Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this case of State of West Bengal Versus Indrajit Kundu & Ors an appeal was filed by the principle secretary, home department of the west Bengal challenging the judgment given by the high court of west Bengal. In this case respondent no. 1 Indrajit was a tuition teacher who use to come to teach the deceased. The other two respondents are the parents of Indrajit. In the course of time indrajit and the deceased fell in love with eachother and decided to marry eachother, the deceased went to the home of indrajit for the proposal of marriage to his parents. There she was badly shamed and she was referred as call girl by the parents of Indrajit. Subsequently the girl committed suicide and even left two suicide noted mentioning that reason for the suicide was Indrajit and his parents. After conducting investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 306/34 IPC against all the three accused. Case was committed to the 7th Fast Track Court, Sessions Court, Calcutta,, where the respondents appealed for discharge but the court dismissed there appeal. Under Sction 482 crpc the respondents filed an application in the High court. The high court observed that terming the deceased as a call-girl, there was no utterance which can be interpreted to be an act of instigating, goading or solicitation or insinuation, the deceased to commit suicide. By referring to the case law decided by this Court wherein similar utterances like, “to go and die” does not constitute an offence for abetment, allowed the application filed by the respondents. It is observed in the order that the act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts, the consequence of suicide.
By discussing the case law on the subject, the High Court allowed the application by setting aside the order of the Trial Court and discharged the respondents-accused from the charge. The supreme court after hearing the case held “The judgment relied on by learned counsel for the State in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (NCT) of Delhi6, this Court has held that where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an “instigation” may be inferred. To draw the inference of instigation it all depends on facts and circumstances of the case, whether the acts committed by the accused will constitute direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide is a matter which is required to be considered in facts and circumstances of each case. As such we are of the view that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the State would not assist in supporting his arguments. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal so as to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824