Allahabad High Court
Kunwarpal Meena vs State Of U.P. on 15 May, 2024
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:94332
Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15222 of 2024
Applicant :- Kunwarpal Meena
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhay Raj Singh,G.A.
and
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13876 of 2024
Applicant :- Akash Meena
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhay Raj Singh,G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Kunwarpal Meena and Akash Meena with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.154 of 2023, under Sections 306 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Ughaiti, District- Budaun, during pendency of trial.
3. As per the allegations in the FIR lodged on 15.08.2023 at 18:14 hours against 7 named accused including the applicants, on 19th Nov, 2021 the informant's daughter Sapna's marriage was fixed with one Vikas son of Prem Pal. Vikas was working in the Income Tax Department and his father was in service in the Department of Ministry of Commerce Foreign Trade. The accused persons including Prem Pal, Kunwar Pal and Lakhan had demanded Rs.21 lakhs cash and some other gift items, therefore, the total expenditure on the marriage was to be about Rs.30 lakhs. When the marriage was fixed, Vikas was working as Steno and later was promoted as an Inspector as told by his father. On 08.07.2022 engagement ceremony was performed in Prem Resort, Islamnagar, Budaun in which about Rs.10 lakhs were given in cash by the informant and gifts as clothes, money as well as ornaments were given to the relatives as detailed in the FIR in which about Rs.5 lakhs were spent. The date fixed for marriage was 22.04.2023. As the date of marriage i.e. 22.04.2023 was nearing, all the accused persons started behaving in a different manner and nearly 20 days prior to the date fixed for marriage, they refused from performing the marriage with informant's daughter. Despite repeated requests, the accused persons stated that as Vikas has been promoted as Inspector, therefore, nearly Rs.60 lakhs should be spent in his marriage. They also stated that in case the informant wants this marriage to be solemnized, he should give Rs.30 lakhs cash and one four wheeler (Creta). The accused persons including Vikas used to call on mobile of informant's daughter and threatened her in different ways. The informant's daughter was disturbed by breaking of her marriage and the behaviour of the accused persons. She used to cry thinking about the aforesaid. The informant has given five videos recorded by Sapna on 13.08.2023 which were with him, where she was seen crying, being depressed, upset, humiliated and degraded. Due to the aforesaid, she committed suicide on 13.08.2023 by hanging herself. After panchayatnama, post mortem was conducted. All the family members of the deceased Sapna were disturbed and were in a condition of shock and, therefore, they moved an application after few days for lodging of the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants have not abetted the deceased to commit suicide nor have created any such circumstance knowingly that she will commit suicide. They had never raised any demand of dowry. There is delay of two days' in lodging the FIR without giving any plausible explanation for the same. No specific role has been assigned to the applicants for abetting the deceased to commit suicide. No such complaint regarding demand of dowry being the reasons for breaking the marriage was made by the informant before the police personnel or at any forum. They have not disclosed about the compromise between the parties wherein Rs.14.50 lakhs have been returned to the informant. Though, the family members of the deceased were present at the time of panchayatnama but they have not spoken anything or complained about any such conduct of the accused persons due to which the deceased committed suicide. There are allegations that on 17.04.2023, the accused persons have called on the mobile of the deceased and harassed her, whereas during investigation the mobile details shows that the last call was made on 02.04.2023. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the accused persons have not called on the mobile of deceased after April, 2023, therefore, there is no such evidence regarding abetment from the side of the accused persons. The proposal of marriage was cancelled from the side of the girl only and she committed suicide feeling that her family members will marry her against her wishes. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhu vs. Inspector of Police & Anr., 2024 LawSuit(SC)323.
The relevant paragraph no.9 of the aforesaid judgment is as follows :-
"9. In a recent judgment of this Court in Kamalakar vs. 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:
"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.
8.3. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh1, this Court has analysed different meanings of "instigation". The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein:
"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."
8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan v. State2, as under:
"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 suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of selfesteem and selfrespect.
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.
44. 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 cannot be sustained.
45. 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 Bengal3 in the following paragraphs:
"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."
5. He has further relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr. Vs. The Inspector of Police, in Criminal Appeal No.1628 of 2022, 2022 8 Supreme 347.
The relevant paragraph nos.36, 42, 43 and 44 of the aforesaid judgment are here in below :-
"36. 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.
42. It is well settled that the Courts ought to 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. Reference may be made to the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein this Court set-aside the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC as ingredients of Section 306 IPC were not satisfactorily proved. It was observed as under :-
"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. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr., (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that the Court 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. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." (emphasis supplied).
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731. The relevant paragraph nos.2 and 3 of the aforesaid judgment are as follows :-
"2. Learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that but for the statement of the deceased there is no other pointed evidence from which it could be inferred that there was any abetment so as to bring the acts of the appellants within Section 306 IPC, under which the appellants have been punished. The dying declaration, per se, could not involve the appellants in offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, because it provides for abetment of suicide. Whoever abets the commission of suicide, and if any person commits suicide due to that reason, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Abetment has been defined in Section 107 IPC to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. The conviction of the appellants under Section 306 IPC merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased is not sustainable. The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge.
3. It was, however, brought to our notice by learned counsel for the State that since the occurrence took place on 14-3-1984, Section 498-A IPC had priorly on 25-12-1983 been brought on the statute-book and that the appellant could well have been charged under the said provision which may now be applied in substitution. That appears to be so. But at this distance of time, we think it would be imprudent to substitute the charge and cull out incidences of cruelty inflicted on the deceased by the husband or relatives of the husband and determine whether any wilful conduct is attributed to the appellants which were likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her (whether physically or mentally). Prejudice would, in our view, be writ large if we involve the appellants under Section 498-A IPC in substitution. Even otherwise, substantial justice has been done when the husband and his mother, appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 1989 have undergone the sentence imposed on them. Their appeal would stand disposed of as infructuous. The sister-in-law also has undergone some sentence, though not much. The appeal of the sister-in-law would therefore stand allowed and she is acquitted of the charge. She is on bail. The bail bonds stand cancelled."
7. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618. The relevant paragraph nos.9 to 24 of the aforesaid judgment are here in below :-
"9. So far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, in our opinion, the trial court and the High Court have committed gross error of law in holding the accused-appellant guilty and therefore conviction under Section 306 IPC deserves to be quashed and set aside.
10. Section 306 IPC provides that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be liable to be punished. The ingredients of abetment are set out in Section 107 IPC, which reads as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who--
First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
11. There is no direct evidence adduced of the accused-appellant having abetted Seema into committing suicide. The prosecution has relied on Section 113-A of the Evidence Act which reads as under:
"113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.--When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, 'cruelty' shall have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of the Penal Code, (45 of 1860)."
21. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that the court 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 her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
22. Sections 498-A and 306 IPC are independent and constitute different offences. Though, depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual case, subjecting a woman to cruelty may amount to an offence under Section 498-A and may also, if a course of conduct amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other option for the woman except to commit suicide, amount to abetment to commit suicide. However, merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498-A IPC it does not follow that on the same evidence he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the woman concerned. Evidential value of the two writings contained in diary, Article A is that of dying declarations. On the principle underlying admissibility of dying declaration in evidence that truth sits on the lips of a dying person and the court can convict an accused on the basis of such declaration where it inspires full confidence, there is no reason why the same principle should not be applied when such a dying declaration speaking of the cause of death exonerates the accused unless there is material available to form an opinion that the deceased while making such statement was trying to conceal the truth either having been persuaded to do so or because of sentiments for her husband. The writing on p. 11 of diary (Article A) clearly states that the cause for committing suicide was her own feeling ashamed of her own faults. She categorically declares -- none to be held responsible or harassed for her committing suicide. The writing on p. 12 of diary (Article A) clearly suggests that sometime earlier also she had expressed her wish to commit suicide to her husband and the husband had taken a promise from her that she would not do so. On the date of the incident, the husband probably told the deceased that she was free to go wherever she wished and wanted to go and this revived the earlier impulse of the deceased for committing suicide. The dying declaration Ext. P-10 corroborates the inference flowing from the two writings contained in the diary and as stated hereinabove. The conduct of the accused trying to put off the fire and taking his wife to the hospital also improbabilises the theory of his having abetted suicide."
8. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427. The relevant paragraph nos.49 to 59, 67, 70 and 74 of the aforesaid judgment are here in below :-
"49. Before we evaluate the contents of the FIR, a reference to Section 306 IPC is necessary. Section 306 stipulates that if a person commits suicide "whoever abets the commission of such suicide" shall be punished with imprisonment extending up to 10 years [ "306. Abetment of suicide.--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."] . Section 107 is comprised within Chapter V IPC, which is titled "Of Abetment". Section 107 provides:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who--
First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
50. The first segment of Section 107 defines abetment as the instigation of a person to do a particular thing. The second segment defines it with reference to engaging in a conspiracy with one or more other persons for the doing of a thing, and an act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy. Under the third segment, abetment is founded on intentionally aiding the doing of a thing either by an act or omission. These provisions have been construed specifically in the context of Section 306 to which a reference is necessary in order to furnish the legal foundation for assessing the contents of the FIR. These provisions have been construed in the earlier judgments of this Court in State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] , Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab [Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 56] , Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. [Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701] ("Kishori Lal") and Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat [Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 62] . In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] , Mukundakam Sharma, J., speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court and having adverted to the earlier decisions, observed : (SCC p. 712, para 12)
"12. ... 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."
51. The Court noted that before a person may be said to have abetted the commission of suicide, they "must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide". Instigation, as this Court held in Kishori Lal [Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701] , "literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything". In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Dalveer Bhandari, J., observed : (SCC p. 197, para 25)
"25. 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 cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
53. Dealing with the provisions of Section 306 IPC and the meaning of abetment within the meaning of Section 107, the Court observed : (Madan Mohan Singh case [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] , SCC pp. 631-32, para 12)
"12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note."
54. In a concurring judgment delivered by one of us (Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.) in the decision of the Constitution Bench in Common Cause [Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1] , the provisions of Section 107 were explained with the following observations : (SCC p. 244, para 458)
"458. For abetting an offence, the person abetting must have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. Abetment requires an instigation to commit or intentionally aiding the commission of a crime. It presupposes a course of conduct or action which (in the context of the present discussion) facilitates another to end life. Hence abetment of suicide is an offence expressly punishable under Sections 305 and 306 IPC."
55. More recently in M. Arjunan v. State [M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 219] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through R. Banumathi, J., elucidated the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC in the following observations : (SCC p. 317, para 7)
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
56. Similarly, in another recent judgment of this Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana [Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 306] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Dinesh Maheshwari, J., expounded on the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, and the factors to be considered in determining whether a case falls within the ken of the aforesaid provision, in the following terms : (SCC pp. 321-22, para 16)
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, 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; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."
57. Similarly, in Rajesh v. State of Haryana [Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2020) 15 SCC 359] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through L. Nageswara Rao, J., held as follows : (SCC para 9)
"9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable 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. 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."
58. In a recent decision of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 417] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Hrishikesh Roy, J., held thus : (SCC pp. 206-07, para 15)
"15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased."
59. In Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra [Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 7 SCC 781 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 362] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through U.U. Lalit, J., dealt with an appeal against the rejection of an application under Section 482 CrPC, for quashing an FIR registered under Sections 306 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. A person serving in the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad had committed suicide on 8-8-2017. His wife made a complaint to the police that her husband was suffering from mental torture as his superiors were getting heavy work done from her husband. This resulted in him having to work from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. and even at odd hours and on holidays. The specific allegation against the appellant was that he had stopped the deceased's salary for one month and was threatening the deceased that his increment would be stopped. This Court noted that there was no suicide note, and the only material on record was in the form of assertions made by the deceased's wife in her report to the police. The Court went on to hold that the facts on record were inadequate and insufficient to bring home the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The mere factum of work being assigned by the appellant to the deceased, or the stoppage of salary for a month, was not enough to prove criminal intent or guilty mind. Consequently, proceedings against the appellant were quashed.
9. From the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out. The applicants have no previous criminal history and the same has been stated in paragraph no.25 of both the bail applications. The applicants are languishing in jail since 18.01.2024. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
10. Mr. A.S. Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel for the informant on the other hand submit that the charge-sheet has been submitted against both the applicants. The Investigating Officer has collected the CDR from where it has been found that on mobile number of deceased Sapna which is 9027960038 according to CDR from the period of 10.03.2023 to 14.08.2023 Vikash Meena has called from his mobile number 9639509152 on 26.03.2023 and from mobile number 7818052879 SMS has been sent. Prempal Meena has called from his mobile number 9917940310 of 21.03.2023 and Akash Meena has called from his mobile number 7310860865 on 28.03.2023 thrice, 29.09.2023 once, on 31.03.2023 thrice, on 01.04.2023 and 02.04.2023 four times. Kumar Neelam has called from his mobile number 7351031066 on 16.03.2023 thrice, on 22.03.2023 once, on 23.03.2023 twice, on 02.04.2023 twice, on 05.04.2023 once, on 08.04.2023 once and on 11.04.2023 once and after 17.04.2023 none of the aforesaid persons have called on the mobile number of the deceased.
11. From the aforesaid, it is clear that one of the applicants namely Akash Meena has called the deceased repeatedly. A video recording of the deceased has been collected wherein she has expressed her feelings of being upset, depressed as she felt that she was cheated. She never expected that just 20 days before her marriage, when the cards of her marriage were printed and distributed, her marriage will be cancelled due to pressure of the applicants. She has also spoken about her defamation because of cancellation of the marriage wherein the applicants alongwith others did not realize and understand the situation under which they had left no option for the deceased but to commit suicide. She has also narrated about the fact as why the boy used to talk to her and took her to different places after the marriage being fixed and the ring ceremony was also performed and has ultimately cancelled the marriage 20 days prior to the date fixed for marriage. The statement of Sachin Meena who is nephew of Jagbir Singh Meena has been recorded wherein he has spoken about compromise between the parties.
12. In the statements of co-accused Smt. Devvati Meena (wife of Prempal Meena), Neelam (daughter of Prempal Meena), Lakhan (uncle of Vikash Meena), all have stated about Kunwarpal Meena and Akash Meena instigating Vikas not to marry Sapna (deceased). However, all these persons as well as Prempal Meena wanted Vikash to marry Sapna. On the basis of the aforesaid statements, the other co-accused persons have been exonerated.
13. The judgments as relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants have been misinterpreted, thus in view of the statements of family members of the applicants, it is clear that they have abetted by their act of instigating Vikash not to marry Sapna and one of the co-accused has repeatedly called Sapna to disturb her by which she felt upset and has committed suicide. Offence under the relevant section is made out.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
15. After considering the statements as raised by learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that Section 306 I.P.C. makes abetment to commit suicide an offence. Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 talks about abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets the commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
16. Abetment is defined in Section 107 IPC and it reads as follows:
"107. Abetment of a thing. --A person abets the doing of a thing, who--
First.--Instigates any person to do that thing;
Or
Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing;
Or
Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
17. In a recent judgment passed in Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.1485 of 2011 [decided on 12.10.2023], the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. have been explained which are as follows :-
"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."
18. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh; (2001) 9 SCC 618, different meanings of "instigation" have been analysed. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:
"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."
19. The essentials of Section 306 I.P.C. have been elucidated by the Court in M. Mohan v. State, as under:
"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 suicidability 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.
44. 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 cannot be sustained.
45. 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."
20. From careful reading of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that 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, offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is not made out. In order to being a case within the purview of Section 306 I.P.C. 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 instigating or by doing certain act of 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.
21. While reading the judgement of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (supra), it is understood that in order to constitute 'instigation', it must be shown that 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.
22. In the present case, the series of incidents like fixing of marriage, ring ceremony, conversation between the deceased and Vikash as well as other family members, the repeated calls as made by all the family members and the instigation by the appellants not to marry the deceased, thus can be said to be an act and a continued course of conduct which had created circumstances for the deceased to commit suicide. Thus offence under the relevant section is made out.
23. In the judgment passed in case of Mohit Singhal And Another v. State of Uttrakhand And Others, (2024) 1 SCC 417, from reading Section 306 I.P.C. alongwith Section 107 I.P.C., it is clear that to attract the aforesaid sections, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. The intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide must be there. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide.
24. In the case of M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, it has been held that 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 cannot be sustained. 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.
25. From the judgments as cited by learned counsel for the applicants as well as those discussed by the Court, the fact as to whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide or not would only be gathered from facts and circumstances of each case. It is also settled that in case the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused persons are held guilty of abetment of suicide.
26. In the present case, from the statements of all the independent witnesses and the material collected by Investigating Officer, it is clear that the applicants have intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide by doing an act of forcing Vikash not to marry the deceased and chain of incidence of repeated conversation with the deceased prior to her death, the fixing of marriage, performing the ring ceremony, denial of marriage 20 days prior to the date fixed for marriage. The offence under the relevant section is made out.
27. In view of the aforesaid submission as made by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court does not find any good ground to grant relief in favour of the applicants, accordingly, the bail application of the applicants are rejected.
Order Date :- 15.5.2024
Kalp Nath Singh
