Read Time: 07 minutes
The court found that the allegations against the accused were trivial and common in many households and cannot be termed as abetment to suicide
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has set aside charges framed under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), ruling that mere occasional harassment or misbehaviour does not constitute abetment to suicide.
The decision was delivered by a single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar, who emphasised that for an offence of abetment to be established, there must be a clear and intentional act of instigation or incitement. The court stated that “the overt act of accused person must be of such a nature where the victim had no option but to commit suicide.”
The case arose from the death of Vandana Rawat, who was found hanging at her home on June 18, 2023. Her husband, Vikram Rawat, reported the incident to the police after discovering her body. Vandana’s relatives, including her parents and brother, alleged that Vikram and his cousin, the petitioner Khairu, harassed and mistreated Vandana, driving her to commit suicide. As a result, the police registered a case against Vikram and Khairu under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
The petitioner, Khairu, challenged the charges before the High Court, arguing that there was no evidence of intentional instigation on his part. It was contended that he was a distant relative living 18 kilometers away and only occasionally visited Vikram’s household. It was further emphasised that Vandana and Vikram were married for 12 years, which excluded the application of the presumption under Section 113(a) of the Evidence Act. This provision creates a presumption that a married woman who dies within seven years of marriage was driven to suicide due to cruelty by her husband or his relatives. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations of harassment were general in nature and did not amount to incitement to suicide.
On the other hand, the prosecution relied on the statements of Vandana’s relatives, who claimed that Khairu and Vikram’s behaviour led Vandana to take her own life. The prosecution argued that the evidence pointed toward consistent harassment that could amount to abetment under Section 306 IPC.
The court underscored that the legal threshold for abetment to suicide requires a clear and direct "mens rea," or intent, to provoke the victim into taking their own life. The court cited several landmark judgments from the Supreme Court, including Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, and Hukum Singh Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The court highlighted that mere occasional harassment or misbehaviour, without direct provocation or encouragement to commit suicide, does not meet the legal definition of abetment.
With regards the present case, the court remarked, “Even assuming that the petitioner misbehaved with the deceased, the conduct does not fall within the ambit of 'incitement' or ‘instigation’.”
The court further noted: “The general and omnibus allegations which have been made against the applicant are trivial in nature, which generally take place in every household.” Ultimately, the court quashed the charges against Khairu under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, setting aside the order of the Sessions Court and discharging the petitioner.
Cause Title: Khairu @ Satendra Singh Rawat vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [CRIMINAL REVISION No.639 of 2024]
Please Login or Register
