Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 2058
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
K.K. Sonawane, J.
Sumanbai - Appellant
Versus
Pradnya - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2019
Decided On : 08-04-2019
R.B. Ade, Advocate, Satej S Jadav, Advocate, K.D. Munde, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mens rea and active participation for conviction under Section 306 of the IPC in cases of alleged abetment of suicide.
Headnote:
IPC - Abetment of Suicide - Section 306 - Summary: The court discussed the circumstances of the case and the legal provisions of Section 306 of the IPC, emphasizing the requirement of mens rea and active participation for conviction under this section. The court highlighted the need for clear instigation or intentional aid by the accused in the commission of suicide, and the importance of assessing the evidence in cases of alleged abetment of suicide. The court found that the allegations against the accused were general and vague, and there was insufficient evidence to establish the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a police constable, committed suicide due to alleged marital discord and mental stress. The appellant, the victim's mother, accused the respondent-wife of abetting the suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the charges of abetment of suicidal death beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the respondent-accused.
Issues: The pivotal issue was whether the appellant-accused is to be held guilty under Section 306 of IPC for the act of abetment of suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of mens rea and active participation for conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, and highlighted the need for clear instigation or intentional aid by the accused in the commission of suicide.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the findings expressed by the trial court for the acquittal of the respondent-wife were just, proper, and reasonable.
JUDGMENT
K.K. Sonawane, J. - The instant appeal calls in question the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent/accused in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nanded, dated 30-11-2017. The appellant being victim of the crime, as defined under Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.), preferred the present appeal by invoking remedy under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. for redressal of her grievances.
2. The factual matrix of the appeal culled out in brief is that the ill-feted deceased Amol Kamble was the son of first informantSmt. Sumanbai Kamble. He was recruited in the year 2007 as an Police Constable on compassionate basis. The marriage of deceased Amol was solemnized with accused-respondent No.1 - Pradnya, in the year 2002. She begotten one son and daughter during wedlock from husband Amol. It has been alleged that the character of respondentwife was suspicious and not good. She was not behaving properly with the husband. Therefore, the deceased Amol was always remained under mental stress. The respondent daughter-in-law Pradnya did not allow the mother-in-law - first informant to see her son Amol. The wife Pradnya always used to insult and humiliate the husband Amol. There were frequent quarrel in between the spouses. The husband Amol used to give understanding to the respondent-wife on the issue of her character. But, all his efforts did not evoke result. The deceased Amol remained under mental trauma. His physical health started deteriorating day-by-day. According to first informant, on 12-10-2013, when she was at Malakoli village, that time she received the phone call of son Amol. He was so much frustrated and weeping on the phone. He divulged that he had to attain duty at 11.00 a.m. But, the conduct and demeanour of his wife was not improvable and he could not disclose his family affairs to anybody else. Therefore, fed-up with daily harangue, he is intending to commit suicide. The first-informant mother gave understanding and attempted to pursuade the son - deceased Amol. But, thereafter, within a hour, she received the massage about commission of suicide by the son Amol at his residence. The first informant rushed to the Government Hospital and saw the dead body of her son Amol.
3. Meanwhile, one Bhushan Gaikwad, relative of deceased Amol, filed report to the Police about suicidal death of deceased Amol on 12-10-2013. Pursuant to report, Police registered AD No. 56 of 2013 under section 174 of the Cr.P.C., and swung into action. The police visited the spot of incident and drawn panchnama of scene of occurrence. Inquest panchnama was drawn in presence of panchas. The mortal remains of the deceased was referred to Government Hospital for autopsy to ascertain the cause of death. Pending inquiry, on 19-10-2013, first informant Sumanbai Kamble ventilated the grievance and blamed the daughter-in-law respondent No. 1-Pradnya for suicidal death of her son Amol.
4. Pursuant to FIR, Police of Nanded Police Station registered the Crime No. 335 of 2013 under Section 306 of the IPC and the set penal law in motion. Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case. Investigating Officer(IO) collected relevant documents of post mortem findings etc. and after completion of investigation IO preferred the charge-sheet against respondent-accused for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC before the learned Magistrate at Nanded. The offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, learned Magistrate, wisely, transmitted the entire proceeding to the Court of Sessions for trial of the accused within ambit of law. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against accused, but she pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. In order to bring home
