[ad_1]
MUMBAI:
The High Court stated that the impulse or ill-fated thoughts leading to suicide, however unfortunate, cannot undermine the essence of Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC. It noted that ‘instigation’ must be closely connected with the accused having an intention to abet suicide.
“It is not what the suicide deceased ‘felt’ but what the accused ‘intended by his act’ which is more important while dealing with Section 306 of the IPC,’’ the HC division bench of Justices A S Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain held.
There were three petitions seeking the quashing of one First Information Report (FIR) filed in February 2020. The FIR accused a woman’s husband, his father, grandmother, sister, and brother-in-law of abetting her suicide and subjecting her to cruelty under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
The FIR was registered by her brother. He alleged cruelty by her in-laws two months into her marriage in 2004. Then again in 2006 and eight days before she died by suicide in a well near the matrimonial house, while the family sat in the living room.
The accused argued that the harassment allegations were general in nature, lacking specific evidence to prove either cruelty inflicted upon her or instigation leading to her suicide. Conversely, the prosecution contended otherwise.
However, upon scrutinizing the case record, the High Court determined that the offenses invoked in the FIR were not substantiated. Consequently, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court deemed it appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction to quash the criminal case and proceedings against the accused.
The High Court referred to various Supreme Court rulings that elucidated the circumstances under which Section 306 could be invoked. In a decision from 2021, the Supreme Court stated that mere harassment, without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence leading to suicide, would not amount to an offense under Section 306 of the IPC.
The HC in its March 27 judgment said, “Without knowledge or intention there cannot be any abetment. The knowledge and intention must relate to the act said to be abetted which in this case, is the act of committing suicide. Therefore, in order to constitute ‘abetment by instigation’, there must be direct incitement to do the culpable act.’’
Observing that “intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for an offence under Section 306 IPC,’’ and noting its absence based on averments in the FIR and cases record so far, the HC held that in the interest of justice, the case needs to be quashed to prevent the abuse of the legal process and quashed it.
The High Court stated that the impulse or ill-fated thoughts leading to suicide, however unfortunate, cannot undermine the essence of Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC. It noted that ‘instigation’ must be closely connected with the accused having an intention to abet suicide.
“It is not what the suicide deceased ‘felt’ but what the accused ‘intended by his act’ which is more important while dealing with Section 306 of the IPC,’’ the HC division bench of Justices A S Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain held.
There were three petitions seeking the quashing of one First Information Report (FIR) filed in February 2020. The FIR accused a woman’s husband, his father, grandmother, sister, and brother-in-law of abetting her suicide and subjecting her to cruelty under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
The FIR was registered by her brother. He alleged cruelty by her in-laws two months into her marriage in 2004. Then again in 2006 and eight days before she died by suicide in a well near the matrimonial house, while the family sat in the living room.
The accused argued that the harassment allegations were general in nature, lacking specific evidence to prove either cruelty inflicted upon her or instigation leading to her suicide. Conversely, the prosecution contended otherwise.
However, upon scrutinizing the case record, the High Court determined that the offenses invoked in the FIR were not substantiated. Consequently, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court deemed it appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction to quash the criminal case and proceedings against the accused.
The High Court referred to various Supreme Court rulings that elucidated the circumstances under which Section 306 could be invoked. In a decision from 2021, the Supreme Court stated that mere harassment, without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence leading to suicide, would not amount to an offense under Section 306 of the IPC.
The HC in its March 27 judgment said, “Without knowledge or intention there cannot be any abetment. The knowledge and intention must relate to the act said to be abetted which in this case, is the act of committing suicide. Therefore, in order to constitute ‘abetment by instigation’, there must be direct incitement to do the culpable act.’’
Observing that “intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for an offence under Section 306 IPC,’’ and noting its absence based on averments in the FIR and cases record so far, the HC held that in the interest of justice, the case needs to be quashed to prevent the abuse of the legal process and quashed it.
[ad_2]
Source link