Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Anuja Prabhu Dessai, R.M. Joshi, JJ.
Ajinath Devrao - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Application No. 1840 of 2021
Decided On : 31-01-2023
ABETMENT - SUICIDE - Sections 306, 107 of IPC - The court discussed the essential ingredients of abetment to suicide as defined under Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC, emphasizing the necessity of a direct link between the accused's actions and the victim's suicide. The court highlighted that mere allegations of harassment without proximate actions leading to the suicide do not suffice for abetment. The interpretations of these sections were pivotal in determining that the applicants did not meet the criteria for abetment, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought to quash an FIR for abetting the suicide of Anil Jagtap, who had committed suicide in May 2021. The complainant alleged that the applicants, particularly the wife of the deceased, had harassed him since their marriage in 2014, leading to his suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR and charge-sheet did not disclose the essential ingredients of abetment as required under Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC. There was no evidence of continuous harassment or actions close to the time of the suicide that could be construed as instigation.
Issues: Whether the actions of the applicants constituted abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding the act of suicide, with a direct link between the accused's actions and the victim's decision to commit suicide. The absence of such evidence led to the conclusion that the FIR was baseless.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, and the FIR registered against the applicants was quashed.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. At the outset learned counsel for the applicants seeks leave to amend the prayer clause 'C' to incorporate the Sessions Case No. 95 of 2022. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
2. With consent, heard finally at the stage of admission.
3. This is an application under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the first information report No. 187/2021 registered with Ashti Police Station, Dist. Beed and Sessions Case No. 95/2022 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Beed for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The crime against the applicants for offence under Sec. 306 IPC came to be registered on the basis of the first information report lodged by the respondent No.2. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the marriage of Anil Aabasaheb Jagtap, son of the complainant and the applicant No. 3 Ashwini Anil Jagtap was solemnized on 1/12/2014. They have two children from the said wedlock. Said Anil committed suicide on 28/5/2021. The respondent No.2 has alleged that since the year 2014 the applicant No.3 used to constantly fight with Anil. He has alleged that in year 2015 the applicant No.3 had assaulted the deceased Anil by a blunt object and her parents and the applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 herein. It is further stated that there used to be constant fights between the applicant No.3 and her husband Anil and that she left the matrimonial home in the month of May, 2021. She refused to return to the matrimonial home till the property was transferred in her name. The respondent No.2 claims that his son Anil committed suicide due to the harassment meted out to him by the applicants. He, therefore, lodged the FIR against the applicants for abetting suicide.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the FIR as well as the other material which forms part of the charge-sheet does not disclose essential ingredients of abetment. There was no positive action in close proximity to the time of suicide. The mere fact that the applicant No. 3 left the matrimonial home or demanded transfer of the property in her name would not constitute abetment.
6. Per contra, learned APP and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations of harassment, which compelled the deceased Anil to take an extreme step of suicide. They submitted that the allegation in the FIR constitute abetment within the meaning of Sec. 107 IPC.
7. We have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties.
8. Before adverting to the factual aspect, it would be apt to consider the relevant provisions of law and legal position with regard to offence of abetment to suicide. Ss. 306 and 107 of IPC read thus;
107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, whoFirst - 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 of that thing.
Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
9. In Gurcharan Singh Versus State of Punjab reported in (2017) 1 SCC 433, the H
In abetment of suicide cases, clear evidence of mens rea and active involvement is required; mere allegations without proof of cruelty are insufficient for conviction.
For abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, clear and proximate evidence of instigation or aid from the accused is essential; mere allegations in a civil dispute are insufficient.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or intent; mere allegations linked to civil disputes do not meet this threshold.
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, clear mens rea and direct acts of instigation or aid are required, and mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish abetment.
Denial of marriage does not constitute abetment of suicide under IPC without clear evidence of instigation or aiding the act.
(1) Inherent Jurisdiction – Power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is restrictive in nature – It cannot act as a Trial Court and has to be cautious in granting relief sought for in terms of....
Clear evidence of instigation or incitement is essential to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC; mere allegations are insufficient.
Abetment of suicide – In order to convict a person for offences under Section 306 IPC, basic and essential ingredients of offence, whether death was suicidal and whether there was abetment and instig....
Abetment of suicide requires clear connection between accused's actions and the suicide, with established mens rea of instigation or provocation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
