Appeal
Appeal against writ petition praying to quash the discharge
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 17th October 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No. 246 of 2021, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the present appellants. The Writ Petition had been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 24th December 2020 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar wherein the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had rejected the application preferred by the appellants seeking discharge from the charges punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending against the appellants before the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015.
Facts
3. The facts which lead to the present appeal are as under:
SHO received report of suicide by hanging herself
3.1. On 20th March 2015, the Police Station, Ashvi, District Ahmednagar, received an Accidental Death Report (Khabar) by one Vikas Bhausaheb Sanap who stated that on the same day at about 10 a.m. his sister Jyoti Nagre, aged about 25 years, had committed suicide by hanging herself from the iron pipe situated in the bathroom of her paternal house where she had been residing for the past two years.
Deceased committed suicide after appellant no.1 demanded money
3.2. Subsequently, on 25th March 2015, Mrs. Sindhubai Bhausaheb Sanap (Respondent No.2), mother of the deceased, lodged a complaint at the said police station. According to the complaint, the deceased had been married to Prakash, Appellant No. 1, on 19th November 2009, after which she had given birth to twin sons. After marriage, disputes arose between the deceased and her husband and in-laws from time to time, with the complainant alleging that the deceased had been mentally and physically tortured at her matrimonial house. However, on the intervention of the complainant and her family, the disputes were patched up and the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home. Soon thereafter, owing to persisting acrimony at her matrimonial home, the deceased and Appellant No.1 started residing separately, away from the matrimonial home, in Lonikand, Pune. It was further alleged that on 8th August 2013, Appellant No.1 had physically abused the deceased over a demand of Rs.20 lakhs for the purchase of a new plot of land. After this incident, the deceased came to reside at her paternal house. Subsequently, a criminal case being Criminal M.A. No. 175 of 2013 came to be filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangamner against the husband and in-laws of the deceased under Sections 12, 18, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. During the pendency of the criminal case, a mahalokadalat was held in the court in Sangamner on 17th February 2015, which was attended by the complainant, the deceased and the present appellants, among others. The complainant (Respondent No.2) alleged that on the said day, the present appellants told the deceased that they were not ready to reach a compromise in the matter and further that she would not be allowed to go back to her matrimonial house. The deceased was further advised by Appellant No.1 to re-marry as he would not accept her or her children at the matrimonial house. Subsequent to this incident, the deceased would frequently say that she would commit suicide as her life no longer held any meaning. Thereafter, on 20th March 2015, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from an iron pipe with the aid of a saree.
FIR and Final report registered against the appellants under sections 306 and 34 IPC
3.3. On the basis of the complaint, a First Information Report being Crime No.12 of 2015 was lodged under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC against Prakash Pandurang Nagare (Appellant No.1), Pandurang Kundlik Nagare (Appellant No.2), the fatherin-law of the deceased, and Pradip Pandurang Nagare (Appellant No.3), the brother-in-law of the deceased at the aforementioned police station.
3.4. Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed on 28th September 2015.
Discharge filed under section 227 CrPC was dismissed
3.5. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19735 before the trial court, praying to be discharged from the said case. The trial court, by its order dated 24th December 2020, rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the appellants.
Appellants preferred Writ petition against the discharge and the same was dismissed
3.6. Being aggrieved further, the appellants preferred a Criminal Writ Petition before the High Court for setting aside of the aforesaid order of the trial court. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment and order, dismissed the writ petition finding it to be devoid of merit.
3.7. Being aggrieved thereby, this present appeal.
11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record.
The accused person must contribute to the suicide by some direct or indirect act
13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
It is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by accused
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
The act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.
Judgments regarding suicide & instigation
16. This Court in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another12, had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 306 of the IPC and the ingredients which are essential for abetment, as set out in Section 107 of the IPC. It observed as follows:
“paras: 16, 18, 21, 23, 24 & 25”
17. This Court held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Therefore, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid a person in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. This Court further observed that the intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Abetment also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. However, this Court has cautioned that since each person reacts differently to the same provocation depending on a variety of factors, it is impossible to lay down a straightjacket formula to deal with such cases. Therefore, every such case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679 : 2024 INSC 960], this Court has relied on S.S. Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law, that is deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled. This Court observed as follows:
“18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.”
19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of instigation is a crucial element of abetment. While dealing with an issue of a similar nature, this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2001 INSC 515], laid down the parameters of what would be constituted to be an act of instigation. This Court observed as follows:-
“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.”
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. It has been held that in order 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, however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
Mere allegations of harassment alone are insufficient and there must be evidence that the accused compelled the victim to commit suicide
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that 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 has been held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further clarified that 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. It was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or a 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. This Court held that owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its own facts and circumstances.
The words ‘to go and die’ itself did not constitute the ingredient of instigation
24. It could thus be seen that this Court held that both the courts below had erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25th July 1998 wherein it was alleged that the appellant therein had used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased ‘to go and die’. It was held that even if one accepts the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and die’, that itself did not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’. This Court held that it was common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment could not be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It has been held further that the alleged abusive words were said to have been told to the deceased on 25th July 1998 during a quarrel and the deceased was found hanging on 27th July, 1998. This Court held that if the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and therefore, it could not be said that the abusive language which had been used by the appellant on 25th July 1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide on 27th July 1998. It has been held that the suicide by the deceased was not proximate to the abusive language used two days prior. Additionally this Court held that a plain reading of the suicide note made it clear that the deceased was in great stress and depressed and the suicide note also clearly suggested that it was not the handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. As such, this Court held that there was no material to establish that the accused had abetted the suicide committed by the deceased.
25. Relying on the decision in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), this Court in the case of Gurjit Singh (supra) set aside the conviction under Section 306 of the IPC as it was clear from the evidence on record that there was a time gap of about two months between the last visit of the deceased to her parents with regard to the illegal demand for money by the accused-appellant and the date of commission of suicide by the deceased. As such, this Court held that there was nothing on record to show that there was a proximate nexus between the commission of suicide and the illegal demand made by the accused-appellant. This Court observed as follows:
“36. It could further be seen from the evidence on record that the time gap between the last visit of the deceased to her parents with regard to the illegal demand and the date of commission of suicide is about two months. As such, there is nothing on record to show that there was a proximate nexus between the commission of suicide and the illegal demand made by the appellant. In Sanju v. State of M.P. [Sanju v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141] this Court found that there was time gap of 48 hours between the accused telling the deceased “to go and die” and the deceased “committing suicide”. As such, this Court held that there was no material to establish that the accused had abetted the suicide committed by the deceased.” (emphasis supplied)
29. Having discussed the law on the subject, we now proceed to consider the facts of the present case in view of the established principles.
Analysis of facts
30. As per the version of the complainant, the following facts have emerged:
i. Appellant No. 1 got married to the deceased on 19th November 2009.
ii. Disputes arose thereafter, and the parties started residing separately from 8th August 2013 with the deceased residing at her paternal house with her child.
iii. A mahalokadalat was held at the court in Sangamner on 17th February 2015 during which the appellants are alleged to have refused to cohabitate with the deceased or accept her or her child at her matrimonial house or settle the proceedings initiated by the deceased.
iv. On 20th March 2015, the deceased committed suicide.
31. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), this Court, under similar circumstances, had quashed the chargesheet under Section 306 of the IPC against the accused/appellant. A factor that had weighed with the Court in the said case was that there was a time gap of 48 hours being the alleged instigation and the commission of suicide. This Court held that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct, unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued between him and the appellant, 48 hours prior to the commission of his suicide.
There is a clear gap of over a month between the incident and the commission of suicide
32. In the case at hand, taking the allegations in the FIR at face value, the incident at the mahalokadalat had occurred on 17th February 2015, while the deceased had committed suicide on 20th March 2015. There is a clear gap of over a month between the incident at the mahalokadalat and the commission of suicide. We therefore find that the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the act of suicide by the deceased was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat.
A long gap between two incidents would have given enough time to the deceased to think over and reflect on the matter
34. However, we do not wish to go into that issue. Even if we take the date of the mahalokadalat to be 17th February 2015 to be the factually correct one, there is enough gap between the two incidents to render the instigation or incitement by the appellants, nugatory. The cardinal principle of the subjectmatter at hand is that there must be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim. The close proximity should be such as to create a clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide. As was held in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), if the deceased had taken the words of the appellants seriously, a time gap between the two incidents would have given enough time to the deceased to think over and reflect on the matter. As such, a gap of over a month would be sufficient time to dissolve the nexus or the proximate link between the two acts.
37. We further find that the prosecution has failed to prima facie establish that the appellants had any intention to instigate or aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide. No doubt that a young woman of 25 years has lost her life in an unfortunate incident. However, in the absence of sufficient material to show that the appellants had intended by their words to push the deceased into such a position that she was left with no other option but to commit suicide, continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants would result in an abuse of process of law and as such, we are inclined to allow the appeal.
Conclusion
38. In the result, we pass the following order:-
i. The present appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad passed on 17th October 2022 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 246 of 2021 and the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner dated 24th December, 2020 in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015 are quashed and set aside; and
iii. The appellants are discharged from Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.
Party
Prakash and Others vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another – Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1073 of 2023) – 2024 INSC 1020 – 17th October 2022.
