Allowed

Dinil G v. Station House Officer

Kerala HC6 Jul 2022Crl.MC/755/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The court held that mere allegations of harassment or threat without proof of active instigation or aiding do not constitute the offence. It allowed the petition and quashed further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in Crime No.418/2019 (C.P.No.95/2021) were quashed as the offence under Section 306 IPC could not be sustained.

Dinil G Vs Station House Officer — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 755 OF 2022

¶6

Crime No.418/2019 of Peringome Police Station C.P.No.95/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

DINIL G AGED 33 YEARS S/O DEVADAS G KOYI HOUSE, CHALIL THOTTUKARA EZHILODU POST, KUNHIMANGALAM KOVVAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT 670309

¶9

BY ADV UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PERINGOME POLICE STATION KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670353 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 *ADDL.R3 ANOOP.P

¶12

S/O.KUNJIRAMAN, THANDRAAYI HOUSE, KUNJIMANGALAM AMSOM, THEKKUMBAD, KOVVAPURAM, KANNUR, 670309. *ADDL.R4 SAJITH.K.P S/O.NARAYANAN, KIZHAKKEPURAYIL HOUSE, PEROOR SOUTH, MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR, 670306.

¶13

*(ADDL.R3 & R4 are impleaded as per order dtd.2.6.2022 in Crl.M.Appln.2/2022)

¶14

SRI P G MANU-SR Public Prosecutor

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.M.C.No.755 of 2022

¶17

..2..

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Crl.M.C. has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.P.No.95/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur.

¶20

The wife of the 4^th respondent committed suicide by setting fire on her body on 1.12.2019 at the house of the 4^th respondent. A crime was registered at the Peringome Police Station as Crime No.418/2019 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. for 'unnatural death' on the basis of the statement given by the 3^rd respondent who is the uncle of the deceased. During the investigation, the police found that the petitioner was responsible for the death of the deceased and accordingly the petitioner was arrayed as an accused and Section 306 of the IPC was incorporated. The petitioner was the classmate and the former lover of the deceased. According to the petitioner, there is absolutely nothing on record to attract the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC against the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

I have heard Sri.Unni, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2. Even though notice has been served to the additional respondents 3 and 4, there is no appearance.

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.755 of 2022 ..3..

¶23

Annexure 1 is the FIR with FIS given by the 3^rd respondent. In the FIS, the 3^rd respondent stated that the deceased committed suicide due to the debt in the Bank. Annexure 13 is the copy of the bail order (Bail Application No.4080/2020) granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner by this Court. In paragraph 7 of Annexure 13 order, it is stated that in the dying declaration given by the deceased, there was no allegation against the petitioner. In the initial statement given by the 3^rd and 4^th respondents as well as other witnesses, there was absolutely no allegation against the petitioner. However, it appears that, later on, the husband verified some chats in the phone of the deceased and found that there were some intimate chats between the deceased and the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrayed as the accused.

¶24

The petitioner admits that, he and the deceased were schoolmates and were in good relationship. He further admits that after seven years, they again met in face book and they used to talk over phone and chat each other and also shared their feelings each other. Even going by the further statement of the 4^th respondent, the deceased committed suicide on account of the threat exercised by the petitioner. In the statement it is stated that the petitioner wanted the deceased to go along with him and threatened that unless she goes along with him, he will find out the way to bring her

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.755 of 2022 ..4..

¶26

along with him. According to the 4^th respondent, this is the reason for committing suicide by the deceased. In the statement given by the friends of the deceased, namely, Reshma and Nidhin also, they had stated that the petitioner and the deceased were in intimate relationship. However, they suspected that, it was on account of threat exercised by the petitioner, the deceased committed suicide. Apart from the statements of these witnesses, there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the crime.

¶27

The legal position as regards Section 306 of IPC is well settled. It says that 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. The essential ingredients of the offence under S.306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence in IPC. Section 107 of IPC defines abetment of a thing. A person, abets the doing of a thing, when (i) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (ii) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; (iii) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. The word “instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.755 of 2022 ..5..

¶29

on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided in Clause (3) of Section 107 IPC. Under all the three situations, active or direct act which lead the deceased to commit suicide is essential to bring the offence under Section 306 IPC. The Apex Court has consistently taken the view that in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and the accused must have played an active role in the commission of suicide by an act of instigation or doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide (See Kishori Lal v. State of MP [(2007) 10 SCC 797], Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 4 SCC 52], Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [AIR 2010 SC 512] and Velladurai v. State, represented by Inspector of Police [MANU/SC/0644/2021]). In Amalendu Pal's case (supra), it was specifically held by the Apex Court that mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which lead to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 of IPC. In Ude Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana [(2019) 17 SCC 301] and in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajastan and others (MANU/SC/0785/2021), it was held that in the case of abetment of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by the

¶30

..6..

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.755 of 2022

¶32

accused would not suffice unless there be such action on his part which compels the deceased to commit suicide. In Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab [2004 (13)SCC 129], it was held that "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 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 S.306 IPC”. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal and

¶33

Another [AIR 1994 SC 1418], the Apex 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. Thus, the law is clear that to constitute an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be proof of either any instigation or conspiracy or intentionally aiding or direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide. A mere allegation of humiliation, harassment or threat unaccompanied by any incitement or instigation is not at all sufficient to attract the offence.

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.755 of 2022

¶35

..7..

¶36

As stated already, in Annexure 1 FIS as well as the initial statements of the witnesses recorded by the police, the allegation is that the deceased committed suicide due to the debt in the bank. In the dying declaration also, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner. The 4^th respondent, who verified the chats between the deceased and the petitioner, found some intimate chats between them and from those chats, he inferred that the deceased might have committed suicide out of the frustration in the said relationship. He also suspected that the petitioner threatened the deceased and that was also the reason for commission of suicide by her. As stated already, to constitute an offence of 'abetment of suicide' under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be proof of either any instigation or conspiracy or intentionally aiding or direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offence of suicide. A mere allegation of humiliation, harassment or threat unaccompanied by any incitement or instigation is not at all sufficient to attract the offence. Going by the subsequent statements of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents as well as the remaining prosecution witnesses, it is difficult to hold that, there has been any abetment by the petitioner. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner made an active role by an act of instigating or intentionally aiding the deceased to facilitate the commission of

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.755 of 2022

¶38

..8..

¶39

suicide, the impugned prosecution cannot be sustained.

¶40

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the basic ingredients to attract the offence under Section 306 of the IPC are absent. Hence, no purpose will be served in proceeding further against the petitioner. Accordingly, all further proceedings in C.P.No.95/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur hereby stand quashed. The Crl.M.C. is allowed.

¶41

Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶42

skj

¶43

Crl.M.C.No.755 of 2022 ..9..

¶44

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 755/2022

¶45

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶46

Annexure1	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
	NO.418/2019 OF PERINGOME POLICE ALONG WITH THE FIS
Annexure2	TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.418/2019 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION
Annexure3	TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR
Annexure4	TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE FIRST INFORMANT
Annexure5	TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE FIRST INFORMANT
Annexure6	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SAJITH, HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED
Annexure7	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SAJITH, HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED
Annexure8	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SAJITH, HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED
Annexure9	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF RESHMA
Annexure10	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF NITHIN, FRIEND OF DECEASED
Annexure11	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF INDIRA, MOTHER OF THE DECEASED
Annexure12	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF NODAL OFFICER VODAFONE-IDEA LIMITED
Annexure13	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.7.2020 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.4080/2020

Dinil G v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinil G v. Station House Officer

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

Ujesh Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Rijeena A.K. Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.Rijeena A.K. Vs the State of Kerala

Sainudheen, C.NO.3006 Vs State of Kerala

Ansha Razaq Vs Shafeena

Jeevan Davis Vs State of Kerala