Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
NISHA SAKET - Applicant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. and Another – Respondents
Cri. Rev. No. 3161 of 2022
Decided On : 20-03-2024
Abetment - Criminal Revision - IPC Sections 306, 107 - The court discussed the definitions and requirements for abetment under IPC, emphasizing the necessity of direct or indirect acts of incitement to establish a case under section 306, ultimately leading to the discharge of the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, wife of the deceased, faced charges under section 306 IPC after her husband committed suicide. Allegations included her poor treatment of him and instigating circumstances leading to his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the applicant were trivial and did not constitute abetment as defined under IPC. There was no evidence of instigation or actions that would compel the deceased to commit suicide.
Issues: Whether the applicant's actions constituted abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere allegations of discord and domestic issues do not amount to instigation unless there is clear evidence of incitement leading to suicide.
Result: The charge under section 306 IPC was set aside, and the applicant was discharged.
ORDER :
(G.S. Ahluwalia, J.) :
Case diary is available.
2. This Criminal Revision under section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against order dated 18-7-2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Umaria in S.T. No. 42/2022, by which charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code has been framed against the applicant.
3. It is not out of place to mention here that applicant had also filed M.Cr.C. No. 31993/2022 thereby challenging the FIR, which was also listed on 15-3-2024. Since charges have already been framed and present Criminal Revision has been filed against the order framing charges, therefore M.Cr.C. No. 31993/2022 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue this Revision.
4. The undisputed fact is that applicant is the wife of deceased Preetam Saket, whereas respondent No. 2/Smt. Radha Bai is mother-in-law of the applicant. It appears that Preetam Saket committed suicide by hanging himself in his Government accommodation. Marg enquiry under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code was registered. Dead body was sent for postmortem. Statements of witnesses were recorded and thereafter Police registered the FIR against the applicant for offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. The primary allegations against the applicant were that Preetam Saket had got appointment on compassionate ground on 1-4-2014 on account of death of his father. He got married to the applicant on 26-4-2016. When applicant came back to her matrimonial house for the second time in the month of July, 2016, it is alleged that her behaviour towards her in-laws was not good. Applicant was residing along with her husband (deceased) in Government accommodation No. 6/1, Pali Project Pali. She was not preparing food for her husband in time. Sometimes her husband was compelled to go on duty without having any meals. Behaviour of the applicant was not good. When husband of the applicant used to go on duty, then after leaving her child in the neighbourhood, she was in habit of going to market along with other persons for shopping purposes. When Preetam Saket was resisting to this conduct of applicant, then she used to pick up quarrel with him. In spite of presence of applicant in the house, deceased was compelled to do mopping, cleaning and washing of clothes. Applicant used to go to her parental home without informing the deceased. Applicant used to watch crime patrol serial on TV and in spite of objection by her husband she used to quarrel with him. The deceased was giving Rs. 10,000/- per month to his mother which was being objected by the applicant. On 12-7-2021, elder brother of the applicant got married. In Tilak ceremony, applicant was dancing. When her husband objected to her dance, then she also quarreled with him. On 18-7-2021, the deceased was not interested to go back to Pali but at the insistence of the applicant, he came back to Pali along with applicant and children. On 19-7-2021 at about 2:51, applicant informed her brother-in-law (devar) on his mobile phone that his brother is no more and has committed suicide by hanging himself. Thus, it was alleged that on account of abetment by the applicant, deceased has committed suicide.
5. Challenging the registration of FIR as well as framing of charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that even if the entire allegations are accepted, still no offence under section 306 would be made out.
6. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State as well as complainant. It is submitted that the harassment at the hands of applicant has resulted in such a situation where deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. Accordingly, it is submitted that FIR as well as charge-sheet has been rightly filed for offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code and charges have been rightly framed.
7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
8. Before considering the allegations made against the applicant, this Co
To establish abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or actions compelling the victim to take their life, not merely trivial domestic disputes.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear instigation or intentional aid; mere suspicion or threats are insufficient.
The court held that mere allegations of harassment do not establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC without direct evidence of instigation or encouragement.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding, which was absent in this case.
Clear evidence of instigation or incitement is essential to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC; mere allegations are insufficient.
At the stage of framing charges, even a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges, and the requirement of mens rea for abetment of suicide under IPC 306.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be direct incitement or actions compelling the victim to commit suicide; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
(1) Inherent Jurisdiction – Power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is restrictive in nature – It cannot act as a Trial Court and has to be cautious in granting relief sought for in terms of....
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be direct acts of incitement closely linked to the suicide, and mere denial of marriage does not constitute abetment.
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
