Source: https://mynation.net/docs/7381-2017/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:28:54+00:00

Document:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lohit Ganguly, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Hiren Sharma, APP for the State with SI Dev Kumar.
1. Petitioner impugns order on charge dated 15.03.2017, whereby, the Trial Court has held that prima facie material exists against the accused for framing of charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short).
2. Petitioner was the wife of the deceased. They were married according to Hindu rights and ceremonies on 25.02.2015. From the wedlock, a female baby has been born, which is in the custody of the petitioner. Disputes between the parties arose. Subsequently, on 20.05.2015, the petitioner left her matrimonial home.
3. A complaint was lodged against the deceased and her in-laws by the petitioner on 14.07.2015 with the Crime Against Women Cell, Gurgaon.
4. On 31.07.2015, as per the case of the prosecution, the parties attended the hearing at the Crime Against Women Cell, Gurgaon. It is alleged that the petitioner slapped her husband, the deceased, in front of the family members.
5. As per the prosecution, on 02.08.2015, the husband of the petitioner attempted to commit suicide and was taken to the hospital. Subsequently, he expired on 03.08.2015. An alleged suicide note was allegedly recovered from the bed of the deceased. Subject FIR No.393/2015 under Sections 306/34 IPC has been registered.
6. As per the FIR, the deceased committed suicide as he was very upset because he had been slapped by the petitioner in front of the family members.
7. By the impugned order on charge dated 15.03.2017, the Trial Court has held that it is on record that the accused petitioner had slapped the deceased on 31.07.2015 and the deceased committed suicide on 02.08.2015. Father of the deceased had stated that the deceased was feeling shamed due to the act of the accused and committed suicide.
8. Trial Court was of the view that proximity of committing suicide with the alleged act of the accused and the fact that the accused committed suicide as a direct consequence of the slap given by the petitioner was a matter of trial. In view of said facts, Trial Court was of the view that prima facie material existed against the accused for framing of charge under Section 106 IPC.
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the trial court has erred in not appreciating that there is no material to suggest that the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide or in any manner aided or abetted the commission of suicide.
11. Under Section 306 IPC, whoever abets commission of suicide is held liable for abetment of suicide.
(First) – Instigates any person to do that thing; or (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 willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which 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 authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
13. In terms of Section 107 IPC, a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal commission the doing of that thing.
14. In the case of suicide, a person is liable for abetment if the person has inter alia instigated the deceased for committing suicide or has engaged in any conspiracy for committing suicide or intentionally aided the commission of suicide.
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
“107. Abetment of a thing.********* “Abetment”, thus, means certain amount of active suggestion or support to do the act.
35. Analysing the concept of “abetment”, as found in Section 107 IPC, a two-Judge Bench in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] has held: (SCC p. 610, paras 13 & 15) “13. As per the section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or 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 to Section 107 states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of “abetment”. It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 IPC.
In the said authority, the learned Judges have referred to the pronouncement in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] .
36. The word “instigate” literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another person when he actively suggests or stimulates him to an act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. Instigation may be in (express) words or may be by (implied) conduct.
37. The word “urge forward” means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something, to make a person to move more quickly in the particular direction, specially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person instigating another has to “goad” or “urge forward” the latter with the intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. In order to prove abetment, it must be shown that the accused kept on urging or annoying the deceased by words, taunts until the deceased reacted. A casual remark or something said in routine or usual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood as “abetment”.
41. A two-Judge Bench in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. [Netai Dutta v. State of W.B., (2005) 2 SCC 659 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 543] , while dwelling on the concept of abetment under Section 107 IPC especially in the context of suicide note, observed: (SCC p. 661, paras 6-7) “6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.
42. At this juncture, we think it appropriate to reproduce two paragraphs from Chitresh Kumar Chopra [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] . They are: (SCC p. 611, paras 16 & 19) “16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench in Ramesh Kumar case [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , R.C. Lahoti, J. (as his Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of “instigation”, though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes “instigation” must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an “instigation” may have to 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.
17. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is that she had slapped the deceased 3 days prior to the deceased committing suicide. There is nothing to suggest that the petitioner instigated, conspired or aided in commission of suicide by the deceased. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner instigated or exhorted the deceased to commit suicide.
18. The allegation is that the petitioner slapped the deceased in presence of others. Even if one were to consider the incident of alleged slapping as instigation then one has to keep in mind that the alleged conduct should be such as to drive any normal prudent person into committing suicide. Mere act of slapping the husband in presence of others would not under normal circumstances instigate a husband to commit suicide.
19. Further, alleged suicide note relied on by the prosecution does not refer to any incident of slapping. On the other hand, the suicide note alleges that the father of the petitioner had not revealed about the deformity in the back of the petitioner on account of which the deceased’s life had become a joke. The suicide note alleges that the accused had made allegations about the relationship between the deceased and his sister-in-law (brother’s wife) and had also alleged that the deceased’s brother was mentally unsound. The suicide note does not make any reference to any incident of slapping.
20. Even if the suicide note was to be taken on its face value, the allegation in the suicide note does not show that any conduct per se amounts to instigation to the deceased to commit suicide.
21. For a charge to be framed not only suspicion but grave suspicion of the accused having committed the offence is necessary. The facts and allegations do not show that there is any instigation or abetment on the part of the petitioner which could have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Clearly, investigation has not revealed any conduct on the part of the petitioner which would raise grave suspicion of the petitioner having committed the offence under Section 306 IPC of abetment to suicide.
22. The prosecution initiated against the petitioner would only result in sheer harassment to the petitioner without any fruitful result. The Trial Court has clearly erred in holding that prima facie material exists against the accused for framing of charge under Section 306 IPC. There is absolutely no ground to proceed against the petitioner.
23. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 15.03.2017 as also the charge framed on 30.03.2017 against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC is clearly not sustainable.
24. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order on charge dated 15.03.2017 and the charge framed on 30.03.2017 are set aside. The petitioner is discharge of the offence under Section 306 IPC.
25. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.