Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 August, 1962
In (2017) 1 SCC 433 in case of Gurcharan Singh v. State
of Punjab, the Hon'ble apex Court has observed in para 21 as
under :-
S.S.Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr on 12 August, 2010
36. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of S. S. Chheena .vs.
Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, reported at 2010 Mh.L.J. Online
(Cri.) (S.C.) 4 = (2010) 12 SCC 190, in para 25 observed that, the
abetment involves mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive
act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention the legislature
and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order
to convict a person under section 306 of the Indian penal Code there
has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
overt act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
Section 32 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Bansi Lal vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2011
31. The learned Advocate for the accused has relied
upon the judgment, in the case of Bansi Lal Vs. State of
Haryana, reported in 2011 DGLS (SC) 51, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has stated and observed para 15 as under:
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs State Of West Bengal on 11 November, 2009
33. In 2012 CRI.L.J. 658 : [2012 ALL SCR 1138], the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that every quarrel between a
husband and wife which results in a suicide cannot be taken as an
abetment by the husband and the standard of a reasonable and
practical woman as compared to a headstrong and over sensitive
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 06:40:09 :::
23 APEAL.557-2007 with REVN.211-2007 JUDGMENT.odt
one has to be applied. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu .vs. State of W.B. reported in AIR 2010 SC
512 : [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 3755 (S.C.), has categorically observed
that before holding accused guilty of offence u/s 306 of IPC the
Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the
case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find
out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had
left the victim with no other alternative except to put an end to her
life. Thus, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of
harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the
time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled
the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC
is not sustainable. To attract offence u/s 306 of IPC, there must be
positive act on the part of the person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide. The person must have played an active role
either to instigate or to facilitate the commission of suicide by the
person committing suicide. In the instant case, there is no iota of
evidence even to remotely connect the accused to infer that the
accused committed such act with a view to abet the deceased to
commit suicide. Neither any act of instigation nor any act of
facilitation to commit suicide by the deceased can be inferred on the
part of the accused in the light of the evidence on record.
1