Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
MS SHIKHA GUPTA - Petitioner
Versus
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) - Respondent
CRL.REV. P. 330 of 2017
Decided on : 08-01-2019
ABETMENT - Abetment of Suicide - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 306, Section 107 - [306, 107 IPC] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 306 and Section 107 of the IPC, which define abetment of suicide and the elements of abetment. The court referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Pawan Kumar vs. State of H.P. to interpret the meaning of instigation and abetment in the context of suicide. The court emphasized that mere act of slapping or allegations made in a suicide note may not necessarily amount to instigation or abetment to commit suicide. The judgment highlighted the necessity of grave suspicion and direct involvement of the accused in the commission of the offense under Section 306 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the wife of the deceased, was charged under Section 306 IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of her husband. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had slapped her husband, leading to his suicide. However, the suicide note and the circumstances did not conclusively establish the petitioner's instigation or abetment of the suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no grave suspicion or direct involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offense under Section 306 IPC. The court held that the mere act of slapping or the allegations in the suicide note did not amount to instigation or abetment to commit suicide. Therefore, the impugned order on charge and the charge framed against the petitioner were set aside, and the petitioner was discharged of the offense under Section 306 IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the petitioner's actions constituted abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, and whether there was sufficient evidence to frame a charge against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of grave suspicion and direct involvement of the accused in the commission of the offense under Section 306 IPC. It highlighted that mere act of slapping or allegations made in a suicide note may not necessarily amount to instigation or abetment to commit suicide.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the impugned order on charge dated 15.03.2017 and the charge framed on 30.03.2017 against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC were set aside, and the petitioner was discharged of the offense under Section 306 IPC.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
CRL. REV. P. 330/2017 & Crl.M.A.7381/2017 (stay)
1. Petitioner impugns order on charge dated 15.03.2017, whereby, the Trial Court has held that prima facie material exists against the accused for framing of charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short).
2. Petitioner was the wife of the deceased. They were married according to Hindu rights and ceremonies on 25.02.2015. From the wedlock, a female baby has been born, which is in the custody of the petitioner. Disputes between the parties arose. Subsequently, on 20.05.2015, the petitioner left her matrimonial home.
3. A complaint was lodged against the deceased and her in-laws by the petitioner on 14.07.2015 with the Crime Against Women Cell, Gurgaon.
4. On 31.07.2015, as per the case of the prosecution, the parties attended the hearing at the Crime Against Women Cell, Gurgaon. It is alleged that the petitioner slapped her husband, the deceased, in front of the family members.
5. As per the prosecution, on 02.08.2015, the husband of the petitioner attempted to commit suicide and was taken to the hospital. Subsequently, he expired on 03.08.2015. An alleged suicide note was allegedly recovered from the bed of the deceased. Subject FIR No.393/2015 under Sections 306/34 IPC has been registered.
6. As per the FIR, the deceased committed suicide as he was very upset because he had been slapped by the petitioner in front of the family members.
7. By the impugned order on charge dated 15.03.2017, the Trial Court has held that it is on record that the accused petitioner had slapped the deceased on 31.07.2015 and the deceased committed suicide on 02.08.2015. Father of the deceased had stated that the deceased was feeling shamed due to the act of the accused and committed suicide.
8. Trial Court was of the view that proximity of committing suicide with the alleged act of the accused and the fact that the accused committed suicide as a direct consequence of the slap given by the petitioner was a matter of trial. In view of said facts, Trial Court was of the view that prima facie material existed against the accused for framing of charge under Section 106 IPC.
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the trial court has erred in not appreciating that there is no material to suggest that the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide or in any manner aided or abetted the commission of suicide.
10. Section 306 IPC reads as under:-
“306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
11. Under Section 306 IPC, whoever abets commission of suicide is held liable for abetment of suicide.
12. Section 107 IPC defines abetment as under:-
“107. Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
(First) – Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Secondly) – Engages with one or more other person or 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
(Thirdly) – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.- A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
Explanation 2. – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereb
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
