This Court in the case of Bhupendra (supra) has in
paragraph 30 held as under:
“30. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Section
306 IPC is much broader in its application and
takes within its fold one aspect of Section 304B
IPC. These two sections are not mutually exclusive.
If a conviction for causing a suicide is based on
Section 304B IPC, it will necessarily attract
Section 306 IPC. However, the converse is not true.
Having heard learned counsel parties, considering
the totality of the circumstances and keeping in view the
suicide notes as well as the statements of witnesses, we
are of the opinion that respondents no.1 and 2 ought not
to have been discharged of the offence under Section 306
IPC, especially when the charges under Section 304B IPC
and other related sections had already been framed and
confirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.601 OF 2021
BHAGWANRAO MAHADEO PATIL Vs APPA RAMCHANDRA SAVKAR
Dated: July 14, 2021
Leave granted.
By this appeal the appellant, who is the
complainant/father of the deceased, has challenged the
order of the High Court whereby the accused respondents,
who are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the
deceased, have been discharged of the offence under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
“IPC”).
The brief facts of this case are that Aarti
(deceased) was married to Gaurav on 02.01.2016. Within a
period of about 15 months, on 02.04.2017, the deceased
committed suicide, leaving behind two suicide notes dated
01.04.2017 and 02.04.2017. The complainant/father of the
deceased filed an FIR on 03.04.2017 for offences under
Sections 304B, 306, 498A, 406, 506 read with Section 34
IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
against the husband-Gaurav and also against the father-
in-law and mother-in-law, who are arrayed as respondent
nos.1 and 2 in this appeal.
An application for discharge was filed by
respondents no.1 and 2 before the Trial Court and by
order dated 23.07.2018, Sessions Judge rejected the said
application of respondents no.1 and 2. The Sessions
Judge, on the basis of the statement of the witnesses and
suicide notes, prima facie, found that there was
sufficient material on record to frame charges against
all the accused.
The said order was challenged by respondents no.1
and 2 before the High Court and by order dated
15.04.2019, the High Court partly allowed the Criminal
Revision application of the private respondents to the
extent that they were discharged of the offence under
Section 306 IPC. The High Court found that on the basis
of FIR, suicide notes and personal diary, there was
evidence to frame charge of the offence of cruelty under
the provisions of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act but there
was no material to frame charge under Section 306 IPC. It
was also held that in order to attract the provisions of
Section 306 IPC, there should be specific material of
constituting the offence under Section 107 IPC, which
constitutes the offence of abatement and as such, there
were no allegations stating that the respondents, who are
in-laws, treated the deceased so badly that she took the
decision of committing suicide.
On the aforesaid grounds, while maintaining the
charges under the other provisions, respondents no.1 and
2 were discharged of the offence under Section 306 IPC.
Challenging the said Order, the complainant, thus, filed
this appeal.
Heard Mr.Sudhanshu S.Chaudhary, learned counsel for
the appellant/complainant, Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, learned
counsel for the private respondents no.1 and 2 and Mr.
Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State of Maharashtra.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellant
is that once the charges under Section 304B IPC have been
framed, the charge under Section 306 IPC could not be
deleted because there were suicide notes of the deceased
and there were statements of the witnesses, on perusal of
which, the in-laws could not have been discharged of the
offence under Section 306 IPC. It is contended that
though in a given case, where charge under Section 306
IPC is framed, a party could be discharged under Section
304B IPC, but not the reverse. In support of his
submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bhupendra
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - (2014) 2 SCC 106.
Per contra, Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, learned counsel for
respondents no.1 and 2 submitted that in the suicide
notes, there is no allegation against respondents no.1
and 2 and, thus, the said respondents, who are father-inlaw
and mother-in-law of the deceased, have rightly been
discharged of the offence under Section 306 IPC. Learned
counsel has relied on the decision of this Court in the
case of Gurjit Singh vs. State of Punjab – (2019) 16
SCALE 634.
We have perused the said judgment and find that the
same was not a case of discharge but a decision on merits
in appeal against the conviction of the accused and,
thus, the ratio of the said judgment would not be
applicable to the facts of this case.
This Court in the case of Bhupendra (supra) has in
paragraph 30 held as under:
“30. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Section
306 IPC is much broader in its application and
takes within its fold one aspect of Section 304B
IPC. These two sections are not mutually exclusive.
If a conviction for causing a suicide is based on
Section 304B IPC, it will necessarily attract
Section 306 IPC. However, the converse is not true.
Having heard learned counsel parties, considering
the totality of the circumstances and keeping in view the
suicide notes as well as the statements of witnesses, we
are of the opinion that respondents no.1 and 2 ought not
to have been discharged of the offence under Section 306
IPC, especially when the charges under Section 304B IPC
and other related sections had already been framed and
confirmed.
Accordingly, we allow this appeal by setting aside
the order of the High Court while restoring the order of
the Sessions Judge.
...................J.
(VINEET SARAN)
...................J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI)
New Delhi;
July 14, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment