The court granted bail to the applicant, a father alleged of abetting suicide under Section 306 IPC. The judgment relied on legal standards requiring clear mens rea and active instigation, finding the ingredients of the offence were not made out.
The applicant Ayodhya Yadav was released on bail conditioned upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14057 of 2020
Applicant :- Ayodhya Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
The applicant is father of the deceased. It is submitted that deceased was found in compromising position with boy of the village. Applicant being father scolded her and she committed suicide by jumping in the river.The ingredients for constituting offence under section 306 I.P.C. are not made out against the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 3.5.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.
After consideration arguments advanced on behalf of the parties this court finds that the pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2004)13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder.
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73 , this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life
quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal V. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 .
That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions noticed above, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant Ayodhya Yadav , who is involved in Case Crime No. 114 of 2019, under Section- 306 IPC, Police Station-Nautanwa, DistrictMaharajganj, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 17.6.2020 Atul kr. sri.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in a case under Section 306 IPC where insufficient ingredients are made out against him.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Randhir Singh vs. State of PunjabExplained¶7
(2004)13 SCC 129 · Who else cites this
State of W.B. Vs. Orilal JaiswalExplained¶9
(1994) 1 SCC 73 · Who else cites this
Amalendu Pal V. State of West BengalReferred¶11
(2010) 1 SCC 707 · Who else cites this
S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar MahajanExplained¶12
(2010) 12 SCC 190 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ayodhya Yadav
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
