IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Babita & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-17111-2022 and CRM-M-17119-2022
Decided On : 13-05-2022
Regular Bail - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - FIR No.560 dated 22.09.2021, under Sections 306 and 34 IPC (Section 506 IPC has been added later on) - Sections 306, 34, and 506 IPC - The court allowed the bail petitions considering the circumstances of the case, lack of suicide note, and the debatable issue of whether an offence under Section 306 IPC is made out.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions were filed for the grant of regular bail to the petitioners in a case involving Sections 306 and 34 IPC, where the deceased had committed suicide and the petitioners, the mother-in-law and wife of the deceased, were in custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the bail petitions, considering the circumstances of the case, lack of suicide note, and the debatable issue of whether an offence under Section 306 IPC is made out.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners should be granted regular bail in a case involving Sections 306 and 34 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of suicide note, the circumstances of the case, and the debatable issue of whether an offence under Section 306 IPC is made out as the basis for allowing the bail petitions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail petitions and ordered the petitioners to be released on bail, with a caution that any act done by the petitioners to threaten or influence the complainant or witnesses could lead to the cancellation of bail.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - This order will dispose of two petitions. The first petition has been filed by petitioner-Babita i.e. CRM-M-17111-2022 and the second petition has been filed by petitioner-Anjali i.e.,
CRM-M-17119-2022.
2. Both the said petitions have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to the petitioners in FIR No.560 dated 22.09.2021, under Sections 306 and 34 IPC (Section 506 IPC has been added later on), at Police Station Kundli, District Sonipat.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner-Babita is the mother-in-law of the deceased Vipan and petitioner-Anjali is the wife of the said Vipan. It is further submitted that both the petitioners are in custody since 12.10.2021 and the challan has already been presented and there are 21 prosecution witnesses, none of whom have been examined. It is also submitted that in the present case, neither there is any suicide note, nor any dying declaration and the present FIR has been registered at the instance of father of the deceased and a perusal of the FIR would show that no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out, inasmuch as, the only allegation levelled in the FIR against both the petitioners was that they were pressurizing the deceased to give Anjali a divorce. It is argued that the said Vipan had committed suicide on 22.09.2021, whereas, petitioner-Anjali had left her matrimonial house on 15.09.2021. It is also argued that even the said suicide had taken place at village Khumpur, which is not the same village where the petitioners were residing i.e. village Toki. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that perusal of the supplementary challan (page 26 of the paper- book) would show that, it has been mentioned that the deceased had also consumed liquor prior to his death. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not involved in any other case.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well learned counsel for the complainant, have opposed the present petitions for regular bails and have submitted that petitioner-Anjali had not left her matrimonial house by her own consent, whereas, the co-accused had taken her forcibly from there.
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied up a judgment a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in State of Punjab Vs. Kamaljit Kaur @ Bholi and another, reported as 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 562, had observed as under:-
"1. The present revision petition is directed by the State against the discharge of Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi and Surinder Kumar alias Kala, accused. They were facing trial in case FIR No. 108 dated 31- 12-1994 registered at Police Station Nawanshahr under Section 306, IPC. It is stated that Paramjit Singh son of Darshan Singh Hira and his son Amritpal alias Lovely committed suicide and left a suicide note to the effect that his wife Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi is a woman of bad character. He is fed up with her. Therefore, he along with his son Lovely Amritpal Singh is committing suicide. It is further stated that his wife has illicit relations with three persons namely, Palli of Commando Force, Ludhiana, Kala residing opposite to their house and Ujjal Singh, her real uncle. In the suicide note, he has expressed that in these black days, such bad women are living in the Society. It is further stated that his wife Bholi is a lady of loose character. It is further stated that since Palli has come as a tenant in the house, Bholi has become lady of loose character. It is further stated that Kala had noticed Bholi in objectionable manner with Kala. He wanted in suicide note that if law contemplates action against wedded woman, the law should take its course.
2. On 27.8.1994 at 3.00 p.m. dead bodies of young unknown person aged about 30 years and a child aged about 5- 6 years were found near the maize field. These dead bodies were of Paramjit Singh and his son Am
State of Punjab Vs. Kamaljit Kaur @ Bholi and another
Wazir Chand v. The State of Haryana 1989 (1) Crimes 173 : 1989 CrLJ 809
The court considered the lack of a suicide note and the debatable issue of whether an offence under Section 306 IPC is made out as crucial factors in allowing the bail petitions.
The importance of mens rea in establishing instigation for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
The need for a clear mens rea and an active act to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, and the consideration of trial delay due to the pandemic as a factor in granting bail.
The necessity of active instigation or aiding in committing suicide, mens rea, and a direct act intended to push the deceased into committing suicide for conviction under Section 306 IPC.
The main legal point established is that for conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be a clear mens rea and an active act or direct act leading to suicide, and mere harassment without positive ....
The necessity of mens rea for instigation and the requirement of concrete evidence for establishing the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere conduct of a spouse, even if not up to the expectations of the other spouse, does not necessarily constitute abetment of suicide, and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, along with the necessity of mens rea and an....
The court ruled that mere familial disputes do not constitute abetment of suicide; clear evidence of active instigation is required for prosecution under Section 108 of BNSS, 2023.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.