BENCH: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V Viswanathan
FACTS:
The present criminal appeal arises from an order dated 27.07.2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, declining to quash criminal proceedings against the appellants under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case originates from a suspected relationship between Ziaul Rahman, the son of the first appellant, and Tanu, the cousin sister of respondent no. 2. On 02.11.2022, at 19:15 hrs, the first appellant, Ayyub, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that certain individuals, including Tanu’s relatives, assaulted his son with sticks and fists due to suspicions about the relationship. Ziaul Rahman succumbed to his injuries while being taken for medical treatment, and the post-mortem report revealed 14 injuries, attributing his death to shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. A charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 304 IPC, and an appeal for enhancement of the charge to Section 302 IPC is pending.
Following Ziaul Rahman’s death, on 03.11.2022 at 17:07 hrs, respondent no. 2, Vijay, lodged another FIR (No. 367) against the appellants, alleging that they abetted Tanu’s suicide. According to the complaint, on the morning of 02.11.2022, the appellants confronted Tanu at her uncle’s house, blaming her for Ziaul Rahman’s death and threatening legal action against her. Feeling humiliated and distressed, Tanu allegedly took her own life between 10:30 and 11:00 am. Her post-mortem, conducted at 5:00 pm on the same day, confirmed death due to asphyxia from ante-mortem hanging. The police filed a charge-sheet against the appellants under Section 306 IPC, and the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance, issuing summons on 17.06.2023. The appellants’ application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings was dismissed by the High Court, which found a proximate link between Tanu’s suicide and the appellants’ alleged actions. Consequently, the appellants have approached this Court in appeal.
ISSUES:
The main issue in this case is whether the appellant has committed the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC and if so, has he satisfied all the requisite ingredients.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Court ruled that the appeal is allowed, and the criminal proceedings in Case No. 2843 of 2023 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur (arising out of Crime No. 367 of 2022, Police Station Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur) are quashed. The Court found that the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC were not satisfied, and there was no proximate link between the appellants' alleged acts and the deceased's suicide. The matter is directed to be listed on 15.04.2025 for further directions and for consideration of the report of the Special Investigation Team.
The Court, after examining the sequence of events and the investigation process, found significant inconsistencies and a lack of substantive evidence to sustain charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellants. It noted that the FIR concerning Tanu’s suicide was registered nearly a day after her death, despite earlier police records acknowledging the incident much earlier. The investigation appeared to have proceeded in a one-sided manner, solely relying on statements from the complainant and his relatives, which were recorded belatedly and mirrored the FIR without independent verification. Moreover, the police failed to explore alternative angles, such as whether Tanu's distress was linked to her friend Ziaul Rahman’s death or family pressures, thereby raising serious doubts about the fairness of the investigation. The Court emphasized that the mere utterance attributed to the appellants, even if taken as true, did not meet the legal threshold for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, as established in multiple Supreme Court precedents.
Furthermore, the Court highlighted that abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC requires clear intent and direct or indirect acts of incitement, leaving the victim with no option but to take their own life. In the present case, there was no evidence suggesting that the appellants had the requisite mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The Court also found that the prior lodging of an FIR by the first appellant against Tanu’s family for the death of his son indicated a possible motive to falsely implicate the appellants. Given the deficiencies in the investigation, the Court determined that proceeding with the trial would amount to a gross abuse of process. Consequently, it quashed the proceedings against the appellants and directed a reinvestigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to uncover the true circumstances surrounding Tanu’s death.
ANALYSIS:
The Court's decision in this case underscores the necessity of a fair and impartial investigation, particularly in matters concerning serious criminal allegations such as abetment of suicide. In quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellants, the Court highlighted significant procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the investigation, which raised doubts about its credibility. The delay in registering the FIR, the reliance on belated and repetitive witness statements, and the failure to consider alternative explanations for Tanu’s distress all contributed to the Court’s conclusion that the investigation was one-sided. By referring to established legal precedents, the Court reaffirmed that a mere altercation or verbal exchange, without any direct instigation or intent to provoke suicide, does not fulfill the legal requirements of Section 306 IPC. This analysis aligns with prior Supreme Court rulings that have emphasized the necessity of proving a proximate causal link between the alleged abetment and the act of suicide itself.
Additionally, the Court’s decision reflects a broader concern about the misuse of criminal law to settle personal disputes. The Court took note of the pre-existing conflict between the two families, particularly the appellant’s FIR alleging murder charges against Tanu’s relatives, which suggested a potential retaliatory motive behind the suicide allegations. Recognizing the potential for wrongful prosecution based on inadequate evidence, the Court not only quashed the proceedings but also ordered a fresh investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure a comprehensive and unbiased inquiry. This approach demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to preventing the abuse of legal processes while ensuring that justice is served based on credible and independent findings. The decision thus sets an important precedent for cases involving abetment of suicide, reinforcing the principle that criminal liability must be established with concrete evidence and not inferred from circumstantial or speculative claims.
info@adhwaitha.com
