Orissa High Court

Dr. Priyank Tapuria vs State Of Orissa & Another ....... ... on 20 June, 2024

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.385 of 2023

(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973)

Dr. Priyank Tapuria ....... Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Orissa & another ....... Opposite Parties

For the Petitioner : Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate

For the Opp. Party
No.1 : Mr. P.K. Maharaj,
Addl. Standing Counsel
For the Opp. Party
No.2 : Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra, Advocate

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 21.03.2024 : Date of Judgment: 20.06.2024

S.S. Mishra, J. The pain of loneliness, despair and agony suffered by a

mind contemplating suicide have been realistically captured by the

American President, Abraham Lincon in following lines:

"Yes! I'm prepared, through endless night,
To take that fiery berth!
Think not with tales of hell to fright
Me, who am damn'd on earth!"
" The Suicide's Soliloquy"
by Abraham Lincon

The present case unveil the kind of damage caused in the minds of

young people due to societal pressure, particularly in this age where

psyche of the society as a whole is dominated by internet and social

media platforms. It is unfathomable that a highly educated young girl

like the deceased namely Sheetal, who was pursuing her Ph.D in

Electrical Engineering, could even thought of taking her own life.

2. The uncontroverted facts germinating from the record are that:

(a) The families of the petitioner and the deceased were in the

process of arranging and formalising the marriage between the petitioner

and the deceased since 2019. The petitioner at that time was pursuing his

medical education at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar so he insisted upon

postponing the marriage ceremony by two years.

(b) Apparently, family of the deceased could not agree for waiting

for such long time. Therefore, sometime in the month of November,

Page 2 of 28
2020 they settled the marriage of the deceased with a boy from Nagpur

and the ring ceremony took place at Nagpur.

The photographs of the ring ceremony as well as pre wedding

photoshoots were posted on social media platforms. Be that as it may,

this engagement at Nagpur could not be fructified into marriage and the

same was called off sometime in February 2021 by deceased family due

to discontentment.

and the deceased to formalise the proposal of marriage of the petitioner

and the deceased restarted, which culminated into the engagement/ring

ceremony being celebrated on 30.05.2021.

(d) In between, in the month of August 2021, both the families

organized birthday celebrations for petitioner as well as the deceased,

whereafter, the deceased realized that the petitioner was not happy with

the marriage proposal with her. The poor soul brought this fact to the

notice of her parents and family members. The family members of the

deceased brought this to the notice of the family members of the

petitioner. However, parents and family members from both the side

Page 3 of 28
insisted upon the petitioner as well as on the deceased that they should

talk to each other and expected that over the period of time things will

fall in place.

(e) The respective families encouraged the petitioner and the

deceased to spend some time together, however, there is nothing on

record to indicate that physical intimacy between the deceased and the

petitioner was ever established. Although, in July 2021 deceased had

gone to Bangalore, where sister of the petitioner was studying BDS

course there. Both the petitioner as well as the deceased met for some

time at Banglore, but nothing seems to have worked in favour of

alliance.

(f) It's borne out from the record that since the Petitioner wanted

to pursue his Fellowship selection scheduled on 16.11.2021, he proposed

to postpone the marriage but the family of the deceased insisted to

conduct marriage ceremony on 21.11.2021. The petitioner came under

the pressure of both the families to agree upon the schedule of marriage

at the cost of his fellowship selection. Apparently it was not a happy

situation.

Page 4 of 28
(g) On 12.11.2021 the petitioner, his sister, deceased and her sister

at about 2.30 P.M. had long group video call, it is alleged by the

complainant (mother of the deceased) that they were having discussion

about the marriage and preparation for it, to which the petitioner was not

showing any interest. It has been further alleged by the complainant that

father of the petitioner at about 10.20 P.M. called the deceased and

informed that marriage between the petitioner and the deceased might

not materialised as the petitioner was not willing to get married and

further expressed his sorrow for that. Thereafter, at about 12.20 A.M. the

sister of the deceased called the petitioner from deceased phone and

talked to the petitioner for about two hours and after that the petitioner

and the deceased remained on call till 4.00 A.M. during which the

conversation was alleged to have taken an ugly turn and the petitioner

was alleged to have communicated his decision to call off the marriage

in a harsh manner to the deceased.

(h) It has been alleged that the telephonic conversation between

the petitioner and the deceased made the deceased very volatile and

mentally unstable, the complainant tried to console the deceased but after

Page 5 of 28
sometime the deceased was found to have committed suicide at 8 A.M.

by hanging herself with ceiling fan with the aid of her "Odhani".

(i) At about 9.45 A.M. on 13.09.2021, the incident was first

reported to the IIC, Town P.S. Dhenkanal, by the complainant. In her

complaint, she did not make any elaborate allegations against the

petitioner other than stating that the deceased had discussed with her that

between 3.30 A.M. to 4 A.M. the deceased had a "hot discussion" with

the petitioner. So, she prayed for conducting an inquiry. On the basis of

the same, U.D. Case No.40 of 2021 was registered at the P.S. The

complaint made by the mother of the deceased is extracted herein

below:-

"To
The IIC, Town Police Station,
Dhenkanal
Sub: FIR regarding suicide by hanging of my
daughter Sheetal Chandak.
Sir,
As above, I would like to intimate that I Smt.
Kamala Devi Chandak aged about 53 years wife of
Jugal Kishrore Chandak of Laxmi Bajar, DKL that
my daughter Sheetal Chandak aged about 30 yrs had a
discussion with me today 13/10/2021 near about at
7.30 am and went to her Bedroom. After few time
when I went there found the room was locked from
inside. Suspecting foul play I called my family

Page 6 of 28
members and forcibly opened the door and found she
was hanging by using her wearing napkin (Odni).
During discussion with my daughter she said me
that around 3.30 am to 4 am the boy with whom her
marriage was fixed had called her over mobile phone
and there was a hot discussion with them. Please have
an inquiry about that matter."

3. The complainant for the second time reported the incident after 7

days on 20.09.2021 at about 9.30 P.M., wherein specific allegations

against the petitioner were made by the complainant. This complaint was

registered as F.I.R. No.382 of 2021 U/s.306 IPC against the petitioner.

After investigation, police filed charge-sheet No.616 dated

23.11.2022 against the petitioner U/s.306 IPC. It may be pertinent to

extract the relevant portion of the charge-sheet to have a meaningful

appreciation of the prospective.

"On 16.07.2021 Sheetal Chandak had been to Bangalore to
the house of Kajal Tapuria where she spent some time with Kajal
Tapuria and Priyank Tapuria. After return Sheetal was very un-
happy. Getting this information Shibani Chandak @Kankari talked
to Priyank Tapuria over telephone of Sheetal Chandak on
12.09.2021. On this Priyank Tapuria denied out rightly to marry
Sheetal Chandak. On this Shibani and Sheetal tried a lot to make
him understand that they have raised photographs of different
occasions and sent all those in social media. The Marwari
community in Odisha is very less and the breaking of marriage
proposal time and again of a girl of this community after ring
ceremony and proceeding a lot towards marriage is a matter of
question mark on her for every one of this community. This is
reason for which Sheetal was very much sad and felt ashamed. So,

Page 7 of 28
she tried a lot to make understand Priyank Tapuria not to break the
relationship. But Mr. Priyank Tapuria without thinking the mental
condition of Sheetal, out rightly and harshly denied to marry
Sheetal. They talked hours together over telephone, but what he
has told to Sheetal no one knows except this much that he has
mentally harassed Sheetal.

4. The learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal vide order dated 28.11.2022 took

cognizance of offence punishable U/s.306 IPC against the petitioner in

G.R. Case No.1111 of 2021 corresponding to Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case

No.382 of 2021 on charge-sheet No.616 dated 23.11.2022. The

petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of taking cognizance in the

present proceeding by invoking jurisdiction of this Court U/s.482 Cr.P.C.

5. Heard Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra, learned counsel for the

informant and Mr. P.K. Maharaj, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the

State.

6. Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Ld. Sr. Advocate appearing for the

petitioner has forcefully argued that no case of offence U/s.306 IPC is

made out against the petitioner even if the allegation made in the charge-

sheet as well as the material forming the part of the charge-sheet is taken

on its face value to be true, as such material does not disclose the

Page 8 of 28
essential ingredient necessary for initiating the trial for the offence

punishable U/s.306 of IPC.

Learned Sr. Counsel has argued that neither the F.I.R. nor the

charge-sheet filed after the investigation whisper about any kind of

explanation about the material improvement made in the complaint in

the F.I.R. from the complaint made in the U.D. Case. This fact itself

gives credence to his argument that the allegations made in the F.I.R. and

the statements recorded thereafter are nothing but an afterthought and

pre-planned attempt to harass the petitioner in vengeful manner by

implicating the petitioner in false criminal case. The family of the

deceased are bent upon to spoil the life of the petitioner under the false

notion that he is responsible for the death of their daughter.

7. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments

has relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of M. Mohan vs. State reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:

"37. The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in the
Indian Penal Code, however, its meaning and import is well
known and requires no explanation. 'Sui' means 'self' and

Page 9 of 28
'cide' means 'killing', thus implying an act of self-killing. In
short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself,
irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his
object of killing himself.

38. In our country, while suicide itself is not an offence
considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of
law, attempt to suicide is an offence under section 309 of I.P.C.

39. 'Abetment of a thing' has been defined under section 107 of
the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce section 107,
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 places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and
in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally
aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with
section 107 reads as under:
"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 facilitate
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

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."

Page 10 of 28
8. It has been further argued on behalf of the petitioner that ratio laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhu vs. The State

Rep. By Inspector of Police & Anr., SLP (Crl.) Diary No.39981 of 2022

squarely covers the case of the petitioner as the facts in the present case

and the facts in the above cited judicial pronouncement are matching

except for the fact that allegations in the case dealt by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court are much graver than present case. Ld. Senior Counsel

has relied on para 9 to 12 of the judgment in the case of Prabhu (supra)

to elucidate upon the essential ingredients of offence punishable U/s.306

IPC, which reads 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 Chhattisgarh, this Court
has analysed different meanings of "instigation". The
relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein:

Page 11 of 28
"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. 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

Page 12 of 28
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
Bengal 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

Page 13 of 28
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."

10. On a perusal of the above, and relying upon this Court's
previous judgments discussing the elements of Section 306 IPC,
the following principles emerge:

10.1 Where the words uttered are casual in nature and which are
often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling
people, and nothing serious is expected to follow from the same,
the same would not amount to abetment of suicide. [Swami
Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438,
Paragraph 3; Sanju v. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371,
Paragraph 12]

10.2 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. The
words uttered by the accused must be suggestive of the
consequence [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh (2001)
9 SCC 618, Paragraph 20]

10.3 Different individuals in the same situation react and behave
differently because of the personal meaning they add to each
event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide.

Page 14 of 28
[Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of
Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, Paragraph 20]

10.4 There must be direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. The accused must be shown to have
played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain
act to facilitate the commission of suicide [Amalendu Pal v.
State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, Paragraph 12-14]

10.5 The accused must have intended or known that the
deceased would commit suicide because of his actions or
omissions [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8
SCC 628]

11. Applying the above yardstick to the facts of the present case
in question, even if we take the case as a whole and test the
prosecution case on a demurrer, it could not be said that the
actions of the accused instigated Kousalya to take her life or that
he conspired with others to ensure that the person committed
suicide or any act of the appellant or omission instigated the
deceased resulting in the suicide.

12. Broken relationships and heart breaks are part of
everyday life. It could not be said that the appellant by
breaking up the relationship with Kousalya and by advising
her to marry in accordance with the advice of her parents,
as he himself was doing, had intended to abet the suicide of
Kousalya. Hence the offence under Section 306 is not made
out."

9. The learned Sr. Counsel has further relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo Varghese vs. State of

Rajasthan and Anr., reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 873. He has

emphasized paragraphs-20 to 23 of the said judgment and submits that

Page 15 of 28
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enunciated the law regarding the

offence U/s.306 IPC.

"20. At this stage, we may also refer to another recent
judgment of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case
of Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, which elucidated on
the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306
IPC in the following words:
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 above referred,
instigation means to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the

Page 16 of 28
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 306IPC.
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.
21. We may also refer to a two-Judge Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of Narayan Malhari
Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat, wherein the judgment
rendered by the High Court quashing the FIR under
Section 482 was set aside. In the said case, an FIR was
registered under Section 306 IPC stating that the son and
daughter-in-law were teachers in a Zila Parishad School
where the accused was also a teacher used to make
frequent calls on the mobile of the daughter-in-law, and

Page 17 of 28
used to harass her. Despite the efforts of the son of the
informant in trying to make the accused see reason and
stop calling, the accused continued with his activity. On 9-
2-2015, there was a verbal altercation between the son of
the informant and the accused and on 12-2-2015, he
committed suicide leaving a note stating that his family
life has been ruined by the accused who should not be
pardoned and should be hanged. Under Section 482 CrPC,
a petition was filed by the accused challenging the FIR,
which was allowed by the High Court and thereafter, was
challenged before this Court. The appeal was allowed by
this Court and made the following observations:-
"We now consider the facts of the
present case. There are definite
allegations that the first respondent
would keep on calling the wife of the
victim on her mobile and keep
harassing her which allegations are
supported by the statements of the
mother and the wife of the victim
recorded during investigation. The
record shows that 3-4 days prior to the
suicide there was an altercation
between the victim and the first
respondent. In the light of these facts,
coupled with the fact that the suicide
note made definite allegation against
the first respondent, the High Court
was not justified in entering into
question whether the first respondent
had the requisite intention to aid or
instigate or abate the commission of
suicide. At this juncture when the
investigation was yet to be completed
and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be
filed, the High Court ought not to have
gone into the aspect whether there was
requisite mental element or intention
on the part of the respondent."

Page 18 of 28
22. In the above quoted observations of this
Court, there is a clear indication that there was a
specific averment in the FIR that the respondent
had continuously harassed the spouse of the
victim and did not rectify his conduct despite
being objected by the victim. Thus, as a matter
of fact he had actively facilitated in the
commission of suicide.
23. What is required to constitute an alleged
abetment of suicide under Section 306IPC is
there must be an allegation of either direct or
indirect act of incitement to the commission of
offence of suicide and mere allegations of
harassment of the deceased by another person
would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there
are allegations of such actions on the part of the
accused which compelled the commission of
suicide. Further, if the person committing
suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations
attributed to the accused are otherwise not
ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
situated person to take the extreme step of
committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold
the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus,
what is required is an examination of every case
on its own facts and circumstances and keeping
in consideration the surrounding circumstances
as well, which may have bearing on the alleged
action of the accused and the psyche of the
deceased."

Relying upon the aforesaid precedence, Ld. Sr. Counsel has

contended that as a key ingredient for making out an offence U/s.306

IPC there should be clear mens rea to commit offence of abatement of

suicide on the part of the accused, it requires commission of direct or

Page 19 of 28
active act by the accused which led deceased to commit suicide finding

no other option and such act must be intended to push the victim to a

point of no return and she commits suicide which is clearly missing in

the facts of present case as has been missing in the relied upon

judgments, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the criminal

proceedings initiated against the accused persons U/s.306 IPC.

10. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Maharaj, Ld. Additional Standing

Counsel for the State as well as Mr. Himnshu Sekhar Mishra learned

counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition. It has

been argued that in the present case the complainant has lost her young

daughter due to alleged mental pressure created by the accused-petitioner

by harshly refusing to the proposed marriage after having been engaged

with the deceased and after photographs of various ceremonies having

been posted on the social media. In that view of the matter the deceased

who belonged to Marwari community, which is a very small community

in Odisha, the deceased would be facing hardship and humility for her

future marriage alliances, as she has already suffered a broken

Page 20 of 28
engagement at Nagpur, which forced the deceased to take the drastic step

to commit suicide.

11. It has been strenuously argued by Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra,

learned Counsel for the complainant that in view of the fact that there are

ample material on record in the form of statement of the complainant

that immediately before the incident deceased disclosed to the

complainant that she had a heated discussion with the petitioner on

phone call where he has harshly called off the marriage. This statement

itself attains relevance U/s.6 of Indian Evidence Act being res gestae. To

substantiate his contention, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel relied upon a

judgment of this Court in the case of Nursingha Charan Dash @

Babulu vrs. State of Odisha, reported in (2019) 76 OCR 565. The

relevant is reproduced below:

"The immediate disclosure about the occurrence by the
victim before her mother is admissible as res gestae under
Section 6 of the Evidence Act as it is a spontaneous
statement connected with the fact in issue and there is no
time interval for fabrication."

12. With regard to relied upon judicial pronouncements by the

petitioner side, learned Counsels for the State as well as the complainant

Page 21 of 28
have argued that the same are very much distinguishable on facts.

Moreover, prima facie case against the petitioner have been adequately

made out, therefore, Ld. S.D.J.M. has rightly taken the cognizance of the

offence punishable U/s.306/34 of IPC and this Court should not interfere

with it at this stage by appreciating the material placed on record by the

police in the charge sheet.

13. Having heard the counsel for the respective parties at length and

having perused the material brought on record, this court is anguished to

pose a question as to whether a young life of a highly qualified engineer

could have been saved had the sequence of events been different or the

petitioner deliberately created circumstances to push the deceased to take

such drastic step of ending her life ?

Some of the factors which may be evaluated to answer the

aforesaid question are:

a) That the petitioner has been reluctant to enter into marital

relationship with the deceased from the very beginning and

had been postponing the marriage.

Page 22 of 28
b) That it is admitted case of the prosecution that initial

reluctancy showed by the petitioner led to engagement of the

deceased with some other boy from Nagpur, however,

unfortunately, the said engagement could not be converted

into marital relationship and the engagement was broken by

the deceased's family. According, to the prosecution the

deceased was having a sense of humiliation and frustration

due to the fact that one engagement was broken and the

petitioner was not inclined to convert the engagement to

marital relationship. Therefore, breaking of earlier marriage

proposal with the boy from Nagpur was also a contributing

factor to push the deceased to take her own life.

c) That both the family members were very much aware about

the fact that petitioner was trying to avoid the company of

deceased and this was making the deceased very un-happy

about the relationship. Despite this fact both the families tried

to thrust the relationship upon the petitioner and the deceased.

Page 23 of 28
d) The exact telephonic conversation that took place between the

deceased and the petitioner between 3.30 A.M. to 4.00 A.M. is

not known to anyone.

The only inference that could be drawn from the facts borne out

of record is that the deceased has fell victim to reluctance of

petitioner to get married and the desperation of parents of both the

sides to get her married to the petitioner.

14. In this context the statement of the complainant mother and the

sister of the deceased recorded U/s.161 Cr.P.C. acquires much

importance, wherein complainant does not even say that she was told by

the deceased about the heated arguments that took place between the

petitioner and the deceased on the phone call between 3.30 A.M. and

4.00 A.M. rather she states that the deceased fell to sleep at about 4

A.M. with heavy heart. Which is contrary to two complaints lodged by

the complainant i.e. one which led to registering of U.D. case and the

other which became the foundation for lodging of F.I.R. The relevant

portion of the statements of the mother/complainant witnesses are

extracted herein above:-

Page 24 of 28
"On 16.07.2021 my daughter Sheetal has gone to Bangalore to meet
the would be sister in law Kajal Tapuria and there she spent time
with Priyank Tapuria. Our family member realised that our daughter
Sheetal has been upset for Priyank Tapuria after this my younger
daughter Shivani Kankar on 12.09.2021 in the night tried to
convince Priyank Tapuria by calling from the mobile phone of
Sheetal. Despite all efforts to convince Priyank Tapuriya to marry
my daughter, but he refused to marry her. My husband on that day
i.e. 12.09.2021 had gone to Bombay. On that night after Shivani,
Sheetal also tried to convince Priyank Tapuriya but he did not listen.
At about 4 O'Clock in the morning Sheetal had gone to her bed
room to sleep with a heavy heart. After date of marriage being fixed
the behaviour of Priyank Tapuria caused mental shock to my
daughter. On 13.09.2021 at about 8:00 O'clock I told my husband to
come back from Bombay because Sheetal is upset. There after I
came outside, the guest room door was closed, thereafter I peeped
through the window by sliding the window pane with a stick and saw
my daughter was hanging from the ceiling fan with her Odhni.

Similarly, statement of the sister of the deceased is extracted

herein below:-

"I called Priyank Tapuria at night on 12.09.2021 by Sheetal Didi's
mobile phone to convince him to marry my sister, despite my best
efforts Priyank Tapuria refused to marry her. My father was at
Bombay on that day i.e. on 12.09.2021. On that night after I spoke,
Sheetal didi also spoke to Priyank Tapuria and tried to convince him
but he did not listen. My mother Kamala Devi Chandak called up my
father and told everything about Sheetal. On that day i.e. 13.09.2021
at about 8 O'clock my mother called my father to come back from
Bombay because Sheetal is upset. There after my mother came
outside, the guest room door was closed, thereafter my mother
peeped through the window by sliding the window pane with a stick
and saw my sister was hanging from the ceiling fan with her Odhni."

Although, the probative value of the statements of the witnesses

cannot be gone into at this stage, but the statements of these witnesses do

Page 25 of 28
not disclose what exactly transpired between the deceased and the

petitioner. The same fact is also reflected in the Charge-sheet filed by the

investigating officer. This aspect of the matter cannot be elucidated from

the evidence of any witness and that would always be speculative.

Therefore, in answer to the aforesaid question posed in the

preceding paragraph I find that in the absence of exact conversations that

had taken place between the deceased and the petitioner on that fateful

night, crucial element of offence punishable U/s.306 IPC i.e. mens rea to

commit offence of abatement of suicide on the part of the accused, which

requires commission of direct or active act by the accused which led

deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and such act must be

intended to push the victim to a point of no return and she commits

suicide are clearly missing in the facts of present case.

15. Further, from the charge-sheet itself, the prosecution's case is

that the deceased was very sad and felt ashamed as she had already

suffered a broken engagement with the boy from Nagpur. Previous to

that also, talks for finalising marriage between the petitioner and the

deceased could not be finalised, such repeated breaking of engagement

Page 26 of 28
of a girl belonging to Marwari community, which is a very small

community in Odisha, would definitely cause severe mental stress.

Therefore, in view of the fact that it is admitted case of the prosecution

that breaking of the engagement with the boy from Nagpur also

contributed to the mental stress and agony of the deceased for which the

petitioner cannot be blamed for.

It's also eminent from record that the petitioner has shown his

reluctance to the proposal of marrying the deceased from the very

beginning. It is definitely expected from anyone to be very clear about

his or her stand in any relationship, from the petitioner it was expected

even more as he himself is a doctor, if he did not wish to marry the

deceased he should have said no to the proposal at the very first instance

without any caveats. Getting himself engaged with reluctancy to marry

the deceased was even worse. At the same time, it is to be considered,

that every relationship carries very heavy emotional burden and feelings

and hence, those are matter of emotions where rationality and objectivity

takes a backseat. Thus, in such delicate issues of heart, much is expected

from the elders of families and the parents of both sides to act maturely

Page 27 of 28
and empathically, understands the views of the people engaged or going

to be engaged in a relationship, the views so expressed vocally as well as

the feeling which have not so expressly showed. Therefore, this court

feels that act of entering into the engagement with the deceased by the

petitioner with reluctancy to marry her alone cannot be made a penal

offence, much less under Section 306 IPC. Reluctance to give

irrevocable commitment for life-time and to take responsibility cannot

culminate into mens rea to commit a criminal offence.

16. In the light of above discussion, the petition is allowed and the

order dated 28.11.2022 taking cognizance of offence punishable U/s.306

IPC against the petitioner in G.R. Case No.1111 of 2021 corresponding

to Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No.382 of 2021 on charge-sheet No.616

dated 23.11.2022, by the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal and all the

consequential proceedings are quashed.

17. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

......................

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack th Digitally Signed The 20 June, 2024/Asish Kumar Kar, ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Signed by: ASISH KUMAR KAR Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack