Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Shri Nagender & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State – Respondent
Cr.REV.P. 577 of 2018 & Cr.M.A. 12358 of 2018
Decided On : 06-03-2023
Dowry Prohibition Act - Abetment of Suicide - Cr.P.C. 1973 - [ABETMENT OF SUICIDE] - [Dowry Prohibition Act] - [Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 34 of IPC, Section 306/34 of IPC] - The court discussed the statutory law with respect to discharge and framing of charge under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. The court also referred to the principles for exercising power under Sections 397 and 482 of Cr.P.C. The court analyzed the ingredients essential to attract Section 306 IPC and referred to relevant case laws to determine the abetment of suicide. The court found no illegality or infirmity in the framing of charges against the accused under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, engaged to petitioner no.1, committed suicide due to the alleged dowry demands and cancellation of marriage by the accused. The family of the deceased pleaded for time to fulfill the demands, but the accused remained adamant, leading to the cancellation of the marriage. The deceased committed suicide shortly after the cancellation of the marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was prima facie evidence of abetment of suicide by the accused, as the demands for dowry and the cancellation of the marriage created circumstances that left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide. The court also noted the refusal of the accused to give voice samples, which led to adverse inference against them.
Issues: The issues revolved around the framing of charges under Section 306 of IPC, with the defense arguing against the instigation of suicide and the prosecution emphasizing the specific demand for dowry and its role in abating the suicide of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles for exercising power under Sections 397 and 482 of Cr.P.C. and analyzed the ingredients essential to attract Section 306 IPC. The court found that there was prima facie evidence of abetment of suicide by the accused, based on the circumstances created by the demands for dowry and the cancellation of the marriage.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality or infirmity in the framing of charges against the accused under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. The observations made by the court were clarified to have no bearing on the merits of the case during the trial.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
1. The present revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (=Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the petitioners against the order on charge and framing of charge dated 25.04.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in FIR bearing no. 626/2015, registered at Police Station Yamuna Depot Metro, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Sections 306/34 of IPC, whereby charges have been framed against petitioners under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 IPC and Section 306/34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Doctor by profession, and petitioner no. 2, retired from the Indian Army, is father of petitioner no. 1. The deceased was a pharmacist who was engaged to petitioner no.1. On 22.11.2015, deceased committed suicide by jumping in front of metro train from Platform No. 3, Yamuna Bank Metro Station. The family members of the deceased were informed by the police and the brother of the deceased lodged a complaint against the accused persons stating that the marriage of deceased Anjali was fixed with accused Dr. Nagender on the basis of a matrimonial advertisement, and engagement ceremony was held on 31.05.2015. Initially the accused persons did not demand anything but during the engagement ceremony, accused Lalta Prasad demanded rupees Rs. 3 lakhs in cash and articles worth Rs. 1 lakh. The father of the complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- to the grandmother of the accused Nagender. Thereafter, in the month of sawan, accused Lalta Prasad again demanded gifts etc along with Rs. 2 lakhs, which were also paid by the father of the deceased in the presence of family members and relatives of the accused. After her engagement, deceased started talking with accused Nagender and they became emotionally attached. In November, 2015 accused Lalta Prasad demanded the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh in lieu of articles on the pretext that it would not be feasible to bring the articles from Allahabad at the time of marriage. The father of the deceased expressed his inability and assured accused Lalta Prasad to make the balance payment at the time of marriage, which was fixed for 13.12.2015. Accused Lalta Prasad did not pay any heed to the request of the father of deceased. When complainant came to know about this fact, he also talked with petitioner no. 1 Nagender but he also did not agree for the same. When deceased Anjali came to know about it, she also requested with accused Nagender but without any success. The accused persons insisted to fulfill their demands before Diwali otherwise they threatened that they would cancel the marriage. On 22.11.2015, the family members of the accused persons and the complainant had met at India Gate, Delhi and again requested to make the balance payment at the time of marriage but the accused persons remained adamant and told them that they would cancel the marriage if the money was not paid to them. Deceased Anjali, who was also present in the meeting, was shocked and she had begged accused Nagender but the accused persons did not accede to the repeated requests of deceased and her family members and cancelled the marriage. Thereafter, the family members of the deceased took Metro for going to Vaishali, Ghaziabad. On account of rush in the metro train, complainant, his father, deceased Anjali and friend of the father got separated and when the metro remained stationed at Preet Vihar Metro Station for long time, the complainant received telephonic information that deceased Anjali had committed suicide due to the harassment caused by the accused persons. FIR was then registered under Section 306 IPC and the matter was investigated. The accused persons were arrested. The witnesses were examined and after completion of investigation, charge, sheet was f
For framing a charge under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence linking an accused’s actions to the suicide; assumptions of harassment without evidence are insufficient.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of strong suspicion and examination of circumstances to determine instigation for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC.
To establish a charge under Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of instigation or abetment, which can be inferred from the accused's actions that create circumstances leading the victim to commit....
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.
Framing of charges requires a prima facie case, without deep analysis of evidence. Harassment contributing to suicide can constitute abetment under IPC.
The court established that mere financial distress and harassment do not constitute abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306 without clear intent to instigate such a decision.
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
