Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 r/w s.34 – Abetment of suicide – When not – Victim, daughter of the de-facto complainant was painter and artist – To improve her proficiency in English, first respondent was appointed as her English teacher – Respondent nos.2 & 3 are parents of the first respondent – Intimacy developed between the victim and the first respondent – Allegation of the complainant that as the victim and first respondent had decided to marry, the victim had gone to the house of first respondent on 05.03.04 to finalise the proposal of marriage – Allegedly when she went to his house, respondent nos.2 & 3 came out and shouted, addressing the victim as call-girl – On 06.03.04, the victim committed suicide – Chargesheet filed against respondent nos.1-3 – Respondents filed application for discharge – Rejected – Thereafter, respondents filed application u/s.482, Cr.P.C. – High Court directed the respondents to raise all the points before the Trial Court – At the stage of framing of charges respondents raised objections claiming no case is made out against them to frame any charges – Additional District & Sessions Judge overruled the objections observing that as there is probability of accused being convicted, charges can be framed – High Court allowed the application filed by the respondents – On appeal, held: Respondents are sought to be proceeded for charges u/ss.306/34, mainly relying on the suicide letters written by the deceased girl and the statements recorded during the investigation –Even according to the case of the de-facto complainant, respondent nos.2 & 3, parents of the first respondent shouted at the deceased girl calling her a call-girl – Such material is not sufficient to proceed with the trial by framing charge of offence u/ss.306/34 – Instant case does not present any picture of abetment allegedly committed by respondents – Suicide committed by the victim cannot be said to be the result of any action on part of the respondents nor can it be said that commission of suicide by the victim was the only course open to her due to action of the respondents – There was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents to the victim to commit suicide – No merit in the appeal warranting interference with the well reasoned judgment of the High Court – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.401, 482.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Respondents are sought to be proceeded for charge under Section 306/34, IPC mainly relying on the suicide letters written by the deceased girl and the statements recorded during the investigation. Even according to the case of de facto complainant, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are parents of first respondent shouted at the deceased girl calling her a call-girl. This happened on 05.03.2004 and the deceased girl committed suicide on 06.03.2004. By considering the material placed on record, the present case does not present any picture of abetment allegedly committed by respondents. The suicide committed by the victim cannot be said to be the result of any action on part of respondents nor can it be said that commission of suicide by the victim was the only course open to her due to action of the respondents. There was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents to the victim to commit suicide. On 05.03.2004 when the deceased went to the premises of first respondent, his parents who are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 addressed her as a call-girl. Such material is not sufficient to proceed with the trial by framing charge of offence under Section 306/34 IPC. There was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents to the victim to commit suicide. To draw the inference of instigation it all depends on facts and circumstances of the case, whether the acts committed by the accused will constitute direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide is a matter which is required to be considered in facts and circumstances of each case. No merit is found in this appeal so as to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the High Court. [Paras 11, 13, 16 and 17] [494-E-G; 495-G; 496-A; E-G]
Soma Chakravarty v. State (2007) 5 SCC 403 : [2007]
6 SCR 324 ; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 : [1979] 2 SCR 229 ; Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT) of Delhi (2009) 16 SCC 605 : [2009] 13 SCR 230 – held inapplicable.
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247 ; Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371 : [2002]
3 SCR 668 ; Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and Anr. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438– 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.