Mamta Gupta vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

C.V. Sirpurkar, J.—This criminal revision is directed against order dated 14.11.2015 passed by the Court of 3rd ASJ, Bhopal, in Session Trial No. 905/2015, whereby learned trial Court had directed framing of charge under Section 306 of the IPC against the applicant Mamta Gupta.

As per prosecution story, deceased Deepika married co-accused Praveen on 26.02.2009. Since before their marriage, co-accused Praveen was having an affair with applicant Mamta Gupta. The Affair continue even after marriage between co-accused Praveen and deceased Deepika. As a result of aforesaid extra-marital affair, co-accused Praveen used to get drunk and abused and harassed deceased Deepika. he also used to beat her up. On 25.2.2013, co-accused Praveen admitted in an affidavit that due to his extra marital affair with the applicant Mamta, he used to drink, abuse and harass his wife Deepika but he promised to remove Mamta from his life forever and declared that he would henceforth live normal life with his wife. He also declared that in case he failed to live up to his promise, wife Deepika would be entitled to seek divorce and appropriate compensation; however, co-accused Praveen did not mend his ways. On 01.11.2013, deceased Deepika lodged a complaint with police that after their marriage applicant Mamta had come to her matrimonial home and told her that she had married co-accused Praveen at Ujjain and Praveen is her husband. She had heard Praveen and Mamta talking on telephone many a time. She also caught Praveen with Mamta at her place. Mamta had also abused and threatened her on telephone on several occasion. When she asked her husband to sever his relationship with Mamta, he abused and beat her up. When she complaint about the affair to her parents and in-laws, they used to try and reason it out with her husband. Her husband used to apologize but persisted with the affair.

It is also prosecution case that fed up with aforesaid situation Deepika committed suicide by setting herself afire after dousing her in kerosene at her matrimonial home on 02.05.2014. She was taken to Narmada Hospital, Bhopal where she made a dying declaration blaming applicant Mamta for her suicide. Subsequently, she died in Lake City Hospital, Bhopal on 09.5.2014.

A Charge-sheet was filed against co-accused Praveen and applicant Mamta. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court proceeded to frame charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B and in the alternative section 306 read with section 120-B of the IPC against co-accused Praveen and under section 306 of the IPC against the applicant Mamta.

Aforesaid order has been challenged in this revision petition mainly on the grounds that applicant is not relative of the husband of the deceased. As such, no charge can be framed against her under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the IPC. No overt act or mens rea has been imputed against her; therefore, prima facie, no charge under Section 306 of the IPC is made out. A charge under Section 306 of the IPC can only be framed where there is sufficient material on the record to indicate that the applicant was guilty of any of the acts enumerated under Section 107 of the IPC constituting abetment; therefore, it has been prayed that the charge framed against the applicant be quashed and applicant be discharged.

Now the question that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds available on record for proceeding against applicant Mamta under Section 306 of the IPC?

Before adverting to the facts of the case it would be appropriate to take a look at the prevailing legal position. It is true that in order to constitute abetment of suicide, elements indicating instigation, conspiracy or intentional aiding by any act or omission must be present; however, the Apex Court has held in the case of Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 2009 SC 1828 : (2009) CriLJ 1736 : (2009) 2 JT 547 : (2009) 3 SCC 699 : (2009) 2 SCR 39 : (2009) AIRSCW 1426 : (2009) 2 Supreme 194 that where accused created circumstance which left no option for the wife but to take extreme step of putting end to her life, the offence under Section 306 of the IPC can be said to have been proved. Likewise, in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 AD 133 : AIR 2001 SC 3837 : (2001) CriLJ 4724 : (2001) 2 DMC 636 : (2001) 8 JT 599 : (2001) 7 SCALE 298 : (2001) 9 SCC 618 : (2001) AIRSCW 4282 : (2001) 7 Supreme 737 , the Supreme Court had observed that the present one is not the case where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by continued course of conduct created circumstance, which left the deceased with no option except to commit suicide, in which the case instigation may have been inferred. Implying thereby that where the conduct of the accused is such which leaves no option with the deceased but to commit suicide, instigation of suicide may be inferred. Similar view has been taken by High Court of M.P. in the case of Aman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2005) 2 DMC 207 : (2005) 2 JLJ 224 : (2005) 2 MPHT 32 : (2005) 2 MPLJ 282 .

Moreover, case is at the stage of charge. The Supreme Court in the case of Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others, AIR 1980 SC 52 : (1979) CriLJ 1390 : (1979) 4 SCC 274 : (1979) SCC(Cri) 1038 : (1980) 1 SCR 323 , has observed that the standard test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Cr.P.C. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion based upon material before the Magistrate, which leads him to form presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges against the accused in respect of commission of that offence.

Reverting back to the case at hand, the Court shall proceed to examine whether sufficient material has been placed before Additional Sessions Judge to form a presumptive opinion as to existence of factual ingredients constituting offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC against the applicant Mamta.

There are three documents which prima facie depict the role of the applicant Mamta in the suicide committed by the deceased. First one is the affidavit sworn by the co-accused Praveen on 25.2.2013 wherein, he has admitted to his affair with applicant Mamta but had promised that he is removing her from his life forever. Second one is the application made by the deceased Deepika on 01.11.2013 to the police wherein she had stated that on numerous occasions she has heard her husband and the applicant talking on telephone and she has also caught her husband at applicant place. She has further stated that the applicant has, on numerous occasions, threatened and abused her on telephone. Lastly, there is the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 02.5.2014 in the hospital, wherein she has clearly stated that she has committed suicide because of the applicant as the applicant has put her in tension.

In view of the aforesaid material on record, in the opinion of this Court, learned ASJ has committed no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in framing charge under Section 306 of the IPC against the applicant Mamta.

Consequently, there is no substance in this revision petition and it deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.