Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikram Aggarwal, J.
Binder @ Balwinder Singh - Appellant - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent - Respondent
CRA-S-685-SB of 2014
Decided On : 10-02-2023
Abetment - Suicide - Section 306 IPC - [Abetment] - [Suicide] - [Section 306 IPC] - This judgment decides three criminal appeals against the conviction of the appellants under Section 306 IPC. The deceased set himself ablaze after being allegedly harassed by his in-laws. The court examined the principles of abetment of suicide and found that intentional instigation or aiding was not proven. The court acquitted the appellants based on the lack of evidence of intentional goading or incitement.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased set himself ablaze after being allegedly harassed by his in-laws. The appellants were convicted under Section 306 IPC. The appellants appealed against the conviction, arguing that the ingredients of abetment of suicide were not present. They contended that the deceased was not mentally stable and had a history of alcoholism and drug addiction. The witnesses who deposed against the appellants were challenged as interested witnesses. The defense also argued that the dying declaration of the deceased was suspicious due to inconsistencies and lack of ink on his thumb impressions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that intentional instigation or aiding of suicide was not proven. It noted that the deceased had a history of alcoholism and drug addiction, and his mental stability was questioned. The court also found inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies and raised doubts about the dying declaration. The court concluded that the appellants could not be held liable for abetment of suicide.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged abetment of suicide by the appellants. The defense raised concerns about the mental stability of the deceased, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and the suspicious nature of the dying declaration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court examined the principles of abetment of suicide and found that intentional instigation or aiding was not proven. It emphasized the need for clear mens rea and active instigation or aiding to convict a person under Section 306 IPC. The court also highlighted the importance of assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to determine if the cruelty meted out to the victim had induced the suicide.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants of the charges framed against them, citing the lack of evidence of intentional goading or incitement. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
1. This judgment shall decide the above mentioned three criminal appeals, all directed against the judgment of conviction dated 14.10.2013, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which the appellants were convicted under Section 306 IPC. Vide order of sentence of even date, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 04 years alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of which, further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 months each was imposed. The accused-appellants are the wife Mohindro Bai, mother-in-law Kaushalaya Bai, sister-in-law (wife's sister) Lali Bai, brothers-in-law (wife's brothers) Paramjit and Ranjit of Bhajan Lal and two other persons namely Binder @ Balwinder Singh and Ram Pal alias Ram Phal.
2. On 07.07.2010, one Bhajan Lal set himself ablaze. He was rushed to PGI, Chandigarh, where his statement was firstly recorded by PW7 Sub Inspector Bhagwan Dass and thereafter by PW8 Ms. Palvinderjit Kaur, posted as Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at the relevant time. In the statement, Bhajan Lal stated that his marriage had been solemnized with Mohindro Bai around 15 years prior to the incident. Three children were born out of the said wedlock. As per him, he was being pressurized by his in-laws to sell his land situated in Village Gulahar and to shift to Village Jansua i.e. the village where his in-laws resided. Since he did not agree, his wife used to quarrel with him and on 5-6 occasions, she went to her parental house after quarrelling with him. Every time he brought her back. However, around 4-5 months prior to the incident, his wife Mohindro Bai alongwith his children went to her parental house at Village Jansua. The telephonic calls made by Bhajan Lal would be responded by abuses from his brother-in-law Ranjit. On 06.07.2010, Bhajan Lal went to Village Jansua to bring his wife and children back. His mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brothers-in-law alongwith his wife gathered in the house. One Binder had also been called. Instead of hearing Bhajan Lal, the appellants gave beatings to him and forcibly tried to get his thumb impressions on a blank paper to use the same for selling his land. When he refused and tried to run away, Paramjit assaulted him with a hand pump handle and Ranjit threw a brick bat which luckily did not hit him. He fled to the house of his sister Parkasho Bai where he was followed by Paramjit, Ramphal and Binder. However, they left when people gathered there and while leaving, they also gave threats. Bhajan Lal came back to his village on 07.07.2010 and narrated about the incident to his mother Lachho Bai. He was feeling deeply hurt and aggrieved on account of the behaviour of his in-laws and the beatings given to him on account of which he poured kerosene on himself and set himself ablaze.
3. On the basis of the statement of Bhajan Lal, FIR was registered and investigation commenced. Bhajan Lal, however, expired on 10.07.2010 on account of the burn injuries suffered by him. On the completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Charges were framed and trial was commenced.
4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses whereas the accused examined three witnesses in defence.
5. After conclusion of the trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the manner referred to in the opening paragraph of the judgment.
6. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the present appeals have been preferred.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have perused the record of the trial Court.
8. Learned counsel for the parties have contended that the trial Court gravely erred in convicting the appellants under Section 306 IPC. It has been argued that the ingredients of abetment of suicide were not present. Reference has been made to the provisions of Sections 107 and 306 IPC. It has been contended that the alleged incident of beatings etc. took place
The main legal point established in the judgment is that to convict a person under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, there must be clear mens rea and active instigation or aiding proven. The c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide, the requirement of mens rea for abetment, and the caution against ....
To convict for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement by the accused, which was not established in this case.
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 Sec. 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or encouragement by the accused, along with the necessary mens rea, which was not proven in this case.
Abetment under Section 306 IPC requires evidence of direct instigation and established mens rea; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction.
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
