Prosecution must prove that the victim was subjected to dowry-related cruelty soon before her death to sustain charges under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC.

ORDER :

(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.)

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

“Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may pleased to quash the Charge Sheet filed in Crime No.315/2023, registered in Devarajeevanahalli Police Station, under 498A and 304B read with Section 3 4 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Now CC No.52303/2024) pending on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru, in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

3. Respondent No.2 having been served with the notice of the petition, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2-defacto complainant is the mother of one Kavitha, who is alleged to have committed suicide in the year 2023. Petitioners are the parents of Harish Chandra Prasad, who is said to be husband of the aforesaid deceased-Kavitha. On 20.11.2023, respondent No.2 filed the complaint interalia contending that the petitioners – accused Nos.2 and 3 as well as their son Harish Chandra Prasad are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 3 04B, 498A and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In pursuance of the same, charge sheet is filed, which is currently pending in C.C.No.52303/2024 before the Trial Court.

5. In the case of Satvir Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr – (2011) 8 SCC 633, the Apex Court has held as under:

7. At the outset, we may point out that on the aforesaid facts no offence linked with Section 306 IPC can be found against any of the appellants. The said section penalises abetment of suicide. It is worded thus:

“If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

It is a unique legal phenomenon in the Penal Code, 1860 that the only act, the attempt of which alone will become an offence. The person who attempts to commit suicide is guilty of the offence under Section 309 IPC whereas the person who committed suicide cannot be reached at all. Section 306 renders the person who abets the commission of suicide punishable for which the condition precedent is that suicide should necessarily have been committed. It is possible to abet the commission of suicide. But nobody would abet a mere attempt to commit suicide. It would be preposterous if law could afford to penalise an abetment to the offence of mere attempt to commit suicide.

8. Learned Sessions Judge went wrong in convicting the appellants under Section 116 linked with Section 306 IPC. The former is “abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment — if offence be not committed”. But the crux of the offence under Section 306 itself is abetment. In other words, if there is no abetment there is no question of the offence under Section 306 coming into play. It is inconceivable to have abetment of an abetment. Hence there cannot be an offence under Section 116 read with Section 306 IPC. Therefore, the High Court was correct in altering the conviction from the penalising provisions fastened with the appellants by the Sessions Court.

9. Now, we have to see whether the appellants can be convicted under Section 511 read with Section 304-B IPC. For that purpose it is necessary to extract Section 511 as under:

“511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.—Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code wi