[S.306 IPC] Momentary Disagreement Leading Person To Resort To Extremities Cannot Be Termed As Abetment To Suicide: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has recently quashed a case for abutment to suicide against a wife who was alleged of inducing her husband to commit suicide by failing to inform him of her previous marriage,In quashing the charges against her, a single bench of Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held:Human psychology and mental state cannot be generally equated which varies from person to person. Egregious act on the part of a person from intractable emotions, depressions cannot be perceived or fathomed. One can be frenzied or hysterical even on minute and momentary disagreement resorting to extremities which cannot be termed as an instigation, inducement or abetment to commit suicide.FactsThe petitioner had married one Gopal Saha, son of Tushar Kanti Saha, the de facto complainant of the case and resided separately with her husband. Subsequently, the de facto complainant learnt that his son, the victim, had committed suicide by hanging himself in his dining roomSubsequently, the de facto complainant, the father of the deceased lodged a written complaint at the Baguihati Police Station alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner.It was stated that the death of the victim was due to suppression of an earlier marriage of petitioner no.1 (wife) which caused the deceased to suffer mental agony compelling him to commit suicide at the instance of the petitioners.VerdictUpon hearing the parties, the Court stated that the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code as well as Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not reveal that the victim was subjected to prolonged and continuous mental or physical torture or cruelty by the petitioners which propelled him to commit suicide barring any other alternative. Although it had been alleged that the victim was not allowed to meet his parents and other members of the family, it was held that the victim and his wife resided at a separate accommodation and there was no indication on records to show the victim being confined at a certain place restricting his freedom of movement and preventing him from contacting his parents and family members. Being an adult male, the victim had ample volition and liberty to communicate with his family members disregarding the displeasure of the petitioners, the Court held.It further stated that the document denoting the marriage of the victim and the petitioner-wife indicated her status to be that of a divorcee at the time of marriage with the victim. Therefore, the suppression of the earlier marriage of the petitioner-wife to the victim and his family was also untrue."In order to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there should be instances of abetment under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code immediate or proximate instigation should be exceedingly grave in nature frustrating the victim to an extent of resentment, despair and anguish impelling him to commit suicide," the Court held.Therefore it stated that in this case, none of the aforesaid ingredients had been established and hence quashed the case against the petitioners.Case: Joyeeta Saha & Anr. -Vs- The State of West BengalCase No: C.R.R. 2546 of 2012Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 183Click here to read order

[S.306 IPC] Momentary Disagreement Leading Person To Resort To Extremities Cannot Be Termed As Abetment To Suicide: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

Tags