Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

I am of the prima facie opinion that the cumulative effect of the prolonged ill-treatment and harassment of Shobha which compelled her to commit suicide.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the case of the prosecution, even if taken in its entirety and is assumed for the purposes of this petition to be established, does not disclose the offence under Section 306 IPC. He submitted that Section 306 IPC has to be read in the light of Section 107 IPC which defines 'abetment'. He submitted that the ingredients of Section 107 are not made out in the present case as there is no instigation or goading. Secondly, there is no allegation of any conspiracy and, thirdly, there is no intentional aiding in the doing of an illegal act. He also submitted that there is no suicide note in the present case. He referred to the following decisions:

9. In Netai Dutta (supra), the Supreme Court was of the view that an offence under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The supreme Court observed that 'the parameters of 'abetment' have been stated in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107, according to the Supreme Court, states that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or 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, or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission'. In the case before the Supreme Court, a suicide note was involved, but the court came to the conclusion that in the suicide note there was no reference of any act or incident whereby the appellant therein was alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag to have committed suicide. Accordingly, the court quashed the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10. In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under:

6. Section 107 I.P.C. defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of 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.

10. This Court, considering the definition of 'abetment' under Section 107 I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.

The Supreme Court further observed in paragraph 12 of the said decision that the word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of means rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with means rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional. The words expressed in the case before the Supreme Court were 'to go and die'. As a result of such an utterance, the deceased went and committed suicide. Yet, the Supreme Court was of the view that an offence under Section 306 IPC was not made out because there was no element of means rea.