Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It was his submission that merely because the petitioner- accused is named in the suicide note and has been referred to as the reason which propelled the deceased to take the extreme step of suicide, it would still not fall within the realm of Section 306 of the IPC. 

                    XXX              XXX             XXX


           g.    a perusal of the suicide note brings to fore the fact  the

petitioner-accused is not only named but his illegal occupation of the house of the deceased is stated to be one of the primary reasons for Kamol Kapoor, to have committed suicide. The statement of the sons of the deceased, Amit Kapoor and Sumit Kapoor, is primarily on the same lines. The issue for consideration is that, even if it is assumed at this stage, that the suicide note was written in the hand writing of the deceased and the statement of Amit Kapoor is believed to be true in its entirety would it be sufficient to charge the petitioner- accused with the offence of abetment of suicide by Komal Kapoor. In my view the answer is in the negative. The mere fact that the actions of the petitioner-accused, that is, forcible occupation of the portion of the house of the deceased, led her to take the extreme step of committing suicide would not bring his act within the definition of abetment as there is no material or evidence placed by the prosecution on record to show that he intended or had the necessary mens rea that the Komal Kapoor should take the extreme step of committing suicide. As long as there is absence of material and/or evidence on record to show that the abettor had intended to aid or encourage the commission of the principal offence, the accused cannot be charged with the offence of abetment and, therefore, in the present case, abetment to commit suicide. Nor I am persuaded by the submission that because the name of the petioner-accused appears in the suicide note it would be sufficient to charge him with an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. In this context see observation in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Senger (supra) and Mahender Singh (supra). In both the cases not ony was the accused named in the suicide note but they were also cited as the reason for committing suicide by the deceased. The learned APP may perhaps be correct in his submission that the agreement to sell dated 30.06.2007 was executed by the petitioner- accused, only to grab the property of the deceased after a receipt had been executed by the deceased acknowledging that she had taken a loan from the petitioner-accused in the first instance in the sum of Rs.15 lacs and thereafter, another sum of Rs. 1 lac, but then, this aspect of the matter will get unravelled only after a full- fledged trial. I do not wish to comment any further on this aspect of the matter as it could impact both, the case of the prosecution as well as that of the defence, and perhaps wisely, therefore, even the learned counsel or the petitioner-accused has not assailed the charge framed under Section 448 of the IPC.

22. We have already noticed that the legislature in its wisdom has used the expression ‘there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence’. This has an inbuilt element of presumption once the ingredients of an offence with reference to the allegations made are satisfied, the Court would not doubt the case of the prosecution unduly and extend its jurisdiction to quash the charge in haste. A Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa & Ors. [(1996) 4 SCC 659] referred to the meaning of the word ‘presume’ while relying upon the Black’s Law Dictionary. It was defined to mean ‘to believe or accept upon probable evidence’; ‘to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming’. In other words, the truth of the matter has to come out when the prosecution evidence is led, the witnesses are cross-examined by the defence, the incriminating material and evidence is put to the accused in terms of Section 313 of the Code and then the accused is provided an opportunity to lead defence, if any. It is only upon completion of such steps that the trial concludes with the court forming its final opinion and delivering its judgment. Merely because there was civil transaction between the parties would not by itself alter the status of the allegations constituting the criminal offence. This was not a case where the allegations were so predominately of a civil nature that it would have eliminated criminal intent and liability. On the contrary, it is a fact and, in fact, is not even disputed that the deceased committed suicide and left a suicide note. May be, the accused are able to prove their non- involvement in inducing or creating circumstances which compelled the deceased to commit suicide but that again is a matter of trial. The ingredients of Section 306 are that a person commits suicide and somebody alone abets commission of such suicide which renders him liable for punishment. Both these ingredients appear to exist in the present case in terms of the language of Section 228 of the Code, subject to trial. The deceased committed suicide and as per the suicide note left by her and the statement of her son, the abetment by the accused cannot be ruled out at this stage, but is obviously subject to the final view that the court may take upon trial. One very serious averment that was made in the suicide note was that the deceased was totally frustrated when the accused persons took possession of the ground floor of her property, C-224, Tagore Garden, Delhi and refused to vacate the same. It is possible and if the Court believes the version given by the prosecution and finds that there was actual sale of property in favour of the accused, as alleged by him, in that event, the Court may acquit them of not only the offence under Section 306 IPC but under Section 107 IPC also. There appears to be some contradiction in the judgment of the High Court primarily for the reason that if charge under Section 306 is to be quashed and the accused is not to be put to trial for this offence, then where would be the question of trying them for an offence of criminal trespass in terms of Section 448 IPC based on some facts, which has been permitted by the High Court.

23. The High Court could not have appreciated or evaluated the record and documents filed with it. It was not the stage. The Court ought to have examined if the case falls in any of the above-stated categories.

24. The High Court has also noticed that perusal of the suicide note brings to fore the fact that the petitioner-accused is not only named but his illegal occupation of the house of the deceased is stated to be one of the primary reasons for Komal Kapoor in committing the suicide. The statement of the son of the deceased is also on the same line. Then the High Court proceeds further to notice that even if it is assumed at this stage that the suicide note and statement were correct, the action of the petitioner-accused in forcibly occupying the portion of the house of the deceased and the deceased taking the extreme step would not bring his act within the definition of abetment, as there is no material or evidence placed by the prosecution on record. This finding could hardly be recorded without travelling into the merits of the case and appreciating the evidence. The Court could pronounce whether the offence falls within the ambit and scope of Section 306 IPC or not. These documents clearly show that the accused persons had brought in existence the circumstances which, as claimed by the prosecution, led to the extreme step of suicide being taken by the deceased. It cannot be equated to inflictment of cruelty as discussed by the High Court in its judgment. Once Sections 107 and 306 IPC are read together, then the Court has to merely examine as to whether apparently the person could be termed as causing abetment of a thing. An abetter under Section 108 is a person who abets an offence. It includes both the person who abets either the commission of an offence or the commission of an act which would be an offence. In terms of Section 107 IPC, Explanation (1) to Section 107 has been worded very widely. We may refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Goura Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2003) 12 SCC 469], wherein this Court held as under :

26. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605] to contend that the offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC is completely made out against the accused. It is not the stage for us to consider or evaluate or marshal the records for the purposes of determining whether offence under these provisions has been committed or not. It is a tentative view that the Court forms on the basis of record and documents annexed therewith. No doubt that the word ‘instigate’ used in Section 107 of the IPC has been explained by this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618] to say that where the accused had, by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an instigation may have to be inferred. In other words, instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence. Husband of the deceased was a paralysed person. They were in financial crises. They had sold their property. They had great faith in the accused and were heavily relying on him as their property transactions were transacted through the accused itself. Grabbing of the property, as alleged in the suicide note and the statement made by the son of the deceased as well as getting blank papers signed and not giving monies due to them are the circumstances stated to have led to the suicide of the deceased. The Court is not expected to form even a firm opinion at this stage but a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 of the Code.