Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 1089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
V.NARASINGH, J.
Manoranjan Tarei @ Tarai – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha – Opp. Parties
CRLREV No.152 of 2024
Decided On : 11-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanket Kanungo, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K. Sahoo, AGA, Mr. Pulakesh Mohanty, Adv. (Informant)

Mere allegations of quarrel or disagreement in marital life do not constitute sufficient grounds for charges of abetment of suicide or cruelty under IPC Sections 306 and 498-A without clear evidence of incitement or mens rea.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306 and 498-A - Framing of charge - Accused challenged framing of charge for abetment of suicide and cruelty - Marriage solemnized in 2018; FIR lodged on 19.11.2020 alleging poisoning of wife by husband and family - Investigation revealed no acts of cruelty or abetment as per evidence of witnesses; mere quarreling over finances insufficient for charges - Court examined principles regarding the need for direct evidence of incitement to suicide, emphasizing importance of mens rea - Charge quashed as no prima facie case established. (Paras 1-12)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 - Court’s power to sift evidence while framing charges - Insufficient grounds disclosed to proceed against accused; charges must satisfy prima facie requirements. (Paras 5-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, husband of the deceased, challenged the charges framed under IPC Sections 498-A and 306 on grounds of lack of evidence for prosecution's claims of cruelty and abetment of suicide following wife's death by poisoning.

Findings of Court:
The court determined no prima facie evidence of cruelty or abetment to suicide existed, leading to the conclusion that the charges presented were baseless.

Issues: Whether the materials on record supported charges of cruelty and abetment leading to suicide; the necessity for establishing mens rea.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere allegations of quarrel and financial disputes do not amount to sufficient evidence for charges under Sections 306 and 498-A, emphasizing the need for concrete proof of intent or action leading to suicide.

Result: Charge under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC quashed, petitioner discharged.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the petitioner’s plea against the charge. (Para 1)
2. arguments contending insufficient evidence for charge. (Para 2)
3. prosecution's assertions on dowry and cruelty. (Para 3)
4. judicial considerations regarding framing charges. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
5. criteria for abetment and mens rea under ipc. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
6. court’s conclusion and order quashing charges. (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Kanungo, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sahoo, AGA and learned counsel for the Opposite party No.2, Mr. Mohanty.

Revisionist-husband assails the framing of charge by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Baripada in S.T. Case No.220 of 2021 by order dated 25.03.2022 U/s. 498-A & 306 of IPC vide Annexure-1 and seeks the following relief.

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the order of charge dtd. 25.03.2022 framed against the petitioner U/s. 498-A, 306 1PC in S.T. Case No. 220 of 2021 arising out of Rasgovindapur P.S. Case No. 226 of 2020 pending before the Court of the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Baripada, in the interest of justice.

xxx xxx xxx”

Case of the accused:-

1. The factual matrix of the case, is that on 19.11.2020 the Opp. Party No. 2 lodged FIR against his son in law-the petitioner to the effect that he and his family has murdered his daughter by giving poison and accordingly FIR was lodged against the petitioner and his family members U/s. 498-A, 302, 304-B, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act. However, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner u/s. 498-A and 306 of and on 25.03.2022 the learned court below has framed the charge against the petitioner for the said offences which is under challenge.

2. It is submitted by the petitioner that the marriage between the Petitioner - Husband and the Deceased -Wife was solemnized in the year 2018 and a male child was born out of wedlock in the year 2018. The Petitioner is working as a Constable in 5^th Battalion, Laxmiposi, OSAP, Baripada, whereas the Deceased - Wife was posted as Shikhya Sahayak in U.P.S. at Astia, Mayurbhanj.

2-A. On the early hours of 18.11.2020, the Petitioner was informed by his Sister-in-Law i.e Chinmayi Behera (C.S.W - 2) that his wife has consumed poison. The Petitioner along with his elder brother and sister immediately took the Deceased to CHC, Rasgovindpur and after preliminary treatment she was shifted to DHH, Baripada. As her condition deteriorated, she was referred to SCB Medical College, Cuttack, but on the way as she became non- responsive and pulseless, she was taken to Vishakha Nursing Home, Cuttack, where she could not be revived and was declared dead.

Thereafter, Post Mortem was conducted at PRM, Medical College, Baripada on 19.11.2020 and the autopsy reveals that the cause of death as "death due to poisoning."

2-B. Thereafter, on 19.11.2020, the father of the Deceased lodged a complaint before the Rasgovindpur P.S. and an F.I.R, was registered as Rasgovindpur P.S. Case No. 226 of 2020 citing the Petitioner and his family members as accused for alleged commission of Offences punishable U/s- 498-A, 302, 304-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After investigation charge sheet was filed under Section 4 98A and 306 IPC .

2-C. It is argued by the petitioner that the material collected during investigation does not disclose anywhere that the Petitioner acted, with a view to either coerce his deceased wife or any person related to her to meet any unwanted demand of any property or valuable security. Only on the basis that the Petitioner quarreled with his deceased wife due to some domestic issues or vague allegations that the Petitioner used to harass his wife, the learned Trial Court erroneously came to a finding that prima facie there existed materials to frame charges U/s 306 & 498-A against the Petitioner.

2-D. It is further contende