IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Hans Raj - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M- 53857 of 2021
Decided On : 06-01-2022
Section 306 IPC - Regular Bail - [ABETMENT OF SUICIDE] - [Section 306, Section 107 of Cr.P.C] - The court discussed the interpretation of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC and the necessary mens rea for instigation. It referenced previous cases where even in cases of alleged illicit relationships, the court held that the conduct may not constitute abetment of suicide. The court emphasized the importance of mens rea in instigation and highlighted that not every conduct leading to suicide can be attributed to abetment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a 73-year-old, sought regular bail in a case under Section 306 IPC, alleging false implication due to property disputes and delay in filing the FIR after the death of the deceased. The petitioner argued that the allegations did not constitute an offense under Section 306 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's argument, considering the delay in filing the FIR, the property disputes, and the lack of evidence to establish abetment of suicide. It granted the petitioner regular bail, emphasizing his age, lack of involvement in other cases, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial.
Issues: Delay in filing FIR, property disputes, abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of mens rea in instigation and highlighted that not every conduct leading to suicide can be attributed to abetment.
Final Decision: The court granted the petitioner regular bail, considering the circumstances and the likelihood of a prolonged trial.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - This is the first petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.36 dated 20.01.2021, under Section 306 IPC, registered at Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a 73 year old person and has been falsely implicated in the present FIR on the basis of the statement of daughter-in-law of the deceased-Rajender, namely, Santosh, which has been made only in order to usurp the land of the petitioner. It is submitted that the said Rajender, father-in-law of the complainant, had died on 17.05.2017 and at that time no complaint was filed before any authority and no postmortem was also conducted on the said deceased. The present FIR has been registered on 20.01.2021 after a delay of 31/2 years. It is submitted that in fact the present petitioner as well as the deceased, who are brothers, have jointly filed a suit for partition in the year 2012 and another civil suit was even filed by the petitioner restraining the deceased from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and the same was decreed on 17.10.2013 and the appeal therefrom was also dismissed. It is argued that a perusal of the FIR would show that it has been alleged that some sale deed has been got executed from the deceased under the influence of liquor and it has further been alleged that the land closer to the road has been taken by the petitioner. In this regard, it is submitted that qua the same land, civil suit of the petitioner has been decreed in his favour and even if the said allegations are taken to be true, then also they would still not constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC as the petitioner has not instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is further stated that the FIR has been registered apparently by the daughter-in-law in order to grab the property of the present petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.
3. Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the present bail petition for regular bail and has submitted that although the death had taken place on 17.05.2017, but the complainant had moved a complaint on 08.09.2017 after she had found the suicide note and after the suicide note was verified, the present FIR has been registered. It is further submitted that from the FSL report it has come out that the suicide note is in the handwriting of the deceased and it is thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 27.11.2021.
4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.
5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi and another, reported as 2008 (2) R.C.R. (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
State of Punjab vs. Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi and another
Wazir Chand vs. The State of Haryana 1989 (1) Crimes 173 : 1989 CrLJ 809
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 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 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 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 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 decision to grant regular bail was based on the lack of criminal antecedents, the examination of material witnesses, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial for the case to conclude.
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.