Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 938

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAI TYAGI, J.
Ritu Yadav and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 7207 of 2022
Decided On : 29-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Puneet Bhadauria.
For the Respondent: Ram Ashish Pandey.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its correlation with Section 306 IPC were discussed, emphasizing the need for direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide and highlighting that abetment may be continuous by the conduct of the abettor.

Headnote:
Abetment - Suicide - Section 306 IPC - [Abetment] - [Suicide] - [Section 306 IPC] - The court discussed the scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its correlation with Section 306 IPC. It highlighted the need for direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide and emphasized that abetment may be continuous by the conduct of the abettor. The judgment also emphasized that every case should be examined on its own facts and circumstances, and the doors of evidence cannot be shut at the outset. The court quashed the proceedings against three of the applicants, finding no evidence of their involvement in the act of abetment.
Fact of the Case:

The deceased's wife and relatives were charged with abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The deceased's suicide note did not name any person responsible for his death, but note writings by the deceased suggested that his wife was in an illicit relationship, which led to his suicide. The court found no evidence of the involvement of the deceased's brothers and maternal uncle in the act of abetment and quashed the proceedings against them.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the deceased's suicide note and note writings indicated that the deceased had alleged his wife for his act of suicide. It emphasized that the circumstances in the backdrop of the suicide note are subject to evidence, and the prosecution should be given the opportunity to lead evidence during the trial. The court also highlighted that the legal position does not permit quashing the charge sheet, cognizance order, and proceedings against the deceased's wife at this stage.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged abetment of suicide by the deceased's wife and relatives. The court examined the contents of the suicide note and note writings of the deceased, and the involvement of the deceased's brothers and maternal uncle in the act of abetment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide and highlighted that abetment may be continuous by the conduct of the abettor. It also emphasized that every case should be examined on its own facts and circumstances, and the doors of evidence cannot be shut at the outset.
Final Decision: The court rejected the application with regard to the deceased's wife and partly allowed it with regard to the deceased's brothers and maternal uncle, quashing the proceedings against them.

JUDGMENT :

AJAI TYAGI, J.

1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by applicants, namely, Ritu Yadav, Sunil @ Guddu, Sachin @ Chhotu and Kamlesh Kumar challenging the charge sheet No. 01 dated 18.01.2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 419 of 2021, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station-Jaswant Nagar, District-Etawah and cognizance order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Etawah dated 15.02.2022 and entire proceedings of this case.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid application are that a first information report was lodged at police station-Jaswant Nagar, District-Etawah on 03.10.2021 by opposite party No. 2 Munni Devi with the averments that the marriage of his son Rahul Yadav was solemnized with Ritu Yadav in the year 2010. Ritu Yadav lived happily with her son only for some period. After that she started torturing her son. On 10.08.2021 Ritu Yadav, Sanjay @ Guddu, Sachin @ Chhotu, both son of Keshav Dayal and Kamlesh maternal uncle of Ritu Yadav tortured her son and scuffled with him. Aggrieved with the torture at the hands of the aforesaid persons her son Rahul Yadav has committed suicide on 24.08.2021 at about 11:00 a.m. During the course of investigation, a suicide note was recovered by investigating officer allegedly written by the deceased Rahul Yadav, which is enclosed as Annexure No. 9. I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. inquest report was prepared and post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and post mortem report was prepared, in which ligature mark of 20 cm x 01.5 cm size on the neck, above thyroid cartilage was shown as ante mortem injury. Cause of death was mentioned as asphyxia due to hanging.

3. After completion of investigation, investigating officer reached to the conclusion that the deceased had committed suicide and I.O. submitted charge sheet against all the applicants, namely, Ritu Yadav, Sunil @ Guddu, Sachin @ Chhotu and Kamlesh for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Learned Magistrate concerned took the cognizance on the aforesaid charge sheet on 15.02.2022 and summoned all the four accused persons for trial under Section 306 IPC. Aggrieved with submission of charge sheet and cognizance order, applicants moved this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Heard Shri Puneet Bhadauria, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Ram Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, Shri Mthilesh Kumar, learned AGA and carefully perused the record.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant No. 1 Ritu Yadav is wife of deceased Rahul Yadav, who has committed suicide, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers of applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 4 is maternal uncle of applicant No. 1 and no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against any of the applicants. It is further submitted that after the death of deceased Rahul Yadav, his real brother Nishu Kumar son of Suresh Kumar informed the police of P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District-Etawah and his information was entered in G.D. of police station, which is annexed as Annexure No. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in aforesaid information, which is entered in G.D. on 24.08.2021 at 21:31, it is nowhere informed by Nishu Kumar that any of the applicants was responsible for the death of deceased and it is also specifically informed that wife of deceased had gone to house of her brothers in Delhi with children on 22.08.2021 on the eve of Raksha Bandan festival and his brother was alone in the house. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently submitted that the information provided by brother of deceased itself shows that at the time of alleged occurrence of suicide, applicants were not with him and wife of deceased had already gone to her brother’s place in Delhi before two day. Hence, there was no reason or occasion on the part of the applicants to make any sort of abetment for compelling him to commit suicide. It is also s