Date of Judgement:
23rd February 2022
Bench:
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Parties:
Petitioner – Harbhajan Sandhu.
Respondent – State of Punjab & Another.
Subject
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that a sufficient link should be persisting between the accused and the consequent suicide of the deceased, upholding that the ingredients mentioned under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 must be fulfilled before establishing the guilt of the accused under the above-stated provision and solely a suicide note containing the name of the accused shall not justify the conviction under the same.
Legal Provisions
- Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – states that whosoever abets any person to commit suicide and that person does so upon the instigation of the abettor, then the abettor shall be held liable to be punished for a term which may extend to ten years, and he or she will be chargeable with fine.
- Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – states that When numerous people commit criminal conduct in the name of a common goal, each of them is held responsible in the same way as if the act had been committed by him alone.
- Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – states that it allows further in-depth investigation that can be ordered by the magistrate if it requires so, and the officer conducting such investigation upon discovering new evidenced oral or documentary, he shall forward the same to the Magistrate for proceedings.
Overview
- The petitioner upon being aggrieved by an FIR filed date MAY 2019, where the aggrieved(accused ) has been charged with Section. 306 and 34, and further attested the quashing of the report filed U/s. 172(8) CrPC.
- The FIR pertaining to the case containing the details of the statement made by Jaswinder Singh, that his son had committed suicide by hanging himself to the ceiling of his room and a suicide note was found around his neck which stated that the deceased son(Manjit Lal/Lucky) committed suicide because of severe harassment inflicted upon him by the petitioner(accused).
- On further examination as per the story of the prosecution, the deceased Lucky S/o. of Jaswinder Lal registered an FIR No.31 dated 08/03/2019 alleging that on 18/02/2019 at 09.00 p.m., the brother in law of the petitioner Baljinder Kumar along with 6-7 other persons had assaulted him upon being asked to move aside when Harbhajan Sandhu was reversing his vehicle and on not doing so he was beaten up by then too which he suffered multiple injuries and was admitted to a civil hospital in Jalandhar.
- Also, the prosecution had admitted that the deceased did not mention the name of the petitioner(accused) in the FIR, which was filed subsequent to the incident, and also no overt act was attributed to the accused in the FIR.
- On the Other hand, the respondents contended that due to the harassment meted out and the injury inflicted upon the deceased(Manjit Lal) by the petitioner’s brother-in-law Baljinder Singh, Jagjit, and other three persons whose name has been mentioned in the FIR, consequently the deceased had committed suicide by hanging himself.
- Pursuant to the FIR, the deceased(Manjit Lal) in his suicide has contemplated his injuries of very severe in nature and unbearable pain caused to him by the assault on him by the petitioners to which he had disclosed that only 3 of the perpetrators were arrested by the police and were released after their family members got bail, due to which the deceased being fed up with his current state committed suicide.
- After a due investigation by the concerned officers, reports were submitted U/s 173(8) of CrPC which had the names of the accused against whom the FIR No.31 dated 08/03/2019 was submitted.
- To which the present petition came in to be filed, the petitioner stated that if the FIR and the suicide note is taken to perusal, the same would not make any offense U/s 306 of the IPC, and the learned counsels for the petitioner said that the offense of abetment does not arise in this instant matter as the name of the accused was not mentioned in the first FIR.
- Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the encounter between the petitioner(accused) and the deceased had taken place approximately three months prior to the suicide and there hasn’t been sufficient material evidence as to whether the accused and the deceased were in contact in this period, and none of the family members ever approached the authorities relating to any threats given to them by the petitioner(accused).
- Thus, there exists no “live link” between the alleged threat of Feb 2019.Consequently, in the absence of any contract made between them, there exists no ground of any consequential abetment made by the petitioner(accused).
- To which the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the deceased was beaten up by a close relative of the accused i.e., Baljinder Kumar, and the FIR and the suicide note established that the petitioner and his co-accused were guilty of assaulting the deceased, consequently to which the deceased committed suicide and the apparent cause of death was ‘asphyxia’, death due to hanging, and the same is considered too ordinary in the due course of nature for the petitioner(accused) to held liable and present petition for quashing shall be dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the ingredients U/s. 306 be fulfilled before establishing the guilt of the accused under the said provision?
- Whether a Proximate ‘live link’ is necessary for apprehending the accused of abetting the suicide of the deceased?
Judgment
- The Hon’ble High Court observed that in the case of Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002,the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed as to what constitutes abetment, the court establishing that the gap of 2-3 days was taken into account by the Hon’ble Court to decide that the alleged words used and the consequent suicide of the deceased had no proximate link between the occurrence of the heated debate and ensuing suicide was a willful act of the deceased because he had sufficient time to think about and reflect considering the circumstances before committing suicide and it held that the words spurred at the moment cannot be taken to be said intentionally(with mens rea).
- In a similar instance, the Hon’ble High Court supplied emphasis on the case of Netai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal, 2005, where the deceased had not been in contact with the accused(appellant) for over two years and consequently had committed suicide naming the accused-appellant as the reason for the deceased to commit suicide.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that except for referring the name of the accused-appellant there were no references made by the deceased as to how any act pursuant to the suicide was instigated by the accused-appellant, to which the court found no mention of the accused-appellant alleged to have intentionally aided or instigated the deceased(Pranab Kumar) to commit suicide. Apart from that the complainant also did not make any allegations that late (Mr. Pranab Kumar) was being harassed by the accused-appellant. The criminal proceedings were quashed and extraordinary power U/s 482 of the CrPC was invoked.
- Additionally, the placing reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Courts decision in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, 1994, the Hon’ble court has stated that courts while deciding the matters U/s 306 of the IPC should be extremely cautioned in evaluating the facts and circumstances of the case at hand and decide based on the evidence attested in the trial for the finding the nexus between acts done by the accused and its resultant factor on the deceased to ascertain the link between the crime.
- Furthermore, the court opined that “without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained”. Thus, there has to be clear involvement of the accused a clear mens rea to apprehend the accused under the provisions of Section.306 of IPC.
- Likewise in the case of Surendra Kumar v. the State of Haryana, 1999, The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that Courts have to appreciate the facts properly, and often the trial court misconstrues the propositions of law and it had been significant that the trial has not appreciated the allegations so as to bring a case under Section.306 of Indian Penal Code.
- Thus, after due considerations of the aforementioned judgment, there must exist a proximate and live link between the occurrence and the subsequent suicide, therefore, The accused's encouragement or illegally complained of omission or commission against the deceased must have been the sole factor that led him to commit suicide. There is no indication of any date or time when the petitioner conducted any overt act in this matter, except for the Civil Hospital incident, which could only have occurred in February of 2019.
- The Hon’ble court in the absence of any mens rea or any instigation to the deceased to commit suicide, and in the absence of any live link between the first encounter to the date of suicide, following the Hon’ble Supreme Court past judgments the Hon’ble High Court quashed the proceedings arising out of section 173(8) of CrPC.
Conclusion
Being identified in a suicide note does not automatically make someone guilty until all of the elements of the crime are established. In this case, even if the suicide note is completely accurate, the claims in it do not amount to a crime for which the petitioner can be prosecuted. In the absence of any intent to incite or encourage the deceased to commit suicide, and in the absence of a live link between the threats the case against the accused made cannot be sustained because instigation or aid in the commission of suicide is imperative.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
