suicide in cases of....
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 court held that mere allegations of harassment do not establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC without direct evidence of instigation or encouragement.
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
