The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that a casual remark or something said in routine or casual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood as “abetment”. On the mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led to a person committing suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased was married to the paternal cousin sister of the Petitioner and the only allegation subsists against the Petitioner that she was demanding the transfer of property of the deceased to the name of his wife and was torturing him and ultimately the wife of the deceased went to her paternal house and the deceased was under depression and ultimately committed suicide. The FIR was registered for the offense punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by this, the present petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC in order to quash the cognizance order, the FIR, and the criminal proceedings.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case. It was furthermore submitted that even if all the allegations are considered to be true then also, the case doesn’t fall under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Contentions of the State
The state submitted that there exist direct and specific allegations against the Petitioner of instigating the wife of the deceased to torture the deceased which ultimately resulted in his death.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that it must be demonstrated that the accused continued pressuring or upsetting the deceased with remarks or taunts until the deceased reacted in order to establish the abetment. Nothing in ordinary or casual conversation should be interpreted or misconstrued as "abetment." A conviction under Section 306 cannot be upheld based solely on an allegation of harassment without any affirmative action taken by the accused in the immediate aftermath of the incident that prevented the victim from taking their own life. A remark that is made casually and has the potential to create harassment in the regular run of things is not considered to be instigation. Positive activity is required to set up a circumstance where the victim can end their life. The Court relied upon the judgment titled Pawan Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.
The court noted that the undisputed fact remains that, the petitioner is residing at Bangalore whereas the occurrence took place at Jamshedpur. There is no allegation of any exchange of words between the petitioner and the deceased within close proximity of the death of the deceased.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R., materials collected during the investigation of the case as is available in the case-diary and the charge-sheet are considered to be true in its entirety still the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. The Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
Case Title: Mritunjay Kumar @ Raja V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No.340 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl. P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
