Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.
Joginder Singh and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory of J&K and Another – Respondents
Bail App. Nos. 198, 234 of 2022
Decided On : 16-08-2022
BAIL - BAIL APPLICATIONS UNDER IPC SECTIONS - Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A IPC - The court discussed the legal provisions under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC concerning dowry death and cruelty, emphasizing that mere allegations of dowry demands do not suffice for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The court highlighted the necessity of proving active instigation or aiding in the suicide, as established in precedents, which influenced the decision to grant bail based on the lack of supporting evidence for the original charges.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought bail in connection with FIR No. 87/2020 for offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, following the suicide of Arti Charak, who had alleged harassment and dowry demands from her in-laws. The FIR was initially registered based on the complainant's allegations, but subsequent witness statements led to the deletion of the original charges and the addition of Section 306 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented did not support the allegations of dowry harassment necessary to sustain charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of abetment, which was not established in this case.
Issues: Whether the applicants could be granted bail given the change in charges from Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC to Section 306 IPC, and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the charge of abetment of suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that abetment under Section 306 IPC requires proof of active instigation or aiding in the act leading to suicide, and that mere allegations of dowry demands do not automatically imply abetment. The prosecution must demonstrate a direct link between the accused's actions and the deceased's decision to commit suicide.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicants on the condition of furnishing personal and surety bonds, emphasizing their obligation to appear in court and not to influence witnesses.
JUDGMENT :
VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.
1. Through the medium of the instant applications, applicants seek bail in FIR No. 87/2020, registered with the Police Station, Bari Brahmana, for offences punishable under sections 304-B/498-A IPC.
2. Co-accused-Geeta Devi has been granted interim bail in the FIR in question by this Court vide order dated 22.06.2022.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present bail applications, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows.
4. On 03.05.2022, complainant-Dhurv Singh lodged a written complaint before the Police Station, Bari Brahmana, alleging therein that his daughter-Arti Charak (deceased) was married to Parshotam Singh who along with other accused, namely, Geeta Devi (mother-in-law of deceased), Romi (brother-in-law of deceased), Rekha Charak (sister-in-law of deceased) and Kaka (husband of Rekha Charak) were harassing the deceased after marriage from the very beginning. All the accused were demanding huge dowry from the deceased and also used bad language in a cruel manner. In the complaint it was alleged that deceased came to her parental home and narrated the whole story to all family members. They tried to convince her and called her in-laws to solve the matter, but they refused all things. On 02.04.2022, accused-Parshotam Singh, threatened her on phone in the morning and in the evening, deceased-Arti Charak hanged herself. She was shifted to Medical College, Jammu, where she died.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint, FIR No. 87/2022 came to be registered at Police Station, Bari Brahmana for offences punishable under sections 304/498-A IPC and investigation commenced. During investigation it came to fore that after marriage of deceased-Arti Charak all the accused named in the complaint were harassing her on account of demand of dowry.
6. Objections as well as latest status report have been filed.
7. A perusal of the status report reveals that as per the statement of the witnesses under section 164 and 161 Cr.P.C. offences under section 304-B and 498-A IPC stands deleted and offences under section 306 IPC have been added against the accused persons, namely, Parshotam Singh, Beer Singh, Geeta Devi, Joginder Singh and Rekha Charak, as none of the witness has supported the statement of the complainant regarding Dowry.
8. A perusal of the record further tends to show that applicants earlier moved an application for grant of bail under section 437 Cr.P.C. before Principal Sessions Judge, Samba, however, the same was dismissed with the observation that accused/applicants herein have failed to make out a case for grant of bail in their favour.
9. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the official respondent submits that accused/applicants herein, namely, Joginder Singh, Rekha Charak and Beer Singh have been arrested and lodged in District Jail, Kathua on judicial remand. It is stated that Challan against, Beer Singh, Geeta Devi, Joginder Singh, and Rekha Charak has been produced before the Trial Court at Samba on 30.06.2022.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
11. In the instant case, initially FIR in question was registered for the offences under sections 304-B/498-A IPC, they were taken into custody. They moved to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Samba for grant of bail, however, the same was rejected. As per the statement of the witnesses under section 164 and 161 Cr.P.C. offences under 304-B/498-A IPC stands deleted and now offence under section 306 IPC has been added in the instant case. Charge sheet is also stated to have been filed before the Trial Court.
12. The fact that a person commits suicide and previous to that he was assaulted by someone may not automatically lead to a conclusion that they had abetted the commission of suicide. It depends on the mental state of the person who committed suicide. For committing an abetment, the person must do something more than merely assaulting him and to hold whether
AI
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, it is essential to establish that the accused actively instigated or aided the deceased in committing suicide, rather than relying solely on allegations of har....
The need for evidence to prove abetment in cases of suicide.
The timing and specificity of allegations, completion of investigation, and framing of charges are crucial factors in considering bail applications in cases involving dowry demands and harassment.
The absence of specific allegations of demand of dowry or harassment soon before the death, coupled with prolonged custody and parental responsibilities, can be grounds for granting bail in cases inv....
The presumption of a 'dowry death' under Section 304B IPC should be tested in trial and is meant to act as a deterrent to the demand of dowry.
The court emphasized the necessity of a proximate nexus between dowry-related harassment and the death of the deceased for invoking Section 304B IPC.
The court ruled that without substantial evidence proving unnatural death or suicide, the applicant is entitled to bail, emphasizing the necessity of clear proof for conviction under IPC sections.
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
