Continuous Harassment Due To Marriage Refusal: Chhattisgarh High Court Convicts Man For Abetting Suicide
The Chhattisgarh High Court was considering an acquittal appeal filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ordered the conviction of a man under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after noting that direct material was brought on record by the prosecution regarding continuous harassment of the deceased by the accused on her refusal to marry, which instigated her to commit suicide.
The High Court was considering an acquittal appeal filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the appellant sought grant of leave to appeal against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Korba District Korba (CG) by which the respondent was acquitted of the charges under Section 306 of the IPC.
The Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas held, “The testimony of Rukmani Gupta (PW-7) clearly establishes that the respondent persistently compelled the deceased to marry him and threatened both the deceased and her mother with dire consequences in the event of refusal for marriage.”
“Thus there is direct material brought on record by the prosecution regarding continuous harassment to the deceased by the accused to instigate her to commit suicide, still it has been ignored by the trial Court so lightly in a casual manner, as such the impugned dated 16.01.2019 passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be set aside”, it added.
Panel Lawyer Anant Bajpai represented the Appellant while Advocate Hemant Gupta represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
One Sunder Lal Gupta alleged that the daughter of his cousin brother, after taking dinner, went to her room to sleep, and the next day, her mother found that she had committed suicide by hanging herself with her scarf from a pipe installed in the room. During investigation, a black colour Samsung mobile and a piece of paper were seized before the witnesses. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. Thereafter, the FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC.
It was the case of the prosecution that the accused/ Respondent Seraj harassed and pressurised the deceased for marriage, and when she did not agree to marry with him, then he started threatening to kill her and her mother and due to the said pressure the deceased ultimately committed suicide by hanging herself. The Trial Court acquitted the accused and recorded its finding that the handwriting expert was not examined by the prosecution to substantiate whether the letter was written by the deceased or not.
Reasoning
Referring to Section 306 of the IPC, the Bench noted that it 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 by the prosecution 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”, it added.
The Bench further explained, “Thus 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.”
On a perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, the Bench found that the deceased was subjected to continuous harassment and pressure to marry by the accused/respondent. “Her testimony remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination and inspires confidence”, it added.
It was also noticed that the conduct of the respondent was not an isolated incident but a continuing course of conduct. The testimony of the mother of the deceased also corroborated with the opinion of the Doctor. Dealing with the aspect of an expert’s opinion, the Bench reiterated that the opinion of the expert is only corroborative evidence and if the direct evidence to prove the guilt of the accused is available on record, no corroborative evidence is necessary to prove the involvement of the accused in commission of the offence.
Thus, setting aside the order of the Trial Court, the Bench set aside the acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge. “The respondent is held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and is convicted, therefore, in compliance of Section 235 (2) 22 / 22 of the Cr.P.C./Section 254(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, this Court has to hear the accused or his counsel on the question of sentence”, it ordered.
Cause Title: State Of Chhattisgarh v. Mohd. Seraj (Case No.:ACQA No. 96 of 2020)