Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 – Prosecution case was that appellant was earlier residing in the house of the victim-deceased X as a tenant – It was alleged that appellant threatened victim to marry him when she was returning home after dropping children of her sister at school – Thereafter, she consumed poison in the house – Consequent to which, she died in the hospital – Trial Court convicted appellant u/s. 306 IPC – His conviction was upheld by the High Court – Propriety: Held: The evidence on record, not only reveal glaring inconsistencies but also gaping holes in the version of the prosecution – That apart, there are material omissions too – PW-1 is the father and the first informant – According to him, he used to live in the same house as the deceased – On the fateful day, he had gone out of the house at 7:00 AM in the morning and returned back to the house at 10:00 AM and found that his daughter X was admitted to a nursing home for consuming poison – Whereas, PW-2, sister of deceased deposed that their father was living separately with another woman outside marriage – She also stated that she saw her father in the Hospital on the second day of hospitalization of the deceased – If the version of PW-2 is to be believed then the evidence of PW-1, the first informant, cannot be accepted – Both PW-1 and PW-2 claimed that the deceased had told them about the harassment meted out to her by the appellant fifteen days prior to the incident – However, neither of them confronted the appellant nor lodged any complaint before the police – According to PW-4 (another sister of deceased), the deceased X was taken to the nursing home only after 11:00 to 11:15 AM – This again contradicts the statement of PW-1 that when he had come back home on the fateful day at 10:00 AM, his daughter X was already taken to the nursing home – Also, it was stated in FIR that neighbours had noticed through window that X was lying unconscious – Only two of the neighbours were examined and even they were declared hostile – No other neighbours were examined by the police – There is no explanation by the prosecution for such glaring omission – Again, according to the informant PW-1, it was the neighbours who had first seen the deceased through the window lying on the floor in pain with the phone continuously ringing – It is not at all believable that when the receiver was hanging (as has come out from the evidence of PW-4), how the phone could go on ringing continuously – Adverse inference has to be drawn from such glaring contradictions and omissions – Further, the doctors who first treated X were not examined, they could have thrown light whether intake of Organophosphate compound was by way of injection (there were multiple injection marks present over front of both elbows of X) or consumed orally – There was no recovery of any syringe or container or bottle containing the pesticide – There is no answer as to why there was no investigation in this regard – There are no evidence on the basis of which the appellant can be held guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased. [Paras 23, 24, 25, 30, 46]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 – Instigation – Meaning of: Held: Where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then instigation may be inferred – A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. [Para 34.1]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 – Direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide:
Held: It must be borne in mind that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide – Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of s.306 would not be sustainable – It would also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of the accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. [Paras 36, 39]
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.