Punjab and Haryana High Court: Appeal was filed by accused, who was the deceased’s wife, to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 25-11-2016 and order of sentence dated 30-11-2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon (‘the Trial Court’). Manjari Nehru Kaul, J., opined that intention to abet was the most crucial aspect of abetment. Without such intent, it would be unjust to hold someone liable for abetment. The Court opined that no doubt, the suicide note mentioned the humiliation suffered by the deceased and his family, and the threats extended of false implication in cases, during a visit to the parental house of the accused a few days before his suicide, these incidents could not be conclusively deemed as the immediate triggers for the suicide of the deceased.
The Court opined that possibility of the deceased being highly sensitive and choosing to commit suicide due to marital discord with the accused could be a plausible circumstance leading to the suicide. Thus, the Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquitted the accused with the charged offence.
Background
In the present case, an appeal was filed by the accused to set aside the judgment and order of conviction. Further, the revision petition was also filed by the deceased’s father-petitioner to enhance the sentence of accused. Since they both arise out of the same impugned order and similar questions of facts and law were involved in both the cases, two matters were taken up together for adjudication.
On 28-04-2013, the deceased had telephonically informed the petitioner that his wife-accused had left her matrimonial home after a dispute with him. Despite innumerable attempts by the deceased to contact the accused, she remained unreachable, except, where she threatened the deceased to falsely implicate him in a dowry case and extended threats of dire consequences to him, citing her purported connections within the Delhi Police, where she was employed. Thereafter, on 04-05-2013, to reconcile, petitioner along with his relatives visited the house of the accused. However, the accused rebuffed all the efforts by asserting her contacts and position and further threatened to implicate the deceased in some false case. She also threatened the petitioner including the deceased that she had contacts with senior officials and would cause harm to them.
Further, on 07-05-2013, the dead body of the deceased was found near the railway lines, and accordingly, the FIR was filed at the instance of the petitioner. The deceased also left behind an undated suicide note which was found on his person wherein he blamed the accused as being responsible for his suicide. Besides, another undated suicide note was also found in the house of the deceased.
Following an investigation, the accused was sent up for trial and was charged under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the relationship between the deceased and the accused was strained and far from cordial. However, for determining whether the accused harboured the intention to orchestrate circumstances which led to the deceased’s suicide, it would necessitate a meticulous examination of the events preceding his suicide. The Court referred to Section 307 of the IPC and opined that intention to abet was the most crucial aspect of abetment. Without such intent, it would be unjust to hold someone liable for abetment. Utterances made in a moment of anger or emotion could not be deemed as instigation. The Court opined that it was important to acknowledge that individuals vary in their sensitivity and temperament. It was not solely the feelings of the deceased that would matter, but most importantly, the intention behind the act of the accused as to whether he/she intended to drive the deceased to suicide would also have to be discerned.
The Court opined that undeniably, the deceased did leave behind the two undated suicide notes, detailing the way the accused had subjected him to harassment. However, it was crucial to note that all instances of mental torture and harassment referred to in suicide notes had occurred even before the deceased left her matrimonial home. The Court opined that no doubt, the suicide note mentioned the humiliation suffered by the deceased and his family, and the threats extended of false implication in cases, during a visit to the parental house of the accused a few days before his suicide, these incidents could not be conclusively deemed as the immediate triggers for the suicide of the deceased.
The Court noted that the accused had left her matrimonial home at least ten days before the suicide and deceased committed suicide 3-4 days after their last meeting. The Court opined that possibility of the deceased being highly sensitive and choosing to commit suicide due to marital discord with the accused, who was living apart from him for at least ten days prior to the suicide, could be a plausible circumstance leading to the suicide. Thus, the case did not meet the criteria for abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquitted the accused with the charged offence. Further, the Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner for enhancement of the sentence of accused.
[Kavita v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 4001, decided on 13-05-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul
Advocates who appeared in this case:
In Appeal (CRA-S-4648-SB-2016):
For the Appellant: Partap S. Gill, Advocate and Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Rajesh Gaur, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
In Revision Petition (CRR-482-2017):
For the Petitioner: Vivek Singla, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Partap S. Gill, Advocate and Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advocate; Rajesh Gaur, Addl. A.G., Haryana
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
This order from the court is absolutely baffling. Unimaginable nd insensitive.