IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
Lalaji Udaji Rathod & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
R/Criminal Misc.Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No.7991 of 2017
Decided on : 05-04-2024
Abetment of Suicide - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 306, 504, 506(2), 114 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The deceased's daughter eloped with a boy from the same village, leading to disputes between the families. The accused, family members of the complainant, allegedly threatened the deceased and her husband due to the elopement. The deceased committed suicide, and the accused were charged under Sections 306, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. It noted that the accused's actions did not amount to instigation or active assistance in the deceased's suicide. The court also considered the deceased's hypersensitivity and mental pressure due to family disputes.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused's actions amounted to abetment of suicide under the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles established in various Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing the need for mens rea and direct or active assistance by the accused to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. It also considered the deceased's mental state and the absence of evidence showing instigation or active assistance by the accused.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings against the accused.
ORDER :
1. By way of preferring this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the FIR being C.R.No.I-24 of 2017 registered with Modasa Rural Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present application are as under:
2.1. The complainant is the husband of the deceased and about four months prior to the date of registration of the FIR, complainant’s daughter eloped with one boy viz. Vijay Parmar of the same village and due to the said reason, disputes have been cropped between the two families inter se. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused persons (applicants herein) were the family members of the complainant and they used to admonish the complainant and his wife that their daughter eloped with the boy of the same village, therefore, the act of their daughter tarnished the reputation of the family and they threatened them to bring back their daughter, otherwise, they will have to face dire consequences.
2.2. The complainant made all his best efforts to find out his daughter but could not get success in his attempts and all the efforts have gone in vain. It is the case of the prosecution that on the fateful day, a programme of death anniversary of father of the applicants was organized by the applicants and complainant and his wife were requested to attend the said function but the applicants also invited parents and other relatives of the said boy i.e. Vijay Parmar and therefore complainant and his wife decided not to attend the said function and due to the said action of the complainant, the applicants got enraged and reached to the house of the complainant and threatened them to cut off all the relationship with them as the complainant and his wife had not attended their function. It is also alleged that accused persons have also administered threat to the deceased and her husband about dire consequences and also made accusation upon the deceased that she aided her daughter to elope. The action of the daughter of the deceased is identically similar to her mother and after saying that the applicants left. Thereafter, after some time, the deceased informed to the complainant that she was unable to bear the torture and she wanted to end her life. The complainant thereafter went to sleep outside the house and in the morning he came to know that her wife hanged herself and committed suicide and therefore FIR has been registered against the present applicants accused.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Daifraz Havewalla for the applicants, learned APP Mr. L. B. Dabhi for the respondent State. It is found out from the record that the notice issued by this Court is duly served to respondent No.2 – original complainant but he has chosen not to appear and contest the present application.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Daifraz Havewalla submitted that even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted as true without adding or subtracting anything from it, none of the ingredients to constitute an offence of abetting the commission of suicide are spelt out. He further submitted that the mere threat if at all believed, would not constitute an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that there was no instigation within the meaning of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that daughter of the complainant and deceased had eloped with one boy of the same village and due to which the disputes cropped up between the family members and ultimately the relations have been strained. Learned advocate Mr. Havewalla submitted that it is alleged that due to elopement of the daughter of complainant and deceased with one village boy, the relatives were taunting and threatening them and owing to the said incident, the deceased has committ
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Gcngula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P.
M. Mohan Vs. State Represented the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh.
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
The main legal point established is that to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide, there must be mens rea and direct or active assistance by the accused, as per the legal principles outlined ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mens rea and direct or active instigation for the offence of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC. The judgment also emphasizes....
Abetment of suicide – In order to convict a person for offences under Section 306 IPC, basic and essential ingredients of offence, whether death was suicidal and whether there was abetment and instig....
Abetment of suicide requires clear mens rea and active instigation by the accused, which was absent in this case.
The court held that mere familial pressure or demands are insufficient to establish abetment of suicide; active instigation must be proven for liability under IPC Sections 306 and 107.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of establishing the ingredients of abetment under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code and highlighted the scope and ambit of Court’s power under Sectio....
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear instigation or intentional aid; mere suspicion or threats are insufficient.
In abetment of suicide cases, clear evidence of mens rea and active involvement is required; mere allegations without proof of cruelty are insufficient for conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.