Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 306 r/w 34 – Appellants-accused were convicted u/ss.498A, 306 r/w 34 and sentenced – Held: Deceased was subjected to harassment at the instance of appellants – Prosecution has successfully brought home the charges levelled against them for the offence u/s.498A r/w s.34 – However, it failed to adduce any clinching evidence to conclude that the appellants abetted the deceased to commit suicide – Mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for the court to raise the presumption u/s.113A, Evidence Act, and to hold the accused guilty of s.306 – In absence of any satisfactory evidence on record, both the Courts below committed grave error in holding the appellants guilty of the offence u/s.306 – Conviction of the appellants u/s.498A upheld, however they are acquitted from the charges levelled u/s.306 by giving them benefit of doubt – Further, since the appellants have already undergone the imprisonment for two years for the offence u/s.498A r/w s.34, as directed by the courts below, to be set free forthwith – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A.
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 107 – Held: In order to convict a person for the offences u/s.306, the basic constituents of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated in s.107 have to be established – Further, in order to bring the case within the purview of ‘abetment’ u/s.107, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused – For proving the charge u/s.306, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.
M. Mohan vs. The State Represented By The Deputy Superintendent of Police (2011) 3 SCC 626 : [2011] 3 SCR 437; Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana (2014)
12 SCC 595 : [2014] 4 SCR 988 – 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.