Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 7 July, 2025
2025:UHC:5812
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
Criminal Misc. Application No. 563 of 2015
7th July, 2025
Swati -- Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned AGA for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By way of present application, moved
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., applicant seeks to quash
the entire proceedings of criminal case no.441 of 2015,
‘State Vs. Swati, U/s 306 IPC, pending before the Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun.
2. Facts in brief are that the respondent/
complainant lodged an FIR on 22.03.2014 against the
applicant under Section 306 IPC, alleging therein that his
son was engaged with the present applicant, however, the
applicant had relations with some other person,
consequently, the son of the complainant consumed
poison.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated;
that, the incident took place on 29.04.2013 whereas the
FIR was lodged after almost one year i.e. 22.03.2014;
1
2025:UHC:5812
that, after the investigation charge sheet was filed against
the applicant only; that, the provision of Sections 107
and 306 of IPC are not made out against the applicant,
even plain reading of the FIR would reveal that there is
no role assigned to the applicant that she has instigated
the deceased to consume the poison; that, the whole FIR
is based on presumption and assumption as there is no
witness, who has provided any material to the
complainant that the applicant was in relation with the
co-accused Subhash or she has any role in instigating
the son of the complainant to consume poison.
4. In support of his contention, learned counsel
for the applicant would submit that 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, direct or indirect, on the part of
the accused person, which left the deceased with no
other option but to commit suicide.
5. In order to buttress his argument, learned
counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of
Gujarat and another, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628. The
relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced
below:-
“12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306,
IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107,
IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring
out the suicide of the concerned person as a result of2
2025:UHC:5812that abetment is required. The intention of the accused
to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit
suicide is a must for this particular offence
under Section 306, IPC. We are of the clear opinion that
there is no question of there being any material for
offence under Section 306, IPC either in the FIR or in the
so-called suicide note.”
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would
submit that all the prosecution witnesses have supported
the prosecution story, even viscera report also discloses
that the cause of death due to consume poison i.e.
Aluminum Phosphide. Therefore, offence under Section
306 of the IPC was clearly made out against the
applicant.
7. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions and perused the material placed on record.
8. 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;
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, a3
2025:UHC:5812thing 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.”
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. After going through the record and hearing the
arguments advanced by learned counsel both the parties,
in the present case, there is no iota of evidence that the
applicant was involved either actively and passively in
instigating or abetting the son of the complainant to
consume the poison.
12. Accordingly, the present criminal misc.
4
2025:UHC:5812
application filed U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the
entire proceedings of criminal case no.441 of 2015, ‘State
Vs. Swati, U/s 306 IPC, pending before the Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, is hereby quashed,
qua the applicant.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Dated: 07.07.2025
BS
BALWAN
Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe
2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001,
T SINGH
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5
185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90,
cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.07.07 17:50:38 +05’30’
5
[ad_1]
Source link