Chhattisgarh High Court: In a criminal revision preferred by the applicants under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) aggrieved by the order dated 13-10-2023, whereby charges were framed against the applicants, Parth Prateem Sahu, J., opined that prima facie there was no material available on record to hold that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and in absence of any material on record of definite nature which remotely indicated that any such act or intention on the applicants’ part for abetting the commission of suicide, the Trial Court had committed illegality in framing charge under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC against the applicants and quashed the charges framed against the applicants.
Background
On 28-01-2023, police received an intimation regarding unnatural death of the deceased, based on which the police started inquiry under Section 174 of CrPC and in the course of inquiry, a suicide note left by the deceased was seized in which allegations were made against the present applicants. It was stated in the suicide note that the deceased and Applicant 1 were in love for about five to seven years. Suddenly, Applicant 1 broke the relation with deceased and refused to marry him, she further developed love affair with some other boy and was going to marry him. It was further mentioned that Applicants 2 and 3 were threatening him for life and thus, he was committing suicide by hanging himself.
Thus, on the basis of suicide note, police registered offence under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC against the applicants. Body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination and as per the report, cause of death was due to asphyxia and the death was suicidal in nature. Further, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicants under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC was filed before the competent court.
The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 13-10-2023 concluded that prima facie charges under Sections 306 and 34 was made out against the applicants and accordingly framed charge against them. Thus, feeling aggrieved by which, the applicants had preferred this revision under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC for quashing of charge.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court referred to Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC, and opined that for an offence under Section 306 of IPC, suicide and abetment to commit suicide were the twin requirements. The Court opined commission of suicide was not made punishable because the person culpably responsible would have departed from this world before he could face any indictment. Whereas, abatement of commission of suicide was viewed very seriously by law.
The Court relied on State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73; Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129; Amlendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707; Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 and opined that it was clear that to constitute abetment under Section 107 read with Section 306 of the IPC, there should be active suggestion, instigation or encouragement on the part of the accused.
The Court upon perusal of the witnesses’ statement opined that almost all witnesses had stated that there was a love affair between the deceased and Applicant 1 and due to betrayal in love by Applicant 1, the deceased was upset and disturbed. Further, on several occasions, before his friends the deceased had expressed his desire to commit suicide because of betrayal in love, threats of dire consequences and false implication in the case. The deceased was under depression due to betrayal by Applicant 1 and as such he was compelled to take drastic steps by committing suicide. However, the Court opined that these statements were not sufficient to conclude guilt and also, none of the witnesses had deposed that any threat was given to the deceased in their presence. Thus, oral evidence of the witnesses on the point of abetment to suicide was hearsay, which was not sufficient to frame a charge against the applicants for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
The Court opined that the nature of threats mentioned in the suicide letter written by the deceased were not of such an alarming proportion so as to drive a normal person to contemplate suicide and most importantly, there was no mention in suicide letter or statements of any witnesses regarding when such threats were uttered. Further, if deceased felt annoyed and threatened by the applicants, he might have lodged complaint in this regard with police, but deceased had not made any such complaint to the police.
The Court relied on Geo Verghese v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873 and opined that “If a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student commits suicide because of his poor performance in the examination, a client commits suicide because his case is dismissed, the lady, examiner, lawyer respectively cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide. For the wrong decision taken by a man of weak or frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his committing suicide.”
The Court opined that prima facie there was no material available on record to hold that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC and in absence of any material on record of definite nature which remotely indicated that any such act or intention on the applicants’ part for abetting the commission of suicide, the Trial Court had committed illegality in framing charge under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC against the applicants and quashed the charges framed against the applicants.
[Pooja Chopra v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRR No. 1213 of 2023, Order dated 07-12-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicants: Nitesh Jain, Advocate;
For the Respondent: G.I. Sharan, Govt. Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
