LexPRAKASH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1160 : 2024 INSC 1020 Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 5543 of 2024) 20 December 2024 [B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in accepting the prosecution case that the act of suicide by the victim was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat when there was a clear gap of over a month between the incident at the mahalokadalat and the commission of suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Disputes between the victim, and her husband-appellant no.1 and in-laws – Victim tortured mentally and physically over demand of money at her matrimonial house – Victim started residing separately, at her paternal house with her child – Subsequently criminal case against the husband and in-laws under the 2005 Act – During pendency, mahalokadalat held during which appellants allegedly refused to cohabitate with the victim or accept her or her child or settle the proceedings initiated by victim – Month later, victim committed suicide – Accidental Death Report by brother of the deceased stating that his sister committed suicide by hanging herself – Five days later, complaint by the mother of deceased against the appellants – On basis thereof, FIR registered u/ss.306 and 34 against the husband and in-laws, and chargesheet filed – Application seeking discharge from case by the appellants – Rejected by the trial court – Said order upheld by the High Court – Correctness: Held: There must be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim – Close proximity should be such as to create a *Author [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1161 Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide – Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide – On facts, clear gap of over a month between the incident at the mahalokadalat and the commission of suicide – Gap of over a month would be sufficient time to dissolve the nexus or the proximate link between the two acts, and render the instigation or incitement by the appellants, nugatory – Courts below erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the act of suicide by the deceased was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat – In the Accidental Death Report lodged on the day of the incident, no mention about any involvement of the appellants in the suicidal death of the deceased and no mention about the incident that had occurred at the mahalokadalat – These facts alleged for the first time in the FIR lodged five days after the incident – Reasoning given by the High Court for refusal to discharge the appellants completely perfunctory – Prosecution failed to prima facie establish that the appellants had any intention to instigate or aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide – No doubt, a young woman of 25 years lost her life in an unfortunate incident, however, in the absence of sufficient material to show that the appellants had intended by their words to push the deceased to commit suicide, continuation of criminal proceedings would result in an abuse of process of law – Thus, the orders passed by the courts below quashed and set aside – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227. [Paras 32-38] Penal Code – ss.306 and 107 – Abetment of suicide – Interpretation of s.306 read with s.107 – Ingredients and principles of s.306 – Elucidated. [Paras 13-28] Case Law Cited Mohit Singhal and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, 2023 INSC 1035 : (2024) 1 SCC 417 : ; Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019 INSC 1281 : [2019] 14 SCR 232 : (2020) 14 SCC 264; State of West Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu and Others, 2019 INSC 1164 : [2019] 13 SCR 489 : (2019) 10 SCC 188; Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2010 INSC 521 : [2010] 10 1162 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports SCR 351 : (2010) 8 SCC 628; Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 INSC 534 : [2008] 6 SCR 1116 : (2008) 10 SCC 394 ; Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., 2002 INSC 250
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.