IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
Inderpal Punaram Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application (For Successive Regular Bail - After Charge-Sheet) No. 1365 of 2024
Decided On : 12-02-2024
Section 306 - Regular Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - [Section 306] - [Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC, which deals with abetment of suicide. It emphasized the requirement of mens rea in the offences pertaining to abetment and highlighted the importance of proximate action on the part of the accused leading to the commission of the offence. The court also considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40.]
Fact of the Case:
The applicant-accused filed for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with an FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. The applicant-accused, a businessman, had demanded his outstanding dues from the deceased, who had committed suicide along with his family members. The prosecution alleged that the deceased committed suicide due to constant harassment by the applicant-accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the applicant-accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty or instigation leading to the suicide. It emphasized the absence of mens rea in the offences pertaining to abetment and concluded that the present application for regular bail deserved consideration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the role of the applicant-accused in the suicide of the deceased, the allegations of harassment, and the requirement of proving mens rea in the offences pertaining to abetment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of mens rea in the offences pertaining to abetment, the lack of proximate action on the part of the accused leading to the commission of the offence, and the failure of the prosecution to establish the role of the applicant-accused in the suicide of the deceased.
Final Decision: The court allowed the present application and ordered the applicant to be released on regular bail, subject to specified conditions.
JUDGMENT :
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. The present successive application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I-11210003231060 of 2023 registered with the Adajan Police Station, Surat of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 08.11.2023 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate for the applicant has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant-accused is a businessman and he has provided certain goods to the deceased on credit facilities. It is further submitted that as alleged the deceased has committed the suicide due to the demand made by the applicant-accused of his outstanding dues. However, the said fact is completely false as the deceased had also borrowed money from various other persons. The deceased had also obtained various loans and the EMIs worth Rs. 1,85,000/- was due and payable by the applicant-accused for which he also applied for fresh loan which came to be rejected and that might be the reason for the deceased to take such a drastic step. It is also submitted that the alleged incident took place on 28.10.2023 for which the first information report has been lodged on 08.11.2023 and, therefore, there is gross delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR. Learned advocate for the applicant-accused has submitted there are two suicide notes alleged to have been left behind by the deceased. It is pertinent to note that before committing suicide, the deceased had killed all his family members for which a complaint was registered against the deceased for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC on 02.11.2023 in which there is no reference of the applicant-accused and the second suicide note alleged to have been recovered by the Investigating Officer on 29.10.2023. In the said complaint there is a reference of only one suicide note. Subsequently, on the basis of the second suicide note, present FIR came to be lodged on 08.11.2023 and, therefore, the recovery of the second suicide note itself creates a strong suspicion. Learned advocate for the applicant-accused has submitted that so far as the role of the applicant-accused is concerned, he is a businessman who had a business relationship with the deceased and there were certain outstanding dues to be paid to the applicant-accused by the deceased. Except that no other specific role has been attributed to the applicant-accused as to how he has abetted the commission of offence. The applicant-accused sold the goods worth Rs. 20 Lakh to the deceased and the said fact is evident from the documents collected by the Investigating Officer. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that to prove the charges of abetment, the prosecution has to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused person right before the incident. However, in the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that there was any kind of pressure or instigation on the part of the applicant-accused to the deceased which led the deceased to take such a drastic step. It is also submitted that the applicant-accused is a reputed businessman who demanded his legitimate dues from the deceased which is common in every business fraternity. The applicant-accuse does not have any past criminal antecedents. Learned advocate for the applicant-accused has further submitted that to constitute the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide and such an offending action
The judgment emphasizes the need for clear evidence of instigation or active facilitation to establish guilt in cases of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
The court established that for a charge of abetment under section 306 IPC to stand, there must be clear evidence of abetment as defined under section 107 IPC, which was lacking in this case.
Point of law : It is trite that abetment is a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. To constitute an offence of abetment, mens rea is a conditio....
Point of law : The expression “abetment” has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any ....
(1) To constitute an offence of abetment, mens rea is a condition precedent.(2) Abetment of suicide – Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, necessary re....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that demands for repayment of money, without evidence of instigation or mens rea, do not constitute abetment for suicide under Section 306 of the I....
The Court's decision to grant regular bail was based on the completion of investigation, previous acquittals, and the exercise of discretion in line with relevant case law.
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.