O R D E R

Dated this the 12th day of March 2021 Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Applicants are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1001/2020 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station, Ernakulam for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341 and

306 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicants'

neighbour and distant relative one Nandakumar committed suicide during some time on the night of 30.09.2020 by hanging himself in his house. It is alleged that the applicants had assaulted him the previous day and caused hurt including a grievous injury to him and, thus abetted commission of such suicide.

3. The applicants state that the allegations are not true and that the deceased was a habitual drunkard, and used to frequently pick up a quarrel with everyone, including the applicants, who are his neighbours and relatives. His own mother staying with him, had after a quarrel left the house to stay with his brother. Such was his behaviour. Because of his drinking habits, he often fell down in an inebriated condition and sustained injuries due to that. Merely because the postmortem report revealed certain antemortem injuries on his body by itself would not indicate that the applicants were responsible for his suicide and had abetted him to commit suicide. There is no suicide note recovered. The applicants state that they do not have any criminal antecedents. They are willing to cooperate with the investigation and hence seek pre-arrest bail.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. 'Abetment' in Section 306 I.P.C. has to be understood with reference to its definition given in Section 107 I.P.C. Considering the scope of Section 107 I.P.C. the Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. V.

C. Shukla [AIR 1998 SC 1406] observed thus:

". . .a person abets the doing of a thing when he does any of the acts mentioned in the following three clauses.

(i) instigates that person to do that thing.

(ii) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of those things.

(iii) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

So far as the first two clauses are concerned it is not necessary that the offence instigated should have been committed. For understanding the word 'aid' in the third clause it would be advantageous to see Explanation 2 in S. 107, I.P.C., which reads thus :

"Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of the act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

It is thus clear that under the third clause when a person abets by aiding, the act so aided should have been committed in order to make such aiding an offence.. . ."

6. In Sia Ram v. State of U.P. [AIR 1975 SC 175], the Supreme Court held that in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. It is clearly held that mere proof that the crime could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirement of S. 107, I.P.C. Various High Courts have taken a view that merely because a person committed suicide by feeling insulted or humiliated, due to the comments or utterances made by the accused, the accused cannot be said to be guilty of an offence under S. 306, I.P.C. In Devraj v. State of H. P. [1991 (3) Crimes 383], if a partner in a firm committed suicide due to the other partners (accused) taking away large sums of money out of partnership fund for various purposes and their not rendering an account to the deceased, and for not permitting the deceased utilizing the profits, the other partners in the firm who are accused of an offence under S. 306, I.P.C. for the suicide of the deceased, were held to be not guilty of such offence.

7. In Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707], the Supreme Court, having adverted t