The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur Bench has clarified that to sustain a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, the prosecution must establish a positive and proximate act on the part of the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, without anything more, do not lead to an irresistible conclusion that the deceased was left with no option except to take his own life. In the absence of any cogent evidence satisfying the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC, the prosecution fails to discharge its burden.
The High Court pointed out that an appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial court should not interfere unless the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of the trial court is not based on any material on record. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed that the CDR report merely establishes that telephonic conversations took place between the accused Jyoti Singhal and the deceased Amit Singhal including calls made by the deceased himself. No evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to disclose the substance of these conversations so as to demonstrate any element of instigation or incitement.
The Bench found no specific instance or overt act attributed to respondent No. 2 which could be said to constitute intentional aid, instigation or conspiracy leading to the commission of suicide. There is no material to indicate any sustained course of conduct amounting to persistent cruelty or harassment of such a degree as would drive the deceased to take the extreme step. Neither the FIR, nor the statements of witnesses, nor the suicide note disclose any circumstance suggesting that the conduct of the respondent No.2 was guided by an intention to provoke or compel the deceased to commit suicide.
Further, the Bench emphasised that it is not uncommon for matrimonial relationships to be marked by discord and differences, however, such disputes by themselves do not attract the penal provisions of Section 306 of the IPC in the absence of the requisite mens rea to instigate or incite the act of suicide.
About 1-2 months prior to the date of incident, the respondent No. 2 has gone to her parental home at Odisha, and though call records are there to suggest same conversation between them, however that itself is not sufficient to point a finger towards respondent No. 2 to instigate deceased to commit suicide. The findings recorded by the Trial Court acquitting the respondent No. 2 cannot be said to perverse or ignoring material evidence on record, added the Bench.
Briefly, the Respondent No. 2 was married to the deceased Amit Singhal in November, 2020 and the said marriage was dissolved after about 6–7 months. The marriage of the deceased Amit Singhal with the accused Jyoti Singhal was his second marriage, and her marriage with the deceased was her third marriage. In July, 2021 respondent No. 2 went to her parental home but she continued to quarrel with the deceased over the telephone, as a result of which the deceased remained mentally disturbed and distressed.
In Sep 2021, on account of continuous cruelty and instigation, the deceased allegedly committed suicide by consuming aluminium phosphide pesticide. The suicide note was seized, call detail records were obtained, the viscera report was seized and treatment-related documents were collected. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against respondent No. 2 and the Trial Court acquitted respondent No. 2 of the charge under Section 306 of the IPC.
The appellant filed an application under Section 432 of the BNSS, 2023 for taking further evidence on record, which was rejected by the High Court as the documents were admittedly available to the appellant at the time of trial and cannot be permitted to be taken on record at the appellate stage.
Appearances:
Advocate Aniruddh Singh, for the Appellant
PL Vedant Shadangi and Advocate Anshul Tiwari, for the Respondents
