The High Court allowed a revision against an order framing charges for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The court held that no ingredients of abetment were made out as there was no evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or aiding the deceased.
Charges under Section 306/34 IPC set aside; applicants discharged.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 486 of 2019
Order Reserved on : 21.08.2019 Order Delivered on : 04.10.2019
Both are resident of Ward No. 1, Pipariya, Khairagarh P.S. Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G.
----Applicants
Versus
---- Respondent
For Applicants : ShriRakesh Pandey, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Anil Tripathi, PL
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C A V Order
04/10/2019
2
Rajnandgaon, in Sessions Trial No. 05/2019, whereby the charges under Section 306/34 of IPC have been framed against the applicants.
3
which is completely missing in the case. Thus, the impugned order of the trial Court is liable to be setaside. In support of his contention he placed reliance on this Court's order in Devanand Chandwani v. State of Chhattisgarh passed in (CRR No. 654/2016 passed on 01.03.2019)
“306. Abetment of suicide. If any
person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
4
abets the doing of a thing, who-
First- Instigates any person to do that thing: or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal mission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Exaplanation1. A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2. Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to
5
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
09. Section 109 of the IPC provides for punishment for abetment, which reads as follows:
“109. Punishment of abetment if
the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express
provision is made for its punishment:- Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
Explanation- An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.”
6
10. As per the definition given in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, an abetment is constituted by any one of the following three ingredients:
(i) instigating a person for doing of a thing, or
(ii) engaging in a conspiracy for the doing of that thing, or (iii) intentionally aiding the doing of that thing.”
Supp SCC 731], the applicant was charged of an offence under Section 306 of the IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under.
“My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of those reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.”
In Mahendra (Supra), this case Hon'ble Apex Court
7
has held that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC was not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. It is further held that none of the three ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.
“ 45. Abetment involves a mental process
of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
46. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
8
requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.”
9
Sd/(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE
vijay Sahu
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the framing of charges under Section 306 IPC abetting suicide was illegal and contrary to the evidence on record.
Whether the ingredients of abetment under Sections 107 and 306 of IPC were made out in the present case.
Whether prima facie case for abetment of suicide exists based on the available material.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Devanand Chandwani v. State of ChhattisgarhReferred¶24
Devanand Chandwani v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRR No. 654/2016 passed on 01.03.2019)
Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P.Explained¶46
Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 (3) Supp SCC 731] · Who else cites this
M. Mohan v. StateExplained¶55
M. Mohan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (AIR 2011 SCC 1238) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandan Shrivastava
Chitragupt Shrivastava
State of C.G.
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
