The Calcutta High Court has clarified that for an offence under Section 306 IPC, mere matrimonial discord, allegations of harassment, insulting remarks, or naming of persons in a suicide note are not sufficient unless the materials disclose the ingredients of abetment under Section 107 IPC, namely instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, supported by clear mens rea and a proximate active act that left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide.
The Court held that where the alleged acts are remote in time, there is no live link or proximity between the conduct complained of and the suicide, and the suicide note does not disclose any specific act of instigation or intentional aid, the prosecution under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained. Similarly, in the absence of material satisfying the statutory ingredients of criminal intimidation, a charge under Section 506 IPC also cannot continue.
A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee recorded that the prosecution case was substantially founded on the suicide note. The suicide note, written in Bengali, stated in substance that the deceased was suffering mental pain, that on 2nd July a picture said to be of his private part had been circulated, that his parents had also been tortured and heckled by members of the other side, and that he had therefore decided to kill himself.
In the note, the Bench found that the deceased named not only the wife and her father, but also the wife’s elder sister, the sister’s husband, and the sister’s father-in-law as persons responsible. During investigation, police examined four witnesses, including relatives and caretakers, whose statements suggested that the deceased felt insulted, especially by being called impotent, and was distressed because his wife had left the matrimonial home. The post-mortem report stated that death was due to asphyxia resulting from ante mortem hanging.
The Bench observed that it was not disputed that the wife had left the matrimonial home in February 2022 and after that, there was no material showing any further meeting or communication between her and the deceased. The Bench specifically noted that there was nothing to show that the petitioners had threatened the victim. The suicide note merely named the petitioners and others, but did not set out any specific act showing how each of them was responsible for abetting the suicide.
The Bench held that, at best, the note reflected that the deceased was dissatisfied with his wife and her family members. It also noted that there was no allegation of any role played by the petitioners in conspiracy, intentional aid, or instigation within the meaning of Section 107 IPC.
While analysing Sections 306 and 107 IPC, the Bench reiterated that an offence under Section 306 would stand only where there is abetment of the commission of suicide, and that abetment requires instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. Reference was made to Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618], State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73], and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State [(2009) 16 SCC 605], to state that there must be clear mens rea and an active or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, leaving him with no option.
The Bench further observed that acts said to have occurred two and a half months earlier, even if insulting, would not by themselves constitute abetment unless there was evidence suggesting that the accused intended by such acts to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The Bench considered the deceased’s conduct as possibly reflecting hypersensitivity to ordinary petulance, discord, and differences in marital life, and found no material suggesting intention on the part of the accused to provoke, incite, or encourage the act of suicide.
The Bench held that the ingredients of Section 506 IPC were not established, since there was no material to show threat with intent to cause alarm or compel an act. On that basis, the Bench concluded that even if the charge-sheet materials and witness statements were taken at their face value, there was no iota of evidence against the petitioners sufficient to sustain the prosecution, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process. The criminal revisional application was accordingly allowed and the impugned proceeding was quashed.
Briefly, the petition has been filed seeking quashing of case pending before the Sessions Judge, Barasat, under Sections 306/506/34 of the IPC. The petitioners were the wife of the deceased and her father. The case of the petitioners was that the marriage took place on Dec 01, 2021, that matrimonial discord arose thereafter, and that the wife left the matrimonial home in February 2022. She again visited the matrimonial home to take back her belongings, after which, according to her case, she had no occasion to physically meet or speak with her husband.
The husband committed suicide on Sep 19, 2022 at his residence. The FIR lodged by the father of the deceased alleged that the wife had refused to resume the matrimonial relationship and that, after the death, a diary was found in which the deceased had written that the petitioners and others were responsible for his death.
Appearances:
Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv., Sourav Chatterjee. Sr. Adv., Aditya Tiwari, for Petitioner
Kallok Kumar Basu, Md. Jannat Ul Firdous, Rajsekhar Hota, for Opposite No. 2
Rituparna De Ghosh, Abhinaba Mukherjee, for State
