Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)
S.Balasubramaniam vs State Rep. By on 21 February, 2022 cites

The State Of West Bengal vs Indrajit Kundu on 18 October, 2019

“It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so-called sui- cide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. The courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the ap- pellant-accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience.” In State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu & Others [(2019) 10 SCC 188], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless the accused by his acts or by his continuous conduct creates situations so miserable for the vic-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 49 - R S Reddy - Full Document

S.S.Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr on 12 August, 2010

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that even assuming the prosecution line of incident is accepted as true, still it only indicates that the boy might have been hyper-sensitive, and at can never be construed as an abetment to suicide within the meaning of Section 306 IPC., He relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu & Others [(2019) 10 SCC 188] and S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another [(2010) 12 SCC 190].
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 547 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 December, 2016

note or a dying declaration to provide a lead to the investigator, it will be highly dangerous to fix criminal liability based on a solitary incident of ordinary variety – like a boss chastising the employee, or a teacher scolding the student, as an abetment to suicide. There must be something more than the last incident before suicide for fastening criminal liability under Sec.306 IPC. In other words, there must be some live link between the suicide and its abetment. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions which constituted the alleged abetment from the act of suicide would clearly fall short of the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. This was pointed out by the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433, in the following passage:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 54 - A Roy - Full Document

Madan Mohan Singh vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 17 August, 2010

“It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the inten- tion and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commis- 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 sion of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remote- ness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualise the suicide would fall short as well of the of- fence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Sec- tion 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abet- ment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.” In the context of the present case, the observations of the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, are apposite. The deceased, who was a driver under the accused, had committed suicide leaving behind a suicide note that he was humiliated by the accused. The Su- preme Court quashed the FIR and reiterated that in the absence of any nexus between the suicide and the alleged act of the accused, a prosecution under Section 306 was wholly unfounded. The Court opined thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 254 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document
1