Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital has held in this criminal revision that mens rea, intention to do a crime, is sine-qua-non, meaning essential in IPC 306 case. Finding no such intention from the case documents looked into by Sessions Court after which it had slapped charges on the revisionist.
Finally,
Narendra Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 9 March, 2018In the present case, allegation against the revisionist is that he used to threaten the deceased by pointing out his forgery at the time of purchase of motorcycle. Revisionist used to remind the deceased about the fraud committed by him. Further, threatening was given to the deceased for implicating him for his illegal act. Whether, at the time of giving such threat, accused/revisionist had an intention to compel the deceased to commit suicide? It cannot be said that any such mens rea was there. Pointing out one’s illegal act cannot be said an act of abetting to commit suicide. At the most his intention could be to blackmail the deceased. No doubt, the deceased was under the stress. Reason was fake documents used by him while purchasing the motorcycle. His guilty consciousness was also the reason of his suicide.
Apex Court Judgments cited in this judgment are
- Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors Vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 9 November, 2012
- Union Of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978
