Appeal against the order dismissing the revision petition against the discharge petition dismissed by the Trial court
2. This appeal is preferred by the accused Appellant-Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde challenging the impugned order of Bombay High Court dated 05.09.2023 in Criminal Revision Application No. 410 of 2022. By this order the High Court has dismissed the Revision Application filed by the Appellant against the order of the Trial Court dated 24.02.2022. The Trial Court had rejected the discharge application of Appellant for her discharge from the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Facts of the case are summarised as follows
3.1 Appellant is the wife of deceased Sudarshan Gangurde, who hanged himself to death on 17.02.2020 in his house. The appellant wife is accused of abetment to suicide and was thus charged under Section 306 of IPC. The complaint was filed by Smt. Usha Gangurde, mother of deceased alleging physical and mental harassment by the accused.
3.2 Appellant Rohini and deceased Sudarshan had a love affair which turned into marriage on 09.03.2015 against the will of family members of both of them. The couple started residing separately at Shingnapur in Kolhapur. From the wedlock one male child Shoren was born on 27.05.2017. The couple had jointly purchased a Row House flat at Shingnapur where they were residing when the incident took place. The parents and family members of the deceased were residing at Mumbai. The deceased was serving in CPR Hospital at Kolhapur as Social Service Superintendent. He was on visiting terms with his parents.
3.3 On 17.02.2020, the deceased aged 38 years, was found in hanging position by the accused wife in the balcony of common house they were residing at in Shingnapur. The neighbors informed the police. No suicide note was found. The post mortem report found no signs of injuries on the body of deceased. The cause of death is noted to be ‘due to hanging’.
3.4 On the same day, First Information Report bearing No. 74/2020 was lodged by the mother of deceased- Smt. Usha Gangurde against the appellant under Section 306 of IPC, alleging that her son committed suicide due to harassment and beating by his wife Rohini on account of demand of money and for transfer of the dwelling house at Shingapur in her name. She further stated that when her son visited her, he also told her that his wife was abusing and beating him, insisting on him not to visit his parents and not to give them money. When her husband-Ashok Gangurde stayed at the house of deceased in May 2019, he told her that accused Rohni was beating and abusing her son for money and transfer of house in her name. Due to these disputes, Rohini was residing separately from the deceased in her parent’s house at Sangali. The complainant further stated that accused was sending vulgar messages on mobile phone of the deceased. All this allegedly resulted in commission of suicide by the deceased.
3.5 Apart from the complainant, statement of one of the colleagues of the deceased Ujwala Sawant was also recorded. She referred to an incident dated 17.10.2019 when the appellant visited deceased and created a ruckus in the office by rushing towards him on being abusive. The incidence was corroborated by another colleague Mr. Bajirao Apte.
3.6 On the other hand, as per the statement of Appellant Rohini, her husband was addicted to liquor and there were quarrels between them on that ground. They tried to patch up as the deceased had assured to give up his habit to consume liquor. On this condition they resumed co-habitation. However, the deceased could not overcome the habit and started to drink more. It is argued by the counsel for Appellant that the deceased may have committed suicide out of frustration.
3.7 On 04.11.2020, the police filed the Chargesheet against appellant under section 306 of IPC. As per the Charge-sheet, the offence took place on 17.02.2020 between 7.00 to 7.30 AM at the dwelling house in Shinganapur, where the accused harassed the deceased on account of money and for transfer of house in her name, inducing the deceased for attempt of suicide.
Trial court and Hon’ble High Court have rejected the discharge petitions
4. Based on the charge-sheet, the Sessions Case No. 100 of 2021 is registered and pending for adjudication before the Sessions Court at Kolhapur. On 02.12.2021, the Appellant accused preferred a discharge application before Trial Court. On 24.02.2022, the Trial Court rejected the application. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Criminal Revision Application before the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned order, has dismissed the Revision and thus effectively dismissed the discharge application. Therefore, the Appellant has challenged it before us.
5. The appellant has filed the present appeal on several grounds inter alia, that there is no evidence showing an active role played by Appellant which has abated the commission of suicide. Further, the dwelling house was jointly purchased by the Appellant and the deceased and therefore there was no question of insisting to transfer the house in the name of Appellant. Neither the deceased, nor his family members have raised the grievance against alleged harassment before the authorities, until the suicide. Thus, the appellant states that all allegations are fake and frivolous.
7. Having heard the arguments of both the counsels and after perusing the record, we find that the only question that needs to be determined in the instant case is whether the alleged conduct of the appellant-accused prima facie attracts Section 306 of IPC, to continue the proceedings of Trial Court against the appellant. Section 306 and Section 107 of IPC read as:
“306. Abetment of suicide must be read with Section 107 of IPC Abetment of a thing ……..”
There must be either an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to ‘doing of a thing’ and based on that accused must have encouraged the person to commit suicide
8. Reading these sections together would indicate that there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to ‘doing of a thing’. When we apply these three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide.
After quoting the following judgments for sections 306 and 107 IPCS.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan – (2010) 12 SCC 190 (para.25); Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B – (2010) 1 SCC 707 (para.12); Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh – (2001) 9 SCC 618. (para.20) Apex court has held as follows:
12. These principles and necessary ingredients of Section 306 and 107 of Indian Penal Code were reiterated and summarized by this court in recent case of Gurucharan Singh vs State of Punjab [(2020) 10 SCC 200].
No proximate link between the marital dispute and the commission of suicide
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the courts below and the legal position established through statutory and judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no proximate link between the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not played any active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband.
14. Thus, none of the three essentials of Section 107 read with Section 306 IPC are existing.
15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The application for discharge is allowed.
Party
Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde … Appellant versus The State Of Maharashtra & Anr … Respondents – Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.13246 Of 2023) – 2024 INSC 519 – July 10, 2024.
