To convict under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation by the accused leading to the victim's suicide; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354 and 306 - Conviction for outraging modesty and acquittal for abetment of suicide - Accused convicted under Section 354 IPC for two years imprisonment and fine, acquitted under Section 306 IPC due to lack of evidence of instigation - The trial court found no direct nexus between the accused's actions and the victim's suicide. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 14, 28)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 401 - Revisional jurisdiction - High Court's scope of interference in acquittal cases is narrow, requiring manifest error to warrant overturning trial court's findings. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for outraging the modesty of a minor girl, who later committed suicide. The trial court acquitted him of abetting the suicide, citing insufficient evidence. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The trial court's acquittal of the accused for Section 306 IPC was upheld due to lack of evidence linking the accused's actions to the victim's suicide. (Paras 10, 14)

Issues: The main issues were whether the accused's actions constituted abetment of suicide and whether the conviction under Section 354 IPC was justified. (Paras 4, 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere allegations of harassment without direct instigation do not suffice for conviction under Section 306 IPC. The accused's actions did not demonstrate intent to instigate the victim's suicide. (Paras 6, 10)

Result: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 354 IPC was upheld, with the sentence modified to the period already undergone and fine increased. (Paras 28, 29)

Order

03/01/2024

1. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record.

2. A Challenge has been made to the judgment dated 12.12.2002 passed in Session Case No.15/2002 (10/2002) titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajender @ Raju by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror, Alwar whereby and whereunder the accused Rajender @ Raju has been convicted for offence under Section 354 IPC and declined to grant the benefit of probation, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to make payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, however, the accused has been acquitted for offence under Section 306 IPC.

Hence, complainant-Hoshiyar Singh Yadav has filed SB Criminal Revision Petition No.388/2003, challenging the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2002 to the extent of acquitting the accused for offence under Section 306 IPC, whereas from the side of accused Rajender @ Raju, SB Criminal Appeal No.1687/2002 has been preferred, challenging his conviction and sentence for offence under Section 354 IPC. It may be noted that the accused was alleged to be boy of 18 years of age at the time of incident and during trial of criminal case, he was enlarged on bail, therefore, at the time of passing the final judgment of conviction and sentence him for a period of two years rigorous imprisonment vide judgment dated 12.12.2002, his bail bonds were continued for a period of one month, granting him opportunity to challenge his conviction and sentence by way of appeal, and on filing of the present criminal appeal, his sentence has been suspended vide order dated 07.01.2003, till the final disposal of appeal.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant- Hoshiyar Singh submitted a written report at Police Station Behror on 15.08.2001, stating inter alia, that when her daughter Ms. Sharda went for defecation in the field at about 2:30 PM on 15.08.2001, a boy named Rajender @ Raju followed her and caught the girl and did some bad thing with her, due to which the girl screamed and hearing her cry, Smt. Subhanta Devi and Kumari Hemlata, daughter of Hoshiyar Singh (complainant) came out of their houses and saw that Rajender @ Raju was trying to do some bad act with Sharda, but as Rajender saw Subhanta, he ran away and due to this reason, girl came and jumped into the well and died. On receiving such written report, an FIR No.366/2001 for offences under Sections 354 and 306 IPC was registered against the accused Rajender @ Raju. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet under Section 354 and 306 IPC before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session being Additional District and Sessions Judge, Behror for trial. The Sessions Court conducted trial and finally vide judgment dated 12.12.2002, has convicted the accused for offence under Section 354 IPC, but acquitted him for offence under Section 306 IPC, hence, both these petitions have come up before this Court.

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 388/2003:

4. In respect of acquittal of accused from offence under Section 306 IPC, learned counsel for complainant has argued that there is evidence on record to prove that the accused outraged modesty of girl-Sharda for which accused has been held guilty for offence under Section 354 IPC and has been punished. The girl Sharda committed suicide after happening of such incident on 15.08.2001 itself by jumping into the well, therefore, the action of accused to outrage modesty of Sharda, has direct nexus with the action of Sharda to commit suicide, hence, the accused should also be held guilty for the offence of abetment of suicide by Ms. Sharda under Section 306 IPC. Learned counsel argued that findings of conviction of accused for of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 27305

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL, JRAJENDRA @ RAJU – AppellantVersusSTATE – RespondentCRLA / 1687 / 2002

To convict under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation by the accused leading to the victim's suicide; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL, J
RAJENDRA @ RAJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRLA / 1687 / 2002