Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Kaushik Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 15 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 4195 of 2023
Dr. Kaushik Roy
VS.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat,
Mr. Arun Goswami,
Ms. Suparna Basu,
Mr. Manabendranath Bandyopadhyay.
For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy,
Ms. Sreyashee Biswas,
Ms. Puspita Saha.
Hearing concluded on : 15.01.2025
Judgment on : 15.01.2025
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :
1. The present revisional application has been preferred against an
order no. 8 dated 05.09.2023, passed by the Learned Additional
Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah in Case No. ST No. 115 of
2023 corresponding to G.R Case No. 47 of 2017 arising out of
Liluah Police Station Case no. 237 of 2017 dated 12.09.2017
Page 2
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, rejecting the
application for discharge of the petitioner herein. The charge faced
by the petitioner is under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The written complaint filed by the father of the deceased before
the concerned police station on 12.09.2017 contains the
allegations as follows:-
“That my daughter Miss Sanchita Chatterjee made
a suicide by taking poisonous medicine on
11.09.2017 at around 9.30 p.m. She had died in
Medical College Hospital. I am also informing you
that a person named Dr. Kaushik Roy, S/O Kalyan
Roy residing at Kalyani and practising at NRS
Hospital is responsible for this accident. At night
she had a conversation with him. I think that Dr.
Kaushik Roy might be responsible for this
accident.”
3. The petitioner’s case is that in the year 2011 he helped the victim
get admission in the Homeopathy College after which the victim
expressed her desire to marry the petitioner.
4. The petitioner expressed his inability to marry the victim and left
his job at Rishra Seva Sadan in 2017, where he had met the
victim.
5. On 11.09.2017 the petitioner got information that the victim had
committed suicide.
6. The de facto complainant in spite of service has not appeared
before this Court. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed the
Page 3
case diary, from wherein it appears that the victim prima facie
was in love with the petitioner and on being denied marriage,
committed suicide.
7. The Supreme Court in Prabhu vs The State Rep By The
Inspector Of Police, Criminal Appeal No. ……. of 2024 @ SLP
(Crl.) No. ______/2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 39981/2022), on
30 January, 2024, it was held:-
“7. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code talks about
abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets
the commission of suicide of another person, he/she
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding ten years and
shall also be liable to fine.
8. Abetment is defined in Section 107 IPC and it
reads as follows:
“107. Abetment of a thing. –A person
abets the doing of a thing, who– First.–
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.
Explanation 1.–A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment
of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or
attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be
done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing.
Explanation 2.–Whoever, either prior to or
at the time of the commission of an act,
does anything in order to facilitate the
Page 4commission of that act, and thereby
facilitates the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act.”
9. In a recent judgment of this Court in Kamalakar
vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.
1485 of 2011 [decided on 12.10.2023], one of us
(Vikram Nath J.) explained the ingredients of Section
306 IPC. The Court has held as follows:
“8.2. Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of
commission of suicide. To charge someone
under this Section, the prosecution must
prove that the accused played a role in the
suicide. Specifically, the accused’s actions
must align with one of the three criteria
detailed in Section 107 IPC. This means the
accused either encouraged the individual to
take their life, conspired with others to
ensure the person committed suicide, or
acted in a way (or failed to act) which
directly resulted in the person’s suicide.
8.3. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh, this Court has analysed
different meanings of “instigation”. The
relevant para of the said judgment is
reproduced herein:
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”.
To satisfy the requirement of instigation
though it is not necessary that actual words
must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to
incite the consequence must be capable of
being spelt out. The present one is not a
case where the accused had by his acts or
omission or by a continued course of
conduct created such circumstances that
the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide in which case an
instigation may have been inferred. A word
uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually
follow cannot be said to be instigation.” 8.4.
Page 5
The essentials of Section 306 IPC were
elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan v.
State, as under:
“43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra
v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16
SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an
occasion to deal with this aspect of
abetment.
The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning
of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The
Court opined that there should be intention
to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of
an act by the latter. Each person’s
suicidability pattern is different from the
others. Each person has his own idea of
selfesteem and selfrespect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any
straitjacket formula in dealing with such
cases. Each case has to be decided on the
basis of its own facts and circumstances.
44. Abetment involves a 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.
45. The intention of the legislature and the
ratio of the cases decided by this Court are
clear that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 IPC there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which led
the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and this act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he/she committed suicide.”
8.5. The essential ingredients which are to
be meted out in order to bring a case
under Section 306 IPC were also discussed
in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of
West Bengal3 in the following paragraphs:
Page 6
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken
the view that before holding an accused
guilty of an offence under Section 306 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 but to
put an end to her life. It is also to be borne
in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of
suicide there must be proof of direct or
indirect acts of incitement to the commission
of suicide. Merely on the allegation of
harassment without there 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.
13. In order to bring a case within the
purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a
case of suicide and in the commission of the
said offence, the person who is said to have
abetted the commission of suicide must
have played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain act to
facilitate the commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the person
charged with the said offence must be
proved and established by the prosecution
before he could be convicted under Section
306 IPC.”
8.6. On a careful reading of the factual
matrix of the instant case and the law
regarding Section 306 IPC, there seems to
be no proximate link between the marital
discord between the deceased and the
appellant and her subsequent death by
burning herself. The appellant has not
committed any positive or direct act to
instigate or aid in the commission of suicide
by the deceased.”
Page 7
10. On a perusal of the above, and relying upon this
Court‟s previous judgments discussing the elements
of Section 306 IPC, the following principles emerge:
“10.1 Where the words uttered are casual
in nature and which are often employed in
the heat of the moment between quarrelling
people, and nothing serious is expected to
follow from the same, the same would not
amount to abetment of suicide. [Swami
Prahaladdas v. State of M.P 1995 Supp. (3)
SCC 438, Paragraph 3; Sanju v. State of
M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371, Paragraph 12]
10.2 In order to constitute „instigation‟, it
must be shown that the accused had, by
his acts or omission or by a continued
course of conduct, created such
circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit
suicide. The words uttered by the accused
must be suggestive of the consequence
[Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, Paragraph
20]
10.3 Different individuals in the same
situation react and behave differently
because of the personal meaning they add
to each event, thus accounting for individual
vulnerability to suicide. [Chitresh Kumar
Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of
Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, Paragraph 20]
10.4 There must be direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. The
accused must be shown to have played an
active role by an act of instigation or by
doing certain act to facilitate the commission
of suicide [Amalendu Pal v. State of West
Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, Paragraph 1214]
10.5 The accused must have intended or
known that the deceased would commit
suicide because of his actions or omissions
[Madan Mohan Singh v. State of
Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628]”
11. Applying the above yardstick to the facts of the
present case in question, even if we take the case as
Page 8
a whole and test the prosecution case on a demurrer,
it could not be said that the actions of the accused
instigated Kousalya to take her life or that he
conspired with others to ensure that the person
committed suicide or any act of the appellant or
omission instigated the deceased resulting in the
suicide.
12. Broken relationships and heart breaks are part of
everyday life. It could not be said that the appellant
by breaking up the relationship with Kousalya and by
advising her to marry in accordance with the advice
of her parents, as he himself was doing, had intended
to abet the suicide of Kousalya. Hence the offence
under Section 306 is not made out.”
8. The supreme court in Prakash vs The State Of Maharashtra,
Criminal Appeal No. ………..of 2024, (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.1073 of 2023), decided on December 20, 2024, it was
held:-
“12. The relevant provisions of the IPC that fall for
consideration are as under:
“306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine.
107. Abetment of a thing–A person abets the
doing of a thing, who– First.– 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; orThirdly.– Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.– A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
Page 9material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or
procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.– Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of the commission of an act, does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act.”
13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-
first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the
abetment to the said act by another person(s). In
order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the
IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused
person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased
by some direct or indirect act. To prove such
contribution or involvement, one of the three
conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be
satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has
been interpreted, time and again, and its principles
are well- established. To attract the offence of
abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof
of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of
suicide by the accused, which must be in close
proximity to the commission of suicide by the
deceased. Such instigation or incitement should
reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of
suicide and should put the victim in such a position
that he/she would have no other option but to commit
suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a
plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves
a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding
another person to do a particular thing. To bring a
charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of
abetment would require the positive act of instigating
or intentionally aiding another person to commit
suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the
accused person being apparent from the face of the
record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot
be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act,
Page 10
direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person
which left the deceased with no other option but to
commit suicide.
16. This Court in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay
Kumar Mahajan and Another12, had an occasion
to consider the scope of Section 306 of the IPC and
the ingredients which are essential for abetment, as
set out in Section 107 of the IPC. It observed as
follows:
“16. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in
the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is
well known and requires no explanation. “Sui” means
“self” and “cide” means “killing”, thus implying an act
of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide
must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means
employed by him in achieving his object of killing
himself.
………..
18. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an
offence, considering that the successful offender
is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an
offence under Section 309 IPC.
……….
21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra
Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 1157] In Mahendra Singh [1995 Supp (3)
SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] the allegations
levelled were as under: (SCC p. 731, para 1)“1. … My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-
law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed me.
They beat me and abused me. My husband
Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has
illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of
these reasons and being harassed I want to die by
burning.”
The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to
a definite conclusion that by no stretch the
ingredients of abetment are attracted on the
Page 11
statement of the deceased. According to the appellant,
the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC
merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation
of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in
law.
………..
23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73
: 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that:
(SCC p. 90, para 17)
“17. … The court should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each case
and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose
of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim
had in fact induced her to end the life by committing
suicide. If it [appears] to the court that a victim
committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary
petulance, discord and differences in domestic life
quite common to the society to which the victim
belonged and such petulance, discord and differences
were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
individual in a given society to commit suicide, the
conscience of the court should not be satisfied for
basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting
the offence of suicide should be found guilty.”
24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this
aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the
dictionary meaning of the words “instigation” and
“goading”. The Court opined that there should be
intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of
an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability
pattern is different from the other. Each person has
his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any
straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each
case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts
and circumstances.
25. Abetment involves a 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
Page 12
accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the
legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this
Court is clear that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active
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.”
17. This Court held that abetment involves the mental
process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding
a person in doing of a thing. Therefore, without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or
aid a person in committing suicide, conviction cannot
be sustained. This Court further observed that the
intention of 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 IPC, there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence. Abetment also
requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option
and that act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed
suicide. However, this Court has cautioned that since
each person reacts differently to the same provocation
depending on a variety of factors, it is impossible to
lay down a straightjacket formula to deal with such
cases. Therefore, every such case has to be decided
on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh
Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of
Gujarat13, this Court has relied on S.S.
Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens rea
cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it
must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without
this, the foundational requirement for establishing
abetment under the law, that is deliberate and
conspicuous intention to provoke or contribute to the
act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled. This Court
observed as follows:
“18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it
is a well-established legal principle that the presence
Page 13of clear mens rea–the intention to abet the act–is
essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient
to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The
prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct
action by the accused that led the deceased to take
his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot
simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident
and explicitly discernible. Without this, the
foundational requirement for establishing abetment
under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the
necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to
provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.”
19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of
instigation is a crucial element of abetment. While
dealing with an issue of a similar nature, this Court in
the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh,14 laid down the parameters of
what would be constituted to be an act of instigation.
This Court observed as follows:-
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the
requirement of instigation though it is not necessary
that actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a
case where the accused had by his acts or omission
or by a continued course of conduct created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide in which case an
instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in
the fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.”
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed
that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do “an act”. It has been held
that in order to satisfy the requirement of instigation
though it is not necessary that actual words must be
used to that effect or what constitutes instigation
must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence, however, a reasonable certainty to
Page 14
incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt
out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this
Court went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of
anger or emotion without intending the consequences
to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
21. Relying on the decision in the case of Ramesh
Kumar (supra), this Court in the case of Ude Singh
and Others v. State of Haryana15 observed as
follows:
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement
to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be
disputed that the question of cause of a suicide,
particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of
suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted
and complex attributes of human behaviour and
responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for
abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for
cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement
to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide,
mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by
another person would not suffice unless there be such
action on the part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an offending
action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.
Whether a person has abetted in the commission of
suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from
the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another, the
consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the
act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained
and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above
referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been
hypersensitive and the action of the accused is
otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce
a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it
may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of
abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the
accused by his acts and by his continuous course of
conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased
Page 15perceiving no other option except to commit suicide,
the case may fall within the four corners of Section
306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in
tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the
victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit
suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment
of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused
and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature
where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case
may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide.
However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying
the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased
reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be
that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of
delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is
required to be examined on its own facts, while taking
note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on
the actions and psyche of the accused and the
deceased.
16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be
affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact
of one’s action on the mind of another carries several
imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with
differently by different persons; and so far a
particular person’s reaction to any other human’s
action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or
yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in
regard to the factors related with the question of
harassment of a girl, many factors are to be
considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or
urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to
the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young
girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including
those of background, self-confidence and
upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt
with on its own facts and circumstances.”
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed
that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement
to the commission of suicide. It has been held that
since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of
Page 16
the offence of abetment of suicide involves
multifaceted and complex attributes of human
behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent and
convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. This Court further observed
that a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased
by another person would not suffice unless there is
such action on the part of the accused which compels
the person to commit suicide. This Court also
emphasised that such an offending action ought to be
proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further
clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of
the accused in such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused.
It was further held that if the acts and deeds are only
of such nature where the accused intended nothing
more than harassment or a snap-show of anger, a
particular case may fall short of the offence of
abetment of suicide, however, if the accused kept on
irritating or annoying the deceased by words or
deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a
particular case may be that of abetment of suicide.
This Court held that owing to the fact that the human
mind could be affected and could react in myriad
ways and that similar actions are dealt with
differently by different persons, each case is required
to be dealt with its own facts and circumstances.
23. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh
Sengar (supra), the appellant before this Court was
charged with having abetted the suicide by his
brother-in-law (sister‟s husband). The prosecution
story was that there were strained relations between
the deceased and his wife who at the material time
was staying with the appellant therein. On 25th July,
1998 the deceased went to the appellant to bring
back his wife. There was a quarrel between the
appellant and the deceased who came back alone.
The deceased told his brothers and other
acquaintances that the appellant had threatened and
abused him by using filthy words. On 27th July,
1998 the deceased was found dead. The deceased
left a suicide note which showed his disturbed state
of mind but otherwise he blamed the appellant for the
suicide. The appellant‟s petition for quashing of the
charge-sheet filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was
Page 17
dismissed by the High Court which led him to file an
appeal before this Court which came to be allowed.
While taking note of the disturbed state of mind of the
deceased as was evident from the suicide note and
the lack of intention on the part of the accused to abet
the commission of suicide by the deceased, the Court
held that there was a time gap of 48 hours between
the abusive language being used and the commission
of suicide. As such, owing to the passage of 48 hours,
giving the deceased enough time to reflect, there was
no proximate link between the words uttered and the
act of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
“8. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. [1995
Supp (3) SCC 438 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 943] the appellant
was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC on
the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is
said to have remarked to the deceased “to go and
die”. This Court was of the view that mere words
uttered by the accused to the deceased “to go and
die” were not even prima facie enough to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide.
9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3)
SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] the appellant was
charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC
basically based upon the dying declaration of
the deceased, which reads as under: (SCC p. 731,
para1)“My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law
(husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed me. They
beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra
wants to marry a second time. He has illicit
connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these
reasons and being harassed I want to die by
burning.”
10. This Court, considering the definition of
“abetment” under Section 107 IPC, found that the
charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence
under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the
allegation of harassment of the deceased. This Court
further held that neither of the ingredients of
abetment are attracted on the statement of the
deceased.
Page 18
11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001)
9 SCC 618] this Court was considering the charge
framed and the conviction for an offence
under Section 306 IPC on the basis of dying
declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in
which she had stated that previously there had been
quarrel between the deceased and her husband and
on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her
husband who had said that she could go wherever
she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured
kerosene on herself and had set herself on fire.
Acquitting the accused this Court said: (SCC p. 620)
“A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court
that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and differences in
domestic life quite common to the society to which the
victim belonged and such petulance, discord and
differences were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced individual in a given society to commit
suicide, the conscience of the court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused
charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be
found guilty.”
12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts
below have erroneously accepted the prosecution
story that the suicide by the deceased is the direct
result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25-7-
1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had
used abusive language and had reportedly told the
deceased “to go and die”. For this, courts relied on a
statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the
deceased, made under Section 161 CrPC when
reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the
house of the appellant, told him that the appellant
had humiliated him and abused him with filthy
words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded
under Section 161 CrPC is annexed as Annexure P-3
to this appeal and going through the statement, we
find that he has not stated that the deceased had told
him that the appellant had asked him “to go and die”.
Even if we accept the prosecution story that the
appellant did tell the deceased “to go and die”,
Page 19
that itself does not constitute the ingredient of
“instigation”. The word “instigate” denotes
incitement or urging to do some drastic or
inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite.
Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary
concomitant of instigation. It is common
knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel
or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to
be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger
and emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive
words, said to have been told to the deceased
were on 25- 7-1998 ensued by a quarrel. The
deceased was found hanging on 27-7-1998.
Assuming that the deceased had taken the
abusive language seriously, he had enough time
in between to think over and reflect and,
therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive
language, which had been used by the appellant
on 25-7-1998 drove the deceased to commit
suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27- 7-1998
is not proximate to the abusive language uttered
by the appellant on 25-7-1998. The fact that the
deceased committed suicide on 27-7- 1998
would itself clearly point out that it is not the
direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25- 7-
1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had
used the abusive language and also told the
deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped
notice of the courts below.
………….
14. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly
show that the deceased was in great stress and
depressed. One plausible reason could be that the
deceased was without any work or avocation and at
the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from
the statement of the wife Smt Neelam Sengar. He was
a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will
clearly suggest that such a note is not the handiwork
of a man with a sound mind and sense. Smt Neelam
Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement
under Section 161 CrPC before the investigation
officer. She stated that the deceased always indulged
in drinking wine and was not doing any work. She
also stated that on 26-7-1998 her husband came to
Page 20
them in an inebriated condition and was abusing her
and other members of the family. The prosecution
story, if believed, shows that the quarrel
between the deceased and the appellant had
taken place on 25-7-1998 and if the deceased
came back to the house again on 26-7-1998, it
cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased
was the direct result of the quarrel that had
taken place on 25- 7-1998. Viewed from the
aforesaid circumstances independently, we are
clearly of the view that the ingredients of
“abetment” are totally absent in the instant
case for an offence under Section 306 IPC. It is in
the statement of the wife that the deceased always
remained in a drunken condition. It is common
knowledge that excessive drinking leads one to
debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the
deceased was a victim of his own conduct
unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued on 25-
7-1998 where the appellant is stated to have used
abusive language. Taking the totality of materials on
record and facts and circumstances of the case into
consideration, it will lead to the irresistible conclusion
that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is
responsible for his death.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. It could thus be seen that this Court held that
both the courts below had erroneously accepted the
prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased
was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken
place on 25th July 1998 wherein it was alleged that
the appellant therein had used abusive language and
had reportedly told the deceased „to go and die‟. It
was held that even if one accepts the prosecution
story that the appellant did tell the deceased „to go
and die‟, that itself did not constitute the ingredient of
„instigation‟. This Court held that it was common
knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on
the spur of the moment could not be taken to be
uttered with mens rea. It has been held further that
the alleged abusive words were said to have been
told to the deceased on 25th July 1998 during a
quarrel and the deceased was found hanging on 27th
Page 21
July, 1998. This Court held that if the deceased had
taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough
time in between to think over and reflect and
therefore, it could not be said that the abusive
language which had been used by the appellant on
25th July 1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide
on 27th July 1998. It has been held that the suicide
by the deceased was not proximate to the abusive
language used two days prior. Additionally this Court
held that a plain reading of the suicide note made it
clear that the deceased was in great stress and
depressed and the suicide note also clearly suggested
that it was not the handiwork of a man with a sound
mind and sense. As such, this Court held that there
was no material to establish that the accused had
abetted the suicide committed by the deceased.
25. Relying on the decision in the case of Sanju @
Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), this Court in the case
of Gurjit Singh (supra) set aside the conviction
under Section 306 of the IPC as it was clear from the
evidence on record that there was a time gap of about
two months between the last visit of the deceased to
her parents with regard to the illegal demand for
money by the accused-appellant and the date of
commission of suicide by the deceased. As such, this
Court held that there was nothing on record to show
that there was a proximate nexus between the
commission of suicide and the illegal demand made
by the accused-appellant. This Court observed as
follows:
“36. It could further be seen from the evidence on
record that the time gap between the last visit of
the deceased to her parents with regard to the
illegal demand and the date of commission of
suicide is about two months. As such, there is
nothing on record to show that there was a
proximate nexus between the commission of
suicide and the illegal demand made by the
appellant. In Sanju v. State of M.P. [Sanju v.
State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 : 2002 SCC (Cri)
1141] this Court found that there was time gap
of 48 hours between the accused telling the
deceased “to go and die” and the deceased
“committing suicide”. As such, this Court held
Page 22that there was no material to establish that the
accused had abetted the suicide committed by
the deceased.”
(emphasis supplied)
26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
that instigation or incitement on the part of the
accused person is the gravamen of the offence of
abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified on
many occasions that in order to link the act of
instigation to the act of suicide, the two occurrences
must be in close proximity to each other so as to form
a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide by the
deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation
by the accused person.
27. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra)
reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such
intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to
push the deceased to such a position under which the
person has no choice but to commit suicide. This
Court held that the incident which had allegedly
driven the deceased to commit suicide had occurred
two weeks prior and even the suicide note had been
written three days prior to the date on which the
deceased committed suicide and further, there was
no allegation that any act had been done by the
accused-appellant therein in close proximity to the
date of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
“11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the
third respondent and the contents of the suicide note
as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the
appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide
by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed
by the third respondent from her husband by using
abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for
that purpose. The said incident allegedly
happened more than two weeks before the date
of suicide. There is no allegation that any act
was done by the appellants in close proximity to
the date of suicide. By no stretch of
imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants
can amount to instigation to commit suicide. The
Page 23deceased has blamed the third respondent for
landing in trouble due to her bad habits.
12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence
punishable under Section 306IPC was not made out
against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of
their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the
process of law.”
(emphasis supplied)
28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State
of Haryana16, observed as follows:-
“20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State
[Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 :
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387] , after referring to the
abovereferred decisions rendered in context of
culpability under Section 306IPC observed as under :
(SCC para 45)“45. … It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission
of suicide. Merely on the allegation of
harassment without there 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 306IPC is not sustainable.”
(emphasis supplied)”
9. The allegations in the written complaint are that, the night prior
to the incident in this case, the victim had conversation with the
petitioner.
10. In the present case, there is no proof of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide.
11. There is also no allegation of any instigation/incitement or
harassment. There is only denial to marry. A prudent person is
Page 24not expected to die by suicide in such circumstance and as such
there being no prima facie materials to substantiate the offences
alleged against the petitioner, the proceeding in this case is liable
to be quashed.
12. CRR 4195 of 2023 is allowed.
13. The proceedings including the order under revision in G.R Case
No. 47 of 2017 arising out of Liluah Police Station Case no. 237 of
2017 dated 12.09.2017 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd
Court, Howrah, is hereby quashed/set aside in respect of the
petitioner namely Kaushik Roy.
14. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
16. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for
necessary compliance.
17. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
[Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]
[ad_1]
Source link