The High Court of Gujarat recently comprising of a bench of Justice A.G. Uraizee observed that Presence of nexus between the act of instigation and the ensuing suicide is mandatory for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. (Kiransinh Babarsinh Parmar Versus State Of Gujarat)
The bench noted that it also prima facie appears from the FIR and connected material that neither any meeting took place between the deceased and the applicant and other accused persons nor the deceased was summoned by the police after 30.6.2020 till the deceased committed suicide. It thus prima facie appears that there was no proximate cause for the deceased to commit suicide after 38 days of the last meeting on 30.7.2020.
Facts of the case
This applications under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was preferred by the applicants for being enlarged on bail in connection with an FIR for the offence punishable under sections 306, 506(2), 386, 270, 271, 201, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Contention of the Parties
The leaned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are not named in the suicide note. It was further submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant regarding monetary gain or personal animosity with the deceased. He submitted that section 386 of IPC states in respect of offence of extortion of putting a person in fear of death or grievance is not prima facie made out against the applicants. He further submitted that the applicants are Government servants and have no criminal antecedents. He submittd that the deceased committed suicide on account of circumstances created by himself. He, therefore, urged that the applicants may be enlarged on bail.
The learned counsel for de facto complainant opposed this bail application. He submitted that the allegations against the present applicant are not comparable with the allegations made against PI Laxmansinh Bodana (A-1). He submitted that the evidence prima facie indicates that independently the applicants have played role by tampering or destroying the laptop. He submitted that the applicants had approached the house of the complainant and held out threats. He therefore, submitted that the applicants cannot claim parity with PI Bodana (A-1). He, therefore, submitted that the applicants may not be enlarged on bail.
Mr. Ronak Raval, learned APP has in addition to the submissions made by Mr. Raju, learned advocate for the defacto complainant submitted that the applicants are police personnel and they had given threats to the deceased on 30.7.2020 in the farmhouse. He submitted that the applicants are involved in a serious offence. Hence, considering the gravity of offence, they may not be enlarged on bail.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The Court observed , “It is trite that abetment is a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. To constitute an offence of abetment, mens rea is a condition precedent. To put it in other words, there has to be a prima facie evidence to indicate that the accused person had intentionally with full knowledge of consequence of his act aided or induced a person to do or not to do a particular thing. Hence, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, the necessary requirement of section 107 cannot be said to have been fulfilled. As a consequence, a person cannot be held responsible for offence under section 306 of IPC. Moreover, there has to be nexus between the act of instigation and the ensuing suicide committed by the victim.”
In the present case, undisputedly the last meeting had taken place on 30.7.2020 at a farmhouse between the applicant, the deceased and the original complainant amongst others and thereafter, the deceased had committed suicide after 38 days on 6.9.2020. Even in the suicide note, it is stated that there is a monetary dispute in respect of the land which was sold by the deceased.
The Court noted, “It also prima facie appears from the FIR and connected material that neither any meeting took place between the deceased and the applicant and other accused persons nor the deceased was summoned by the police after 30.6.2020 till the deceased committed suicide. It thus prima facie appears that there was no proximate cause for the deceased to commit suicide after 38 days of the last meeting on 30.7.2020.
In view of the above, having perused the FIR and connected material and having taken into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations and the evidence against the applicant, without discussing evidence in detail, at this stage, I am of the view that the present one is a fit case to exercise discretion vested in this court under section 439 of the Code in favour of the applicants.”
Hence, the present applications was allowed and the applicants were ordered to be released on regular bail.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
