Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Anil Methaji Gedam, filed a criminal revision application against the order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur, rejecting his discharge application in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 2015. The applicant was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly abetting the suicide of the deceased, who was the daughter of the complainant Pramod Narayan Dabhe. The complainant alleged that the accused was in love with his daughter, secretly performed marriage with her in a room, but refused to perform the marriage publicly. Consequently, the deceased committed suicide due to cheating by the accused. The applicant sought discharge on the ground that the material on record did not make out a prima facie case of abetment. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge rejected the application, leading to the revision. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The applicant's counsel relied on judgments of this Court in Suresh Ramlu Aulwar and Datta v. The State of Maharashtra and Mandabai (Criminal Writ Petition No. 855 of 2013) and Sachin Ramchandra Chavan v. The Senior Police Inspector and another (Criminal Writ Petition No. 355 of 2015). The State's counsel pointed to statements of witnesses Prachi Manohar Parvate and Vishal Ganpat Manohar, who stated that the deceased told them the accused was avoiding a public marriage. The court analyzed the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC, which requires instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. It found that none of the witnesses stated any incident showing direct involvement of the accused in abetment. The deceased's disclosure to witnesses about the accused's refusal to marry did not amount to abetment. The court held that refusal to perform marriage cannot be said to be abetment, and it was for the deceased to take a proper decision. Relying on the precedent in Sachin Ramchandra Chavan, the court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order, and discharged the applicant from the offence under Section 306 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Abetment to Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Refusal to Perform Marriage - The court considered whether the accused's refusal to marry the deceased constituted abetment to suicide. The court held that refusal to perform marriage cannot be said to be abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC, as there was no instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The deceased's decision to commit suicide was her own, and the accused's conduct did not amount to abetment. (Paras 6-7) B) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Section 227 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - The court examined the application for discharge in a sessions trial. It held that where the material on record does not disclose any direct involvement of the accused in abetment, the accused is entitled to discharge. The statements of witnesses only indicated that the deceased told them about the accused's refusal, which is insufficient to frame charges. (Paras 1, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether refusal by the accused to perform marriage with the deceased amounts to abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur is set aside. The applicant is discharged from the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Law Points
- Abetment under Section 306 IPC requires instigation
- conspiracy
- or intentional aid under Section 107 IPC
- Refusal to perform marriage does not constitute abetment to suicide
- Statements of witnesses must show direct involvement in abetment
