Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs State of Gujarat on 9 Sep 2013

Posted on November 7, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Division bench of Supreme Court held that,

From Para 306,

26. Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide. It says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute an offence under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extra marital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide.

From Para 28, exoneration of husband,

28. Suicide note completely exonerates A-1, which states that he was not responsible for death of the deceased. On the other hand, the deceased described herself as extremely selfish, egoist and, therefore, not a match for A-1. She entertained the belief that her husband A-1 was in love with A-2 and wanted to marry A-2. Note states it was for their happiness she had decided to end her life. She also wanted to have the marriage of A-1 and A-2 solemnized with pomp and gaiety. On reading the suicide note, one can infer that the deceased was so possessive of her husband, and was always under an emotional stress that she might lose her husband. Too much of possessiveness could also lead to serious emotional stress, over and above the fact that she had one abortion and her daughter died after few days of birth. No evidence is forthcoming in this case to show that A-2 ever evinced any interest to marry A-1. On the other hand, during the subsistence of the alleged relationship, A-2 herself got married.

Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs State of Gujarat on 9 Sep 2013

Citations : [2013 CRLJ SC 44482013 AIOL 5932013 CRIMES SC 4 2952013 CRIMES SC 4 1102013 SCC 10 482013 AIR SC 52192013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 2712013 SLT 7 7062014 AIR SC 3312013 SCALE 11 1982013 JT 12 3572013 SUPREME 6 3662014 JLJR SC 1 3902013 SCC CRI 3 8012013 SCC CIV 4 6162013 SCC ONLINE SC 8142013 AIC 130 292013 CRILJ 44482014 PLJR 1 5112013 BOMCR CRI 4 5222013 UC 3 19352013 DMC 3 2452014 ALT CRL AP 1 2582013 ALD CRI 2 7552013 MLJ CRI 3 7002013 OLR 2 8672013 KHC 3 8102013 AD SC 10 452013 ABR 6 1792014 SCJ 1 5262013 RCR CRIMINAL 4 2712014 JLJR 1 3902013 CRI LJ 44482013 MLJ CRL 3 7002013 AIR SCW 5219

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170814796/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2de4b0149711415bb9

Husband’s extra- marital relationship does not amount to cruelty

K.V Prakash Babu Vs State of Karnataka on 22 Nov 2016

Posted on November 7, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that the necessary ingredients to make out a IPC 306 offence are missing in the case.

From Para 15, Mental Cruelty,

15. 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 generalise 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 IPC. 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 IPC.

From Para 17, Final nail in the coffin,

17. In the instant case, as the evidence would limpidly show, the wife developed a sense of suspicion that her husband was going to the house of Ashwathamma in Village Chelur where he got involved with Deepa, daughter of Ashwathamma. It has come on record through various witnesses that the people talked in the locality with regard to the involvement of the appellant with Deepa. It needs to be noted that Anjanamma, being not able to digest the humiliation, committed suicide. The mother and the brother of Anjanamma paved the same path. In such a situation, it is extremely difficult to hold that the prosecution has established the charge under Section 498-A IPC and the fact that the said cruelty induced the wife to commit suicide. It is manifest that the wife was guided by the rumour that aggravated her suspicion which has no boundary. The seed of suspicion planted in mind brought the eventual tragedy. But such an event will not constitute the offence or establish the guilt of the appellant-accused under Section 306 IPC.

K.V Prakash Babu Vs State of Karnataka on 22 Nov 2016

Citations : [2017 SCC 11 176], [2017 SCC CRI 4 242], [2016 SCC ONLINE SC 1363], [2016 AIR SC 5430], [2016 SCR 11 509], [2016 CRIMES 4 184], [2017 CRI LJ 264], [2017 AIC 169 211], [2017 KLT 1 125], [2017 KCCR 1 673], [2017 ECRN 1 1]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33506004/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5837160c53bee74f64c25ebc

Bhagwan Das Vs Kartar Singh and Ors on 14 May 2007

Posted on November 7, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that,

From Paras 15 and 16,

15. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is correct. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a
wife is often harassed by the husband or her in-laws. This, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC.
16. However, in our opinion mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, if
the wife commits suicide. Hence, we agree with the view taken by the High Court. We, however, make it clear that if the suicide was due to demand of
dowry soon before her death then Section 304B IPC may be attracted, whether it is a case of homicide or suicide. Vide Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 2000(5) SCC 207, Satvir Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2001(8) SCC 633, Smt. Shanti & Anr. vs. State of Haryana AIR 1991 SC 1261.

Bhagwan Das Vs Kartar Singh and Ors on 14 May 2007

Citations : [2007 AIR SC 2045], [2007 SUPREME 3 1073], [2009 ANJ SC 2 160], [2007 CRLJ SC 3420], [2007 SCC 11 205], [2007 SCALE 7 167], [2007 JT 7 36], [2007 SCR 6 474], [2007 AIOL 570], [2007 AIR SC 3107], [2007 AIR SCW 3107]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/366677/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b129e691cb22da6d54ae

https://www.latestlaws.com/index.php/latest-caselaw/2007/may/2007-latest-caselaw-439-sc/

Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar Vs Union of India on 06 Nov 2020

Posted on November 7, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Judgment, Gujarat High Court read down two rules and made sure that a Law graduate is allowed a provisional enrollment number so as to allow her to appear for AIBE.

From Para 33,

33. In such circumstances, referred to above, we read down Rules 1 and 2 respectively of the Bar Council of Gujarat (Enrollment) Rules so as to read that a person may be either in full or part time service or employment or is engaged in any trade, business or profession, who otherwise is qualified to be admitted as an Advocate shall be admitted as an Advocate, however, the enrollment certificate of such a person shall be withheld with the Bar Council and shall lie in deposit with the Council until the concerned person makes a declaration that the circumstances mentioned in Rule 2 have ceased to exist and that he or she has started his/her practice.

Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar Vs Union of India on 06 Nov 2020

IPC 306 – Abetment of suicide

Posted on November 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Also read what is abetment u/s 107 IPC here.

IPC 107 – Abetment of a thing

Posted on November 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab on 1 Oct 2020

Posted on November 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

3-Judge Bench of Supreme Court held that, for IPC 306 to be made out, necessary ingredients must be satisfied.

From Para 6, Learn the art and craft of Trail Courts in India, assuming certain sections apply to accused in the face of no direct evidence. Some of them are fit-for-nothing fellows…

6. The Trial Court then posed a question to itself as to why a young lady with two small children would commit suicide unless she has been pushed to do so, bythe circumstances in the matrimonial home. It was then observed that the expectation of a married woman will be love and affection and financial security at thehands of her husband and if her hopes are frustrated by the act or by wilful negligence of the husband, it would constitute abetment within the meaning of section107 IPC, warranting conviction under section 306 IPC. With such reasoning, the Trial Court concluded that Shinder Kaur committed suicide when her hopes were frustrated by the act of her husband or alternatively, by his wilful neglect. Thus, the Court itself wasuncertain on the nature of the act to be attributed to the appellant. Moreover, even while noting that no direct evidence of cruelty against the husband and thein-laws is available, the learned Court assumed that section 306 IPC can be applied against the appellant. With such conjecture, while acquitting all threeaccused of the charged crime under section 304B and 498A of IPC, the husband was convicted under section 306 IPC.

From Para 11, Rebutting the callous nature in which Trial Court used conjectures to lay conviction

11. Insofar as the possible reason for a young married lady with two minor children committing suicide, in the absence of evidence, conjectures cannot be drawn that she was pushed to take her life, by the circumstances and atmosphere in the matrimonial home. What might have been the level of expectation of the deceased from her husband and in-laws and the degree of her frustration, if any, is not found through any evidence on record. More significantly, wilful negligence by the husband could not be shown by the prosecution.

Then from Para 15,

15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. 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. The conviction of Appellant by the Trial Court as well as the High Court on the theory that the woman with two young kids might have committed suicide, possibly
because of the harassment faced by her in the matrimonial house, is not at all borne out by the evidence in the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not
show that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she was forced to take such a step on his account.

From Para 19, Supreme Court declared that Trail Court and High Court speculated. How horrible !!!

19. 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.

Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab on 1 Oct 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167656481/

M. Arjunan Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 4 Dec 2018

Posted on November 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Division bench of Supreme Court held that for a conviction to sustain, the following must satisfy.

From Para 8,

(8) The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.

From Para 9,

(9) In our considered view, in the case at hand, M.O.1-letter and the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-5, would not be sufficient to establish that the suicide by the deceased was directly linked to the instigation or abetment by the appellant-deceased. Having advanced the money to the deceased, the appellant-accused might have uttered some abusive words; but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. From the evidence brought on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. are not established and the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be sustained.

M. Arjunan Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 4 Dec 2018

Citations : [2019 SCC 3 315], [2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2808], [2019 AIR SC 43], [2018 CRIMES 4 570], [2019 CUT LT 127 442]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65076410/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c30a3f89eff432f24b9bc83

Swaran Singh and Ors Vs State NCT Delhi and Anr on 18 Aug 2008

Posted on November 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Katju held that offending words to a member of SC/ST, are liable under the Act, only if made in any place in public view, but not otherwise. A big relief for those facing false cases.

From Paras 27 and 28,

27. Learned counsel then contended that the alleged act was not committed in a public place and hence does not come within the purview of section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In this connection it may be noted that the aforesaid provision does not use the expression ‘public place’, but instead the expression used is ‘in any place within public view’. In our opinion there is a clear distinction between the two expressions.

28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a ‘Chamar’) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression ‘place within public view’ with the expression ‘public place’. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.

And relating to American cuss word Nigger,

30. In this connection it may be mentioned that in America to use the word ‘Nigger’ today for an African-American is regarded as highly offensive and is totally unacceptable, even if it was acceptable 50 years ago. In our opinion, even if the word ‘Chamar’ was not regarded offensive at one time in our country, today it is certainly a highly offensive word when used in a derogatory sense to insult and humiliate a person. Hence, it should never be used with that intent. The use of the word ‘Chamar’ will certainly attract section 3(1)(x) of the Act, if from the context it appears that it was used in a derogatory sense to insult or humiliate a member of the SC/ST.

And then Husband was held to have NOT insulted the respondent in public view,

34. However, a perusal of the F.I.R. shows that Swaran Singh did not use these offensive words in the public view. There is nothing in the F.I.R. to show that any member of the public was present when Swaran Singh uttered these words, or that the place where he uttered them was a place which ordinarily could be seen by the public. Hence in our opinion no prima facie offence is made out against appellant no.1.

Swaran Singh and Ors Vs State NCT Delhi and Anr on 18 Aug 2008

Citations : [2008 SCC 8 435], [2008 SCC CRI 3 527], [2008 AIC SC 69 25], [2008 AIOL 938], [2008 AIR SC SUPP 441], [2009 BOMCR CRI SC 2 431], [2008 CRLJ SC 4369], [2008 JT 9 60], [2009 MPLJ SC 1 503], [2008 SCALE 11 346], [2008 SCR 12 132]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/531612/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd270607dba63d7e69106

S.Sridhar Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 04 Nov 2020

Posted on November 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Fisheries Department grabbed the land of Temple and run profit-making business. Temple Management committee fought back and won their lands back. At the end, Madras High Court passed these directions, to be complied within 6 months.

Therefore, this Court, in the interests of the subject temples, deems it fit and appropriate to issue the following directions:
(i)The Commissioner, HR&CE Dept., Chennai, shall initiate appropriate action to retrieve the subject lands, remove all the encroachments, if any, and maintain the same with utmost care and for beneficial interests of the subject temples.
(ii)It is made clear that the lands belonging to the subject temples shall not be alienated or leased or encumbered illegally and against the interests of such temples.
(iii)The HR&CE Dept. shall have the administration and entire control over the subject lands and shall deal with the same in accordance with law.
(iv)The HR&CE Dept. shall take steps to start construction by putting compound wall to secure and safety of the subject lands. Except temple related purposes, the lands shall not be used for any other purposes.
(v)Except the HR&CE Dept., no other private individuals / trustees shall claim any right over the lands possessed and enjoyed by the subject temples.
(vi)The Officer in-charge shall not permit any unauthorised shop / construction inside the temples’ premises.
(vii)The Officer in-charge shall ensure the unrestricted freedom of worship by the devotees to the subject temples.
(viii)The Officer authorised by the Commissioner, HR&CE Dept., shall maintain proper register with respect to the financial aspects of the subject temples and its properties and file the same before the authority concerned in regular intervals. If he/she fails to discharge his/her duties assigned, he/she is personally liable for such lapses and appropriate departmental action be taken against him/her.
(ix)The Commissioner, HR&CE Dept., shall order appropriate enquiry forthwith related to the missing documents and files connected to the respective temples and its properties and initiate action against erring officials responsible for the same.
(x)The Government shall provide necessary assistance to the HR&CE Dept., for proper maintenance and protection of the subject temples and its properties.

S.Sridhar Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 04 Nov 2020

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: November 2020

Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs State of Gujarat on 9 Sep 2013

K.V Prakash Babu Vs State of Karnataka on 22 Nov 2016

Bhagwan Das Vs Kartar Singh and Ors on 14 May 2007

Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar Vs Union of India on 06 Nov 2020

IPC 306 – Abetment of suicide

IPC 107 – Abetment of a thing

Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab on 1 Oct 2020

M. Arjunan Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 4 Dec 2018

Swaran Singh and Ors Vs State NCT Delhi and Anr on 18 Aug 2008

S.Sridhar Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 04 Nov 2020