SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Guj) 194

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Lalitbhai Vikramchand Parekh - Appellants
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application (for quashing and set aside FIR/Order) No. 16032 of 2014 and Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 18645 and 18647 of 2014
Decided On: 10.04.2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Hardik H. Dave, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: L.R. Pujari, Addl. Public Prosecutor

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear mens rea and direct or active act by the accused to establish the offence of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC. The judgment also emphasizes the need for tangible evidence of instigation, cooperation, or initial assistance by the accused to establish abetment of suicide.

Headnote:

ABETMENT - SUICIDE - IPC 306, 506, 114, 115 - The judgment discusses the legal provisions of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC and emphasizes the need for clear mens rea and direct or active act by the accused to establish the offence. It also highlights the importance of assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether the cruelty and harassment induced the victim to commit suicide. The judgment emphasizes the need for tangible evidence of instigation, cooperation, or initial assistance by the accused to establish abetment of suicide. The court also suggests the need for the State to consider developing suicide prevention plans and strategies to address the increasing cases of suicide.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves three applications seeking to quash a charge-sheet filed against the applicants for the offence under Sections 306, 506, 114, and 115 of the IPC. The charge-sheet arose from a First Information Report regarding the suicide of five members of a family due to a dispute with a residential society over illegal construction on a common plot.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations made by the prosecution did not constitute the offence of abetment. It emphasized the need for clear mens rea and direct or active act by the accused to establish the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The court also highlighted the difficulty in understanding the mental state of individuals who commit suicide and suggested the need for the State to develop suicide prevention plans and strategies.

Issues: The issues raised for consideration included whether the allegations constituted the offence of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC, whether the accused persons directly or indirectly abetted the commission of suicide, and whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the need for tangible evidence of instigation, cooperation, or initial assistance by the accused to establish abetment of suicide. It also highlighted the importance of assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether the cruelty and harassment induced the victim to commit suicide.

Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings of the Sessions Case No. 147 of 2013, pending in the Court of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, and ordered all consequential proceedings to be terminated.

JUDGMENT

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Since the prayer in all the three captioned applications is to quash a selfsame charge-sheet, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The suicide is final: Once you take your life, that's it. You have only one life. End it - and you are done. You will never, ever get a second chance. The one who keeps you strong when nobody else does. The one who stands by you when everyone walks out. Imagine the pain, the sadness, the grief they would feel when you are gone. Even if you don't think, you have a special person worth living for, you do. You just don't know it yet.

3. By these three applications, the applicants-accused, seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, against them for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 506 and 115read with section 114 of the IPC, arising from a First Information Report, being C.R No. I-102/13, registered with the “A” Division Rajkot City Police Station, Rajkot.

4. The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under:-

4.1 The applicants herein are all members of a residential society, running in the name of Chhotunagar Co-operative Society, situated at Raiya Road, Rajkot. The Society had employed one Mansing (since deceased) as a Part-time Peon for doing miscellaneous office work of the Co-operative Society. The Chairman of the Society had allotted one room constructed on the common plot to Mansing for living in it without any rent. Mansing and his wife Vasumati along with their children were residing in the said room. In the night hours, Mansing used to work as a Watchman in the Society as well as in the surrounding areas. The Society used to pay some amount to Mansing for his services. Mansing passed away some time in the year 2009. The wife of Mansing and his children started residing at Deepak Society, situated near the Gandhigram Kanaiyachowk. Since the house situated in Deepak Society required some immediate repairs, the children of late Mansing started putting up construction of one additional room besides the old room situated on the common plot of the Society. This triggered the controversy between the members of the Society and the family members of late Mansing. The members of the Society opposed the construction of the room on the common plot of the Society adjacent to the old room, in which at one point of time Mansing used to stay with his family. The issue reached right upto the Rajkot Municipal Corporation. The Corporation also issued notice to the son of late Mansing, namely Bharatbhai Mansing Nepali, under Section 260(1) of the BPMC Act, regarding the illegal construction. It appears that a Civil Suit was also filed by one of the deceased persons, namely Girishsing Nepali, challenging the order -notice issued by the Corporation under Section 260(2) of the BPMC Act.

4.2 It appears that on account of such dispute, the entire family of late Mansingh committed suicide by setting themselves on fire after dousing with kerosene. The First Information Report was lodged by one Gauriben, the wife of Girishbhai Nepali, as regards the incident of suicide.

4.3 The exact picture of the incident is narrated by Shantaben Nepali, the mother of late Mansing in her statement dated 5.4.2013. The free English translation of her statement, which forms part of the charge-sheet, reads as under:-

“Date : : 05/04/2013

My name is Shantaben w/o Damarsinh Vishwakarma [Nepali], Aged about 80, Occupation - Housewife, Address Chhotunagar Society, Common Plot Raiya Road, Rajkot.

On personally asking I state that I am residing at the above address with my family and doing household work. I had one son named Mansing. He had expired about four years ago. The name of his wife is Vasumati. At present she is in hospital under treatment. Mansing had three sons, of them Bharat was the eldest, and at present he had died in the recent incident took place. The nam

































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top