Brief Facts
- The respondent filed a complaint in the trial court alleging that her son Nitesh was employed under the Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam, Badodiya as IV Class employee. He was persecuted and instigated to commit suicide, as a consequence of which, her son ended his life.
- The Ld. Magistrate sent the matter to the police to register a case and conduct investigation and accordingly, an FIR got registered. After conducting thorough investigation, a negative final report was submitted by the police. The respondent made a protest upon which an inquiry was initiated. Certain matter was brought on record and whereafter based on the material available on record the ld. Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 306 of the IPC and issued warrant of arrest to procure the attendance of the petitioners.
- By way of filing the instant Misc. Petition, challenge is made to the said order passed. The revision petition filed by him was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge. Hence the instant Misc. Petition.
Issues
- Whether the learned Magistrate was required to expressly record reasons for disagreeing with the negative final report before issuing process against the petitioners?
- Whether the inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness and credibility of the prosecution case?
- Whether ordinary matrimonial discord and domestic differences between spouses, without any immediate or compelling act, can constitute abetment to commit suicide?
- Whether the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC despite submission of a negative final report by the police concluding accidental death/drowning?
Held
- The High Court quashed and set aside the Order passed by the Ld. Magistrate court and exonerated the Petitioner from the charges and held inter alia that mere allegations of harassment, without any positive or overt act proximate to the time of occurrence, which directly led or compel the deceased to take their life, do not constitute a sustainable prosecution under Section 306 IPC. The Court held as hereunder:-
- The deceased committed suicide on 08.11.2004 and an inquest report No.34/2004 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered and inquired into. Upon finding the body under the bridge of a water drainage, an inquiry was made by the police. There were no injuries or mark of violence on his body. The petitioners Smt. Chanda Devi and Vasudev as well as the respondent Smt. Vidhya Devi were also interrogated in inquiry of inquest report. It was stated by them to police that the deceased was a heavy drunker and they had no doubt upon anyone over his untime demise.
- No explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the respondent about the inordinate delay occurred in lodging of the FIR and certainly, the same give rise to a reasonable suspicion over the genuineness of the allegations. The possibility of concoction, exaggeration, over implication, false implication and embellishment cannot be ruled out.
No nexus between death and case of cruelty
- The facts revealing that she had left the matrimony and lodged a case of cruelty against her husband however, at a subsequent stage, she entered into compromise and withdrew the criminal case. There is no nexus between the criminal case lodged by her and her son’s death because of the serious difference of time gap. No instant or immediate cause has been shown or even alleged by the respondent for which it can be said that the same was sufficient enough to instigate the deceased to end his life. Simply because there was a discord between the spouses andthey were living separately and that the husband has committed suicide, it cannot be said that the wife was responsible for ending life of her husband. Even, in this case, the above circumstance has also ended up when the petitioner No.1 entered into compromise and withdrew the prosecution.
Disagreement with the report IO must be recorded before issuing process to accused
- It is well settled principle of law and so also rule of prudence that whenever a prayer is made for taking cognizance of offence on a negative final report/closure report, it is imperative upon the judicial officer to go through the opinion of the Investigating Officer also before proceeding further in the matter. I am of the view that before issuance of process upon a negative final report, it was incumbent upon the judicial officer to show his disagreement with the negative final report wherein it was concluded that the deceased Nitesh had drown in the water and he was not compelled by anyone to commit suicide.
Mere allegation of harassment not sufficient to constitute offence under section 306 IPC
- It must also be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof—either direct or circumstantial—of an actual act of instigation leading to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, without any positive or overt act proximate to the time of occurrence, which directly led or compel the deceased to take their life, do not constitute a sustainable prosecution under Section 306 IPC. Given the absence of cogent, reliable, clinching, and convincing evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the charge under Section 306 IPC cannot be substantiated, even if the accused were forced to undergo trial.
Relevant Para No.
- 4.1-4.4, 7, 7.1-7.2