Back
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sohni Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner Sohni Devi is the mother of Sunil Kumar, who was married to Sapna, respondent No.2 in January 2016. Sunil Kumar and Sapna started residing separately from the petitioner Sohni Devi. The relationship between Sunil Kumar and Sapna Devi was not cordial. Sapna had made a complaint against her brothers-in-law and sister-in-law regarding the demand for dowry. The police called the parties and the matter was compromised. Suman Chaudhary, Ex-Pradhan and Prem Singh, Ward Member tried to patch up the matter between Sunil and Sapna; however, the situation did not improve. Sapna used to leave her matrimonial home for her parental home. Sunil used to say that he was residing separately from his family due to Sapna. Sapna had harassed Sunil Kumar mentally. Sarwan Kumar, the younger brother of Sapna took her to her maternal home on 2.2.2017. Sunil Kumar came to his home on 6.2.2017, at 4.00 PM and started talking to Sapna. He told her to return to her matrimonial home otherwise she would see the dead body of Sunil. Sunil came out of the room and started vomiting. He was taken to the hospital where he died. The death of Sunil Kumar had taken place due to
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide for the offence of abetment....
At the stage of framing charges, even a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges, and the requirement of mens rea for abetment of suicide under IPC 306.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of strong suspicion and examination of circumstances to determine instigation for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC.
The absence of provable instigation or direct involvement by the accused in the suicide precludes criminal liability under Section 306 IPC.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding, which was absent in this case.
The court held that mere allegations of harassment do not establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC without direct evidence of instigation or encouragement.
Clear evidence of instigation or incitement is essential to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC; mere allegations are insufficient.
(1) Inherent Jurisdiction – Power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is restrictive in nature – It cannot act as a Trial Court and has to be cautious in granting relief sought for in terms of....
To establish a charge under Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of instigation or abetment, which can be inferred from the accused's actions that create circumstances leading the victim to commit....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
