Kerala High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to quash the FIR and further proceedings against the accused/ wife charged with Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Bench of Bechu Kurian Thomas, J., quashed all criminal proceedings against wife stating the allegation in the final report do not constitute ingredients of the offence.
The wife was arrayed as the accused for the abetment to suicide of her husband after he was found dead in a hotel room. Itwas alleged that the newly wed doctor couple had constant fights and bickering which allegedly took a heavy toll on the emotional balance of the husband resulting in his death, leaving behind two suicide notes, which were written 58 days and 14 days prior to the incident. The case was initially registered under Section 174 of the CrPC for unnatural death and later altered to Section 306 of the IPC.
The Court noted that after the filing of the final report, and while the present petition under Section 482 of the CrPC was pending, a further investigation was carried out, resulting in a further final report. The Court said that the further final report had not brought out any additional material and the failure to incorporate a challenge against the further final report cannot restrain the Court from considering the claim for quashing the FIR and final report.
Upon perusing the material on record, the Court came to the conclusion that the suicide notes only indicate that there were repeated quarrels between the couple and there was no reference to any act done by the wife to aid or instigate her husband to commit suicide. The Bench remarked that there is nothing to indicate any nexus between any act of the wife and the suicide of her husband to term it as instigation.
The Bench also opined that quarrels, fights and disputes in a marital relationship are not abnormal or uncommon and those quarrels cannot be reckoned as conduct amounting to abetment of suicide unless there is something more in the form of instigation or aiding.
The Bench also noted that the accused was not present in the room where the deceased killed himself, nor anywhere in its vicinity on the day of the incident.
Upon perusal of Section 306 and 107 of the IPC, the Court observed that in order for a person to be proceeded under Section 306, Section 107 ought to be satisfied and in this case the allegations do not reveal any circumstances coming within the purview of the second and third clause of the section and the matter is to be adjudged as to whether the wife’s actions fell within the purview of the first clause.
The Bench further noted that in order to attract Section 306 of the IPC, the abetment should be for committing suicide and not committing some other act, therefore, unless instigation was done with the intention to prod the other person to commit suicide the offence under Section 306 read with first clause of Section 107 of the IPC will not be attracted. The crucial element in abetment to suicide is the mens rea in promoting the deceased to commit suicide.
The Court referred to Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2024) 1 SCC 417 to reiterate that the act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which the person has no choice but to commit suicide. The Court said that the suicide notes were written weeks before and not in close proximity to the date of suicide, further, there was no reference in the letters which showed instigation by the accused to prompt the deceased to commit suicide.
The Court, satisfied that the allegations in both the final report and the further final report, do not constitute the ingredients of the offence of Section 306 of the IPC, quashed all further proceedings against the accused in the lower Court
[Dr. Radhika Kapathia v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 1344, decided on 20-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Advocate Nireesh Mathew, Senior Advocate C.C Thomas
For the Respondent: Senior Advocate P. Viaya Bhanu, Senior Advocate Joseph Kodianthara, Advocate Aashique Akhtar Hajjigothi, Public Prosecutor Ashi M.C.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
