In this post we will discuss about High Court case for Abetment to Suicide over Dowry wherein The court advised the learned counsels to raise the arguments that have been raised before the High Court may be raised before the trial court and seek discharge at the appropriate stage.
Introduction
Abetment in India is constituted by instigating a person to commit an offense. Or engage in a conspiracy to commit or intentionally aiding it to commit an offense. For an individual to be held liable for abetment and the initiation of proceedings against the person under section 107, IPC, the prosecution must claim the component of mens rea. It is necessary to prove that the abettor deliberately instigated the commission of such wrongdoing. Section 109, IPC states that one who abets a crime must be given the same punishment as that of a principal perpetrator if the act of the offended is due to the inducement by the abettor.
In India, giving and taking dowry is considered an offense. According to section 2 of the Indian Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the term ‘dowry’ means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly, by one party of marriage to another party of a marriage, or by the parent to either party to another party of the marriage. According to section 3 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, it is an offense to give and take dowry, and the family of the bridegroom would be liable for taking the dowry, so would be the family of the bride for consenting to give dowry.
Facts
Initially, the accused filed a complaint stating that his daughter was married to the accused No.1 Kranti Mishra in 2009 according to Hindu customs. As per the demand of the applicant, an amount of Rs. 4, 50,000 in cash, jewellery, and domestic articles were paid to the accused along with a motorcycle. At the time of Tilak, a cash of Rs 100,000 was paid to the applicants apart from kitchen utensils. During the marriage, applicant No.1 (husband), applicant No.2 (father in law), and applicant No. 3 (brother in law) demanded an additional dowry of a four-wheeler vehicle because of which the ‘Bidai’ of the bride could be done. Even after so much persuasion, the accused were not ready to withdraw from their wants and demanded either a four-wheeler or Rs. 7000,00, and told that until the demands are fulfilled, the ‘Bidai’ of the bride will not be conducted. Later the Bidai of the deceased took place in 2010, thereafter the accused No.1 took his wife (applicant’s daughter) to Mumbai where he used to work. Even there the deceased was subjected to severe physical and mental harassment by the accused and he also pressurized her to give her jewellery to him so that he can sell it to buy a four-wheeler, which was denied by the deceased. Her head was banged to the wall and filthy language was used when she denied her husband’s demand. Later the accused-applicant filed a divorce petition in the District Court, and a case of domestic violence was also filed before the CJM (Chief Judicial Magistrate). After the case was filed, applicant No. 1 reminded the fulfilment of demand to the complainants (accused-applicant), and also threatened to defame them in the society. He also stated that applicant No.1 would sell all his property and go to Mumbai where it would be difficult for the police to identify him. Even after the complaint was lodged from the side of the deceased, she was subjected to severe criticisms, mental torture, harassment, and finally, she committed suicide by hanging herself to the ceiling fan.
ALSO READ- DOWRY DEATH AND 498 A CRUELTY
Issues Involved in the case
At first, the complaint was lodged against the applicants under section 498-A, 506, 504 I.P.C. Section 498-A IPC states that whoever, being a husband or relative of a husband, subject her to cruelty shall be imprisoned for a term which may be extended till three years with fine. Cruelty is defined as misconduct in nature that is likely to drive women to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to life, limb, or health. It also defines, harassment of women where it is being done with aim of coercing her or any person related to her to meet unlawful demands for any property or any person related to her to meet such demands.
Section 506 1PC states that whoever commits criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of a term which can be extended further for two more years or with fine or with both.
Section 504, IPC states that whoever intentionally insults, thereby giving provocation to a person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocations would cause him to break the public peace or commit any other offense shall be punished with imprisonment of either a description of a term which can be extended further for two more years or with fine or both.
After the accused-applicant committed suicide, section 306 IPC, which states that if a person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either the description of a term, which may be extended to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 107, IPC defines abetment and states that a person abets the doing of a thing that instigates that person do that thing, secondly engages with one or more persons in a conspiracy for the doing of the same thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy; thirdly, intentionally aids by an act or illegal omission, the doing of the same thing.
The counsel for the accused-applicants (Husband and his family members) argued that section 306, IPC cannot be imposed on the accused-applicant as there was no abetment on their part to instigate the deceased to commit suicide soon before her death. It was further stated that suicide occurred in the house of the informant and not in the house of the accused-applicant. Since 2012, the deceased has been living with her family. It was also argued that under section 113-A, of the Indian Evidence Act, the death of the deceased needed to occur within seven years of their marriage for invoking the said provision. As the period of seven years has already expired, the accused-applicant cannot be brought under this section.
ALSO READ-ACQUITTAL IN ABETMENT OF SUICIDE CASE AGAINST HUSBAND
Judgment Cited
Guru Charan Singh S/0 Shri Iqbal v. Punjab and the Sindh Bank (2020) 10 SCC 200
The petitioner was a branch manager in Punjab and Sindh Bank and was accused of defalcating nearly Rs 67, 00,000 and eventually was suspended and an FIR was lodged against him by the CBI who took over the investigation. The petitioner filed a writ petition stating that his arrest was illegal and no departmental inquiry was launched before his suspension. It further stated that the ongoing departmental inquiry needed to be quashed as both CBI inquiry and departmental inquiry cannot go together. The honourable apex court in its decision laid down that abetment under section 107 IPC, which is necessary for the conviction of abetment under section 306 IPC, it must be proved that the accused instigated the person by an illegal act of commission or omission or persistent cruelty or harassment, only then a case can be filed under abetment.
Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana (1992) SCC 355
In this case, a complaint was lodged against the 1st respondent who happened to be a minister, subsequently turning out to be a chief minister of Haryana and later a central minister. The complaint stated that the respondent had accumulated a huge amount of properties worth crores in the name of him and his family members by misusing his position and power and undervaluing the market price leading to Binami transactions. The superintendent of police complained about sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The respondent approached the High court praying for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings holding that the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offense for commencing a lawful investigation. The High Court in its judgment quashed the entire proceedings against the respondent. Aggravated by the decision of the High Court, the applicants approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court in its decision set aside the High Court judgment citing, however, the SC quashed the commencement of the investigation and the entire procedure done so for as the third appellant did not have the legal authority to proceed with the case within the meaning of section 51(A) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The court also laid down seven conditions wherein section 482 CrPC could be exercised and if a case is found under any of those conditions, then the entire criminal proceedings would be quashed.
ALSO READ- HUSBAND BOOKED FOR DOWRY HARASSMENT
Randhir Singh V. State of Punjab AIR 2004, SC (5097)
In this case, Pirthipal Singh, the father of the deceased filed a case against the husband of his daughter under section 306, IPC, because the accused used to mentally torture and abuse the deceased and demanded her to bring more money (Dowry) from the house of her parents. The trial court sentenced the accused for imprisonment and its decision was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Apex Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court but reduced the custodial sentence to three years based on the peculiar facts of the case.
Judgment
The court had to analyze the law based on the laws cited upon by the learned counsel for the opposing party and also the learned counsel for the accused-applicant as to whether any case under section 306, IPC is made out against the accused-applicant or not. In the case, Guru Charan Singh S/P of Shri Iqbal v. Punjab and Sindh bank, the Apex Court held that abetment under section 107 IPC, which is necessary for the conviction of abetment under section 306 IPC, it must be proved that the accused instigated the person by an illegal act of commission or omission or persistent cruelty or harassment, only then a case can be filed under abetment. In this case, it is clear that accused-applicants were responsible for the commission of the offense by the deceased, however, under Section 482 CrPC, this court cannot give findings in this regard, which is being recorded before the trial court, the said evidence would be appreciated by the said court, then only findings can be returned to this point. The Charge sheet that has been submitted after recording the statements of the witnesses can only be evaluated by the Trial Court at this stage. However, if the applicants appear and apply for bail before the below court within 30 days, then the bail application can be considered. The court advised the learned counsels to raise the arguments that have been raised before this court may be raised before the trial court and seek discharge at the appropriate stage.
ALSO READ-SETTLEMENT IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
For best advice regarding your case contact Top/ Best/ Expert Domestic Violence lawyer/ Advocate in Chandigarh, Panchkula, Mohali, Kharar, Dera basi.
For more info, Dial:998817966
