To sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC, the suicide must be completed; mere attempt does not invoke the provision.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case assails the order dated 03.06.2022, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, dismissed the petitioner’s application for discharge filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C ., in Crl.M.P.No.2588 of 2022 in S.C.No.517 of 2021.

The case of the prosecution:-

2.The petitioner is the 68 year old mother-in-law of the victim. On

12.09.2019, the petitioner is alleged to have verbally abused the victim and thereby, abetted her to commit suicide so that the petitioner’s son could remarry. The victim attempted suicide by consuming phenol mixed with kerosene, but was saved. FIR No.301 of 2019 was registered on 14.09.2019, for the offences under Section 306 read with 511 IPC , on the complaint lodged by the victim. Final report was filed on 22.12.2020. Pending framing of charges, the petitioner sought for discharge, which was refused. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this Revision Case. Submissions:-

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, two-day unexplained delay vitiates the FIR. Section 306 applies only when suicide is completed. However, in the instant case, as the victim survived, is inapplicable and consequently, Section 511 (a residuary provision) cannot be invoked. He further submitted that no allegation exists as against the husband and selective prosecution of an elderly mother-in-law is an abuse of process of law. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satvir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another¹ and the order of this Court in the case of Bathirammal v. K.Kalyanasundaram and Others ² and pressed for allowing the Criminal Revision.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar responded that the stage is premature and only a full trial can decide whether abetment occurred. He pressed for dismissal of the Revision Case.

5.Heard both sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

Points for determination:-

(i)Whether, on the materials collected, the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are prima facie made out;

(ii)If not, whether recourse to Section 511 of IPC is legally sustainable;

(iii)Whether continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of the process justifying discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C .

Law on the subject:-

6.1.Abetment of suicide:- To attract Section 306 of IPC two conditions must coexist: (a) suicide of a person, and (b) abetment thereof.

1 (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 633

2 2007 (3) CTC 737

6.2.Scope of Section 511 of IPC : -

It is residuary, penalising attempts to commit offences punishable with life or any other imprisonment. Crucially, Section 511 is attracted only when the “principal offence” is itself legally possible. An “attempt at abetment” of a crime the law does not envisage the abetment of an incomplete suicide and the same is is outside its sweep.

6.3.Power to discharge:-

Under Section 227 Cr.P.C ., the Court must discharge an accused if, upon consideration of the police report and documents, “no sufficient ground” exists to proceed.

Discussion:-

7.1.No completed suicide:- The victim is alive. Section 306 IPC , by its very text, presupposes that “any person commits suicide.” Where suicide has not occurred, abetment thereof is non-existent. The respondent Police seeks to overcome this lacuna by invoking Section 511 of . The attempt fails for two reasons:-

(a) “Abetment” and “attempt” are distinct concepts; the Code does not recognise “abetment of an attempt to commit suicide.”

(b) Section 309 IPC provides for “attempt to commit suicide” by the victim herself; there is no corresponding provision criminalising inducement of such attempt by a third party. Parliament, despite several amendments to Chapter XVI, has left this gap untouched. Courts cannot fill it by creative use of Section 511 of .

7.2.Ingredients of instigation missing:-