Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Smt. Sunita Bera Majhi – Appellant
Versus
Biplab Jana @ Rohit & Another – Respondent
C.R.R. 1548 of 2017 With IA No.: CRAN 1 of 2017 (Old No.: CRAN 3270 of 2017)
C.R.R. 4134 of 2015
Decided on : 02-07-2024
Quashing - Criminal Procedure - IPC Sections 306/34 - The court interpreted the provisions of IPC Sections 306 and 34, emphasizing the necessity of direct evidence of instigation for abetment of suicide, ultimately leading to the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash proceedings for abetment of suicide under IPC Sections 306/34, claiming false implication due to political rivalry, while the complainant alleged continuous harassment led to the victim's suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the victim's suicide, noting that allegations were vague and lacked corroboration, thus ruling that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.
Issues: Whether the petitioner abetted the victim's suicide through harassment, warranting the quashing of proceedings under IPC Sections 306/34.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere allegations of harassment without direct evidence of instigation do not suffice to establish abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306.
Result: The proceedings against the petitioner under IPC Sections 306/34 are quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1. The petitioner Biplab Jana @ Rohit has filed this instant revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being CRR 4134 of 2015 seeking quashing of the proceedings pertaining to Marishda Police Station Case No. 148 of 2015 dated 21.08.2015 registered for investigation for commission of offences punishable under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. At the same time, the de-facto complainant Sunita Bera Majhi has also filed another revisional application being CRR 1548 of 2017 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the impugned order No. 6 dated 06.02.2017 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Contai thereby dismissing a petition dated 09.02.2017 under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code for reinvestigation, in ST Case No. 02 (December) of 2016 – ST Case No. 194 (September) of 2016. Charge framed under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code being No. 1357 dated 25.04.2017 arising out of Marishda P.S. FIR No. 148 dated 21.08.2015 arising out of G.D. Entry No. 804 dated 21.08.2015 corresponding G.R. Case No. 1371/2015 (State Vs. Biplab Jana @ Rohit & Another) for commission of offence on 19.08.2015 punishable under Section 306/34 of the I.P.C.
3. Both the revisional applications have been taken up together for passing a common judgment as both the cases are arising out of Marishda P.S. FIR No. 148 dated 21.08.2015 and issues and parties are same.
4. It is the case of the petitioner/accused that the present case was initiated by one Smt. Sunita Bera (de-facto complainant) with the Marishda Police Station. The allegations brought by her to the effect that the mother of the deceased, namely, Sunita Bera Majhi due to an ongoing dispute with her husband, used to reside at her parental house along with her daughter, namely, Nilanjana Bera since deceased. The deceased was studying at 10th standard and used to attend tuitions at a coaching centre at Sherpur. She used to keep her cycle near the Gayagiri Station and travel accordingly. The petitioner herein runs a business of mobile recharge and fast food near the said station. The petitioner had been harassing the deceased for the last two months in different manner. Being aggrieved by such behaviour, the deceased used to come and convey the same to the de-facto complainant. Upon hearing such behaviour, the de-facto complainant along with some people went to the house of the petitioner and requested him and his parents to abstain from harassing the deceased. Petitioner continued to harass her continuously giving her missed calls on her mobile phone and also sent SMS. The other co-accused person, namely, Swapan Hota spread bad rumours about her in the locality. On 19.08.2015, the deceased went to attend her school and she was returning after conclusion of her classes, she was followed by the petitioner and the other co-accused person and they tried to outrage her modesty. The deceased managed to escape from the clutches of the miscreants and came back home. Then she narrated the entire incident to some people and subsequently she committed suicide by hanging herself.
5. Therefore, a case was registered against the accused persons including the present petitioner being Marishda Police Station Case No. 148 of 2015 dated 21.08.2015 for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Whereas the petitioner/accused contended the different story that the deceased used to reside at her maternal uncle and aunt where she was subjected to various mental torture. The deceased was not given proper food and clothing by her maternal uncle and aunt and same had never been protested by her mother/de-facto complainant. Furthermore, the deceased had a love affair with the petitioner herein, namely, Biblab Jana @ Rohit and when such love affair matter came to the knowledg
AI
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, there must be clear evidence of instigation, not just vague allegations of harassment.
In cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment without a positive act proximate to the ....
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.
The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the court should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences unless there is a miscarriage of justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide for the offence of abetment....
The court established that mere allegations of humiliation without concrete evidence do not suffice to constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC; instigation or intentional aid must....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the offence of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a clear mens rea and an active or direct act leading the deceased to c....
General, vague, omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes insufficient for conviction under Sections 498A, 306 IPC without specific particulars, roles, proximate instigation with mens rea compellin....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the lack of cogent and convincing evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
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
