Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sachin Singh Rajput, J.
Sushanto Alias Babu Mandal, S/o Durga Mandal - Appellant
Versus
State Of
- Respondent
CRA No. 1205 of 2003
Decided On :
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306 and 107 - Appeal against conviction for abetment of suicide - Appellant convicted and sentenced to 7 years R.I. with fine - Acquitted co-accused - Prosecution failed to prove instigation or cruelty beyond reasonable doubt - Evidence of witnesses indicated domestic disputes but lacked direct evidence of abetment - Court emphasized the need for clear mens rea and positive acts of instigation for conviction under Section 306 IPC. (Paras 1, 13, 15, 37)
(B) Abetment of Suicide - Essential ingredients - To sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC, it must be established that the accused contributed to the suicide by direct or indirect acts of instigation, which must be proximate to the act of suicide. (Paras 14, 15, 16)
(C) Principle of Parity - When evidence against co-accused is similar, conviction of one and acquittal of another is impermissible. (Para 36)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, husband of the deceased, was convicted for abetting her suicide, which occurred after alleged cruelty and domestic disputes. The trial court acquitted the co-accused, finding insufficient evidence against them.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not establish the necessary elements of abetment, particularly the requirement of instigation or direct involvement leading to the suicide.
Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the evidence warranted a conviction under Section 306 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere domestic disputes do not equate to abetment of suicide; clear evidence of instigation is required for conviction under Section 306 IPC.
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.
Judgment :
(Sachin Singh Rajput, J.)
1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C .) has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 04.11.2003 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, District Kanker, (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 460/2001 by which, learned trial Court held the appellants guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below -
| Conviction | Sentence | |
| 1. | U/s 306 IPC | 07 year rigorous imprisonment with fine amount of Rs, 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 6 months. |
2. Appellant along with two other accused namely Durgapad Mandal and Saraswati Mandal faced the trial for an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC . The admitted facts of this case is that the appellant is the husband, co-accused Durgapad Mandal and Saraswati Mandal are the parents-in-law of the deceased Smt. Teena Mandal.
3. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the deceased Smt. Teena Mandal committed suicide by hanging herself on 24.02.2001 at her resident at village P.V. 108 Police-Station – Pankhajur. Pw-7 Dileep Majumdar was informed by accused accused Durgapad Mandal upon which Pw-7 Dileep Majumdar informed about the incident to Police Post- Bande where merg intimation Ex. P/15 was registered and enquiry was set on motion. The dead body panchnnama of the deceased Smt. Teena Mandal was prepared vide Ex-P/7 in presence of witnesses. Autopsy of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW-1 Dr. M.S. Kanwar and gave the post mortem report Ex.P/2 that death of the deceased is due to cardiac respiratory failure and express the death to be suicide by hanging by a saree vide its enquiry report vide Ex. P/2. Statement of the witnesses during the merg enquiry, the fact came to the light that the deceased and the appellant having love marriage 8 moths prior to the incident. The parents of the appellant were not ready for the marriage and after the marriage of the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant and the co-accused persons and she was also assaulted upon which the a meeting was also convened. During the course of investigation it was found that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in assault and as a result of which she committed suicide by hanging herself. After due investigation, the First Information Report under Section 306 of the IPC was registered and upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. The case was committed to the Sessions Court who in turn made over to the trial Court for trial.
4. The appellant and the others co-accused were charged for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. The statement of the appellant and other co-accused under Section 313 of CrPC were recorded in which also they pleaded innocence and false implication.
6. Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents.
7. By the judgment impugned, the co-accused Durgapad Mandal and Saraswati Mandal were acquitted from all the charges whereas the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated in the first paragraph of the judgment.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution was unable to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that no admissible evidence is available against the appellant to hold him guilty under Section 306 of the IPC and the ingredient contained in Section 107 of the IPC have been fulfilled by the prosecution by way of clinching evidence. He submits that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the deceased Smt. Teena Mandal was subjected to cruelty and instigation which left no choice to her except to commit suicide. The allegation which appears from the record is with regard to some dispute between the husband and wife and some assault made by th
To convict under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or abetment must be established, which was not proven in this case.
To convict under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or direct acts leading to suicide must be established, which was absent in this case.
Abetment under Section 306 IPC requires evidence of direct instigation and established mens rea; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction.
In appeals against acquittal, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish abetment of suicide.
To convict for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement by the accused, which was not established in this case.
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding that compels suicide, which was not established in this case.
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
