Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J.
Gulabia – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2272 of 1996
Decided On : 21-01-2011
Abetment - Suicide - Indian Penal Code - Sec. 306
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetting her daughter-in-law's suicide. The deceased had hung herself in her in-laws' house, and the appellant was sentenced to 3 years R.I.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid by the appellant in the deceased's suicide. The court also noted that the general complaints of ill-treatment and demand of items from the deceased's parents-in-law were not sufficient to prove abetment of suicide.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant had abetted the deceased's suicide, and whether the evidence supported the conviction under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the criteria of Sec. 107 of the Indian Penal Code to ascertain abetment, and emphasized the need for evidence indicative of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid for a conviction under Sec. 306. The court also referenced the case of Bhagwandas v. Kartar Singh, which held that mere harassment without anything more will not attract Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of conviction and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
T.K. Kaushal, J.
This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 3.12.1996 passed in ST No. 147/1995 by Sessions Judge, Sidhi convicting the appellant/accused-Gulabia u/s 306, Indian Penal Code for abatement of her daughter-in-law Sonvati (deceased), to commit suicide, by hanging herself to end her life and sentenced the appellant for 3 years R.I. The facts of the case in short, are that about 8-9 years prior to incident Sonvati (deceased) married to Rajmani Patel, son of accused/appellant. "Gauna" was performed 3 years back. In-laws of the deceased used to demand "mohar" and other items saying that they did not receive any thing in dowry. On 9.7.1995 at about 11.00 a.m. Sonvati (deceased) hang herself with the help of rope on bamboo stick clamped in the house.
On the same day at about 3.30 p.m., PW-2 Chitrasen, Brother-in-law (Dewar) informed the Police, Amiliya of about suicide, thereon a marg (Ex. P-1) was registered by Police, Amiliya.
On 10.7.1995, Post-mortem (Ex. P-5) was conducted by Dr. Motilal (PW-7) along with Dr. B.L. Depankar, gave PM report is Ex. P-3, having mention of ligature mark on the neck of Sonvati (deceased) and cause of death was asphyxia.
On 21.7.1995, Police Amiliya registered a case u/s 306, Indian Penal Code against appellant. During investigation statements of parents of the deceased and other witnesses were recorded. Charge sheet was submitted under Sections 306/304, Indian Penal Code citing 15 witnesses in it.
2. Learned Trial Court framed charges u/s 306, Indian Penal Code. Appellant/accused has abjured his guilt. Trial Court proceeded with trial and recorded the statements of Chourasiya mother of deceased (PW-1), Chitrasen (PW-2), Ramdayal brother of deceased (PW-3), Manghir, cousin sister of the deceased, (PW-4) Shambhu Prasad, father of deceased (PW-5), Besani, younger sister of deceased (PW-6), Dr. Motilal (PW-7), Bejnath Prasad, Head Constable (PW-8), Anil Kumar Station House Office, Police Station Amiliya (PW-9).
3. Trial Court relied upon the testimony of witnesses and evidence, convicted the appellant/accused u/s 306, Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant- Gulabia for 3 years imprisonment.
4. This appeal has been preferred mainly, amongst others, on ground that the marriage was solemnized about more than 7-8 years back of incident. All family members of the Sonvati (deceased) did not say anything about abatement of suicide against the appellant Gulabia. The fact of the demand of dowry was added subsequently in the charge-sheet, this allegation is totally false and baseless.
5. Learned Government Advocate submitted that there is sufficient evidence in support of the judgment of the Trial Court.
6. For ascertaining of fact of abetment, evidence should come on following points mentioned in Sec. 107, IPC:
1. Instigation to commit suicide;
2. Conspiracy for the suicide;
3. Intentional aid for suicide by willful misrepresentation or willful concealment of material fact.
7. Family members' of the deceased, Chourasiya (PW-1) mother of the deceased, Ramdayal (PW-3) brother of deceased, Manghir (PW-4) cousin of the deceased, Shambhu Prasad (PW-5) father of the deceased and Besani (PW-6) younger sister of the deceased narrated general statements regarding demand of items and her ill-treatment by the accused. There is no specific such instance is mentioned soon before the incident. They stated about general complaints made by the deceased regarding ill-treatment given to her by accused.
8. Learned Trial Court has appreciated evidence in such manner as if it is a case of Section 304B, IPC and has applied criteria of Section 113A of Evidence Act. It is mentioned in para 19 of its judgment that because of the less dowry received, accused/appellant consistently harassed Sonvati (deceased), whereas in the matter of Section 306, IPC, evidence should be indicative of the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aided or omission.
9. Taking the evidence on record and circumstances of the case in
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
