The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 12122 of 2023 An application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Tapas Ranjan Sika …. Petitioner State of Odisha …. Opp. Party -versus- ------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Mahakur, Adv. For Opp. Party : Mr. S.S. Pradhan, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ………………………………………………… Date of Judgment : 31.01.2024 ……………… ………………………………… Savitri Ratho, J. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. for grant of bail to the Petitioner in connection with Larambha P.S. Case No.67 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 300 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Patnagarh registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/ 302/ 34 IPC against the petitioner, his parents and his elder sister. Chargesheet dated 26.08.2023 has been submitted only against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section – 498-A and Section 306 IPC. BLAPL No. 12122 of 2023 Page 1 of 11 //2// 2. The prayer for bail of the Petitioner has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patnagarh on 04.09.2023 in BLAPL No. 175 of 2023. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the Petitioner and the deceased, namely, Supriya Suna were in a love relationship and they got married in the year 2020 and were blessed with a son. The Petitioner did not have any permanent source of income for which, there was constant quarrel between him and the deceased. As the Petitioner was not taking up any job and was not maintaining the deceased and her son, the deceased had to depend on the mercy of others for her survival. So she used to constantly ask the Petitioner to take up some employment. Instead of doing so, he would taunt her saying that he cannot maintain her and she should die. Not being able to withstand the constant humiliation and taunts of the Petitioner and having no other option, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from a tree on 30.04.2023. 4.
Legal Reasoning
behind her son. Prima facie, such conduct of the petitioner amounts to “instigation” so as to make out the offence under Section 306 of the IPC against him. 11.
Arguments
Mr. A.K. Mahakur, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2023 and false allegations have been made against him. Even accepting the allegation against him to be true, even if he told the deceased to go and die and consequently she committed suicide, it would not constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. In support of his BLAPL No. 12122 of 2023 Page 2 of 11 //3// submission, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in State of West Bengal vs. Indrajit Kundu and others : (2019) 10 SCC 188 and Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P: 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438. 5. Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate opposes the prayer for bail stating that the victim was under serious stress on account of the misbehavior of the Petitioner, who did nothing to maintain her and her son. Whenever the deceased used to ask him to take up a job to maintain his family, the Petitioner would taunt here saying that he could not maintain her and so she should die. The attitude and taunts of the Petitioner did not leave the deceased with any alternative but to commit suicide, for which, the offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against him. As he is squarely responsible for the death of the deceased, he does not deserve to be released on bail. He also submits that charge sheet has been submitted under Section 306 of the IPC and in the post mortem examination report, apart from the ligature mark on her neck, there is an injury under the medial aspect of her left arm below the axila. 6. Section 107 of IPC is extracted below: “107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or BLAPL No. 12122 of 2023 Page 3 of 11 //4// Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 7. Section 306 of IPC is extracted below: “306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such BLAPL No. 12122 of 2023 Page 4 of 11 //5// suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 8. From a careful reading of the two provisions, it is apparent that abetment of commission of suicide punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. For making a person liable for the offence, it has to be established that such person abetted the commission of suicide by some act or conduct and that this act contains any of the three ingredients enumerated under Section 107 of the IPC which are as follows : (i) the said accused has instigated the person to commit suicide, or (ii) must have engaged with one or more persons in any conspiracy for seeking that the deceased commits suicide or (iii) he must intentionally aid by any act or illegal omission, of the commission of suicide by the deceased. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Indrajit Kundu (supra) has held as follows: “2. By the impugned order, the respondents- accused were discharged of the charge framed against them under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The victim, daughter of the de facto complainant was a painter and artist. To improve her proficiency in English, first respondent was appointed as her English teacher. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are his parents. There BLAPL No. 12122 of 2023 Page 5 of 11 //6// developed intimacy between the victim and first respondent – Indrajit in course of coaching. It is the allegation of the complainant that as the deceased victim and first respondent had decided to marry, to finalise the proposal of marriage the victim had gone to the house of first respondent on 05.03.2004. It is alleged that when the victim went to the house of first respondent, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are the parents of the first respondent came out to raise shouts and addressed the victim as a call-girl. The words uttered by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as per the de facto complainant are “you are a call-girl, why my son would marry you, we would give our son in marriage elsewhere”. It is alleged in the complaint that at that time, first respondent did not protest against the version of his parents and his daughter returned home and became mentally perturbed. On 06.03.2004 at about 1.00 p.m. the victim had committed suicide.” xxx xxx xxx “11. From the material placed on record, it is clear that respondents are sought to be proceeded for charge under Section 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 de facto complainant, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are parents of first respondent shouted at the deceased girl calling her BLAPL No. 12122 of 2023 Page 6 of 11 //7// 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, we are also of the view that 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. In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Anr.1995 Supp (3) SCC 438, this Court while considering utterances like “to go and die” during the quarrel between husband and wife, uttered by husband held that utterances of such words are not direct cause for committing suicide. In such circumstances, in the aforesaid judgment this Court held that Sessions Judge erred in summoning the appellant to face the trial and quashed the proceedings.” In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas (supra), the appellant had been summoned to face trial alongwith the co accused. The appellant and the deceased were the paramours of the co- accused - a married woman. All three had a quarrel one morning while having morning tea where the appellant allegedly remarked to the deceased that he should go and die. The deceased went home in a BLAPL No. 12122 of 2023 Page 7 of 11 //8// dejected mood and committed suicide. The woman had been committed to the Court of Session to stand trial. At the time of framing of charge, the trial court was of the opinion that the appellant should also face charge for the words uttered by him. The Supreme Court held that the remark was casual in nature and often mentioned by people in the heat of the moment. It was not stated with the requisite mens rea and it cannot be said that the remark was the direct reason for the deceased committing suicide. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not required to face the charge and allowed the appeal. (It was not a case of quarrel between husband and wife and the deceased was not the husband of the woman nor was the entire proceedings quashed). In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal: 2009 AIR SCW 7070: 2010 (1) SCC 707, the Supreme Court has held as under :- “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is BLAPL No. 12122 of 2023 Page 8 of 11 //9// also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts 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 person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” In Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab :(2017) 1 SCC 433, the Supreme Court has held as follows : “21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of BLAPL No. 12122 of 2023 Page 9 of 11 //10// this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of this constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.” In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (NCT) of Delhi 66 (2009) 16 SCC 605 Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009 11, the Supreme Court has held that where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an “instigation” may be inferred. Whether such inference of instigation can be drawn depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down. 10. In the instant case, harassment - taunts and comments alleged were not stray incidents, but they were a constant feature. On account of the constant taunts of the petitioner and his conduct, the BLAPL No. 12122 of 2023 Page 10 of 11 //11// deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide leaving
Decision
In view of the above discussion, I do not consider this to be fit case to release the petitioner on bail at this stage and reject the prayer for bail. 12. The bail application is accordingly dismissed. 13. It is open to the petitioner to move for bail afresh in case there is delay in conclusion of the trial. 14. No observation in this judgment should influence the trial court in any manner as they have been made for the sole purpose of deciding this bail application. …………………… (Savitri Ratho, J) Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated 31st January, 2024 / Sukanta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 01-May-2024 13:13:28 BLAPL No. 12122 of 2023 Page 11 of 11