Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Justice KR Shriram of the Bombay HC dismissed an appeal on 19/12/2019 that challenged an order passed by the Trial Court acquitting a person from the punishable offences under Sections 498-A, 306, 201 read with Section 34 Penal Code, 1860.
The persons accused were the in laws of the deceased victim. The complainant who was the father of the deceased victim said that the in laws used to torture her for fulfilling their demands. It was also alleged that the accused murdered the deceased. However during the course of the trial the charges of murder were changed to abetment of suicide. Upon hearing the matter, the Trial Court acquitted the accused. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the HC for an instant revision. Regarding the abetment of suicide, the HC referred to the case Sanju v State of MP 2002 5 SCC 371 and stated “Here is the case of abetment by instigation. The word ‘instigate’ means to goad or urge or forward or to provoke, incite, or encourage to do an untoward act which that person would have otherwise not done. It is also well settled that in order to amount to abetment, there must be mens rea. Without knowledge or intention, there can be no abetment and the knowledge and intention must relate to the act said to be abetted, i.e., suicide, in this case. In order to constitute ‘abetment by instigation’, there must be a direct incitement to do the culpable act. The word ‘instigate’ denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation.” The HC went on to observe that “There is no evidence to suggest or indicate that the accused knew or had reason to believe that deceased would commit suicide. Even if any acts or words uttered by the accused or their conduct are sufficient to demean or humiliate the deceased and even to drive the deceased to suicide, such acts will not amount to instigation or abetment of commission of suicide, unless it is established that the accused intended by their acts that the deceased must commit suicide. It is not enough if the acts of the accused cause persuasion in the mind of the deceased to commit suicide.” The HC regarding the present case also stated that charges under Section 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) could not be made because the demand of money could not be established in front of the court.
Therefore the HC upheld the judgement of the trial court and dismissed the instant appeal.
State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Maruti Bombale, Crl. Appeal No. 966 of 2003
86540
103860
630
114
59824