Mere Occasional Harassment Or Misbehaviour Does Not Amount To Abetment To Suicide: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that mere occasional harassment or misbehaviour does not amount to abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court stated that since the allegations against the applicant were “general and omnibus,” the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC was not prima facie made out. The Bench explained that the overt act of a person accused of such abetment must be of such a nature that the victim had no option but to commit suicide. “Even assuming that the petitioner misbehaved with deceased, the conduct does not fall within the ambit of incitement or instigation.” the Court remarked.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar observed, “The general and omnibus allegations which have been made against the applicant are trivial in nature, which generally take place in every household. Mere occasional harassment or misbehaviour does not amount to abetment to suicide.”
Advocate Rameshwar Rawat appeared for the petitioner, while PP Ankita Mathur represented the respondent.
The petitioner challenged the decision of the trial court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC wherein the charges for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC were framed against the petitioner.
The prosecution alleged that a husband had found his wife (deceased victim) hanging from the ceiling fan in their home after returning from a local barber shop with their children. The police registered a case of unnatural death, which led to the arrest of the husband and his cousin (the petitioner) under charges of abetment of suicide.
As per the prosecution, the victim’s relatives had alleged that the husband and his cousin were responsible for harassing Vandana, which drove her to commit suicide. The case was based on statements from Vandana's parents and brother, who accused both the husband and his cousin of manhandling the victim after getting intoxicated.
The Bench explained that the term ‘instigation’ meant “to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do act”. However, there was no positive or direct allegation that the petitioner intended the death of the victim or that he “goaded, urged, provoked, incited or encouraged” the victim to commit suicide.
“The general and omnibus allegations which have been made against the applicant are trivial in nature, which generally take place in every household. Mere occasional harassment or misbehaviour does not amount to abetment to suicide,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court observed, “The learned trial Court committed patent error in framing charge against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC…The impugned order…is hereby set aside. The petitioner stands discharged.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal revision.
Cause Title: Khairu @ Satendra Singh Rawat v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Rameshwar Rawat
Respondent: PP Ankita Mathur; Advocate Sooraj Bhan Lodhi
