Hanging or Strangulation? The Forensic Difference That Decides Guilt

 Death by hanging and death by strangulation may look similar at first glance, but in law and forensic science they are very different. The distinction is crucial because one may indicate suicide while the other often points to homicide.

Why the distinction matters

In hanging, the neck is compressed by a ligature and the force is mainly the body’s own weight. In strangulation, the neck is compressed by an external force, such as hands or a ligature tightened by someone else. That difference often decides whether the death is treated as self-inflicted, accidental, or homicidal.

For a court, this is not a merely medical question. It can determine the nature of the offence, the strength of circumstantial evidence, and whether the prosecution story of suicide can be accepted.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Prosecution must prove recovery of the trace of poison consumed by or administered to the deceased to prove the offence of homicide or suicide

Non-recovery of trace of poison (pesticide)

41. There is one more aspect in this case. In a case of death due to consumption or administering of poison or insecticide or pesticide, be it homicidal or suicidal, recovery of the trace of such poison or insecticide or pesticide is crucial.

46. In this case, the doctors who had treated the deceased in the first nursing home and later on in the Mission Hospital, were not examined by the police. They were also not summoned as court witnesses. Their testimony could have been crucial. They could have thrown light into the nature of intake of the Organophosphate compound: whether by way of injection or consumed orally? Whether they could detect the smell of Organophosphate compound emanating from the patient? This serious lacuna is further compounded by the fact that the prosecution had failed to recover any syringe or needle from the crime scene. No container or bottle containing the pesticide were also recovered from the room where the deceased was found lying on the floor or in any part of the house. There is no evidence to suggest that police had made an endeavour to search for such container or bottle. If the deceased had injected the poison herself, considering the multiple injection marks over the front of both the elbows, then the syringe and the needle would have been there, in and around her. If she had orally consumed the poison, then also the bottle or the container of the poison would have been present in the crime scene or near about. There is absolutely no evidence in this regard. There is also no evidence to show as to how the deceased had acquired the pesticide. In addition to non-recovery of the syringe or the needle or the container, the police were unable to show the source from where the particular pesticide was obtained by the deceased. If the prosecution case is to be believed, then the syringe and the needle or the container must have been present in the scene of occurrence itself. Those were not found by the prosecution. Neither any trace of pesticide was seen by the investigating officer in the room. The FSL report as well as the chemical analysis report are silent as to whether any trace of the pesticide was detected from any of the seized articles. Prosecution is silent as to why no investigation was done in this regard. In a case of this nature, where the oral evidence including that of PW Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are not at all convincing, the absence of the container or the bottle containing the pesticide from where the deceased had orally consumed the pesticide, becomes very crucial. Similarly, recovery of syringe and needle if the deceased had injected the poison, is also crucial. As a general principle, it can be said that in a case of death by poisoning, be it homicidal or suicidal and which is based on circumstantial evidence, recovery of the trace of poison consumed by or administered to the deceased is of critical importance. It forms a part of the chain; rather it would complete the chain to prove homicide or suicide.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011

Decided On: 01.03.2024

Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Citation: 2024:INSC:156:[2024]3S.C.R. 329,MANU/HP/1742/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court judgment under S 306 of IPC regarding abetment of suicide

Relevant legal provisions

31. In India attempt to commit suicide is an offence Under Section 309 Indian Penal Code. This Section provides that whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, he shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But once the suicide is carried out i.e., the offence is complete, then obviously such a person would be beyond the reach of the law; question of penalising him would not arise. In such a case, whoever abets the commission of such suicide would be penalised Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. Section 306 Indian Penal Code reads as under:

306. Abetment of suicide- if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

31.1. Thus, as per Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, if any person commits suicide, then whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

32. The crucial word in Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is 'abets'. 'Abetment' is defined in Section 107 of Indian Penal Code. Section 107 of Indian Penal Code reads thus:

107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

32.1. From a reading of Section 107 Indian Penal Code what is deducible is that a person would be abetting the doing of a thing if he instigates any person to do that thing or if he encourages with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that thing or if he intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission doing of that thing. Explanation 1 clarifies that even if a person by way of wilful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact which he is otherwise bound to disclose voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Similarly, it is clarified by way of Explanation-2 that whoever does anything in order to facilitate the commission of an act, either prior to or at the time of commission of the act, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Case law

33. Suicide is distinguishable from homicide inasmuch as it amounts to killing of self. This Court in M. Mohan v. State   MANU/SC/0161/2011 : 2011:INSC:168 : (2011) 3 SCC 626 went into the meaning of the word suicide and held as under:

37. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. "Sui" means "self" and "cide" means "killing", thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.

34.1. Thus, this Court held that to 'instigate' means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of 'instigation', it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or that the words or act should necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. But, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the Accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then instigation may be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

35. Again in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State   MANU/SC/1453/2009 : 2009:INSC:1040 : (2009) 16 SCC 605, this Court elaborated further and observed that to constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by 'goading' or 'urging forward'. 

35.1. Thus, this Court has held that in order to prove that the Accused had abetted the commission of suicide by a person, the following has to be established:

(i) the Accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and

(ii) that the Accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.

36. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal   MANU/SC/1808/2009 : 2009:INSC:1228 : (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court after referring to some of the previous decisions held that it has been the consistent view that before holding an Accused guilty of an offence Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative to put an end to her life. It must be borne in mind that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the Accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian Penal Code would not be sustainable. Thereafter, this Court held as under:

13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 Indian Penal Code there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code.

38. In Rajesh v. State of Haryana   MANU/SC/0047/2019 : 2019:INSC:60 : (2020) 15 SCC 359, this Court after referring to Sections 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code held as follows:

9. Conviction Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the Accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 Indian Penal Code, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code.

39. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan (supra), this Court observed that abetment would involve a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the Accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Delineating the intention of the legislature and having regard to the ratio of the cases decided by this Court, it was concluded that in order to convict a person Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It would also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of the Accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

40. Sounding a note of caution, this Court in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal   MANU/SC/0321/1994 : 1993:INSC:307 : (1994) 1 SCC 73 observed that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the Accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011

Decided On: 01.03.2024

Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Citation: 2024:INSC:156:[2024]3S.C.R. 329,MANU/HP/1742/2024.

Print Page

What are the essential ingredients for applicability of S 113A of Evidence Act?

  From the bare reading of the said provisions, it clearly transpires that in order to convict a person for the offences under Section 306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC have to be established. {Para 8}

44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.”

10. In view of the above, it is quite clear that in order to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused. For the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.

15. In Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2014) 12 SCC 595, this Court considering the provisions of Section 498A and 306 of IPC in the light of the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, observed as under: -

“30. We are of the view that the mere fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113- A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply. The legislative mandate is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty, the presumption as defined under Section 498-A IPC, may attract, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide has been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. The term “the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband” would indicate that the presumption is discretionary. So far as the present case is concerned, we have already indicated that the prosecution has not succeeded in showing that there was a dowry demand, nor would the reasoning adopted by the courts below would be sufficient enough to draw a presumption so as to fall under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. …. Of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8584/2022) 

KASHIBAI & ORS. Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Coram: AJAY RASTOGI; J., BELA M. TRIVEDI; J. 

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

Dated: 28.02.2023 

Print Page

Whether S 306 of IPC will be applicable if the person committing suicide survives?

Under the general principle of law embodied in Section 511 I.P.C. every offence can be attempted also. In jurisprudential theory intention, preparation, attempt and commission are the four specific stages of commission of every crime, from principle and precedent I am unable to accept the theory that so far as the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is concerned, this third step/phase must be held to be absent and non-existent in all cases. I take the view that an attempt to commit the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is certainly possible and there is no warrant for the presumption that there cannot ever be a conviction for an offence under Section 306 r/w. 511 I.P.C. If a person abets the commission of suicide and the abetment does not succeed and fructify into a completed offence under Section 306 I.P.C. it must, according to me certainly, be held to fall within the sweep of Section 306 r/w. 511 I.P.C.{Para 21}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

B.A. No. 7311 of 2007

Decided On: 18.12.2007

 Berin P. Varghese and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Basant, J.

Citation:  MANU/KE/0590/2007

Print Page

Whether an offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against accused if there was quarrel on the day of suicide?

 Now so far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, in a case where if any person instigates other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Amalendu Pal (supra), mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.

9.1 Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. In the instant case, the allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence. There is no other material on record which indicates abetment. There is no material on record that the appellant-accused played an active role by an act of instigating the deceased to facilitate the commission of suicide. On the contrary, in the present case, even the appellant-accused also tried to commit suicide and consumed pesticide. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no other material on record which indicates abetment, both the High Court as well as the learned trial Court have committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

Supreme Court

JUSTICE M.R. Shah JUSTICE Aniruddha Bose

Velladurai Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 953 OF 2021

14th September 2021

Author: M.R. SHAH, J.

Citation: 2021 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 441

Print Page

Whether court should suspend sentence of parents of husband for suicide of wife if they were residing separately?

 It is to be noted that nowadays the commitment of suicide by women, due to dowry harassment, are rising day by day. On the other hand, the in-laws are escaping from their liability saying that they are not living with their son, even though they are living separately, but, they are inducing their son for getting dowry, by way of, money, jewels, two wheeler, car etc., It is also to be noted that since the in-laws are not residing with their son and the victim women, and on that ground, they are seeking suspension of sentence, and this Court has also considered several petitions, on such ground. Taking advantage of that, a wrong message has gone to the Society that the parents can easily

escape from their liability and the alleged offence. It is to be further noted that mere giving a birth to a child, and providing shelter and good education, and motivating their child to get a job alone is not enough, and the first and foremost responsibility of the parents is that they should groom their children as responsible citizens.  {Para 6}

7. From the materials available on record, there are materials against the petitioners / accused 2 and 3 also, and the learned Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of materials available on record against the petitioners / accused 2 and 3, convicted them for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, and acquitted

them of the charge under Section 304-B of IPC.

8. Given the nature and gravity of offence committed by the accused, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence. Finding no merits, this miscellaneous petition shall stand dismissed.

MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Crl.M.P.No.2926 of 2021 in

Crl.A.No.114 of 2021

CORAM: P.VELMURUGAN, J.

Dated; 29.03.2021

Print Page

Whether sitting on hunger strike amounts to offence of attempt to commit suicide?

 The mere fact that the petitioner has protested by sitting on

hunger strike will not attract the offence under Section 309 IPC. Even if the

materials available on record are taken as it is, it does not constitute an

offence under Section 309 IPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Crl.OP.No.2791 of 2021

and Crl.M.P.No.1546 of 2021

P.Chandrakumar S/o.Palanimari. Vs. State 

CORAM:  Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

DATED 15.02.2021

Print Page

Whether the court can convict husband for abetment of suicide to wife in the absence of mens rea and overt acts?

To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under

Sec 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a

particular crime must be visible, to determine the

culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to

be something on record to establish or show that the

appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance

of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the

deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed

to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and

conspicuous. However, what transpires in the present

matter is that both the Trial Court as well as the High

Court never examined whether appellant had the mens rea

for the crime, he is held to have committed.

Proceeding with the above understanding of the law

and applying the ratios to the facts in the present

case, what is apparent is that no overt act or illegal

omission is seen from the appellant’s side, in taking

due care of his deceased wife. The evidence also does

not indicate that the deceased faced persistent

harassment from her husband. Nothing to this effect is

testified by the parents or any of the other

prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court and the High

Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any

evidence concluded only through conjectures, that the

appellant is guilty of abetting the suicide of his

wife.

20. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in

declaring that the Trial Court and the High Court erred

in concluding that the deceased was driven to commit

suicide, by the circumstances or atmosphere in the

matrimonial home. This is nothing more than an

inference, without any material support. Therefore, the

same cannot be the basis for sustaining conviction of

the appellant, under section 306 of the IPC.

 [REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.40 OF 2011

Gurcharan Singh  Vs The State of Punjab 

Author: Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Dated: OCTOBER 1, 2020

Print Page

Whether the bank manager refusing to sanction loan can be held guilty for abetment of suicide?

Law is well crystallized by various pronouncements of

the Honourable Apex Court and of this Court. It would be useful

to have a reference of few cases of the Honourable Apex Court

without detailing facts in those cases:

(1) Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh, reported at 2002(3) Cri.L.J.

2796,

(2) Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and

anr, reported at 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3245 (SC).

13. One of leading case on this issue is, Dilip s/o Ramrao

Shirasao and ors vs. State of Maharashtra and anr reported at 2016

ALL MR (Cri) 4328, this Court discussed in detail various

pronouncements of the Honourable Apex Court. The ratio of the

said is that it is incumbent upon prosecution to at least show prima

facie case that accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet

deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of availability of such

material, the accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the

offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

14. Admittedly, in this case, the Loan Account of the

complainant was showing outstanding to the tune of

Rs.2,32,689/-. The said aspect is not denied by the prosecution.

Sudhir Gawande, the deceased, was not having any loan

outstanding in his name. Even, according to the prosecution,

Sudhir Gawande, the deceased, went to the Bank of Maharashtra,

Morshi Branch, District Amravati for loan. If previous loan amount

is outstanding and if the applicant, who is Branch Manager of the

said Bank, is refusing to grant any further loan, can be said as act

of a vigilant and prudent banker and if he is not granting any

further loan, it cannot be termed that by such act he instigated

and/or abetted the person to commit suicide.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.63 OF 2016

Santoshkumar Raj Kishor Prasad Singh, Vs  The State of Maharashtra 

CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, &

ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 9, 2020.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : V.M.Deshpande, J.)

Print Page

Whether court can convict father-in-law for offence U/S 202 of IPC if he fails to inform the authorities about the suicide of daughter-in-law?

The learned Counsel for the respondent State of Rajasthan, however, submitted that the accused would atleast be liable of having committed other offences. It may be noted that the question whether they would be liable under Section 498-A or 304-B does not arise for consideration inasmuch as these provisions were not on the statute on the day of occurrence. However, A 1 was atleast under an obligation to give information about the death of the deceased since the same was unnatural. Assuming that the prosecution has not positively proved that the death was homicidal yet from the medical evidence it is clear that it was not a natural death and consequently the death should atleast be noted as one of suicide. Even in the case of suicide an offence of abetment punishable under Section 306 is inherent. There- fore, even in the case of a suicide there is an obligation on the person, who knows or has reason to believe that such a suicidal death has occurred , to give information. In Kalidas Achamma v. The State of A.P., S.H.O. Karimnagar. I Town P.S. [1987] 2 ALT 937 it was observed as under:

In the case of every suicide abetment is inherent. Whether ultimately it is proved or not, it is a different aspect. Abetment of suicide is an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and therefore whenever a case of suicide is there, the body cannot be disposed of without informing the Police and further as provided under Section 174 Cr. PC the Police have to hold an inquest since it is an unnatural death.

In the instant case A 1, who reached his house on 18.3.82 knowing fully well that the deceased had already died, informed P.W. 8 that the deceased was in a serious condition. Likewise he informed P.W. 12 on telephone without disclosing that the deceased was already dead. However, when P.W. 6, the brother of the deceased, came to the house where the dead body was lying, A 1 told him that the body would be cremated. To the same effect is the evidence of P.W. 13. P.W. 6, the brother of the deceased, on his own went and gave a report to the police. It can thus be seen that A 1 intentionally omitted to give the information in respect of the death of the deceased which he was legally bound to give. Section 202 1. P. C. is in the following terms:

202. Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform-Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

This Section punishes the illegal omission of those who under law are bound to give information in respect of an offence which he is legally bound to give particularly being the head of the family. Under this provision it is necessary for the prosecution to prove (1) that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that some offence had been committed (2) that the accused had intentionally omitted to give information respecting that offence and (3) that the accused was legally bound to give that information. Shri R.K. Jain, however, relied on a judgment of this Court in Harishchandrasing Sajjansingh Rathod and Another v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0114/1979 : 1979CriLJ1025 and contended that the word "Whoever" occurring in the opening part of the Section refers to a person other then the offender and has no application to the person who is alleged to have committed the principal offence. In that case the accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 331 and 304 read with Section 34 IPC in respect of the death of the deceased and were acquitted.-On appeal by the State the High Court, however, convicted them under Section 202 IPC A Bench of this Court while reversing the order of High Court observed thus:

We have gone through the entire evidence bearing on the aforesaid offence under Section 202 but have not been able to discern anything therein which may go to establish the aforesaid ingredients of the offence under Section 202 of the Penal Code. The offence in respect of which the appellants were indicted viz. having intentionally omitted to give information respecting an offence which he is legally bound to give not having been established, the appellants could not have been convicted under Section 202 of the Penal Code. It is well settled that in a prosecution under Section 202 of the Penal Code, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish the main offence before making a person liable under this section. The offence under Section 304 (Part II) and the one under Section 331 of the Penal Code not having been established on account of several infirmities it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants under Section 202 of the Penal Code. The High Court has also missed to notice that the word 'whoever' occurring at the opening part of Section 202 of the Penal Code refers to a person other than the offender and has no application to the person who is alleged to have committed the principal offence. This is so because there is no law which casts a duty on a criminal to give information which would incriminate himself That apart the aforementioned ingredients of the offence under Section 202 of the Penal Code do not appear to have been made out against the prosecution. There is not an iota of evidence to show that the appellants knew or had reason to believe that the aforesaid main offences had been committed.

(emphasis supplied)

19. From these observations it is clear that there was no evidence to show that the accused therein knew or had reason to believe that the said offences have been committed and on the other hand they were made principal offenders. In such a situation the ingredients of Section 202 can not be said to have been made out. It is in this context that the meaning of the word "whoever" has been considered. But in the instant case A 1 returned to his house where the dead body was lying on 18.3.82 and the circumstances clearly go to show that he had knowledge that the deceased died of an unnatural death. Therefore he had knowledge or atleast had reason to believe that an offence had been committed even if, at that stage, he thought that it was only a suicide. Therefore it was his bounden duty particularly as head of the family to inform the authorities. He omitted to do so. On the other hand, he went about telling that the deceased was still alive and her condition was serious. But when P.W. 6, the brother of the deceased, came to the house and enquired, A 1 told him that the body would be cremated and he intended to do so without informing the authorities. Therefore all the ingredients of Section 202 are made out against him and he clearly committed the offence punishable under this Section at that stage. The fact that he himself was made an accused in other offences subsequently does not absolve him of his complicity in respect of the offence punishable under Section 202 IPC So far A 2 is concerned, he came to the house only after the investigation commenced. Therefore his case stands on a different footing. In the result the convictions and sentences awarded against A 1 and A 2 l are set aside. A 1, however, is convicted under Section 202 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1984

Decided On: 28.08.1991

Bhagwan Swarup  Vs. State of Rajasthan

Print Page

Whether court can convict accused for an offence U/S 306 of IPC if he was charged under S 498A and 304B of IPC?

 Both the Courts below have found the husband guilty of cruel treatment of his wife and as a result the wife committed suicide within seven years of their marriage. On such evidence the presumption which arises under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is that the husband abetted the suicide. The word "cruelty" as mentioned in the Explanation below Section 113A of the Evidence act has been given the same meaning as contained in the Explanation below Section 498A, IPC. On the fact found, 'the wilful' conduct of the husband in forcing the deceased to part with her land which she had received in marriage as "stridhana" and for that purpose concealing her postal mail was so cruel that she was driven to commit suicide. A case of conviction and sentence of accused No. 1 under Section 306, IPC has thus clearly been made out even though his acquittal for commission of the offence of 'dowry death' punishable under Section 304B, IPC is not found liable to be disturbed.

20. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that in the absence of a charge framed against the accused under Section 306 IPC, the accused cannot be convicted under the said Section.

21. From the record we find that although a charge specifically under Section 306 IPC was not framed but all facts and ingredients constituting that offence were mentioned in the Statement of Charges framed under Section 498A and Section 304B of IPC. 

22. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal procedure has ample provisions to meet a situation like the one before us. From the Statement of Charge framed under Section 304B and in the Alternative Section 498A, IPC (as quoted above) it is clear that all facts and ingredients for framing charge for offence under Section 306, IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention of Section 306, IPC with 498A, IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the alternate charge framed under Section 498A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit suicide. The provisions of Section 221 of Cr.P.C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of the criminal court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (crl.) 1457 of 1995

Decided On: 25.10.2002

 K. Prema S. Rao  Vs.  Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.B. Shah, K.G. Balakrishnan and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0890/2002,(2003) 1 SCC 217

Print Page

Important provisions of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER AGENCIES

100. Duties of police officers in respect of persons with mental illness.—(1) Every officer in charge of a police station shall have a duty—

(a) to take under protection any person found wandering at large within the limits of the police station whom the officer has reason to believe has mental illness and is incapable of taking care of himself; or

(b) to take under protection any person within the limits of the police station whom the officer has reason to believe to be a risk to himself or others by reason of mental illness.

(2) The officer in charge of a police station shall inform the person who has been taken into protection under sub-section (1), the grounds for taking him into such protection or his nominated representative, if in the opinion of the officer such person has difficulty in understanding those grounds.

(3) Every person taken into protection under sub-section (1) shall be taken to the nearest public health establishment as soon as possible but not later than twenty four hours from the time of being taken into protection, for assessment of the person's healthcare needs.

(4) No person taken into protection under sub-section (1) shall be detained in the police lock up or prison in any circumstances.

(5) The medical officer in charge of the public health establishment shall be responsible for arranging the assessment of the person and the needs of the person with mental illness will be addressed as per other provisions of this Act as applicable in the particular circumstances.

(6) The medical officer or mental health professional in charge of the public mental health establishment if on assessment of the person finds that such person does not have a mental illness of a nature or degree requiring admission to the mental health establishment, he shall inform his assessment to the police officer who had taken the person into protection and the police officer shall take the person to the person's residence or in case of homeless persons, to a Government establishment for homeless persons.

Print Page

Whether father can be held guilty for abetment of suicide of son if father is drunkard?

 In Father Peter Paul Antony Vs. State of Maharashtra,

reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 3429, in paragraph nos. 20 and

21, this Court observed thus:

“20. In the light of above facts and settled legal

position, it is noted that even if a person would

commit suicide because of certain acts of the accused,

the accused cannot be said to have committed

abetment of suicide by the deceased unless the

accused would intend, while causing such acts to the

victim, that he/she should commit suicide. As such, it

is necessary for the prosecution to establish that by his

acts, the applicant/accused could reasonably foresee

that because of his conduct, the victim was almost

certain or at least, quite likely to commit suicide.

Unless this is established, a person cannot be charged

of having abetted commission of suicide, even if,

suicide has been committed as a result of some of the

acts committed by the accused.

In the case of Sanju (supra), it is seen that

even in the case where the accused had uttered words

such as "go and die" in abusive and humiliating

language which, allegedly, led to committing of

suicide, it was held that it would not amount to

instigation and consequently, there would be no

offence of abetment of suicide.

21. In the application on hand, there is

absolutely no evidence to establish that on the day of

incident or immediately prior to the deceased

committing suicide, applicant has instigated or

abetted deceased to commit the same. In that view of

the matter, applicant cannot be attributed the

requisite mens rea so as to hold him guilty as abettor.

This appears to be fundamental defect in the case of

prosecution and it does not spell out any offence

punishable under Section 305 of Indian Penal Code.

19. Thus, I am of the view that the deceased was not

denied any basic amenities to his life by the appellant. Further,

though it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased used to

prosecute his studies, there is nothing brought on record to show

that at any point of time, the deceased was declared unsuccessful

in any of his academic year. In the light of evidence of Hemant

(PW4) and Pooja (PW2), it is clear that there was no objection for

the deceased even to withdraw huge amounts from the account of

appellant by using ATM though the deceased, who was only in the

9th standard. Not only that, this evidence would show that the

deceased was also permitted to retain an amount of Rs.1,000/-

and looking to his age, in my view, it is a very huge amount. The

admitted position also speaks that the mother of the deceased was

a psychic patient having nothing to do with drinking of the

appellant. Therefore, he used to be always under depressed

condition. Different persons may react differently to the same

situation. Therefore, merely because the deceased by writing a

note mentioning about the drinking habit of his father and

committed suicide, in my view, it cannot be treated as an

abetment, especially when the prosecution evidence falls short to

show that there used to be ill treatment at the hands of the

appellant under the influence of liquor to the deceased so as to

drive the deceased to take the extreme step of his life.

In my view, the learned Judge of the Court below has

swayed away with the fact that the deceased boy was required to

commit suicide for an admitted position that the appellant was a

drunkard. Merely drinking can never be an abetment for a person

to commit suicide.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.391/2015

Ramrao Kisan Rathod, Vs State of Maharashtra 

CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED :- 04.01.2020.

Print Page

Whether prosecution for murder can be quashed if suicide note is in handwriting of deceased?

 No doubt, it is recorded
in the post-mortem report that the cause of death in this case was
asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging and the suicide note is in the
handwriting of deceased, but this by itself cannot rule out the possibility
of murder being committed by petitioners. It is so said because the
suicide note is undated and the aspect of ante-mortem hanging cannot be
considered in abstract by this Court in the light of medical literature,
sought to be relied upon by respondents. Whether death of deceased was

homicidal or suicidal is an aspect which cannot be pre-judged at this initial stage. In any case, presence of lividity over the back and other areas prima facie justifies framing of charge under Section 302/34 IPC, as at this initial stage, only a prima facie opinion is to be formed. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 12, 2019
 CRL.REV.P. 645/2017 & Crl.M.A. 14133/2017

SUKHBIR KATARIA Vs  STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

Citation: 2019 SCC ONLINE Del 7603

Print Page

Whether slapping husband in presence of others amounts to instigation to commit suicide?

 In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is that she had slapped the deceased 3 days prior to the deceased committing suicide. There is nothing to suggest that the petitioner instigated, conspired or aided in commission of suicide by the deceased. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner instigated or exhorted the deceased to commit suicide.

18. The allegation is that the petitioner slapped the deceased in presence of others. Even if one were to consider the incident of alleged slapping as instigation then one has to keep in mind that the alleged conduct should be such as to drive any normal prudent person into committing suicide. Mere act of slapping the husband in presence of others would not under normal circumstances instigate a husband to commit suicide.

19. Further, alleged suicide note relied on by the prosecution does not refer to any incident of slapping. On the other hand, the suicide note alleges that the father of the petitioner had not revealed about the deformity in the back of the petitioner on account of which the deceased's life had become a joke. The suicide note alleges that the accused had made allegations about the relationship between the deceased and his sister-in-law (brother's wife) and had also alleged that the deceased's brother was mentally unsound. The suicide note does not make any reference to any incident of slapping.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.)

Shikha Gupta v. State (GNCT of Delhi) .

Crl. Rev. P. 330/2017

Decided on January 8, 2019,

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6394

Print Page

SHORT NOTES ON MURDER,CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND SUICIDE

The first offence against human life is culpable homicide. The word 'Homicide' comes from latin word 'homa' means man and 'cide' means cut. Killing of a human being by another human being is homicide.

Kinds if homicide- Homicide is either lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide includes cases falling under the general exceptions that is S 76 to S 106.

Read important judgments on Murder.
Click here

S 299 of IPC defines culpable homicide as,Whoever causes death,

1. with intention of causing death,
2. with intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
3. With knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.
   Explanation to S 299 of IPC.
   

Print Page

Whether offence U/S 498A of IPC is made out if husband is having extra-marital relationship?

True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498A Indian Penal Code would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal (supra), but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with the Appellant No. 4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498-A which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted.

16. The concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and the strata from which the persons come from and definitely has an individualistic perception regard being had to one's endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalize but certainly it can be appreciated in a set of established facts. Extra-marital relationship, per se, or as such would not come within the ambit of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. It would be an illegal or immoral act, but other ingredients are to be brought home so that it would constitute a criminal offence. There is no denial of the fact that the cruelty need not be physical but a mental torture or abnormal behaviour that amounts to cruelty or harassment in a given case. It will depend upon the facts of the said case. To explicate, solely because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 Indian Penal Code.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1138-1139 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 5928-5929 of 2016)

Decided On: 22.11.2016

K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka

Print Page

Whether offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out if wife commits suicide in her matrimonial home?

Budhiyarinbai (PW4) has also admitted in her cross-examination that her daughter Jamunbai used to come to the maternal house on every occasions of Tijafestival and after the festival they used to take her to her matrimonial house. She also admitted that father of her daughter used to go to the matrimonial house of their daughter and return after knowing well being of their daughter. She further admitted that they did not report about assault or beating to their daughter nor did they call any panchayat meeting in this regard. In paragraph 8, she has categorically admitted that during the period of 4 years their daughter never complained of any assault on her. In paragraph 9 also, she admitted that her daughter was coming to her maternal house happily and was returning to her matrimonial house happily. She never refused to go back to her matrimonial house.

14. From the above statements of Chintaram (PW3) and Budhiyarinbai (PW4), it is clear that their daughter/deceased used to visit at her maternal house on every occasions of Tija festival. It is also clear that father of the deceased also used to visit the matrimonial house of the deceased. From the admission of Budhiyarinbai (PW4) in paragraph 8, it is also clear that the deceased never complained of beating to her by the in-laws during the period of 4 years. From her admission, it is further clear that the deceased was happily going to her matrimonial house and she never refused to go to her matrimonial house. From the statements of both these witnesses, it is clear that there were small domestic issues between the deceased and her in-laws and she was not having any grievance against the issues.

15. Baliram (PW7), brother-in-law (Jija) of the deceased has stated that once he had gone to the matrimonial house of the deceased. At that time, the Appellants had not talked to him, therefore, he had returned therefrom. At that time, the deceased had told him that whenever any of her relatives visits there, they do not talk to the relative. She had also told him that after returning of the relative, they beat her. In paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that this incident took place before 2 years of the death of the deceased. He further admitted that during those 2 years, he never listened about any beating given to the deceased by her in-laws. From the above also, the prosecution case does not find support.

In the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

(Before Arvind Singh Chandel, J.)

 Chhannu, S/o Tikaram Sahu, 

v.

State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) .

Criminal Appeal No. 2537 of 1999

Decided on November 6, 2017, 

Citation:

2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1234

Print Page