SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Bom) 1234

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
Asid Amir Jahagirdar and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2016
Decided On : 24-11-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Joydeep Chatterji.
For the Respondent: A.M. Phule.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an active role in instigating or aiding in the commission of suicide to establish the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Sections 143, 147, 306, 452, 294, 323, 504, 506 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the legal provisions of Sections 143, 147, 306, 452, 294, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and their interpretations, highlighting the requirements for proving abetment and instigation under Section 306 of IPC. The court emphasized the need for active instigation or aiding in committing suicide to establish the offence under Section 306 IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the appeal of accused persons convicted for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, based on an incident where the deceased committed suicide following a series of alleged assaults and threats by the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution's evidence was doubtful and untrustworthy, and the conviction of the accused persons was erroneous and illegal. The court emphasized the lack of active role played by the accused in instigating the suicide, as required under Section 306 of IPC.

Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, the alleged instigation and abetment of suicide, and the application of various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of active role played by the accused in instigating the suicide, as required under Section 306 of IPC, and the doubtful nature of the prosecution's evidence.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants-accused were set aside, and they were acquitted of all the offences.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed by original accused persons, challenging their conviction in Sessions Case No. 190/2011 by learned Assistant Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad dated 25.1.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 306, 452, 294, 323, 504, 506, read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. All the appellants are referred to by their nomenclature before trial Court for the sake of convenience.

2. A brief conspectus of the facts relevant to unfold the controversy is as under:

    (a) First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged by one Munifa Shaikh on 18.1.2011 with Paithan MIDC Police Station, wherein she contended that she resides with her husband and children at Balanagar, Tq. Paithan. Original Accused No. 1 resides in the same vicinity and is distantly related to her. She contended that when she had gone to the forest area to pick up fire-wood around 2.00 p.m. on 13.1.2011 and returned at about 4.00 pm, she found original accused No. 3 assaulting nephew of the informant, who is aged 13-14 years, by stick. Said nephew’s parents had gone for work and therefore, the informant asked accused No. 3 as to what has happened. At that time, she told that nephew of the informant has committed rape on daughter of accused No. 3, who is aged two and half to three years. Accused No. 3 started picking up quarrel with the informant. According to the informant, some other ladies were also present. In the evening, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the informant, i.e. parents of said nephew came. Accused No. 3 had picked up quarrel with them also. Accused No. 4 was present along with accused No. 3 and she had also abused. Thereafter, there was no quarrel on 14.1.2011. However, at about 9.00 a.m. on 15.1.2011, when husband of the informant went for work, so also her brother-in-law and sister-in-law went outside, the informant was at home; all the accused went inside the house of the informant and started assaulting her with fists and kick blows. They were asking her as to why she has intervened in the assault given by accused No. 3 to her nephew. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were standing outside the house and they were instigating the ladies that they should drag the informant out of the house. Accused Nos. 6 and 9 were in the first room of the informant's house and were instigating the lady members to assault the informant. Accused No. 9, who is serving in police department, was uttering that he would rape the informant. The ornaments on person of the informant as well as from person of her daughter as well as cash amount was thrown. Accused Nos. 6 and 9 were also saying that kerosene should be brought and her house should be put to fire. Accused No. 1 gave a phone call to mobile of informant’s brother-in-law, viz. Tayyab and he was calling him to return back to home. He was abusing. House of brother-in-law of the informant was closed and latched by the accused persons. When people started gathering, accused persons went home. The informant further states that at about 5.00 p.m. one Akil Ahmed from her village, went to house of the informant and informed that Tayyab had consumed poison and was lying on the ground. The informant went there and thereafter arrangements were made to shift Tayyab to Ghati hospital, Aurangabad and on the basis of the said report, thereafter, offence under Sections 452, 147, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC came to be registered. Thereafter, Shaikh Tayyab expired on 14.2.2011 at about 6.30 a.m. and, therefore, offence under Section 306 of IPC came to be added.

(b) After the FIR was lodged, panchanama of the spot was carried out and statements of witnesses were recorded. It appears that prior to the death of Shaikh Tayyab, all the accused persons came to be arrested in between 19.1.2011 to 21.1.2011. After demise of Shaikh Tayyab, inquest panchanama was drawn and dead body was sent for post

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top