Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Tirthankar Ghosh, J.
Shyamal Das @ Sanu - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Another - Respondent
CRR No. 2840 of 2019
Decided On : 13-04-2022
Discharge Petition - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 306 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought discharge from the charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, arguing that the prosecution's evidence failed to connect him with the alleged offense. The court assessed the dying declaration, relationship between the petitioner and the deceased, and witness statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had prima facie made out a case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for framing of charges, and thus dismissed the revisional application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to connect the petitioner with the alleged offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of 'abetment' and 'instigation' as per the Indian Penal Code and emphasized that the assessment of materials at the stage of consideration of charge is different from the appreciation of evidence at the trial stage.
Final Decision: The revisional application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
JUDGMENT
Tirthankar Ghosh, J. - The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bongaon, North 24-Parganas wherein the Learned Trial Court was pleased to refuse the prayer for discharge advanced on behalf of the petitioner in connection with S.C. No. 241 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 1440 of 2018 arising out of Gaighata Police Station Case No. 514 of 2018 dated 06.06.2018.
Records of the revisional application reflect that the instant case was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by one Panchu Gopal Bairagi with the Officer-in-Charge, Gaighata Police Station on or about 06.06.2018, pursuant to which Gaighata Police Station Case No. 514 of 2018 was registered for investigation. On conclusion of investigation the Investigating authorities submitted charge-sheet under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. In course of proceedings documents under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were supplied to the accused/petitioner and the case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions and prior to consideration of charges a discharge petition was preferred and main crux of the application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (discharge petition) was that the documents relied upon by the prosecution, prima facie, fails to connect the present petitioner with the alleged offence and as such no charge can be framed under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned Trial Court on an appreciation of the materials elaborately dealt with the issues particularly in relation to the materials which surfaced in course of the investigation. The Learned Court assessed the dying declaration, the different materials appearing in the Case Diary relating to the relationship existing between the present petitioner and the deceased for a considerable period of time and more particularly the statement of the witnesses and the attending circumstances.
Mr. Kallol Mondal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner criticized the order passed by the learned Trial Court, refusing to discharge the petitioner. Learned advocate submits that the alleged dying declaration relating to the transcripts of the diary of the deceased and the contents of the same taken as a whole do not by any stretch of imagination make out an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code thereby asking the present petitioner to face the ordeal of trial. Learned advocate submits that the deceased could have been the best witness if she was alive regarding the circumstances prevailing and if the contents of the suicide note is taken in its entirety, she has held that 'no one is responsible'. Learned advocate relies upon the following decisions:
annakali Dutta & Ors. -Vs. - State, 1990 SCC OnLine Cal 80; Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar -Vs. - State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371; Subha Narayan -Vs. - State of West Bengal & anr., 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 53; Bishnu Chakraborty & anr. -Vs. - State of West Bengal, 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 549; Madan Mohan Singh -Vs. - State of Gujarat & anr., (2010) 8 SCC 628; Sri Swapan Roy & anr. -Vs. - State of West Bengal & anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 1790 and State of West Bengal -Vs. - Indrajit Kundu & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 188.
Learned advocate appearing for the State produces the Case Diary and draws the attention of this Court to the statement of the different witnesses more particularly the relations and invites the Court to read the suicide note along with statement of the witnesses. It is the stand of the State that the present petitioner is responsible for abetting the suicide and as such at this juncture when the stage is for consideration of charge there is no scope for interference.
The authorities relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner requires consideration in the background of the facts of the present case. In State of West Bengal
The assessment of materials at the stage of consideration of charge is different from the appreciation of evidence at the trial stage, and the court must form an opinion based on the available materi....
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.
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....
The judgment established that for conviction under Section 306 I.P.C, there must be a clear mens rea and active instigation or intentional aid by the accused in the commission of suicide.
At the stage of framing charges, even a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges, and the requirement of mens rea for abetment of suicide under IPC 306.
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.
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
