Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 966
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
Kavita – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S-4648-SB of 2016
Decided On : 13-05-2024
Mr. Partap S. Gill, Advocate and Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advocate; For the Appellantin CRA-S-4648-SB-2016 and for Respondent No. 2 in CRR-482-2017.
Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the Complainant/Petitioner in CRR-482-2017.
Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mens rea is essential for abetment under Section 306 IPC; mere emotional disputes do not suffice to establish liability for suicide.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - Accused convicted and sentenced to 5 years RI and fine under Section 306 IPC - Court found no evidence of instigation or mens rea on part of accused - Suicide notes indicated prior harassment but not immediate cause - Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. (Paras 15, 12, 14)
(B) Abetment - Definition and requirements - Mens rea is crucial for abetment; mere emotional outbursts do not constitute instigation - Prosecution failed to prove that accused's actions directly led to suicide. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted under Section 306 IPC for allegedly abetting her husband's suicide, following a strained relationship and threats made by her. The deceased left suicide notes blaming the accused for his distress.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to establish that the accused's actions constituted abetment, as the suicide occurred days after their last interaction.
Issues: The main issues were whether the accused's actions constituted instigation and if the suicide was directly linked to her conduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without clear evidence of intent to abet, the accused could not be held liable under Section 306 IPC.
Result: Appeal allowed, conviction set aside.
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.
This order shall dispose of above mentioned two cases as they both arise out of the same impugned order and similar questions of facts and law are involved in both the cases.
1(a). CRA-S-4648-SB-2016 has been filed by appellant-Kavita (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') to impugn the judgment of conviction dated 25.11.2016 and order of sentence dated 30.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby she was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 05 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 306 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 2 ½ months, in case FIR No.23 dated 07.05.2013 under Section 306 of the IPC registered at Police Station GRP, Gurgaon.
1(b). CRR-482-2017 has been preferred by, complainant Jai Singh Bhardwaj, seeking enhancement of aforementioned sentence awarded to the accused by the learned Trial Court.
Brief facts of the case
2. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to give in brief the case as set up by the prosecution.
2(a). The aforesaid FIR (Ex.PP) was lodged at the instance of Jai Singh Bhardwaj (father of Dilbagh, hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), after the dead body of the deceased was found near the railway lines on 07.05.2013. Prior thereto, on 28.04.2013, the deceased had telephonically informed the complainant that his wife Kavita-accused had left her matrimonial home after a dispute with him. Despite innumerable attempts by the deceased to contact his wife i.e. the accused, she remained unreachable, save for one instance, where she threatened the deceased to falsely implicate him in a dowry case and also extended threats of dire consequences to him, citing her purported connections within the Delhi Police, where she was employed. The complainant along with his relatives thereafter visited the house of the accused in village Manjri (Karala) on 04.05.2013, in an effort to reconcile. However, the accused rebuffed all the efforts made by the complainant party by asserting her contacts and position and further threatening to implicate the deceased in some false case. She also threatened the complainant party including the deceased that she had contacts with senior officials and would cause harm to them. The deceased left behind an undated suicide note (Ex.P8) which was found on his person wherein he blamed the accused as being responsible for his suicide. Besides, another undated suicide note was also found in the house of the deceased (Ex.P1).
2(b). Following an investigation, the accused was sent up for trial and charged under Section 306 of the IPC. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses, including complainant, Jai Singh (PW1), and Mandeep Yadav (PW6), a colleague of the deceased. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to her under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. but she pleaded innocence and false implication. She pleaded a history of depression and suicides in the family of the deceased and denied being in any manner responsible for the suicide of the late husband.
2(c). On the basis of the evidence led, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced her as under:-
| Offence(s) u/s | Period of sentence(s) | Fine imposed | Period of sentence in default of payment of fine |
| 306 of the IPC | RI for 05 years | Rs. 10000/- | RI for 2-1/2 months |
Submissions of learned counsel for the accused
3(a). Learned counsel for the accused vehemently contends that there exists no evidence, either direct or indirect, to substantiate the charge against her under Section 306 of the IPC regarding her alleged involvement in her husband's suicide. Furthermore, learned counsel has emphasised that in fact, there is complete absence of any discernible act much less mens rea, on the part of the accused, immediately preceding the suicide of her husband which could reasonably be construed as instigation. While referring to provisions of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC, i
