MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)
Vivek Rusia, J.
Sunita - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 39433 of 2020
Decided On : 04-11-2020
Section 306 IPC - Apprehension of arrest under Section 438 Cr.P.C. - The court allowed the application and directed the release of the applicant on bail, emphasizing that mere harassment of the wife by the husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 IPC if the wife commits suicide. The court cited relevant case law to support its decision and highlighted that the allegations against the accused were general in nature.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in connection with a case concerning offense under Section 306 of the IPC. The deceased had lodged a complaint about assault and subsequently committed suicide, leading to the filing of an FIR against the applicant and others based on allegations of harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application, emphasizing that the law regarding Section 306 IPC is well settled and cited relevant case law to support its decision. It directed the release of the applicant on bail, highlighting that the allegations against the accused were general in nature.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the applicability of Section 306 IPC in the case, considering the allegations of harassment and the suicide of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 306 IPC as established in relevant case law, emphasizing that mere harassment of the wife by the husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 IPC if the wife commits suicide.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and directed the release of the applicant on bail, emphasizing the settled law and the general nature of the allegations against the accused.
JUDGMENT
Vivek Rusia, J. - This is first application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by applicant Smt. Sunita W/o. Rajendrasingh Panwar, who is apprehending her arrest by Police in connection with Crime No.390/2020 registered at Police Station Pithampur, Sector-3, District Dhar, concerning offence u/s. 306 of the IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary through Video Conferencing.
3. As per prosecution story, deceased Mahesh lodged the complaint in Police Station about assaulting him by the present applicant, her husband Rajendrasingh and one Arjunsingh. A 'Merg' was registered at No.201/2020 in Police Station Pithampur for the offences punishable u/s. 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC. Thereafter, on the next day of lodging the aforesaid complaint, he committed suicide. The mother of the deceased lodged the report against the present applicant and two others alleging that they used to harass the deceased which instigated him to commit suicide.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially after commission of suicide by deceased Mahesh, a 'Merg' was registered, later on, on a complaint made by his mother, present FIR has been registered against the applicant and two others. Local news was widely punished in the newspapers that the deceased committed the suicide as the police was not taking any action against the accused. The allegations levelled against all the accused are general in nature. Applicant's husband has been arrested by the police. He further submits that the law in respect of Section 306 of IPC is well settled. On mere allegations of harassment, the FIR ought not to have been registered. Hence, the applicant is entitled for protection from his arrest.
5. On the other hand, learned Panel Advocate opposes the prayer and prayed for dismissal of this application.
6. I have perused the case-diary. The law with regard to Section 306 of IPC is well settled. In the case of Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh & Others, (2007) 11 SCC 205 , the Supreme Court has held that mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, if the wife commits suicide. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife is often harassed by the husband or her in-laws, this, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC. In the case of K.V. Prakash Babu V/s. State of Karnataka, (2016) AIR SC 5430 , the Apex Court has held that the concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and the strata from which the persons come from and definitely has an individualistic perception regard being had to one's endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalize but certainly it can be appreciated in a set of established facts. Recently, the apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.40/2011 (Gurcharan Singh V/s. State of Punjab) decided on 1st October, 2020 has again summarised the law in respect of the applicability of Section 306 of IPC and has held as under :-
"19. Proceeding with the above understanding of the law and applying the ratios to the facts in the present case, what is apparent is that no overt act or illegal omission is seen from the appellant's side, in taking due care of his deceased wife. The evidence also does not indicate that the deceased faced persistent harassment from her husband. Nothing to this effect is testified by the parents or any of the other prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court and the High Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any evidence concluded only through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife.
20. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in declaring that the Trial Court and the High Court erred in concluding that the deceased was driven to commit suicide, by the circumstances or atmosphere in the matrimonial home. This is nothing more than an in
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.
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.