Mere Allegation Of Harassment Not Sufficient To Attract Offence U/S 306 IPC; Proof Of Direct Or Indirect Act Of Incitement To Commission Of Suicide Needed: Gujarat HC
|The Gujarat High Court held that merely on the allegation of harassment without any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, a conviction cannot be said to be just and legal.
The Court said that for the offence of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
The Bench of Justice Divyesh A Joshi held, “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, however, merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction recorded under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be said to be just and legal…Therefore in view of the above discussions coupled with the facts and material of the case, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the so-called action taken upon the deceased at the factory premises, which is alleged to have stated in the diary maintained by the deceased.”
Senior Advocate Sudhir Nanavati for the Applicant while APPs Vrunda Shah, Trupesh Karathiya and Advocate Tatvdeep J Jani appeared for the Respondents.
An application was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘CrPC’) seeking to quash and set aside a criminal case for the offences under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’).
According to the FIR, The husband of the complainant was working in Arvind Ltd., where the Applicant, who was his superior officer, was showing discrimination and also used to give mental tyranny by pressurizing him in work and also to take leave and because of mental harassment meted out to her husband, he committed suicide by hanging himself and thereby the Applicant abetted the deceased for suicide and committed alleged offences.
On the point of invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court said that the setting aside of an FIR can only be done on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, in that event, in such circumstances, the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/ registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.
The Court referred to Section 107 of the IPC which defines abetment and held, “To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of undefined 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. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.”
Further, after reading Section 306 of the IPC, which related to Abetment of Suicide, the Court said that to convict a person for the offences under Section 306 IPC, the basic and essential ingredients of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment and instigation on the part of the Applicant as contemplated in Section 107 IPC have to be established. The word suicide implies an act of self-killing. Section 306 of the IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. Therefore considering the facts of the case, the Court found out that the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC were not made out in the present case.
As regards the offences under SC/ST Act, the Court relied on the landmark judgment in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (2000) and observed, “At the outset, I may take note of the fact that the prosecution of the appellant herein for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocity Act is ex facie illegal and unwarranted because it is nowhere the case of the prosecution in the entire charge-sheet that the offence under the provision of the IPC was committed by the applicant upon the deceased on the basis of his caste.”
Reliance was also placed on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh (2024).
The Court, while concluding, observed, “It is, however, required to be noted at this stage that if there was harassment at the hands of the applicant in the factory premises, in that event, the deceased would have disclosed the said fact to the complainant being his wife but that is not so in the fact of the case. Therefore I am of the opinion that the ingredients of “abetment” are totally absent in the instant case for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the necessary ingredients of the offence of abetment to commit suicide were not made out from the chargesheet and hence allowing prosecution was grossly illegal for the offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and tantamounts to gross abuse of process to law.
Hence, the Court allowed the Application and quashed the FIR.
Cause Title: Mahesgbhai Dhirubhai v. The State of Gujarat and Anr.
Appearances:
Applicant: Senior Advocate Sudhir Nanavati and Advocate Anuja S Nanavati
Respondents: APPs Vrunda Shah, Trupesh Karathiya and Advocate Tatvdeep J Jani