Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal against Allahabad High Court’s decision, whereby the High Court refused to quash the proceedings instituted against the accused for offence under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the three Judge Bench of Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan*, JJ. allowed the appeal and constituted a Special Investigation Team to reinvestigate the unnatural death of the deceased girl. The Court quashed and set aside the pending proceedings before the Trial Court.
Factual Matrix
On 02-11-2022, the deceased’s father/accused lodged a first information report alleging that the girl’s relative who allegedly had a relationship with his son beat his deceased son with sticks and fists. According to the prosecution, the deceased suffered 14 injuries on his body and the cause of his death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. Pursuant to the investigation, a chargesheet was filed and charges were framed for the commission of offence under Section 304 of the IPC.
Later, on 03-11-2022, the girl’s family lodged an FIR alleging that the present appellant-father of the deceased boy abetted the suicide of the deceased girl and committed an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. It was alleged that the appellants said to the deceased girl at 8:00 A.M- “because of you our boy has died, why you do not die”. It was also alleged that they said that they would file a case against her and also get her arrested and humiliate her in society so that she would not be able to face anyone in society. Scared of the insult and humiliation, the girl committed between 10:30 am to 11:00 am committed suicide after being hurt by the statements.
Vide, the impugned decision, the High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 of the CrPC by holding that, on facts, the proximate link between the unfortunate incident of suicide and the act of the accused existed.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the post-mortem of the deceased girl took place at 05:00 pm on 02-11-2022 and the FIR was registered on 03-11-2022 at 17:07 hrs. The Court stated that it was intriguing that the police authorities, merely by recording the statements of the complainants who simply parroted the contents of the FIR, proceeded to file the chargesheet against the present accused. The Court also said that on asking from the counsel for the State as to whether any investigation to explore any other angle was pursued, the Court only found a stoic silence.
The Court stated that it was left with the one-sided version of the complainant and raised questions that- “Was there anything more sinister? Even if it was suicide what was the real cause? Was the deceased girl distraught with what happened to her friend? Considering the under-currents and the disapproval of the relationship, was there any instigation for the suicide from any other quarter? Did the deceased girl resort to the extreme action of taking away her own life due to the ugly turn of events and because her family members were suspected of being involved? There are no answers today.”
Hence, the Court said that only an independent, thorough and comprehensive investigation will bring to light the true story. The Court said that the chargesheet proceeded in an unidimensional manner by accepting the version of the complainant and his family members as the gospel truth.
Therefore, the Court held that on the basis of the chargesheet filed by the police and the cryptic order of cognizance, the proceedings cannot be allowed to be carried on against the accused persons. Stating that the law on Section 306 IPC is well settled, the Court said that even after taking the allegation on a demurrer, on the facts of the case, an offence under Section 306 of the IPC was not made out.
Further, the Court relied on Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438, wherein, the appellant remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die’ and the deceased thereafter committed suicide. The Court held that- Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite means rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all event.
The Court also reiterated that-
“The alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide.”
In the matter at hand, the Court said that none of the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the IPC were even remotely made out from the material on record. The Court added that the utterance attributed to the accused persons assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased girl with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. Reliance on the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, only reinforced out suspicion viz. one-sided, partial and inimical investigation. Hence, under these circumstances, proceeding with the trial against the accused persons in the chargesheet would be a gross abuse of process.
Therefore, the Court said that considering these several disturbing features, the case called for a reinvestigation. The Court directed the Director General of Police, Law and Order, State of Uttar Pradesh to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by an officer of the level of Deputy Inspector General of Police to investigate the unnatural death of the deceased girl. The SIT was authorized to treat the first information report as one of unnatural death and to re-register the FIR if they deem it appropriate. The Court directed the SIT to place the reinvestigation report before the Court within two months.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
