CHARGE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC :
In Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector of Police, MANU/SC/1310/2022 : 2022:INSC:1073, after referring to the above referred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306 IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :
"44 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 their 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."
In Kashibai & Others v. The State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0187/2023, it is observed that to bring the case within the purview of 'Abetment' under Section 107 of IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused and for the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 of IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.
In very recent case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0146/2024 : 2024:INSC:149 : 2024 DGLS (SC) 224/(2024) 3 SCC 573 it is observed that, had there been any clinching evidence of incessant harassment on account of which the wife was left with no other option but to put an end to her life, it could have been said that the accused intended the consequences of his act, namely, suicide. A person intends a consequence when he (1) foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and (2) desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test)."
In another recent case of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 01.03.2024], following observations are made :
"39. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan MANU/SC/0161/2011 : 2011:INSC:168 : (2011) 3 SCC 626, this Court observed that abetment would involve 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. Delineating the intention of the legislature and having regard to the ratio of the cases decided by this Court, it was concluded that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It would also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of the accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
25. On re-appreciating evidence in this context, it is emerging that, PW2 Shiwaji who had been to fetch deceased returned without her on 19.02.2002. Deceased allegedly met father on 03.03.2002 and reported that ill treatment and harassment to be aggravated. Again no specifications or details as to in what form was the ill treatment and at whose hands has not come on record. Thus, allegations are omnibus. Even, there is no reference in this regards in the alleged letters authored by deceased. Deceased suffered burns on 09.03.2002. There is a gap of almost a month or so, since deceased met father on 19.02.2002. There is total vacuum from 19.02.2002 up to 09.03.2002. It is pertinent to note that, deceased herself has conveyed in the letter that mother-in-law would send her after 9th month of pregnancy. Such material indicates that it is not so as claimed by prosecution that, deceased was not to be send unless their demand is met. Consequently, what exactly happened on or in proximity to 09.03.2002 is not coming on record. Unless there is evidence suggesting positive and active participation by husband and other in-laws in abetting, instigating or inciting deceased to end up her life or that they desired that she should commit suicide and with such sole intention they maltreated her; or there was creation of such circumstances by them, due to which deceased was left with no other alternative but to end up her life, charge of section 306 of IPC cannot be said to be made out. More particularly, in the backdrop of legal requirements spelt out in the above reproduced numerous judicial pronouncements, here there is no live-link in proximity to suicide to connect either husband or in-laws. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, as essential ingredients for attracting section 306 of IPC, not being available, it is unsafe to attribute suicide to any of the accused including husband.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2004
Decided On: 14.12.2024
Satish Bhagwan Patil and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Abhay S. Waghwase, J.
Citation: MANU/MH/7535/2024.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment