Laongpati Devi Alias Lakhpati Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6048 of 2024

Longpati Devi @ Lakhpati Devi, aged about 59 years, wife of Shatrughan Ram, R/o Sarovar Nagar, PO-Hehal, PS-Sukhdeo Nagar, Dist-Ranchi ..… Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, Advocate Ms. Ankita Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP ---------

¶8

05/ 15^th October, 2024

¶9

Petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar PS Case No.287 of 2024 for the offences registered under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased and there is allegation that a day before alleged incident of suicide this petitioner along with her daughter (deceased’s wife) and other family member given beatings to deceased. He further submitted that deceased was alcoholic and it is dispute/quarrel between deceased and his wife and petitioner was alcoholic which prompted him to commit suicide. He further pointed out that daughter of the present petitioner is behind the bar and charge sheet qua her has already been submitted under section 306 IPC, whereas in the present case FIR has been registered under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is about 60 years of age and no purpose would be served by sending her behind the bar.

¶11

The learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that act of the petitioner just prior to the incident has been captured in the mobile phone which is very evident from simple perusal of case diary. By saying so, learned APP submitted that act of this petitioner prompted the deceased to commit suicide.

¶12

Perusal of record transpires that it is alleged against this petitioner who happens to be mother-in-law of the deceased that she along with her daughter and other relative given beatings to deceased and deceased hanged himself in the house. During course of argument it is pointed out that deceased along with his wife was residing separately. Postmortem report reveals, the cause of death as asphyxia on account of hanging. It also appears that doctor has observed during

¶13

course of postmortem antemortem injuries on the person of deceased.

¶14

This Court has carefully perused the case diary. Perusal of case diary reveals that resident of the locality have stated in their respective statement that deceased was alcoholic and frequently there was quarrel between deceased and his wife. Prior to death of deceased, fact of quarrel between deceased and accused persons was corroborated from mouth of this witness.

¶15

It is trite law that every quarrel between husband and wife which results in a suicide cannot be taken as an abetment. In case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court must look for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide and mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide.

¶16

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Prabhu v. State” reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 137 has held that the subsequent death in the marital discord between the husband and wife cannot be termed as an offence under section 306 IPC unless there exists proximate link between the marital discord and the subsequent death. Relevant paragraphs of aforesaid judgment read as under:

¶17

In a recent judgment of this Court in Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 1485 of 2011 [decided on 12.10.2023], one of us (Vikram Nath J.) explained the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. The Court has held as follows:

¶18

“8.2. Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of commission of suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution must prove that the accused played a role in the suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC. This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide, or acted in a way (or failed to act) which directly resulted in the person's suicide.

¶19

8.3. In “Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh” (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court has analysed different meanings of “instigation”. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein:

¶20

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the 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. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

¶21

8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in “M. Mohan v. State” (2011) 3 SCC 626, as under:

¶22

“43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidality pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

¶23

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

¶24

cannot be sustained.

¶25

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.” 8.5. The essential ingredients which are to be meted out in order to bring a case under Section 306 IPC were also discussed in “Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal” (2010) 1 SCC 707 in the following paragraphs:

¶26

“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. 13. In order to bring a case within the purview of 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.” 8.6. On a careful reading of the factual matrix of the instant case and the law regarding Section 306 IPC, there seems to be no proximate link between the marital discord between the deceased and the appellant and her subsequent death by burning herself. The appellant has not committed any positive or direct act to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased.”

¶27

Considering the above legal proposition, nature of allegation against this petitioner and also the fact as stated before this Court that she is resident of different place, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the learned court below on her surrender, shall release her on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar PS Case No.287 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶28

It is clarified that any observation by this Court shall not be construed as comment on the merit of the case.

¶29

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶30

R.K./

Laongpati Devi Alias Lakhpati Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laongpati Devi Alias Lakhpati Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Murari Tirky Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiblal Bauri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dipu Mochi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Munna Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand