Savita Athya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 24. 05.2017 passed by the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, in Sessions

Trial No.188/2016 (State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station, Kotwali, District Tikamgarh vs. Smt. Savita Athya and another); whereby a

charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against petitioners Savita and Sunil.

The facts giving rise to this criminal revision may briefly be stated thus: Petitioner Sunil is brother of petitioner Sunita. Deceased Krishna Kumar

had married petitioner Savita in May, 2013. Savita stayed at her matrimonial home for about 25 days and returned to her maternal home. After some

days, she returned to her matrimonial home along with Prabhudayal, elder brother of deceased Krishna Kumar. On this occasion, she stayed in her

matrimonial home for a period of about one month. During aforesaid period, she used to keep talking on mobile phone to someone, which led to

arguments between deceased Krishna Kumar and petitioner Savita. In November, 2013 about 10-12 family members of petitioner Savita had gone to

her matrimonial home and took her back to her maternal home. Thereafter, deceased Krishna Kumar went to her maternal home twice to bring her

back; however, her maternal relatives abused deceased Krishna Kumar and chased him away. Meanwhile, petitioner Savita gave birth to twins. In

October, 2014, Krishna Kumar's father Bholaram had gone to Savita's maternal home to bring her back but her brother and uncle abused him and

declined to send her back. On 09.01.2014, Krishna Kumar had also gone to her maternal home but her relatives did not allow him to meet Savita or his

children. They beat up the deceased and told him off. After returning home, deceased Krishna Kumar consumed poisonous sulphas tablets at around

07:00 p.m. on 10.11.2014. He was admitted to Tikamgarh hospital; wherefrom, he was taken to Jhansi Medical College; however, he died during

treatment. He left behind a suicide note wherein he alleged that his wife Savita was a characterless woman. When Krishna Kumar disclosed this

matter to others, Savita proved him wrong. Savita had sent goons to beat him. Therefore, fed up with aforesaid behaviour of Savita and her family

members, particularly his brother-in-law, he was committing suicide.

After investigation, police filed charge sheet against petitioner Savita and her brother Sunil under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code. After hearing the petitioners, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against them as aforesaid.

Inviting attention of the Court to various authorities, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that there is no allegation that the petitioners

directly instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Even if all allegations made against the petitioners are taken at their face value and presumed to be

true, their act and conduct would not fall within the ambit of abetment of suicide.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned order mainly on the ground that petitioners

Savita, her brother Sunil and her maternal relatives persistently misbehaved with the deceased for a period of more than a year. By their acts, they

had created such a situation where the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide.

Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the conduct of the petitioners, as brought forth in the dying declaration and the statements

of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, constitute abetment of suicide?

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:-

“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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.â€​

Term abetment has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code as follows:

“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 aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that

thing.â€​

It has been held by the apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that:

“ To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it it not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation

must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being

spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such

circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word

uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to the instigationâ€​.....

(Emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 (Supreme Court) that

…..

Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of

the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306, IPC

there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no

option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicideâ€​.....

(Emphasis supplied)

It was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana, 2008 Cr. L.J. 2569 (Supreme Court) that .....

“8. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it

would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or

aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.

In the light of aforesaid legal position, reverting back to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand we may note that it is prima facie

established on the basis of the material available on record that deceased Krishna Kumar had married petitioner Savita in May, 2013. Thereafter,

petitioner Savita tended to stay at her maternal home. The relations between husband and wife were strained because petitioner Savita kept speaking

to some stranger/strangers on mobile phone, which led the deceased to suspect some extra-marital involvement. Savita's maternal relatives particularly

her brother petitioner Sunil, supported Savita and misbehaved with Krishna Kumar whenever he visited Savita's maternal home. They did not allow

him to take Savita and his children back; therefore, the deceased was frustrated. However, it is obvious that the petitioners had no intention of

instigating or goading the deceased to commit suicide. They could not conceivably foreseen that the refusal of petitioner Savita to join her husband

with her children would lead to suicide by the deceased. Petitioner Savita was living at her maternal home for a long time. There was marital discord

between the couple. It was natural for petitioner Sunil to have sided with his sister Savita. Petitioner Savita was entitled to stay away from her

husband if she felt that she was being properly treated. In such a situation, the deceased was entitled to move an application under Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. In worst case scenario, he could have moved for judicial separation or divorce; however, he did

not take recourse to any of the aforesaid options and impetuously consumed poison and committed suicide. This clearly was an overreaction on the

part of the deceased, who clearly had no stomach for adversities for life; therefore, he adopted an escapist course. It was really unfortunate; however,

petitioner Savita and his brother Sunil could not be held legally liable for the same.

Thus, it is clear that neither any of the petitioners actively instigated or goaded the deceased to commit suicide nor did they create such situation

wherein, the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide. Therefore, even if all allegations made against the petitioners are taken at their

face value and presumed to be true, it could not be said that the petitioners or any of them had abetted commission of suicide by the deceased. In

these circumstances, there was no ground to proceed against petitioners Savita and Sunil under Section 306 or 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code. The charge framed against them is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As such, they are entitled to be discharged in respect of aforesaid

offence.

In the result, this criminal revision succeeds. Petitioners Savita and Sunil are discharged in respect of offence punishable under Section 306 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Certified copy as per rules.