Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Ratni Devi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 686 of 2011, Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 17 of 2012
Decided on : 09-05-2023
Abetment - Conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code - Section 498-A and 304-B - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the deceased committed suicide due to harassment and cruelty by the appellants for want of fulfilment of dowry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges of dowry and harassment against the appellants were not proved. The court acquitted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and convicted them for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove any evidence of instigation by the appellants for committing suicide. The suicide note written by the deceased explicitly stated that no one should be blamed for her death, negating the charges of instigation.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted from the charges.
JUDGMENT :
Both the appeals are directed against the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence and accordingly both the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State in their respective cases.
3. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15th December, 2011 and order of sentence dated 20th December, 2011 passed by the Court of learned Additional Judicial commissioner-I, Khunti (Ranchi) in S.T. Case No. 651 of 2005/S.T. Case No. 102 of 2006, whereby the appellants have been charged for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code but convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each and in case of default of payment of fine further directed to undergo simple Imprisonment for four months.
4. The prosecution story arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of Krishna Sahu, P.W.-4 which was recorded by S.I. Nageshwar Prasad Singh of Khunti P.S. on 21.05.2005 at 15:00 hrs. at village Badabirhu. In the said fardbeyan Krishna Sahu stated that on 21.05.2005 at 10:00 A.M. he was inside his house and his son Raj Kumar Sahu who was studying in Ranchi informed on telephone that his sister Rita Devi had been killed in Sasural. On this information the informant along with his wife Rukamani Devi and cousin son-in-law Rainu Mahato and neighbours proceeded towards the village, Badabirhu and went to the house of the informant’s son-in-law i.e. Sakindar (the appellant of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 17 of 2012) and all of them found that Rita Devi was laying on bed (Palang) and there was red and black mark on her neck. The persons of the house told that Rita Devi had closed the door in the morning and when the house mates asked Rita Devi to open the door and finding that Rita Devi was not answering they broke the door and opened and found her lying dead.
The informant in his fardbeyan further stated that his daughter Rita Devi was married to Sakindar Kashyap of village Badabirhu on 30.03.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs and after the marriage his son-in-law had demanded motorcycle as dowry. Rita Devi had gone to her Sasural and as she was a student she used to come to her Naiher and go to Sasural off and on and once when Rita Devi came back from Sasural she told the informant and other members of her family that Sakindar Kashyap used to assault her by saying that she loved some another person and Sakindar threatened to kill and had also abused her by saying that her father could not give a motorcycle in dowry and Ratni Devi (mother-in-law), Raj Kappoor Kachyap, (Bhaisur) also abused her by saying that she was a 420 (commonly known, as fraud) and used to assault her.
The informant further stated in his fardbeyan that on 07.05.2005 his son-in-law’s elder brother Raju Kaschyap came to his house and asked to send off Rita Devi. The informant and his wife alleged that in Sasural her daughter was being assaulted on the pretext of false allegation. On repeated request by Raju, the informant sent off his daughter Rita Devi to Sasural. The informant further stated that on 18.05.2005 the marriage ceremony of Dilip Ohdar, the nephew of informant was fixed and in that marriage ceremony Sakindar and informant’s daughter had gone wherein Rita Devi again alleged that her husband Sakindar, Bhaisur, Raju Kachyap and Mother-in-law assaulted her by alleging that she (Rita Devi) had got illicit connection with another persons and after marriage the son-in-law, Sakindar Kachyap took Rita Devi to his house and thereafter committed this occurrence.
Police lodged Khunti P.S. Case No. 62 dated 21.05.2005 for the offence under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after investigation t
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be evidence of instigation or intentional aid by the accused to drive ....
The prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of mens rea or guilty motive to instigate or abet the victim is crucial in cases of abetment of suicide.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or encouragement; mere harassment lacks sufficient immediacy to constitute such abetment.
For conviction under Sections 306 and 498A, clear evidence of instigation or aiding in suicide is essential; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
The judgment emphasizes the stringent requirement of proving clear mens rea and direct act leading to suicide to establish the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, highlighting the n....
To convict under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or direct acts leading to suicide must be established, which was absent in this case.
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
