Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 1929
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sunil B.Shukre, M.W.Chandwani, JJ.
Yogesh Rupchandji Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Application (APL) No. 856 of 2021
Decided On : 22-12-2022
H.M.Mohta, Advocate, J.B.Gandhi, Advocate, S.S.Doifode, Advocate
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, there must be a clear mens rea and a direct connection between the accused's actions and the deceased's decision to commit suicide.
Headnote:
[ABETMENT] - [SUICIDE] - [IPC SECTIONS 306, 107] - [The court analyzed Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC, which define abetment of suicide and the necessary mens rea required for such a charge. The court emphasized that mere financial disputes or harassment without a direct and proximate link to the act of suicide do not constitute abetment. The interpretation of these sections, supported by precedents, led to the conclusion that the applicants did not instigate the deceased to commit suicide, thus influencing the decision to quash the proceedings against them.]
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought to quash criminal proceedings against them for abetment of suicide following the death of Alpesh Arvind Upadhyay, who left a suicide note citing mental harassment and the impact of the Corona pandemic as reasons for his actions. The applicants contended that they were not responsible for the deceased's suicide, attributing it instead to financial pressures due to the pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no proximate link between the alleged harassment by the applicants and the deceased's suicide. The suicide note indicated that the deceased was affected by the pandemic, and the court concluded that the demands made by the applicants were not unreasonable or intended to drive the deceased to suicide.
Issues: Whether the actions of the applicants constituted abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC, and whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that for a charge of abetment of suicide to stand, there must be clear evidence of instigation or a direct act leading to the suicide. The absence of a proximate link between the applicants' actions and the deceased's decision to commit suicide, along with the influence of external factors like the pandemic, led to the conclusion that the applicants could not be held liable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applications and quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicants, ruling that the allegations did not prima facie constitute an offence under the IPC.
JUDGMENT
M.W.CHANDWANI,J. - Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
3. This common judgment will dispose of two Criminal Applications. The applicant in each of the Criminal Application, seeks to quash the criminal proceedings pending against them arising out of First Information Report (FIR) No. 803/2021 registered by Old City Police Station, Akola for the offences punishable under Ss. 306 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
4. The facts, which give rise to the present Criminal Applications can be stated as under:- One Harshal Omprakash Sharma lodged a complaint with Police Station Old City, Akola that his nephew Alpesh Arvind Upadhyay committed suicide by hanging from ceiling fan in his house. The suicide-note was found near his bed, wherein the deceased has mentioned the reason for taking extreme step as Corona pandemic as well as mental harassment given by the applicants and one Vishal Purohit. On the said complaint, the FIR for the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the present applicants and one Vishal Purohit. During the course of the investigation, the Police recorded the statement of witnesses and also seized the suicide-note. During the pendency of the present applications, charge-sheet came to be filed.
5. The notices were issued to the non-applicants. Learned APP appears for non-applicant no. 1/State and file its reply opposing the application. Non-applicant no. 2, though was served with notice, but chose not to appear in the matter.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant- Sushil Dandale vehemently submitted that in noway the applicant is concerned with suicide committed by the deceased. According to him, due to Corona pandemic situation, the financial condition of the deceased was not good and under the pressure of loss in business, he has taken drastic step of committing suicide. There is no abetment on the part of applicant- Sushil Dandale and the applicant cannot be made responsible for the same. Learned counsel appearing for Yogesh Agrawal vehemently submitted that since the deceased was looking for business partner, the deceased offered him to join as a business partner and accordingly, they started business of catering service by name "Shagun Catering". The joint venture and undertaken various catering projects and thereafter, the account was also reconciled between the deceased and the applicant on 9/7/2021. According to him, the alleged dispute between the applicant and the deceased were one month prior to the alleged incident and that there is no proximate link between the dispute and death of the deceased and therefore, the applicant cannot be connected with suicide of the deceased. It is vehemently submitted that there is no abetment on the part of the applicants to the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, it is submitted that the criminal proceedings against the applicants be quashed.
7. Shri Doifode, learned APP appearing on behalf of State submitted that both the applicants were demanding the amount from the deceased ever now and then. The applicants harassed the deceased continuously thereby abeted the deceased to commit suicide. According to him, there is sufficient material in the form of suicidenote against the applicant. He sought rejection of the applications.
8. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respective applicants, as well as learned APP for nonapplicant no. 1/State, it would be necessary to refer to Ss. 107 and 306 of the IPC, which read as under:-
107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First.-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing
