Smt Sheelu Devi vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 19941 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt Sheelu Devi vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2024

Author: Manju Rani Chauhan

Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:98946
 
Court No. - 66
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9724 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Smt Sheelu Devi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- G.A.,Kapil Dev Dubey,Pratikdhar Dwivedi,Rahul Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Mayank Awasthi, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant -Smt. Sheelu Devi with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 104 of 2023, under Sections 306 and 506 IPC, Police Station ? Bharatkoop, District Chitrakoot, during pendency of trial.

3. As per allegations in the first information report lodged on 04.08.2023 at 18:04 hrs. against three named accused persons including the applicant, under Sections 306 and 506 IPC, informant's son was married with the applicant Sheelu three years ago. The applicant used to have regular conversation with a person, named, Raju (co-accused). She had affair with him and despite intervention of informant and the deceased, the applicant could not understand. She used to share residence location with the co-accused Raju. Applicant's son tried to convince the applicant, however, she never listened and used to say that she will remain in relation with co-accused Raju. On being complained to applicant's father Chunwad, about the same, who is also one of the accused, he responded in a harsh manner. On 01.08.2023, the deceased was called by the applicant requesting to bring her from maternal place to his home, whereupon the deceased went to his in-laws' home. On 02.08.2023 at 06:00 a.m. applicant's father Chunwad intimated on the mobile of Manish (informant's son) that Jitendra has committed suicide. There are allegations of threatening against the applicant and other co-accused persons. Some photographs have been provided by the informant at the time of lodging FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. There were petty disputes between the applicant and her husband (deceased), which have been given colour in order to falsely implicate the applicant. It has been venomously alleged that the applicant and co-accused Raju had illicit relation, due to which applicant's husband was upset and committed suicide, however, the conversation had been underwent since 2-3 months from the date of incident, only. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2016 (SC) 5430; Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, 2015 2 Crimes (SC) 169; Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2014 SC 331. He submits that extramarital relationship, if proved, could be illegal and immoral but there is no evidence to show that the applicant had provoked, instigated or induced her husband to commit suicide, therefore, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that illicit relationship between the applicant and co-accused Raju is proved. Photographs and conversation between the applicant and co-accused Raju also clearly evince the same. He next submits that the informant's son reached at his in-laws home on being called by the applicant, where he was found dead, thus, it is clear that situation has been plotted to commit the offence. Injuries as mentioned in the postmortem report show ligature mark present anterior 6 cm below chin, 9 cm below from right ear and 4 cm below from left ear, which as per medical opinion is not a case of suicide only, rather it can be homicide.

6. In a matter relating of abetment to commit suicide, the Apex Court has observed that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act', and 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.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1485 of 2011, decided on 12.10.2023, has explained the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. 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. In the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattishgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088, 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."

9. The essentials of Section 306 I.P.C. have been elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan v. State Represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626, 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."

10. 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.

11. While reading the judgement in Ramesh Kumar (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.

12. In a 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.

13. In M. Mohan (supra), 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.

14. From the judgments as cited by learned counsel for the applicant 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.

15. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to grant bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.

Order Date :- 30.5.2024

DS