IMPORTANT POINT
The opposition to a relationship, without further evidence, may not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5A) of the Atrocities Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The challenge in this revision application is to an order dated 2/2/2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, below Exhibit 18 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present applicants (original accused nos.2 and 3) for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The facts in a nutshell are that the accused no.1 Amol Dabhade was in a love relationship with the deceased for 7 to 8 years. The present applicant no.1 is the original accused no.2. She is Amol’s mother. The applicant no.2 herein is the original accused no.3. She is Amol’s sister. The victim committed suicide on 8/2/2018. The victim’s mother lodged First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 170/2018 on 20/2/2018 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter ‘IPC’ for short) read with Sections 3(2)(5A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter ‘the Atrocities Act’ for short).

3. In the FIR dated 20/2/2018 there is no allegation against the present applicants. The allegations are against the accused no.1-Amol. It is alleged that Amol was in a love relationship with the deceased for 7 to 8 years. Instead of solemnizing marriage with the deceased, Amol was engaged to another girl which upset the deceased no ends. It is due to the conduct of the accused no.1 Amol, the victim was left with no alternative but to commit suicide.

4. The role of the present applicants figures in the supplementary statement of the first informant recorded on 3/3/2018. It is alleged that 2-3 months prior to the victim’s demise, she had informed the first informant that on one occasion the present applicants told her that they refuse to accept her relationship with Amol as she belongs to a particular community which is not liked by them and therefore, the applicants expressed their disinclination to accept the victim as their daughter-in-law. It is alleged that the applicants insulted the victim and abused the victim in the name of her caste. This is the only material in the charge-sheet against the present applicants.

5. My attention is invited to the statement of one witness who is the friend of the deceased who says that the victim told her that the family members of Amol are opposed to Amol marrying her.

6. Learned APP and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 further submitted that the conduct of the applicants is sufficient instigation to make out an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the opposition of the applicants to the marriage only because the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste is an offence within the meaning of the Atrocities Act.

7. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned APP for the State and learned counsel Ms. Pranali Kakade appointed by this Court to represent the respondent no.2.

8. The question is whether the materials on record are sufficient to constitute the ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 306 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5A) of the Atrocities Act against the applicants. As indicated earlier there is only one instance pointed out by the first informant in her supplementary statement as told to her by the victim 2 to 3 months prior to the incident about the applicants opposition to the relationship and marriage on account of the caste to which the victim belonged. This according to the prosecution is the material against these applicants along with one statement of the victim’s friend who says that the victim had told her that the family members of Amol are opposed to the relationship.

9. In the context of considering an application for discharge in respect of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, it would be profitable to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Prabhu vs. The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police & Anr. in SLP (Crl. Diary No.39981/2022). The Supreme Court dealt with Section 306 of the IPC and ‘abetment’ as defined in Section 107 of the IPC. The relevant observation