Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. a. Anita Rao

Chhattisgarh HC6 Nov 2023CRR/119/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the State's challenge against the Sessions Judge's order discharging accused persons. The Court held that allegations of financial disputes and quarrels failed to establish prima facie abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, as there was no evidence of active instigation or proximity to the act.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision preferred by the State against the order of discharge was dismissed.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs a. Anita Rao — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 119 of 2022

¶5

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhawni, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. A. Anita Rao W/o Shri A. Narsingh Rao, Aged About 45 Years R/o Hospital Sector, Dallirajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2. Venkat Shivramma W/o Late Shri N.Triptaiya Aged About 50 Years R/o Sector 2, Street 15/B, Police Station Bhilai Bhatti, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3. Kareti Jasmat S/o Kareti Ramlu Aged About 44 Years R/o L.I. 29, Padumnagar, Bhilai Charauda, Police Station Bhilai 3, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶10

4. Kareti Shiv Narayan, S/o Kareti Ramlu, Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 86, Ward No. 1, Police Station – Chhawni, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶11

For Applicant/State For Respondents

¶12

:- Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Dy.G.A. :- Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board

¶14

06.11.2023

¶15

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the State-applicant against the order dated 09.9.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Durg, (C.G.) in session trial No. No.188/2021 whereby the Sessions Judge has discharged the respondents / accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that deceased Kareti Latita was wife of respondent No.4 Kareti Shiv Narayan and other respondents are sister-in-laws and brother-in-laws of the deceased. It is alleged that

¶17

¶18

due to physical and mental harrasment meted out by the respondents, deceased committed suicide by hanging in the intervening night of 15.10.2020. Learned trial Court during course of trial, after hearing arguments of both the parties vide impunged order dated 09.9.2021 discharged all the respondents from offence under Section 306/34 of the I.P.C. which has been challenged by the State in the instant criminal revision.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/ State would submit that there is ample evidence to hold prima facie case against the respondents for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. as son and daughter of deceased have stated in their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. before the Police that due to dispute with regard to money made by respondents, deceased has committed suicide. He would further submit that deceased had borrowed money from some other persons as a loan and to return the same, without permission she had withdrawn huge amount from the account of her husband/respondent No.4, on this count, there was quarrel between deceased and respondents due to which she had committed suicide. Such statement has also been made by father of deceased and therefore, prima facie, case is made out against the respondents. Even deceased has also written suicidal note in which she has alleged respondents for abetment to committ suicide, hence, instead of discharging the respondents, learned trial Court ought to have framed charges under Section 306/34 of the I.P.C. against respondents. Learned State counsel has filed certified copy of the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.188/2021 along with certified copy of complete

¶20

¶21

charge-sheet.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that no ingredient of abetment is prima facie found against the respondents, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly discharged the respondents from offences under Section 306 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶23

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶24

6. The question for consideration would be whether the respondents herein have rightly been discharged from the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.?

¶25

7. Before considering the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to have a look on the provisions contained under Section 306 of the I.P.C., which reads as under:-

¶26

“S. 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.”

¶27

Abetement has been defined in Section 107 which reads as under :-

¶28

“S. 107. Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing, who -

¶29

First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or

¶30

Secondly – Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of

¶31

¶32

that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

¶33

Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, 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 facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

¶34

Punishment of abetment is provided under Section 109 of the IPC which reads as under :-

¶35

“ S. 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 abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.”

¶36

8. As per the definition given in Section 107 of the IPC, an abetment is constituted by any one of the following three ingredients:-

¶37

“(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.”

¶38

9. A person is said to 'instigate' another to an Act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of

¶39

¶40

hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word 'instigate' means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.

¶41

10. As Section 306 of the IPC makes abetment of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, for making liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of the accused, it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three ingredients as enumerated under Section 107 of the IPC, and therefore, it is necessary to prove that the said accused has instigated the person to commit suicide or must have engaged with one or more persons in any conspiracy for seeking that the deceased commits suicide or he must intentionally aid by any act or illegal omission, of the commission of suicide by the deceased.

¶42

11. The Supreme Court has considered the scope of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC in the matter of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.1 and held as under :-

¶43

“9. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr.² , the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die'. This Court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not

¶44

1 (2002) 5 SCC 371

¶45

2 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438

¶46

¶47

even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.”

¶48

12. In the matter of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh3 , the Supreme Court, while considering the conviction for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC on the basis of the dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate where she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter, she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused, the Supreme Court held as under :-

¶49

“A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 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. ”

¶50

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.

¶51

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)4 had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the said case this Court has opined that there

¶52

3 2001 (9) SCC 618 4 (2009 ) 16 SCC 605

¶53

¶54

should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of self- esteem and self - respect. In the said judgment it is held that it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

¶55

5 14. In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal ,

¶56

their Lordships of the Supreme Court in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306, IPC, has held as under :-

¶57

“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

¶58

In order to bring a case within the purview of

¶59

5 (2010) 1 SCC 707

¶60

¶61

Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”

¶62

15. In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan6 , Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC. Paragraph 25 of the judgment reads as under :-

¶63

“ 28. 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. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is 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 requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”

¶64

16. In the case of M.Mohan v. State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police7, the Supreme Court has clearly held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of the IPC,

¶65

6 (2010) 12 SCC 190

¶66

7 (2011) 3 SCC 626

¶67

¶68

there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence, by observing as under:-

¶69

“45. 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 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.”

¶70

17. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab8 , the Supreme Court has pointed out the basic ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC i.e. suicidal death and abetment and held that to constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Paras 21, 28 and 29, being relevant, are extracted below :-

¶71

“21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision 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 this constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to

¶72

8 (2017) 1 SCC 433

¶73

¶74

actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.

¶75

Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal⁹ 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 W.B.¹⁰

¶76

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 Mahajan¹¹ .”

¶77

9 (1994) 1 SCC 73

¶78

10 (2010) 1 SCC 707

¶79

11 (2010) 12 SCC 190

¶80

¶81

18. In the matter of State of West Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu12 the accused therein was charged for offence under Section 306 of the IPC on the allegation that the accused and his parents abused deceased and stigmatized her as call girl. The Supreme Court quashed the charges under Section 306 of the IPC holding that no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the accused persons to deceased to commit suicide and observed in para 11 as under :-

¶82

“11. From the material placed on record, it is clear that respondents are sought to be proceeded for charge under Section 306/34 mainly relying on the suicide letters written by the deceased girl and the statements recorded during the investigation. Even according to the case of de facto complainant, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are parents of first respondent shouted at the deceased girl calling her a call-girl. This happened on 05.03.2004 and the deceased girl committed suicide on 06.03.2004. By considering the material placed on record, we are also of the view that the present case does not present any picture of abetment allegedly committed by respondents. The suicide committed by the victim cannot be said to be the result of any action on part of respondents nor can it be said that commission of suicide by the victim was the only course open to her due to action of the respondents. There was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents to the victim to commit suicide. In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P.¹³ this Court while considering utterances like “to go and

¶83

12 2019 SCC Online SC 1201

¶84

13 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438

¶85

¶86

die” during the quarrel between husband and wife, uttered by husband held that utterances of such words are not direct cause for committing suicide. In such circumstances, in the aforesaid judgment this Court held that Sessions Judge erred in summoning the appellant to face the trial and quashed the proceedings.”

¶87

19. Returning to the facts of the present case in the light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is case of prosecution that deceased had borrowed money from someone and to return the said amount, she was pressurizing her husband / respondent No.4 Kareti Shiv Narayan to return the said loan amount, even, her husband has also given some money to repay the loan amount despite that persons from whom she had borrowed money, used to visit their house and asked for remaining payment of money. It is further stated that Rs. 50,000/was given by the husband / respondent No.4 Kareti Shiv Narayan to his wife / deceased to repay the loan amount, despite that without the knowledge of husband / respondent No.4 Kareti Shiv Narayan, deceased had withdrawn Rs.60,000/- from his account. When husband came to know about the said fact, quarrel took place between the respondents and deceased because of which deceased left the house on 12.10.2020. Subsequently, due to aforesaid dispute, deceased committed suicide on 15.10.2020. It is common phenomenon that in such a situation, dispute happening between husband and wife cannot be said abnormal and in such a situation some anger made by husband to wife also cannot be said abetment to

¶88

¶89

held prima facie that husband has abeted the wife to commit suicide.

¶90

20. Although, son and daughter of deceased have stated in their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. before the Police and also father of deceased has stated about the quarrel which took place between deceased and her husband / respondent No.4 Kareti Shiv Narayan, with regard to transaction of money, but except this nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to show prima facie case of abetment committed by respondents to commit suicide. Although suicidal note has also been written by deceased alleging respondents that due to torture meted out by them she has committed suicide, but after seeing complete fact brought by the prosecution, despite that, necessary ingredients in the act of abetment are not fulfilled against the respondents herein for framing charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C. against them.

¶91

21. In view of above discussion and after applying principles of law laid down by their Lordships in the aforesaid judgments, if facts of the instant case are seen, I find that since no necessary ingredients are found against the respondents herein to frame charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., hence, this Court find that trial Court has rightly discharged the respondents from offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C and, therefore, the instant criminal revision deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶92

22. Registry is directed to send back the record of trial Court forthwith.

¶93

SD/-

¶94

( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Judge

¶95

Ayushi

State of Chhattisgarh v. a. Anita Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. a. Anita Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazir Ahmad Khan Vs Shekh Shafik Ahmed

Shaniram Vs Sohdabai

Tibu Yadav @ Jagdish Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Awdhesh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Malaiya Swami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyamal Mudi Vs State of Chhattisgarh