Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Rekha Rani & Others – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Cr.M.C. 2921 of 2019 & Cr.M.A. 11776 of 2019 (stay)
Decided On : 24-08-2023
Abetment - Suicide - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - [306 IPC, 34 IPC] - The court discussed the legal provisions of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC and the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC. The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence to suggest that the accused intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The court also highlighted the importance of direct acts of incitement for the commission of the offence. The court found that the suicide note did not contain specific allegations or material of a definite nature against the accused, and therefore, there was no sufficient ground to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Rajni Babbar, committed suicide and a suicide note was later submitted to the police. The note implicated the deceased's relatives in causing her depression and mental agony. The deceased's family filed a complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR under sections 306/34 IPC against the accused, including the deceased's relatives.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suicide note did not contain specific allegations or material of a definite nature against the accused, and therefore, there was no sufficient ground to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the accused for the offence of abetment of suicide under Sections 306/34 IPC based on the contents of the suicide note.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence to suggest that the accused intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The court also highlighted the importance of direct acts of incitement for the commission of the offence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and discharged the accused for the offences punishable under sections 306/34 IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. DD No 48A dated 12.03.2016 was got lodged by Duty Constable posted at Acharaya Bhikshu Govt. Hospital, Delhi regarding one woman namely, Rajni Babbar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was admitted by her father vide MLC No. 13290/16 and was declared brought dead in the hospital. DD No 48A was entrusted to SI Vikas Mudgil (hereinafter referred as "the Investigation Officer") who conducted the proceedings under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and recorded the statement of the family members of the deceased. Initially, the family members did not report any suspicion about her death but after few days of the incident i.e. on 03.07.2016, the father namely Madan Mohan Babbar of the deceased handed over a suicide note which was found later in the house. The father of the deceased on basis of the suicide note alleged that life of the deceased daughter was made miserable by their relatives with whom they have property disputes in Panipat and the deceased could not bear the atrocities and committed suicide. The Investigating Officer has also visited the relatives at their native place in Panipat to make enquiry into the allegations levelled against them collected details/documents of the cases/complaints between the deceased and the relatives. Accordingly with the approval of the DCP/West on dated 19.9.2016 fresh statement of Madan Mohan Babbar (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
1.1. The complainant stated that he is having one property bearing no 408A, Gali No. 5, Indira Colony, Panipat wherein his wife Mamta @ Neelam and son Yatin Babbar are residing. The complainant is having legal disputes pertaining to said property with his in-laws. The deceased as and when used to go to Panipat to stay in the house then her maternal uncles, namely, Krishan Lal, Somnath, Sita Ram @ Sahil along with their wives and sons, namely, Jatin, Anil and Sunni used to quarrel with wife of the complainant namely Mamta and the deceased so that they can be compelled to leave the property situated at Panipat. They also used to taunt the deceased besides abusing her. The deceased used to inform about this to the complainant and his son namely, Yatin Babbar and started to live under depression. The deceased about one or two days before from the suicide told Yatin Babar that the Anil s/o Om Prakash has clicked her obscene pictures and he along with his mother Madhu and his brother Vicky were blackmailing her so that she can be compelled to leave the property and due to this reason she went in depression. The deceased came to Delhi at her house situated at Moti Nagar and committed suicide after two days i.e. on 12.03.2016. The above mentioned persons have caused mental pain and agony to the deceased as a result of which she committed suicide. Thereafter FIR bearing no.0442/2016 dated 19.09.2016 was got registered at PS Moti Nagar, New Delhi under sections 306/34 IPC on the basis of complaint made by the complainant pertaining to the commission of suicide by the deceased on 12.03.2016 at about 07.00 pm at house bearing no 25/381, New Moti Nagar, Delhi.
1.2. The charge-sheet was filed after conclusion of the investigation under sections 306/34 IPC wherein Anil Kumar, Madhu, Krishan Lal, Rekha Rani, Jatin were implicated. During investigation no incriminating material could be found against Sunny s/o Somnath, and Somnath and Sita Rain both s/o Munshi Ram. The Investigating Officer could not recover any obscene picture of the deceased and none could be traced who had seen those pictures. The Investigating Officer also collected the admitted handwriting and signature of the deceased and suicide note was sent to the FSL which was found to be written and signed by the deceased.
2. The Court of Shahabuddin, Additional Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") vide order dated 2
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for concrete evidence to prove the intention of the accused to instigate the deceased to commit suicide, as well as the importance ....
Section 306 of IPC reads as abetment of suicide.
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....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement of a proximate link between the alleged acts of the accused and the suicide by the deceased, as well as the need for clear mens rea to commit the offence under....
Ingredients of section 306 IPC discussed.
To convict under Section 306 IPC, instigation or abetment must be proximate to the suicide, and mere demand for money does not suffice as sufficient cause for abetment.
Framing charges under Section 306 I.P.C. requires only a presumption of involvement, not definitive proof, relying heavily on the evidentiary weight of disputed documents, such as suicide notes.
Abetment of suicide under IPC requires clear mens rea and active instigation, which was not proven 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
