2019 Supreme(Cal) 357
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.
Abir Saha & Others - Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Another - Petitioners
CRR. No. 2805 of 2018
Decided On : 23-07-2019
Navanil De, Pawan Gupta, Ayantika Roy, Rana Mukherjee, Debjani Sahu, Mayukh Mukherjee, Kaustav Lal Mukherjee, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide, and the court has the authority to quash a prosecution if the uncontroverted allegations do not prima facie establish the offence.
Headnote:
Abetment - Suicide - Indian Penal Code - Section 306/34
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition to quash the proceedings in connection with a case arising from the suicide of a girl due to alleged refusal of marriage and subsequent harassment by the petitioners. The petitioners argued that there was no material to infer abetment on their part, and the proceedings were malicious and filed with oblique motives.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet did not make out any offence against the petitioners. It concluded that the continuation of the proceeding would amount to an abuse of the court and not be in the interest of justice. Therefore, the court quashed the proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the evidence collected during the investigation would amount to mental cruelty compelling the victim to commit suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that for an offence of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. It also considered the test for quashing a prosecution at the initial stage, which requires uncontroverted allegations to prima facie establish the offence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application and quashed the proceedings in connection with the case.
JUDGMENT :
1. In this revisional application the petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings in connection with Sessions Case No. 35 of 2018 arising out of Bongaon P.S. Case No. 1201 dated November 05, 2015 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Bongaon at North 24-Parganas.
2. An FIR was lodged by the complainant that his daughter namely, Moumita Nath, a student of Class-X had an affair with the petitioner No. 1. On November 04, 2015 the petitioner No. 1 refused to marry the victim and it was further alleged that the parents of the petitioner No.1 refused to accept the victim as their daughter in law and passed some comments which lead her to commit suicide by hanging.
3. On completion of investigation, the investigating agency submitted charge-sheet against three accused persons including the present petitioners vide Charge-sheet No. 748 of 2016 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on February 19, 2018 and transferred the case to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Bongaon, North 24- Parganas for trial and disposal.
4. In this revisional application challenge, inter alia, is on the grounds that the petitioner no. 1 refused to marry a girl of sixteen years and as the parents of the petitioner refused to give in marriage of the victim with the petitioner no. 1, the victim committed suicide by hanging. From the four corner of the FIR there is no material to infer that there was any abetment on the part of the petitioners which compelled the victim girl to commit suicide. The impugned proceeding is malicious and has been filed to wreck vengeance on the societal status of the petitioners.
5. It is submitted that the neighbours' statements were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reflect that the victim committed suicide as she was rebuked by her parents, hence, no case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out from the side of the prosecution against the petitioners.
6As many as five independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. None of the witnesses have made any aspersions against the petitioners to reveal abetment meted out to the victim to commit suicide. It is submitted that every ill-treatment including humiliation etc. would not fall with the purview of illegal omission because every omission is not illegal. Some active steps have to be taken by words or action with intent to instigate inasmuch as encouragement, of necessity, does not amount to aiding or abetting. Abetment implies an intentional abetment. There can be no abetment if the mens rea is missing.
6. Question raised in this revision is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected during the investigation, would amount to mental cruelty compelling the victim to commit suicide?
7. It is submitted that there can be no abetment in the given case. My attention is invited to the provision of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which defines abetment of thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as offence. A person abets the doing of a thing, who (i) instigates any person to do that thing; (ii) engages with one or more other 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 (iii) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as crime. The word 'instigate' literally means to provoke, incite or urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of ab