IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Ms. Sushmita Lalchand Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 278 of 2024
Decided On : 26-11-2024
JUDGMENT :
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
1. Revision Applicant is challenging the order dated 24.04.2024 passed below Exhibit “12” in Session Case No. 88 of 2022 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Panvel-Raigad (for short “Trial Court”). Applicant is the accused. Trial Court has rejected the discharge Application of Applicant seeking discharge from the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). Hence, the present Criminal Revision Application (for short “CRA”) under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.PC”).
2. Before I advert to the submissions made by the learned Advocates, the following facts of the case are summarised for consideration:
2.2. Applicant and deceased met on social media (Instagram) sometime in June, 2018 and their friendship blossomed into an extra-marital affair. Due to the changed behaviour of deceased which his wife discovered sometime in August, 2018. She also informed the family members when she learnt about the same.
2.3. In February 2019, his wife alongwith her father-in-law, mother-in-law, and one of his friends visited the house of Applicant and informed her and her family about their marriage and child. As per prosecution case, from February 2019 to December 2020, Applicant did not keep any contact with deceased.
2.4. In December, 2020 deceased contacted Applicant by meeting her below her office and attempted to reconcile with her which was once again discovered by his wife.
2.5. According to the first-informant, on 26.01.2021, deceased returned back from Goa trip and informed her that Applicant was insisting on marriage and asked him to leave his wife and daughter and threatened to publicly share their private photographs and videos if he failed to do so. On 21.02.2021, informant-wife left for Jodhpur to attend a family function.
2.6. On 27.02.2021, deceased committed suicide at 01:30 p.m. by hanging to the ceiling fan in his bedroom in his house at Panvel. His cook discovered deceased hanging from the ceiling fan and with the help of his mother and manager took him to Gune Hospital, Panvel, where he was declared brought dead. No suicide note is found. Post mortem report record no signs of injuries on the body of deceased. Cause of death is noted to be ‘due to hanging’.
2.7. On the same day at around 03:00 p.m. his wife was informed about deceased’s suicide by her sister-in-law. On 28.02.2021, she returned back from Jodhpur to perform the last rites of deceased.
2.8. On 22.03.2021, 23 days later, FIR No. 62 of 2021 was lodged by wife of deceased against Applicant for the offence under Section 306 IPC, alleging that her deceased-husband committed suicide due to harassment and mental torture by Applicant’s constant pressure to marry her and provide money to her.
2.9. It is alleged in the FIR that the deceased took 15 tola gold ornaments from the first informant which he pledged with Federal Bank against which he received a gold loan of Rs.3,75,000/- which was paid to Applicant. It is further alleged that deceased took multiple loans on his credit cards and paid the said money to Applicant due to Applicant’s threat to publicly share their private photographs and videos, if he failed to marry her. It is alleged that on the date of incident Applicant made multiple phone calls to deceased after the suicide and
Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander
Amlendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal
Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra
Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2021) 13 SCC 806
Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat
Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab
Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh
For a charge under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or encouragement to commit suicide is required, which was absent in this case.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aid by the accused; mere emotional distress or broken relationships do not suffice.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or a direct act by the accused leading to the victim's suicide; mere relationship discord is insuff....
To establish abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or actions compelling the victim to take their life, not merely trivial domestic disputes.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or intent to drive the deceased to suicide; mere harassment is insufficient.
Abetment of suicide – Positive act of instigation is a crucial element of abetment – Element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible –....
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be direct incitement or actions compelling the victim to commit suicide; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.