IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that mere suspicion or an extramarital affair does not amount to abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306.

ORDER :

1. The Petitioner is arrested and detained in F.I.R No. 75/2024 registered at Police Station Kolayat, District Bikaner, pertaining to offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 of the I.P.C. and by this petition, he seeks restoration of his liberty on bail-bond.

2. Before I proceed to examine the rival contentions it would be appropriate to briefly state the facts of the present case which are that complainant Santosh Bhargav (father of deceased Rekha) lodged a report on 09.04.2024 stating that his daughter Rekha was married to the accused Meghraj in the year 2014. Since the marriage, her in-laws had been harassing and beating her. Meghraj, an alcoholic was involved in an illicit relationship with an another woman. Despite this, his daughter tolerated everything for the sake of the family's honour and the complainant had no knowledge of these issues. Meghraj regularly beated and mistreated his daughter. In the night of 08.04.2024, Meghraj's brother called over pbone and informed him that Rekha had committed suicide. When he arrived at her in-laws' house, he suspected that she had been murdered and that the scene had been staged to appear as a suicide. A charge-sheet has already been submitted after investigation into the matter.

3. To begin at the beginning learned counsel representing applicant has fervently argued that this is a case of suicide by a wife after 10 years of marriage. She had three children. Rekha committed suicide of her own free will by hanging herself. In this case, the elements of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC are not satisfied. It is argued that the reason provided by Police in the investigation for invoking Section 306 of IPC is that Meghraj had illicit relations with a woman, which allegedly led Rekha to commit suicide. However, there is no evidence on record to suggest that Meghraj actively abetted Rekha’s suicide nor is the presumption under Section 113A of Indian evidence act is applicable in this case. Concluding submissions, he asserted that applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by Mr. Vikas Godara, learned counsel appearing for the complainant have strongly objected the different submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and craves rejection of the applicant’s bail application.

5. To appreciate the submissions raised at the bar, I have bestowed my anxious consideration and carefully examine the matter available on record.

6. On perusal of the record and upon consideration of the submissions, it would be prima facie clear that in this case, the complainant's daughter Rekha died after 7 years of marriage and therefore, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act is not applicable. The charge-sheet has been submitted on the foundation that the involvement of the petitioner in extra-marital affair, established the abetment by husband.

7. It is seen that in his statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the father of the deceased Rekha, did not mention any specific instance of abetment by the petitioner. He only stated that since the marriage, Meghraj had been harassing and beating Rekha. He further mentioned that Meghraj was an alcoholic and involved in an illicit relationship with another woman. Barring the aforesaid, there is no whisper with regard to any kind of abetment by the petitioner.

8. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the question that emerges for consideration is that “Whether in the absence of any specific act of abetment, on the basis of these facts and circumstances, the petitioner can be prima facie considered to have abetted Rekha to commit suicide”?

9. To constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC, prosecution has to prima facie establish that the deceased Rekha committed suicide and the petitioner abetted the commission of suicide. Perusal of record prima facie reveals that the father of the deceased Rekha, in his statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has not st