Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
Dukhuram Sahu S/o Shri Udey Singh - Appellant
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Devri, District Balod Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh - Respondent
CRR No. 77 of 2018
Decided On : 24-04-2024
Abetment - Suicide - Section 306 of IPC - 107, 107A, 107B - The court discussed the essentials for attracting the charge of abetment to suicide and the settled legal position. It highlighted key legal provisions such as Section 107 of IPC and various interpretations from case laws. The court emphasized the need for proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide and the requirement of specific intent on the part of the accused to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The judgment also emphasized the importance of scrupulously examining the facts and circumstances of each case and assessing the evidence to determine whether the cruelty and harassment induced the victim to end their life by committing suicide.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the alleged suicide of a farmer following a village meeting where he was accused of theft and threatened with jail time. The court analyzed the circumstances leading to the suicide and the allegations of abetment under Section 306 of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to establish that the accused had instigated or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. It emphasized the lack of proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement and the absence of specific intent on the part of the accused to push the deceased into a situation leading to suicide.
Issues: The key issue was whether the charge of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of IPC could be framed against the accused based on the allegations and evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of key legal provisions, including Section 107 of IPC, and the application of principles established in various case laws. It emphasized the need for specific intent and the absence of evidence of instigation or intentional aid in the commission of suicide.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was allowed, and the accused were discharged from the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
ORDER :
1. This revision is filed against the order dated 11.12.2017 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod, C.G. in Sessions Trial No. 85/2017, whereby learned Sessions Court dismissed the application filed under Section 227 of CrPC. During pendency of this revision, by way of amendment further relief was sought for setting aside the charges framed against the applicant for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that son of late Om Prakash Sahu gave intimation to the concerned police station that his father committed suicide on 12.03.2017, based upon which morgue was enquired and thereafter F.I.R. was registered on 03.07.2017 against applicants for commission of aforementioned crime.
3. Learned counsel for applicants submit that learned court below erred in considering that even if entire allegation as available in the charge-sheet is taken on its face value, no offence as alleged against applicant for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC would be made out. He contended that from the allegation it is appearing that in the village meeting held on 11.03.2017 applicants have made allegation against deceased Om Prakash that he committed theft of Urea from the agricultural field, threatened for lodging report against him and sending him to jail. On very next day on 12.03.2017 Late Om Prakash committed suicide. He contended that there is no allegation of continuous harassment, ill-treatment or threatening to deceased to attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC. There is no material to suggest that applicant instigated and abetted for doing the particular thing. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision in the matter of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 2010 SC 327.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicants and would submit that Late Om Prakash committed suicide because he was earlier pressurized for compensating the loss suffered by Narayan on account of coming into contact of the standing crops with the fire out of crop stubble burning from the agricultural field of late Om Prakash and thereafter he was further threatened of sending him to jail making false allegation that he has committed theft of Urea from the agricultural field of Jeevan Lal. However, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for applicants that the allegation of threatening in the village meeting on 11.03.2017, was on the ground of commission of theft.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
6. It is not in dispute that deceased committed suicide by hanging himself on 12.03.2017. In the village meeting on 11.03.2017, it was alleged that Narayan suffered loss on account of coming into contact of the standing crops with the fire out of crop stubble burning from the agricultural field of late Om Prakash, however, there was settlement for compensating the loss to Narayan. Thereafter, he was further threatened of sending him to jail alleging that he has committed theft of Urea from the agricultural field of Jeevan Lal.
7. From the statement of Peman Sahu, son of deceased Om Prakash Sahu, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it is appearing that deceased was a farmer was doing agricultural activities. While burning stubble of the crops by him, in his agricultural field, due to sparks some parts of crops of Narayan destroyed due to burning. In the meeting of village panchayat on 11.03.2017, this matter was settled down on deceased’s paying compensation to Narayan for his loss. However, there was further allegation of theft of Urea kept in the field of Jeevan Lal and threatened the deceased to send him to jail. Feeling mentally and physically disturbed, deceased committed suicide by hanging. Similar statement is also made by Sarpanch of the village panchayat in his statement.
8. Section 306 of IPC provides punishment for a ‘abetment of suicide’. ‘Abetment’ has
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific intent and the absence of evidence of instigation or intentional aid in the commission of suicide under Section 306 of ....
The court held that mere allegations of harassment do not establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC without direct evidence of instigation or encouragement.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding, which was absent in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish a clear mens rea and active act to push the deceased into a position to commit suicide in cases of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for abetment under Section 306 of IPC, there must be proof of active instigation or intentional aid, and a scrupulous examination of facts and....
Abetment of suicide under IPC requires clear mens rea and active instigation, which was not proven in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence under Section 306 of IPC, there must be active suggestion, instigation, or encouragement on the part of the accused to abet the....
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
