Important Case Laws Relating to Abetment of Suicide under section 306 IPC

criminal advocate in high court jaipurThe following gist of case laws are related to Abetment of Suicide under section 306 IPC decided by Hon’ble High Court

(a) Rajasthan High Court Jaipur – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 439 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 498A and 304 B Regular bail – Deceased committed suicide as she was annoyed when petitioner took his nephew to doctor – She was annoyed because petitioner did not take her own daughter to hospital – When petitioner returned from hospital, he told his wife to take his daughter as well, but she lost her temper and committed suicide – Statement of neighbours and police, offence would not travel beyond Section 306 Indian Penal Code but because of intervention of higher authorities, charge-sheet filed under Section 498-A and 304 B Indian Penal Code – Therefore, petitioner entitled for anticipatory bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. (Gaje Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan)

(b) Rajasthan High Court – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482 Challenge to allow protest petition – Offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code – Abetment of suicide – Deceased was a tenant in the premises taken on lease for three years – Petitioners wanted to get vacated the shop – Alleged that petitioners harassed and also threatened to kill the deceased, as a result of which, deceased poured the kerosene and set himself on blaze – Deceased was unable to pay due rent of 9 months @ Rs. 53,550/- p.m. – Landlord pressing to pay rent does not amount to instigation – Tenant was not instigated to commit suicide – No case of abetment or instigation – Proceedings and F.I.R. quashed. (Abhishek Vs State of Rajasthan)

(c)  Rajasthan High Court – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 306 Quashing of order taking cognizance – Committal of theft in bhujia factory – Monetary dispute between the parties – Deceased was just a labour contractor who used to work in the factory of the petitioner and also provided labour therein – No allegation of prosecution that accused tried to extort any money or valuable security from the deceased or made attempt to extract confession of theft etc. from him – No evidence of instigation or abetment to commit suicide – Order quashed. (Rugha Ram vs State of Rajasthan)

(d) Rajasthan High Court – Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3 (2) (v) Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 306 Challenge to order of framing charges – Abetment to suicide – Deceased committed suicide by consuming poison – No witnesses examined to prove that they seen the accused harassing or humiliating the deceased or hurling caste based abuses – No prima facie case under section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST Act or Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the appellant – The prosecution allegations are absolutely vague and flimsy – No independent and reliable material on record – No material to frame charges – Order set aside and the accused is discharged – Petition allowed. (Smt. Pappu Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan)

(e) Rajasthan High Court – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498A, 306 and 304B – Order framing charges – Setting aside – Deceased alleged to have committed suicide as she was being harssed by in-laws for dowry – Petitioner is father-in -law of deceased – Complainant lodged reports in which there was no averment with regard to demand of dowry or harassment by petitioner – Specific allegation was levelled against husband – None of witnesses stated that soon before death petitioner had demanded dowry or asked for money – Not single witness deposed in statement that deceased was subjected to cruelty by petitioner – No offence made out – Order framing charges set aside. (Dr. Bharat Gadvi vs State of Rajasthan)

(f) Rajasthan High Court – Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 306 and 34 Allegations husband and in-laws – Witnesses not spoken in the plural i.e. in-laws demanding dowry without specifying whether it was the husband or the mother-in-law or the father-in-law – Witnesses also not stated the day or even the month when the dowry was demanded – Hence, considering entire material requisite ingredients attracting alleged crime held to be not established and, thus, the accused held entitled to acquittal. HELD: Suffice it to state that for the offence of abetment to suicide if it is the case of the prosecution that the victim was instigated to commit suicide on account of being troubled then harassment has to be to such an extent that she was left with no option other than to kill herself, the test of proximity between the date when the victim took the extreme step and trouble inducing incitement to do the act has to be established. Harassment by itself cannot constitute abetment or instigation. Instigation means active stimulus. In the instant case, none has established. The conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under section 306 /34 IPC thus cannot be sustained. (Bhagirath vs State of Rajasthan).



Leave a Comment