Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Deceased (brother of complainant) went to the house of appellant and consumed poison by taking out from a small bottle which he carried in his pocket – Proceedings against appellant u/s.306, IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act – High Court rejected application of appellant u/s.482, CrPC – On appeal, held: Merely because deceased consumed poison in front of the house of the appellant, that itself will not indicate any relation of the appellant with the deceased – Absolutely no material to allege that appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within meaning of s.306, IPC – Even with regard to offence alleged u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act, except vague and bald statement that appellant and other family members abused deceased by uttering casteist words, nothing on record to attract any of the ingredients for the alleged offence – Earlier, appellant and her father had gone to police station and complained against deceased as he was continuously calling appellant and proposing that she should marry him with a threat that he will die otherwise – Having regard to same and in absence of any material within the meaning of s.107 IPC, there is absolutely no basis to proceed against the appellant u/s.306 IPC and s.3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act – It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever – High Court erred in rejecting application of appellant u/s.482, CrPC – Cognizance order/NBW as well as proceedings u/s.306, IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act against the appellant, set aside – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(2)(v) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence u/s.306 – To proceed against any person for the offence u/s.306 it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – High Court, on facts, erred in rejecting application filed by appellant u/s.482, CrPC by merely recording a finding that in view of the factual disputes, same cannot be decided in a petition u/s.482, CrPC – Cognizance order/NBW as well as proceedings u/s.306, IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act against the appellant, set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(2)(v).
Words and Phrases – Abetment – Meaning of – Held: ‘Abetment’ involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Except the self-serving statements of the complainant and other witnesses stating that deceased was in love with the appellant, there is no other material to show that appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased. From the material placed on record it is clear that on the date of incident, the deceased went to the house of the appellant and consumed poison by taking out from a small bottle which he has carried in his pocket. Merely because he consumed poison in front of the house of the appellant, that itself will not indicate any relation of the appellant with the deceased. ‘Abetment’ involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC. To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. There is nothing on record to show that appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased and further there is absolutely no material to allege that appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within the meaning of Section 306, IPC. Even with regard to offence alleged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, except vague and bald statement that the appellant and other family members abused deceased by uttering casteist words, there is nothing on record to show to attract any of the ingredients for the alleged offence also. [Para 9][199-F-H; 200-A-C]
2. In fact, at earlier point of time when the deceased was stalking the appellant, the appellant along with her father went to the police station complained about the calls which were being made by the deceased to the appellant. Same is evident from the statement of S.I. In his statement recorded he has clearly deposed that the father along with the appellant went to the police post and complained against the deceased who was continuously calling the appellant and proposing that she should marry him with a threat that he will die otherwise. Having regard to such material placed on record and in absence of any material within the meaning of Section 107 of IPC, there is absolutely no basis to proceed against the appellant for the alleged offence under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. [Para 10][202-F-H; 203-A]
3. In view of the same, the High Court has committed error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 482, CrPC by merely recording a finding that in view of the factual disputes same cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482, CrPC. [Para 11][203-A-B]
4. The application filed under Section 482 CrPC stands allowed and the cognizance order/NBW against appellant as well as proceedings of Special Trial arising out of Crime under Section 306, IPC and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC & ST Act) are set aside. [Para 12][203-B-C] Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 : [2009] 13 SCR 230 ; Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010)
1 SCC 707 : [2009] 15 SCR 836 ; S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 190 : [2010] 9 SCR 1111 ; and Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapur (2013) 3 SCC 330 : [2013] 3 SCR
52 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.