The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari of the apex court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr Vs The inspector of police held that 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.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that appellant no. 1 got to know that the deceased had collapsed in the bathroom of their home and was found non-responsive. After 3 weeks after the death of the deceased, the mother of the deceased (PW-1) lodged a complaint against appellant no.1, appellant no. 2, and the father-in-law of the deceased for the offenses punishable under sections 498A and 306 IPC. Thereafter, the trial court after analysing the statement made by the prosecution witness and evidence of the defence, and convicted the Appellants i.e., the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, and were sentenced. The Trial Court acquitted the father-in-law of the deceased of all the charges. The decision of the trial court was challenged before the high court and the same decision was supported by the high court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that there was not even a whisper of these allegations in over 9 years of marriage by the deceased or her family members. Further, it was also submitted that the deceased was also suffering from bipolar disorder and the appellant no. 1 got to know about this after the marriage. It was also argued that the complaint has been made belatedly with an ulterior motive which is also reflected in/from the initial statements of family members of the deceased made soon after her death. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgments titled Amalendu Pal Vs. State of West Bengal, Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana, Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the appellants used to harass and humiliate the deceased and compelled her to consume cow’s urine in the name of pooja. It was further submitted that the Trial Court as well the High Court has weighed all relevant factors, including the nature of the charge, the gravity of the offence and penalty, and the nature of evidence while convicting the Appellants under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble apex court relied upon the judgments titled Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, M. Arjunan Vs. State, represented by its Inspector of Police, Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and held that in case at hand, not only the said positive action in close proximity to the time of suicide is absent but also there is no evidence for any continuous physical or mental torture meted out to the deceased by the appellants. On the contrary, appellant no. 1 himself took the deceased to consult a psychiatrist just a day prior to this incident obviously with the intention to make her feel better. The said act can by no stretch of imagination be said to be any such act which may lead the deceased to commit suicide. Further, the allegations made by PW-1 to PW-3 in their statement with respect to continuous harassment and torture of the deceased by the appellants just after the marriage is not worthy of being relied upon and has to be taken with a pinch of salt on account of fact that throughout their 9 years of marriage, there has never been any complaint or a whisper in this regard either by the deceased or her family members who appeared as prosecution witnesses. Even the deceased herself who was a qualified doctor never made any complaint in this regard. It is really hard to believe that a well-educated and self-reliant lady would take such things lying down for a substantially long period of 9 years. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and Appellant No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. In the present case, both the elements are absent.
The court further held that the before convicting an accused 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 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 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. The court further relied upon the judgment titled Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in which it was stated that
“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.”
The top court set aside the judgment of the trial court and the high court and upheld the conviction of the appellant under offenses under sections 306 and 498A IPC.
CORUM- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2022
CASE NAME- Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr Vs The inspector of police
DATE- 12.10.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
