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

2024 Supreme(Gau) 845

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Parimita Neog, D/o. Sri Arun Neog – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, rep. By The PP, And Anr. – Respondents
Crl.Pet. No.442 Of 2023
Decided On : 21-06-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. De, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. D. Das, Addl. P.P., Assam, Mr. P. Sundi, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or direct involvement by the accused, and mere relationship discord is insufficient to constitute abetment.

Headnote:

ABETMENT - SUICIDE - IPC SECTION 306, IPC SECTION 107 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC, which defines the abetment of suicide, and Section 107, which outlines the parameters of abetment. The court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 306, it must be established that the accused abetted the suicide, which requires direct involvement or instigation. The court referenced several precedents to clarify that mere discord or common relationship issues do not constitute abetment unless there is clear evidence of intent to provoke the act of suicide.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was accused of abetting the suicide of Kidip Saikia, who had engaged with her. Following their engagement, the deceased allegedly faced mental harassment from the petitioner, leading to his suicide. The father of the deceased filed an FIR, resulting in charges against the petitioner under Section 306 of the IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations in the FIR did not constitute a prima facie case of abetment of suicide. It noted that the deceased's hypersensitivity to ordinary relationship issues was not sufficient to establish that the petitioner had instigated or abetted the suicide.

Issues: Whether the petitioner abetted the suicide of Kidip Saikia under Section 306 of the IPC, and whether the allegations in the FIR were sufficient to constitute a cognizable offence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or abetment, which requires a direct act or intention to provoke the deceased into committing suicide. The court emphasized that ordinary discord in relationships does not meet the threshold for abetment.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner as the allegations did not prima facie constitute an offence.

JUDGMENT :

(Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.) :

Heard Mr. R. De, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing Respondent No.1. Heard Mr. P. Sundi, the learned counsel representing the Respondent No.2.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing the criminal proceedings of PRC No.460/2022 arising out of the Charge Sheet No.162/2022 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gohpur.

3. The deceased Kidip Saikia was in love with the present petitioner. In order to formalise their relationship according to social rituals, both families organised an engagement ceremony where rings were exchanged on 05.05.2022.

4. In his FIR, Sri Deben Saikia, the father of the deceased Kidip Saikia, has alleged that after the engagement ceremony, the petitioner girl started to mentally harass the deceased on many issues. Giving example of some of the issues, like-threatening the deceased that she would disclose various secret incidents, known only to the girl and the boy, in the public. The girl also allegedly threatened the deceased that she would destroy his reputation.

5. According to the informant, on one occasion, the deceased (Kidip Saikia) had taken a click showing a rope and sent the said click to the mobile phone of the petitioner girl saying that he would commit suicide by hanging himself.

6. On 09.07.2022 at night, the deceased returned home after watching a cultural function and after having meal, he went to bed.

7. Next morning, the deceased did not open his room and through the window, his father/the informant saw that the dead body of the deceased was hanging from the ceiling of the room.

8. On receipt of the FIR, police registered the Gohpur Police Station Case No.117/2022 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. On conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the present petitioner under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

10. The trial court took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and issued summons to her.

11. Now a close look into the law laid down in section 306 IPC may be required. The section 306 of the IPC reads as under:

    “306. Abetment of suicide-

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

12. From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish:

    (i) that a person committed suicide,

(ii) that such suicide was abetted by the accused.

13. In other words, an offence under Section 306 would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of abetment have been stated in Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of a thing as follows:

    “A Section:107. Abetment of a thing person abets the doing of a thing, who -First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1-A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.”

14. As per the law laid down in Section 107, a person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doin

                    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