1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla and Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to the FIR in which it is stated by the informant, Chandrabhushan Upadhyay that his daughter Priya was married in 2009 with accused-applicant no. 1, Kranti Mishra according to Hindu rites and at that time as per demand, a sum of Rs.4,50,000 in cash, jewellery and domestic articles were provided apart from one motorcycle Hero Honda (Passion Pro). At the event of Tilak, Rs.1,00,000/- was given, apart from kitchen utensils etc. At the time of marriage, the applicant no.1 (husband), applicant no.2, Om Prakash Mishra (father-in-law), applicant no. 3, Rakesh Mishra, (brother-in-law) started demanding four wheeler as additional dowry because of which 'Bidai' of his daughter could be done. After much persuasion on the next day, on 24.11.2019 'Gauna' was performed and when her daughter (deceased) went to her matrimonial home, all the accused-applicants, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, Jeth, Nand and Jethani started making taunts that marriage was performed for very cheap as the accused-applicant no. 1 was holding degree of M.B.A., who could have got much better dowry and started demanding four wheeler or a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and it was made clear to her that unless the said amount is given, it would not be possible for her to live in matrimonial home peacefully. After some days, when the informant's daughter came to her parent's home after 'Bidai', all these facts were disclosed by her. Thereafter, the informant had made enquiry about this from the accused side, they reiterated demand of four wheeler or Rs.7,00,000/- and had told that till the said demand was not fulfilled, 'Bidai' of the deceased would not be got done but after much persuasion, 'Bidai' of the deceased took place in the year 2010. The husband-applicant no. 1 had taken the deceased to Mumbai where he used to work but even there he continued to make taunts and had also made harassment of the victim physically and mentally on various occasions and she was also pressurized to give her jewellary so that after selling the same, four wheeler could be purchased but for that, the deceased had refused. When the said refusal was made, she used to be beaten up by banging her head against the wall and had used filthy language and threat of divorce was also given. He used to raise the volume of the T.V. and close the door of the house so that screaming or weeping of the deceased would not go out and the husband-applicant no. 1 had gone outside for 3-4 hours closing her from outside. The family members of the accused-applicant no. 1 used to telephone the accused-applicant no. 1 for harassing her in Mumbai. Ultimately, in the year 2012, the accused-applicant no. 1 had dropped the deceased near the house of the informant retaining the jewellary at his home. One child was also born out of the wedlock who was four years old. The accused-applicant no. 1 had filed a case for giving divorce in the District Court, Jaunpur being case no. 559 of 2016 but looking to the fact that there was bleak chance of improvement in the conduct of the accused-applicant no.1, a case no. 801 of 2017 was filed in the Court of CJM under Domestic Violence Act. In the said case, when applicant no. 2 Om Prakash had appeared in the Court and met the informant out side the Court, he had again reminded to fulfill the demand failing which, the informant's daughter would not be allowed to stay in the matrimonial home and it was also stated by the accused-applicant no. 2 that his son after selling the property, would go to Mumbai and police would not be able to find him. The informant was also threatened by the accused-applicant no. 2 that he would defame the informant in the society and the informant would not be able to live in the society and, therefore, his children would also not be able to get married and that his daughter and grandson would also be got eliminated. When the informant had gone to District Court, his daughter Priya and son Deepak Kumar Upadhyay were also accompanying him and were standing in search of vehicle, then it was stated by the accused-applicant no. 2 that in his house also, his elder son Rakesh Mishra and his son-in-law were practicing advocates in District Court, Jaunpur and that they would continue to contest the case against the informant side. It was also stated that more than seven years have elapsed, hence case of dowry death cannot be imposed upon them. Instead of improving relation with the deceased, the husband-applicant no. 1 had also filed a case for divorce and started giving threat to the deceased from unknown telephone nos, hence first information report was lodged against the accused-applicant no. 1 and other family members being case crime no.836 of 2017 under section 498-A, 506, 504 I.P.C at P.S. Cantt, District Varanasi on 22.8.2017. In this manner, the informant's daughter used to remain mentally disturbed because of the case having been filed against her and having received notices on different dates from the court and used to say that despite having been tortured, she could not get any case registered against the persons of her sasural and was passing time with her child in her parents' home and even then, she was not being allowed to remain peacefully and in these circumstances after getting fed-up, on 23.10.2017 at about 6.45 p.m. she committed suicide by hanging herself by a stole from the ceiling fan, for which the accused-applicants are responsible.
3. Thereafter, attention was drawn to the post-mortem report of the deceased in which hyoid bone was found intact and only one ligature mark was found to have been sustained by the deceased and the cause of death was mentioned as asphyxia as a result of hanging.
4. It is further argued that even if the entire case which has been mentioned in the FIR be taken to be correct, offence under section 306 IPC would not be made out because there was no abetment on part of the accused-applicants of instigating the deceased to commit suicide soon before her death. It is further emphasized that the death of the deceased has happened in the house of the informant and not in the house of the accused-applicants and it was also an undisputed fact that since the year 2012, the deceased was staying with the informant and not with the accused persons, therefore, there was no possibility of any instigation made by the accused side to the deceased to commit suicide. It is further argued that even under section 113-A of the Evidence Act, it was necessary that death should have occurred within seven years of the marriage for invocation of the said provision for presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman, but even that period of seven years had already expired. For ready reference, section 113-A of Evidence Act is quoted herein below.
"113A 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."
5. As regard the offence under section 306 IPC, the same is being re-produced herein below:-
A"306. Abetment of suicide- If any person commit 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."
6. Further reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Sarvesh vs. State of U.P., 2017 LawSuit (All) 1982. Paragraph nos. 19 and 20 of the said judgment are as follows:
"19. Thus, it would be evident on plain reading of Section 306 IPC that, in order to make out the offence of abetment of suicide, the necessary proof required is that the culprit has either instigated the victim to commit suicide or has engaged himself in conspiracy with others, for the commission of suicide or has intentionally aided, by any act or illegal omission in the commission of suicide.
20. There has to be element of positive complicity on the part of the abettor at the point of time just prior to the actual commission of the offence or within such short space of time prior to suicide that there may be found a reasonable and rational nexus between the act done by the abettor and the resultant death. It is of the essence of the crime to make out the offence of abetment of suicide that the abettor should be proved to have substantially assisted in the commission of the offence of suicide. Stray domestic quarrels, perfunctory abuses by mother-in-law to her daughter-in-law in the Indian society, crude and uncultured behaviours by the in-laws or the husband towards his wife being mundane matters of normal occurrence in the traditional joint Hindu families, will not go to form and constitute 'abetment' unless these acts of conduct singly or cumulatively, are found to be of such formidable and compelling nature as may lead to the commission of suicide or may facilitate in a singular and prime manner, the commission of the same."
7. Further, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 1135 of 2016 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 8764 of 2016. Paragraph nos. 21 to 33 of the said judgment are as follows:
21. Section 306 of the Code prescribes the punishment for abetment of suicide and is designed thus:
"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."
22. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of this constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.
Section 107 IPC defines abetment and is extracted hereunder:
"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 doing.
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."
23. Not only the acts and omissions defining the offence of abetment singularly or in combination are enumerated therein, the explanations adequately encompass all conceivable facets of the culpable conduct of the offender relatable thereto.
24. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits a presumption as to the abetment of suicide by a married woman by her husband or any relative of his, if it is proved that she had committed the act within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of his had subjected her to cruelty. The explanation to this Section exposits "cruelty" to have the same meaning as attributed to this expression in Section 498A IPC. For ready reference, Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882 is quoted hereunder as well. "113A. 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 purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
25. In the legislative backdrop outlined hereinabove, Section 498A of the Code also demand extraction.
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty
- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
26. This provision, as the quote hereinabove reveals, renders the husband of a woman or the relative of his, punishable thereby with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also fine, if they or any one of them subject her to cruelty. The explanation thereto defining "cruelty" enfolds:
any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman, where it is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her, to meet such demand.
27. Though for the purposes of the case in hand, the first limb of the explanation is otherwise germane, proof of the willful conduct actuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental of physical, is the sine qua non for entering a finding of cruelty against the person charged.
28. The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2004)13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder.
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has observed that the courts 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."
29. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal(2010) 1 SCC 707.
30. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.
31. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48, this Court, with reference toSection 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, while observing that the criminal law amendment bringing forth this provision was necessitated to meet the social challenge of saving the married woman from being ill-treated or forcing to commit suicide by the husband or his relatives demanding dowry, it was underlined that the burden of proving the preconditions permitting the presumption as ingrained therein, squarely and singularly lay on the prosecution. That the prosecution as well has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had committed suicide on being abetted by the person charged under Section 306 IPC, was emphasised.
32. The assessment of the evidence on record as above, in our considered opinion, does not demonstrate with unqualified clarity and conviction, any role of the appellant or the other implicated in-laws of the deceased Surjit Kaur, as contemplated by the above provisions so as to return an unassailable finding of their culpability under Section 306 IPC. The materials on record, to reiterate, do not suggest even remotely any act of cruelty, oppression, harassment or inducement so as to persistently provoke or compel the deceased to resort to self-extinction being left with no other alternative. No such continuous and proximate conduct of the appellant or his family members with the required provocative culpability or lethal instigative content is discernible to even infer that the deceased Surjit Kaur and her daughters had been pushed to such a distressed state, physical or mental that they elected to liquidate themselves as if to seek a practical alleviation from their unbearable earthly miseries.
33. In the wake up of the above determination, we are, thus, of the unhesitant opinion that the ingredients of the offence of Section 306 IPC have remained unproved and thus the appellant deserves to be acquitted. The findings to the contrary recorded by the courts below cannot be sustained on the touchstone of the law adumbrated by this Court as well as the facts involved. The appeal is thus allowed. The appellant would be set at liberty from custody, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.
8. Thereafter, he has drawn attention to law laid-down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein following seven conditions have been enumerated and if the case is found to be covered under any of those conditions, the criminal proceedings could be quashed. Paragraph nos. 102 and 103 of the aforesaid judgment are as follows:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
9. Citing the said provisions, it is argued by him that clause 7 of the said para clearly states that where proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, such criminal proceedings may be quashed and having cited above law, it is argued by him that in this case the daughter of the informant has died in the house of the informant himself and it is being alleged that suicide is committed by her which has been abetted by the applicant, although there is no piece of evidence at all.
10. From the side of the opposite party no. 2, written argument has been submitted wherein it is mentioned by him that the father of the deceased had married his daughter Priya (deceased) with Kranti Kumar Mishra on 21.11.2009 and since very beginning the accused demanded a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- cash or four wheeler car while the complainant had spent Rs.4,50,000/- cash and had given one motorcycle Passion Pro Hero Handa along with ornaments clothes and domestic goods. Due to the said additional demand not being fulfilled from the side of the complainant, the in-laws (accused persons) were not agreeing to Bidai after the marriage but on assurance given by the complainant and their relatives, the accused persons proceeded for Bidai on 24.11.2009 and out of wedlock one male child Arjun was born but in-laws of the deceased were adamant to get additional demand of Rs.7,00,000/- or a four wheeler car and when the said demand was not fulfilled, the in-laws of the deceased i.e. mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband threatened the deceased mentally and physically. When the said harassment persisted, a case under section 498-A, 504, 506 IPC was filed by the informant side in which charge-sheet has been submitted against in-laws of the deceased. The deceased had also instituted a case against her in-laws under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act being case crime no. 801 of 2017, which is still pending. When the deceased felt that her life was being rendered impossible, she took extreme step of committing suicide because of the act of her husband and in-laws as they were continuously threatened her in various ways. Divorce suit was filed by her husband under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, notices of which were also served upon her. It was then that the present FIR has been lodged against he accused applicants. Further, it is mentioned that ingredients of offence under section 306 IPC are as follows.
i) That any person committed suicide;
ii) That such a commission of suicide was the consequence of an abetment;
iii) That the abetment was made by the accused.
11. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Dammu Sukhuu Vs. State of A.P., 2003, CRL, 2185 2186 (A.P.) in which it is held that the abetment of suicide varies from case to case. It is creation of circumstance for the deceased to commit suicide that constitutes abetment. Paragraph no. 7 of the said judgment has also been relied upon, which is quoted herein below:
"7. The offence against the accused is the one under Section 306 IPC. They are accused of abeting the deceased in committing suicide. Section 107 of IPC describes the circumstances under which a person is said to have abeted the commission of an offence. The term abetment has been construed by the Supreme Court and various High Courts in several reported cases. A person can be said to have abetted a commission of offence by another if the former instigates by various acts or omissions. These acts and omissions may, in turn, fall into various categories. They may be direct or indirect in nature. It is too difficult to have a definition or description of the word 'instigation' of universal application in all the cases. What constitutes an instigation or abetment varies from case to case. While in some cases, acts, which are specific, positive and direct, may not be construed as abetment, in certain cases, indirect, acts or omissions even remotely connected to the offence may constitute abetment. What ever may be the connotation of abetment in respect of other offences, as regards the incidents of suicide, it is the creation of a circumstance for the deceased to commit the suicide that constitutes abetment. It may not involve any specific course or act. But, if a situation is created by the accused, for the deceased to have no other recourse than to commit suicide, it can safely be said that the accused are guilty of the offence of abetment."
12. Reliance has also been placed in the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 5097. The facts of the case of Randhir Singh are that Prithivipal Singh (PW-9) father of Smt. Devinderjit Kaur alleged in the complaint filed before the police that deceased was married with Randhir Singh (appellant no. I) and out of the wedlock two sons were born. The complainant alleged that at the time of engagement of his daughter one bangle (kara) weighing 3 Tolas, and other various items which have been mentioned para-3 of the said judgment were given to his daughter at the time of marriage. Gurdev Singh, father of Randhir Singh, Smt. Narhbai Kaur (appellant no. 2), mother of Randhir Singh and Randhir Singh appellant had started abusing his daughter from the very beginning after the marriage on the pretext that she should bring more money from her parents. The complainant used to assure his daughter that he would meet the demand of the accused subject to the availability of the funds. The complainant received a sum of Rs. 16,000/- by way of compensation as the share of his land in the year 1982. Randhir Singh (appellant no. I) compelled the deceased to bring the money from her parents, otherwise he would arrange a second marriage. Deceased came to village Burail and narrated this story to her father Prithipal Singh, her mother Smt. Gurjit Kaur (PW-12) and her uncle Shri Bhopal Singh. She further told her parents that her husband only used to pay her bus fare from salary. Appellants had sent her in order to bring Rs.15,000/- and had also warned her that if she did not bring the money, dire consequences would follow. Upon this the complainant made a payment of Rs.5000/- to his daughter and assured her that the remaining amount would be paid thereafter. After sometime, the complainant and his wife came to the house of Randhir Singh in order to see their daughter, the deceased at Kharar. When they entered the house, they saw accused-appellant Randhir Singh and Smt. Nirbhai Kaur giving taunts to the deceased to bring more money. The complainant and his wife made them understand that they were poor persons and assured them that they would pay more money on receipt of second instalment of compensation. Then the complainant received Rs.22,000/- as cost of the acquired land and he and his wife came to Kharar along with a sum of Rs.5000/- and gave it to the deceased. The accused told the complainant to pay at least Rs.20,000/- so that their daughter may live comfortably. Upon this the complainant told them that they were poor persons and they were not in a position to pay the huge money. On 3.2.1985 the deceased again went to the house of her parents in village Burail and told them that accused-appellant Randhir Singh and Smt. Narbhai Kaur had sent her to bring more money and also told that they had warned her that in case she did not bring the money, she would not be allowed to live. It was further told to the complainant by the deceased that her life was miserable and that she was being abused every time. PW-9 (informant) assured her that he along with his wife would visit very shortly after making arrangement of the money. On 7.2.1985 the complainant was present at his house in village Burail when one Bahadur Singh (PW-10) came and told the complainant that the deceased had died after putting herself to fire. Upon this complainant, Bahadur Singh, Karnail Singh went to the house of Randhir Singh at Kharar and they saw that the deceased was lying dead in a burnt condition and her dead body was lying in a Kothri at the backside of the house. In-laws of the deceased had not sent any information to him. Thereafter the complainant proceeded for the Police Station but on the way S.I. Jaspal Singh (PW-17), met him and complainant Prithipal Singh made a statement before him. It was recorded, read over and explained to the complainant and it was sent for registration of the case and on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Paragraph no. 12 of the aforesaid judgment is as under:
"12. It is held that Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or . intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC."
13. In the above case Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the conviction under section 306 IPC of the accused persons. However, in peculiar facts of the case the custodial sentence was reduced to three years.
14. Now this Court has to analyze the contents of the FIR in the light of the law which has been cited above which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned counsel for the applicant as to whether any case under section 306 IPC is made out against the accused-applicant or not. In the present case, it is very clear from the FIR that the deceased was married to the applicant no. 1 in the year 2009 and at that time sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in cash and other house hold items were provided which were not making the applicant satisfied and even at the time of Bidai, the same could b
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
e performed after assurance given by the father of the deceased, on the next day and it is mentioned that all the applicants used to pass taunts because of small amount of dowry and started making demand of four wheeler or Rs.7,00,000/- so that she could live peacefully at her matrimonial home and even threat was given to the deceased that she could be divorced and therefore, it is apparent that these circumstances could be treated to have been driven the deceased to commit suicide which could be taken to fall in the category of abetting the commission of suicide by the deceased. Merely because the deceased died at the parent's house, is being hammered as the main argument on the part of the applicant, to be the reason why abetment to commit suicide should not be taken to be established in this case even prima-facie. 15. I would like to rely upon the law of Hon'ble Apex Court laid-down in Guru Charan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 in which it was held that in order to give finding of abetment under section 107, which is necessary to sustain conviction of abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC, it must be established that the accused instigated a person either by act of omission or commission or by persistent cruelty or harassment and then only a case of abetment of suicide would be made out. Circumstances or atmosphere in the matrimonial home without instigation of suicide being established in someway are not enough to sustain conviction on abetment of suicide. Number of laws clearly show that even if some act either of omission or commission results in instigation to the victim to commit suicide, that act would also be treated to be an abetment. In the present case, it is very clear that the deceased was married to the accused in 2009 and since thereafter she was not being kept by her husband and because of being harassed, she had to stay away from matrimonial home and had to stay at her parents' house and besides that, it has also come on record that various litigation had been thrust upon the deceased from the side of the accused-applicants which might have generated a situation in which deceased found no way out but to commit suicide. It may be turn out to be not finally proved that the applicants were involved in commission of this offence but in proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot give finding in this regard as the evidence, which is likely to be recorded before the trial court, the said evidence would be appreciated by the said court then only finding can be returned on this point. The charge-sheet has been submitted after recording the statement of witnesses, which can be evaluated only by the trial court and not at this stage hence this Court does not deem it proper to allow this application and the same is deserved to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. 17. Whatever arguments have been raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the applicant, may be raised before the trial court and seeks discharge at appropriate stage, if so advised.