Appeal against conviction for abetment of suicide allowed. High Court quashed the trial court's judgment, finding the prosecution failed to prove abetment under Sections 306 and 107 IPC as none instigated or incited the deceased.
Trial court judgment set aside and quashed; appellants acquitted from charges levelled against them.
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 AT BILASPUR
The State Of Chhattisgarh For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Himanshu Sharma, PL
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board
14/02/2023
2
deceased and were also assaulting her which led to the commission of offence on 16.05.2000 at around 5 PM when the deceased is said to have committed suicide by hanging. The incident occurred at the matrimonial house of the deceased where the appellants were residing. After the incident the matter was reported and an FIR was lodged against the present appellants on 24.05.2000 Exhibit P-5 on the basis of the Merg intimation Exhibit (P-4) lodged at the behest of appellant no.2 Fekan Gond the elder brother of the appellant no.1.
4 . The matter was investigated, a charge-sheet for the offence under Section 306/34 was filed against the three appellants and matter was subsequently put to trial before the First Additional Judge, Ambikapur where the matter was registered as Sessions Case No.190 of 2000. The prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses. That, after recording the statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC, the Trial Court found the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 306/34 and convicted them and they have been sentenced to undergo RI of 10 years with fine of Rs.500.
5 . Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants herein have all been prosecuted for the substantive offence under Section 306 of the IPC whereas in the entire case of the prosecution the necessary ingredients required for proving the case under Section 306 is missing. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no element of any instigation which has been made on the part of any of the appellants immediately before the date of incident. Neither is there any proof led by the prosecution to establish that there was any instigation, incitement of abetment made by any of the appellants which led the commission of offence by the deceased on 16.05.2000 at around 5 PM. In the absence of any substantive material so as to make out a case of abetment, instigation or incitement which led to the incidence of suicide being committed by the deceased, the entire findings arrived at by the Trial Court deserves to be quashed and appellants deserves to be acquitted from the charges.
3
7 . State counsel on the other hand opposing the appeal submits that from the prior statement of the witnesses examined particularly the family members and the independent witness PW-5 Hiran would clearly indicate that there was continuous torture being made at the hands of the appellants to the deceased . That when things became unbearable the deceased had no other option but to commit suicide and therefore the finding of the trial Court does not warrant interference and there are sufficient materials produced by the prosecution to establish this fact and the appeal should thereafter be rejected.
8 . Having gone through the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, it would be evidently clear that the prosecution in order to establish the case has led evidence of an independent witness i.e. PW-5 Hiran who was otherwise residing nearby the matrimonial home of the deceased i.e. the house of the appellants herein. It is reflected from the deposition of PW-5 that in his statement he has made a categorical statement in respect of the frequent assault that appellants used to inflict upon the deceased. Further from his statement, it appears that last time when the deceased had come to the house of PW-5 was around 2 years back when appellants is said to have assaulted the deceased. She ran from her matrimonial home, took shelter in the house of PW-5 Hiran. This again would give an indication that there was no incidence immediately prior to the date of incident i.e. 16.05.2000 which was divulged by the said PW-5.
4
in their deposition to establish the case under Section 306 or as adduced evidence in respect of the ingredients which are otherwise required for making out the case of abetment which led to the deceased commit suicide. None of the witnesses could give reasons as to why the appellants used to assault the deceased and at the same time there is also no allegation whatsoever to show that the alleged assault and torture on the deceased was on demand of dowry. The deposition of all the witnesses also would reflect that allegations made are all vague without specific details. More particularly, none of the witnesses have deposed anything in respect of abetment, instigation or incitement on the part of the appellants which led to the commission of suicide by the deceased.
10. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the provisions of Section 306 as is envisaged under Indian Penal Code.
11. Section 306 provides for offence of Abetment of suicide. It states that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment.
12. In the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 3, the Supreme Court in the case 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.
13. In the case of Mahendra Singh Vs. State of M.P., 1995 SUPP (3) SCC 731, Abetment of suicide- no ingredients of abetment attracted dying declaration of deceased wife alone not sufficient.
14. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 (9) SCC 618, the Supreme Court elucidated on the term ‘instigation’ and stated that “instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the
5
requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
15. In the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh V. State of M.P., 2002 (5) SCC, 371, the Apex Court quashed the charge sheet for offence under Section 306 of IPC to hold that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment, such as “to go and die” cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger or emotion.”
16. In the case of Randhir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2004 (13) SCC 129, the Supreme Court enunciated on the pith and purport of Section 306 IPC and opined as under :-
17. In the case of Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2010 (8) SCC 628, it was opined that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 of IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required.
18. In the case of M. Mohan Vs. State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, it is held that :- Abetment of suicide- ingredient not proved, susceptibility of person concerned to commit suicide, held, abetment involves mental process of instigation or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing – there should be clear mens rea to commit offence under Section 306- it requires commission of direct or active act by the accused which lead the
6
deceased to commit suicide seeking no other option and such act must be intended to push victim into a position that he commits suicide. 19. In the case of Gurucharan Vs. State of Punjab, 2017 (1) SCC 433, the Apex Court in this case observed that the basic ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would mitigate against this indictment.”
20. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the judgments cited in the preceding paragraphs, this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish the evidence under Section 306 for which the three appellants were charged and the entire evidences misses the necessary ingredients as is required under Section 107 and under Section 306 of the IPC.
21. In the absence of necessary ingredients required under the two aforesaid Sections the charges levelled against the appellants have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As a consequence the judgment of the Trial Court is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside and quashed. The three appellants stands acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
22. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge
Rohit
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution failed to establish the necessary ingredients of abetment under Section 107 and 306 of the IPC to prove that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
Whether judgments of the Trial Court convicting the appellants under Section 306/34 IPC are sustainable given the absence of specific evidence regarding instigation or incitement.
Whether the appeal challenging the conviction should be allowed or dismissed based on the evidence adduced.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Criminal Revision No.5 of 2016Relied on¶19
State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal JaiswalExplained¶28
State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 3 · Who else cites this
Mahendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.Referred¶29
Mahendra Singh Vs. State of M.P., 1995 SUPP (3) SCC 731 · Who else cites this
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of ChhattisgarhExplained¶30
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 (9) SCC 618 · Who else cites this
Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh V. State of M.P.Explained¶33
Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh V. State of M.P., 2002 (5) SCC 371 · Who else cites this
Randhir Singh Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶34
Randhir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2004 (13) SCC 129 · Who else cites this
Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and anotherExplained¶37
Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2010 (8) SCC 628 · Who else cites this
M. Mohan Vs. StateExplained¶38
M. Mohan Vs. State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Gurucharan Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶39
Gurucharan Vs. State of Punjab, 2017 (1) SCC 433 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Uchit Ram Gond
Fekan Gond
Hirmaniya Bai
State Of Chhattisgarh
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
