LexROHINI SUDARSHAN GANGURDE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1031 : 2024 INSC 519 Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2877 of 2024) 10 July 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the alleged conduct of the appellant-accused in the nature of marital disputes attracts s.306 IPC read with s.107 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 306, 107 – Appellant is wife of deceased who committed suicide – Appellant and deceased resided in house jointly purchased by them – Cause of death ‘due to hanging’ – FIR lodged by mother of deceased under s. 306 IPC – Alleging deceased committed suicide because of harassment and beating by appellant on account of demand of money and for transfer of dwelling house in her name – Appellant allegedly also sent vulgar messages on mobile phone of deceased and would insist on him not visiting his parents and giving them money – Statement of colleague of deceased recorded wherein she referred to an incident when the appellant visited deceased and created a ruckus in the office by rushing towards him and being abusive – Chargesheet against appellant under section 306 of IPC – As per the chargesheet, offence took place at dwelling house where appellant harassed the deceased on account of money and for transfer of house in her name, inducing the deceased for attempt of suicide – Appellant preferred a discharge application before Trial Court – Trial Court rejected appellant’s discharge application – High Court dismissed the revision application against the Trial Court’s order. Held: S.306 IPC must be read with s.107 IPC that explains the meaning of “abetment” – s.107 IPC lays down three criteria for abetment: there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to ‘doing of a thing’ – Applying these criteria to s.306 means the accused must have encouraged the person to * Author 1032 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide – Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained – There must be clear mens rea to commit the offence – There must be an active/direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide – Court must scrupulously examine facts and circumstances of the case and assess evidence adduced before it to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to life – Mere allegation of harassment without any positive action proximate to time of occurrence which led or compelled the person to commit suicide not enough to sustain conviction under s.306 IPC – For requirement of “instigation”, not necessary that actual words be used to that effect, yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out – In a case where accused has, by acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, “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 – On facts, court found the three ingredients of s.306 r/w s.107 IPC not present – No proximate link between marital dispute of deceased with appellant and the commission of suicide – No active role or positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide – No allegation of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to commission of suicide. [Paras 7-14] Case Law Cited S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [2010] 9 SCR 1111 : [2010] 12 SCC 190; Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [2009] 15 SCR 836 : [2010] 1 SCC 707; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 247 : [2001] 9 SCC 618 – relied on Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab [2020] 8 SCR 741 : [2020] 10 SCC 200 – referred to List of Acts Penal Code, 1860 [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1033 Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. List of Keywords Penal Code, 1860; S.306 IPC; S.107 IPC; Abetment of suicide; Abetment; Instigation; Proximate link; Marital dispute; Harassment; men
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.