CASE TITLE:
Vitthal Chaudhari Vs State of Maharashtra
DATE OF ORDER:
23rd March, 2022
JUDGE(S):
Hon'ble Justice Anil J Kilor
PARTIES:
Appellant- Vitthal Chaudhari
Respondent-1. State of Maharashtra
2. Madan Shyamrao Chaudhari (Accused No.1)
3. Balaji Vitthal Gaikwad (Accused No. 2)
SUBJECT
The Bombay High Court has ruled that there must be direct or indirect evidence to prove that the accused induced the dead to commit suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and that a simple claim of harassment will not amount to abetment of suicide.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 372 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 174 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 306 and Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
BRIEF FACTS
- The prosecution filed a case that Sandip Vitthal Chaudhari committed suicide by jumping into the well on 10/03/2015. While doing inquest panchanama, a suicide note was found in the pocket of the deceased which stated that accused no 1 and no 2 harassed him and that led him commit suicide.
- An FIR was lodged on 13/05/2015 by Vitthal Rambhau Chaudhari blaming accused no1 & no 2 for the suicide of the deceased Sandip.
- The crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 306read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code.
- The Learned Trial Court after scrutinising the evidence, acquitted both the accused on 23/05/2019.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that while acquitting the respondent no. 2 &3, the Learned Sessions Judge had given contrary findings which was not based on the evidences.
- The Counsel also submitted that a suicide note was found in the pocket of the trousers of the deceased which itself was enough to establish the guilt against the accused and the Learned Trial Court ignored all these evidences while acquitting the accused.
- The Learned Counsel relied upon the judgement of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs State (NCT of Delhi), Amalendu Pal Vs State of West Bengal and Ude Singh Vs State of Haryana.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The Learned Counsel for Respondent 2&3 supported the judgement of the Learned Trial Court.
- It was submitted that Learned Trial Court scrutinised all the evidences and after recording the reasons has given the judgement that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of abetment od suicide against both the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- The Learned Counsel relied upon the judgement of Division bench of this court Dilip s/o Ramarao Shirarao and others Vs State of Maharashtra and others.
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT
- The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference of the acts and deeds of the accused. There must be direct or indirect act or incitement to the commission of suicide.
- Mere on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of accused which held for compel the person to commit suicide, for conviction under Section 306 is not sustainable.
CONCLUSION
The Learned Court was correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of abetment of suicide against both accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.
Learn Practical Aspects of CrPC HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
