Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has stated that to invoke Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment of suicide, the accused must have either actively encouraged the person to take their own life, conspired with others to do so, or acted or omitted to act intentionally in a way that assisted the person in committing the offence.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma explained the legal position while allowing an appeal filed by one Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde against the Bombay High Court's order which rejected her plea against the trial court's order declining to discharge her in a case related to suicide of her husband, Sudarshan Gangurde.

The deceased, aged 38, who worked as a social service superintendent at a hospital, hanged himself to death on February 17, 2020, in his house in Shingnapur. An FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint by his mother alleging mental and physical harassment and beating by his wife.

The couple had married in 2015 against the will of the members of both families following a love affair. A male child was born to them and they had jointly purchased a house in their name.

The police filed a charge sheet, alleging the accused wife harassed the deceased on account of money and for the transfer of house in her name, forcing him to end his life. 

The appellant woman contended that the allegations against her were fake and frivolous as there was no evidence showing an active role played by her which abetted the commission of the offence. Further, she claimed, the dwelling house was jointly purchased, therefore there was no question of insisting on transferring the house in her name. 

Her counsel also pointed out that neither the deceased nor his family members had raised the grievance against alleged harassment before the authorities, until the suicide. 

The state counsel, on the opposite, contended that the ingredients essential for the offence under Section 306 IPC were clearly made out from the evidence collected during the investigation and as such the high court had rightly dismissed the petition.

After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the courts and the legal position established through statutory and judicial pronouncements, the bench said, "We are of the view that there is no proximate link between the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission of suicide."

The court found that the prosecution had failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant. 

"The appellant has not played any active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband," the bench said.

The court also noted that none of the essentials of Section 107 read with Section 306 IPC existed in the case at hand.

The court also relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010), in which the concept of abetment along with the necessary ingredients was explained.

It also referred to Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. (2010), whereby the top court explained the parameters of Section 306. The court also cited Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) in which the meaning of ‘instigation' was explained.

In Gurucharan Singh vs State of Punjab (2020), all the principles and necessary ingredients of Section 306 and 107 of Indian Penal Code were reiterated and summarised by this court, the bench pointed out.

The bench, therefore, set aside the high court's order and allowed the appellant's application for discharge.

Case Title: Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr