Raju vs State Of M.P

Vivek Rusia, J

This is Second bail application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.347/2020, Police-Station- Gandhwani, District-

Dhar for commission of the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 of I.P.C.

(2). First bail application of the applicant was dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.51140/2020 on merit.

(3). As per prosecution story, deceased Hatribai committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance on 02.09.2020. As per the allegation and

statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. he made illicit relation with wife of his elder brother.

(4). Learned counsel for the applicant submits that four witnesses i.e. PW-1 Versingh (Father of deceased), PW-2 Jamnabai (Mother of deceased),

PW-3 Sukma Bai ( Bhabhi of the deceased) and PW-4 Rakesh (Brother of the deceased) have been examined before the trial court. The applicant

has been implicated under section 306 of I.P.C. on the basis allegation of the aforesaid witnesses that he was having illicit relationship with the wife of

elder brother and due to which his wife committed suicide. Now these witnesses are not supported the case of prosecution rather have said that there

was not dispute between husband and wife.

(5). Prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State.

(6). I have perused the case-diary. The law with regard to Section 306 of IPC is well settled. In the case of Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh &

Others : (2007) 11 SCC 205, the Supreme Court has held that mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section

306 read with Section 107 IPC, if the wife commits suicide. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife

is often harassed by the husband or her in-laws, this, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 IPC

read with Section 107 IPC. In the case of K.V. Prakash Babu V/s. State of Karnataka : AIR 2016 SC 5430, the Apex Court has held that the

concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and the strata from which the persons come from and definitely has an individualistic perception

regard being had to one’s endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalize but certainly it can be appreciated in a set of established facts.

Recently, the apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.40/2011 (Gurcharan Singh V/s. State of Punjab) decided on 1st October, 2020 has again summarised

the law in respect of the applicability of Section 306 of IPC and has held as under :-

“19. Proceeding with the above understanding of the law and applying the ratios to the facts in the present case, what is apparent is that no overt

act or illegal omission is seen from the appellant’s side, in taking due care of his deceased wife. The evidence also does not indicate that the

deceased faced persistent harassment from her husband. Nothing to this effect is testified by the parents or any of the other prosecution witnesses.

The Trial Court and the High Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any evidence concluded only through conjectures, that the appellant

is guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife.

In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in declaring that the Trial Court and the High Court erred in concluding that the deceased was driven

to commit suicide, by the circumstances or atmosphere in the matrimonial home. This is nothing more than an inference, without any material support.

Therefore, the Page 16 of 17 same cannot be the basis for sustaining conviction of the appellant, under section 306 of the IPC.

In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded to conclude that the decisions under challenge cannot be legally sustained. Consequently, interfering

with the impugned judgment of the High Court and the Trial Court, the appellant’s conviction under Section 306 IPC is set aside and quashed. The

appeal is accordingly, allowed.â€​

(7) In view of the above, in my considered opinion this application deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed and the applicant is directed to be

released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the

satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the

pendency of trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

(8) . Before releasing the applicant from the custody the jail authorities are directed to medically examine them in order to rule out the possibility of

COVID -19 infections and shall comply with the direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No. 1/2020.

C.C. as per rules.