LexPRAVEEN PRADHAN versus STATE OF UTTRANCHAL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 1129 PRAVEEN PRADHAN v. STATE OF UTTRANCHAL & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1589 of 2012) OCTOBER 4, 2012 [DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Charge u/ A B s. 306 /PC - Alleging constant humiliation and insult to the C deceased, driving him to commit suicide - Petition for quashing the criminal proceedings - Dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: The allegations in FIR supported by the suicide note and police statement of family members of the deceased - In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, D criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. ss. 482 and 228 - Application for quashing of proceedings - Held: While dealing with such application, court cannot form a firm opinion, but a tentative view evoking E presumption u/s. 228 Cr.P. C. Penal Code, 1860 - s. 306 - Abetment of suicide - Offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the abettor and not on his act - Instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case - In absence F of direct evidence as regards instigation, it is to be inferred from the circumstances. Words and Phrases - 'Instigation' - Meaning of, in the context of s. 306 /PC. G FIR was lodged against the appellant-accused alleging that he consistently humiliated and ill-treated the deceased which resulted in suicide committed by the 1129 H 1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R. A deceased. During investigation, suicide note was found which also made same allegations against the accused. The appellant-accused was charged u/s. 306 IPC. He filed an application u/s. 482 for quashing of the charge-sheet, but the same was dismissed by High Court. Hence the B present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and C not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention; cannot be termed as instigation. D Instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straight-jacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which forces the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct E evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally F frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing with an application for quashing of the proceedings, a court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 Cr.P.C. [Paras 14 and 15] [1140-C-D, E-G] G H Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) AIR 2010 SC 1446: 2009 (13) SCR 230; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2001 SC 3837: 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 247; State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh AIR 1991 SC 1532: 1991 (2) SCR 790; Surender v. State of Haryana I PRAVEEN PRADHAN v. STATE OF UTTRANCHAL & 1131 ANR. (2006) 12 SCC 375: 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 296; Kishori Lal A v. State of M.P. AIR 2007 SC 2457: 2007 (7) SCR 1051; Santi Rama Krishna v. Santi Shanti Sree AIR 2009 SC 923: 2008 (16) SCR 743 - relied on. 2.1. In the FIR, the complainant, the brother of the deceased, made several allegations against the 8 appellant, all of which, have also been mirrored in the suicide note left behind by the deceased, and it is also evident from the FIR that the deceased had intimated his family members regarding the ill-treatment and harassment constantly meted out to him, by the C appellant. A plain and simple reading of this suicide note makes it crystal clear that the appellant had not just humiliated and insulted the deceased on one occasion. In fact, it is evident that the appellant perpetually humiliated, exploited and de-moralised the deceased, D which hurt his self-respect tremendously. The words used are, to the effect that the appellant always hurt the self-respect of the deceased and he was always scolding him. The appellant always made attempts to force him to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.