mere scolding as "Call Girl "is not amounts to abetment to committ sucide - Accused are entitled for discharge
the High Court by recording a finding that terming the deceased as a call-girl,
there was no utterance which can be interpreted to be an act of instigating, goading or solicitation or
insinuation, the deceased to commit suicide. By referring to the case law decided by this Court wherein similar utterances like, “to go and die” does not constitute an offence for abetment, allowed the application filed by the respondents. It is observed in the order that the act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts, the consequence of suicide.
By discussing the case law on the subject, the High Court allowed the application by
setting aside the order of the Trial Court and discharged the respondents-accused from the charge.
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2181 OF 2009
State of West Bengal ...Appellant
Versus
Indrajit Kundu & Ors. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
R.Subhash Reddy,J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the State of West
Bengal through Principal Secretary, Home Department,
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.07.2019
passed by the High Court at Calcutta in C.R.R.No.3473
of 2008.
2. By the impugned order, the respondents-accused
were discharged of the charge framed against them under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The victim, daughter of the de facto complainant was a
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
2
painter and artist. To improve her proficiency in
English, first respondent was appointed as her English
teacher. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are his parents.
There developed intimacy between the victim and first
respondent – Indrajit in course of coaching. It is the
allegation of the complainant that as the deceased
victim and first respondent had decided to marry, to
finalise the proposal of marriage the victim had gone
to the house of first respondent on 05.03.2004. It is
alleged that when the victim went to the house of
first respondent, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are the
parents of the first respondent came out to raise
shouts and addressed the victim as a call-girl. The
words uttered by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as per the de
facto complainant are “you are a call-girl, why my son
would marry you, we would give our son in marriage
elsewhere”. It is alleged in the complaint that at
that time, first respondent did not protest against
the version of his parents and his daughter returned
home and became mentally perturbed. On 06.03.2004 at
about 1.00 p.m. the victim had committed suicide.
3. On the complaint of the de facto complainant, a
case was registered in Jorabagan Police Station against
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
3
respondents under Section 306 IPC and thereafter
charge-sheet was filed.
4. There were two suicide notes. In one suicide note,
the deceased has stated that parents of first
respondent abused her in silly words by calling her a
call-girl. In another note, which was addressed to
the first respondent, has stated that the father of
first respondent stigmatized her as a call-girl and
first respondent has not responded to such utterances.
Further it is stated that first respondent is a
coward. After conducting investigation, charge-sheet
was filed under Section 306/34 IPC against all the
three accused. Case was committed to the 7th Fast Track
Court, Sessions Court, Calcutta, numbered as Sessions
Case No.11 of 2006.
5. Accused-respondents earlier filed application for
discharge, the same was rejected by the Trial Court by
order dated 19.04.2007. Thereafter, respondents have
filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before
the High Court in C.R.R.No.1817 of 2007 which was
disposed of with the direction to respondents-accused
to raise all the points before the learned Trial Court.
At the stage of framing of charges respondents have
raised objections claiming that no case is made out
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
4
against them to frame charge for the alleged offence
under Section 306/34 IPC. The learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge by order dated 04.09.2008
overruled the objections of the respondents observing
that as there is a probability of accused being
convicted, charge can be framed. It is observed in the
order that there is a reasonable likelihood for accused
persons to be convicted under Section 306 IPC. Against
the said order, respondents have approached the High
Court again under Section 401/482 Cr.P.C. in
C.R.R.No.3473 of 2008.
6. By the impugned order, the High Court by recording
a finding that terming the deceased as a call-girl,
there was no utterance which can be interpreted to be
an act of instigating, goading or solicitation or
insinuation, the deceased to commit suicide. By
referring to the case law decided by this Court wherein
similar utterances like, “to go and die” does not
constitute an offence for abetment, allowed the
application filed by the respondents. It is observed
in the order that the act or conduct of the accused,
however insulting and abusive, will not by themselves
suffice to constitute abetment of commission of
suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
5
suggesting that the accused intended by such acts, the
consequence of suicide. By discussing the case law on
the subject, the High Court allowed the application by
setting aside the order of the Trial Court and
discharged the respondents-accused from the charge.
7. We have heard Sri Suhaan Mukerji, learned counsel
appearing for the State of West Bengal and Sri Pijush
Roy, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
8. In this appeal mainly it is contended by the
learned counsel for the appellant-State that the de
facto complainant has appointed first respondent as an
English teacher to improve the English of the deceased
victim. The victim used to visit the house of accused
No.1 and developed intimacy and relationship. It is
submitted that on 05.03.2004, when the victim visited
the accused for finalizing the date of marriage,
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are parents of accused No.1
have shouted and called the victim a call-girl. The
victim was disturbed and she returned home and her
sister tried to console her by telling her that they
will speak to the accused so that their marriage would
take place. It is submitted that on next day i.e.
06.03.2004, she committed suicide by hanging. It is
submitted that from suicide notes, it is clear that
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
6
respondents who are the accused are responsible for
suicide of the victim girl. It is submitted that by
their conduct and utterances they have abetted the
crime, as such they were rightly charged for the
offence under Section 306/34 IPC. It is submitted that
there is sufficient material to frame charge against
the respondents. In spite of the same, without
considering the material on record, the High Court has
allowed the application filed by the respondents. The
learned counsel for the State in support of his
arguments placed reliance on the judgment in the cases
of Soma Chakravarty vs. State1 and Union of India
vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal2.
9. On the other hand, in response, learned counsel
appearing for the accused-respondents submitted that
during the pendency of this appeal, the second
respondent passed away, as such appeal stands abated so
far as he is concerned. Further, it is stated that as
there is no material to frame charge against the
respondents for offence under Section 306/34 IPC, the
High Court by well-reasoned order has allowed their
application and no grounds to interfere with the same.
1 (2007) 5 SCC 403
2 (1979) 3 SCC 4.
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
7
10. Having heard learned counsel on both the sides, we
have perused the impugned order passed by the High
Court and other material placed on record.
11. From the material placed on record, it is clear
that respondents are sought to be proceeded for charge
under Section 306/34 mainly relying on the suicide
letters written by the deceased girl and the statements
recorded during the investigation. Even according to
the case of de facto complainant, respondent Nos. 2 and
3 who are parents of first respondent shouted at the
deceased girl calling her a call-girl. This happened
on 05.03.2004 and the deceased girl committed suicide
on 06.03.2004. By considering the material placed on
record, we are also of the view that the present case
does not present any picture of abetment allegedly
committed by respondents. The suicide committed by the
victim cannot be said to be the result of any action on
part of respondents nor can it be said that commission
of suicide by the victim was the only course open to
her due to action of the respondents. There was no
goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the
respondents to the victim to commit suicide. In the
case of Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Anr.
3
3 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
8
this Court while considering utterances like “to go and
die” during the quarrel between husband and wife,
uttered by husband held that utterances of such words
are not direct cause for committing suicide. In such
circumstances, in the aforesaid judgment this Court
held that Sessions Judge erred in summoning the
appellant to face the trial and quashed the
proceedings.
12. In the judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs.
State of Chhattisgarh4 this Court has considered the
scope of Section 306 and the ingredients which are
essential for abetment as set out in Section 107 IPC.
While interpreting the word “instigation”, it is held
in paragraph 20 as under:
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do “an
act”. To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that
actual words must be used to that effect or
what constitutes instigation must
necessarily and specifically be suggestive
of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. The present
one is not a case where the accused had by
his acts or omission or by a continued
course of conduct created such
circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit
suicide in which case an instigation may
have been inferred. A word uttered in the
fit of anger or emotion without intending
4 (2001) 9 SCC 618
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
9
the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation.”
13. Similarly in the judgment in the case of Sanju
Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P.5 when any
quarrel which has taken place between husband and wife
in which husband has stated to have told the deceased
”to go and die”, this Court has held that the suicide
committed two days thereafter was not proximate to the
quarrel though the deceased was named in the suicide
note and that the suicide was not the direct result of
quarrel when the appellant used abusive language and
told the deceased to go and die. Judgments referred
above support the case of respondents, except stating
that on 05.03.2004 when the deceased went to the
premises of first respondent, his parents who are
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 addressed her as a call-girl.
At the same time by applying the judgments referred
above we are of the view that such material is not
sufficient to proceed with the trial by framing charge
of offence under Section 306/34 IPC. It is also clear
from the material that there was no goading or
solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents
to the victim to commit suicide.
5 (2002) 5 SCC 371
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
10
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State
has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Soma
Chakravarty (supra), wherein this Court has held that
when there is material to show that accused might have
committed offence it can frame charge and the probative
value of the material on record cannot be gone into at
the stage, before the Trial Court.
15. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of
Union of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra), where
this Court has held that the Judge while considering
the question of framing the charges has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie
case against the accused has been made out.
16. The judgment relied on by learned counsel for the
State in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State
(NCT) of Delhi6, this Court has held that where the
accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct
creates such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit suicide, an
“instigation” may be inferred. To draw the inference
of instigation it all depends on facts and
circumstances of the case, whether the acts committed
6 (2009) 16 SCC 605
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
11
by the accused will constitute direct or indirect act
of incitement to the commission of suicide is a matter
which is required to be considered in facts and
circumstances of each case. As such we are of the view
that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for
the State would not assist in supporting his arguments.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any
merit in this appeal so as to interfere with the well
reasoned judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, this
appeal is dismissed.
...................J.
[Indu Malhotra]
.................J.
[R. Subhash Reddy]
New Delhi;
October 18, 2019
the High Court by recording a finding that terming the deceased as a call-girl,
there was no utterance which can be interpreted to be an act of instigating, goading or solicitation or
insinuation, the deceased to commit suicide. By referring to the case law decided by this Court wherein similar utterances like, “to go and die” does not constitute an offence for abetment, allowed the application filed by the respondents. It is observed in the order that the act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts, the consequence of suicide.
By discussing the case law on the subject, the High Court allowed the application by
setting aside the order of the Trial Court and discharged the respondents-accused from the charge.
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2181 OF 2009
State of West Bengal ...Appellant
Versus
Indrajit Kundu & Ors. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
R.Subhash Reddy,J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the State of West
Bengal through Principal Secretary, Home Department,
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.07.2019
passed by the High Court at Calcutta in C.R.R.No.3473
of 2008.
2. By the impugned order, the respondents-accused
were discharged of the charge framed against them under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The victim, daughter of the de facto complainant was a
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
2
painter and artist. To improve her proficiency in
English, first respondent was appointed as her English
teacher. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are his parents.
There developed intimacy between the victim and first
respondent – Indrajit in course of coaching. It is the
allegation of the complainant that as the deceased
victim and first respondent had decided to marry, to
finalise the proposal of marriage the victim had gone
to the house of first respondent on 05.03.2004. It is
alleged that when the victim went to the house of
first respondent, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are the
parents of the first respondent came out to raise
shouts and addressed the victim as a call-girl. The
words uttered by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as per the de
facto complainant are “you are a call-girl, why my son
would marry you, we would give our son in marriage
elsewhere”. It is alleged in the complaint that at
that time, first respondent did not protest against
the version of his parents and his daughter returned
home and became mentally perturbed. On 06.03.2004 at
about 1.00 p.m. the victim had committed suicide.
3. On the complaint of the de facto complainant, a
case was registered in Jorabagan Police Station against
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
3
respondents under Section 306 IPC and thereafter
charge-sheet was filed.
4. There were two suicide notes. In one suicide note,
the deceased has stated that parents of first
respondent abused her in silly words by calling her a
call-girl. In another note, which was addressed to
the first respondent, has stated that the father of
first respondent stigmatized her as a call-girl and
first respondent has not responded to such utterances.
Further it is stated that first respondent is a
coward. After conducting investigation, charge-sheet
was filed under Section 306/34 IPC against all the
three accused. Case was committed to the 7th Fast Track
Court, Sessions Court, Calcutta, numbered as Sessions
Case No.11 of 2006.
5. Accused-respondents earlier filed application for
discharge, the same was rejected by the Trial Court by
order dated 19.04.2007. Thereafter, respondents have
filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before
the High Court in C.R.R.No.1817 of 2007 which was
disposed of with the direction to respondents-accused
to raise all the points before the learned Trial Court.
At the stage of framing of charges respondents have
raised objections claiming that no case is made out
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
4
against them to frame charge for the alleged offence
under Section 306/34 IPC. The learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge by order dated 04.09.2008
overruled the objections of the respondents observing
that as there is a probability of accused being
convicted, charge can be framed. It is observed in the
order that there is a reasonable likelihood for accused
persons to be convicted under Section 306 IPC. Against
the said order, respondents have approached the High
Court again under Section 401/482 Cr.P.C. in
C.R.R.No.3473 of 2008.
6. By the impugned order, the High Court by recording
a finding that terming the deceased as a call-girl,
there was no utterance which can be interpreted to be
an act of instigating, goading or solicitation or
insinuation, the deceased to commit suicide. By
referring to the case law decided by this Court wherein
similar utterances like, “to go and die” does not
constitute an offence for abetment, allowed the
application filed by the respondents. It is observed
in the order that the act or conduct of the accused,
however insulting and abusive, will not by themselves
suffice to constitute abetment of commission of
suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
5
suggesting that the accused intended by such acts, the
consequence of suicide. By discussing the case law on
the subject, the High Court allowed the application by
setting aside the order of the Trial Court and
discharged the respondents-accused from the charge.
7. We have heard Sri Suhaan Mukerji, learned counsel
appearing for the State of West Bengal and Sri Pijush
Roy, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
8. In this appeal mainly it is contended by the
learned counsel for the appellant-State that the de
facto complainant has appointed first respondent as an
English teacher to improve the English of the deceased
victim. The victim used to visit the house of accused
No.1 and developed intimacy and relationship. It is
submitted that on 05.03.2004, when the victim visited
the accused for finalizing the date of marriage,
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are parents of accused No.1
have shouted and called the victim a call-girl. The
victim was disturbed and she returned home and her
sister tried to console her by telling her that they
will speak to the accused so that their marriage would
take place. It is submitted that on next day i.e.
06.03.2004, she committed suicide by hanging. It is
submitted that from suicide notes, it is clear that
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
6
respondents who are the accused are responsible for
suicide of the victim girl. It is submitted that by
their conduct and utterances they have abetted the
crime, as such they were rightly charged for the
offence under Section 306/34 IPC. It is submitted that
there is sufficient material to frame charge against
the respondents. In spite of the same, without
considering the material on record, the High Court has
allowed the application filed by the respondents. The
learned counsel for the State in support of his
arguments placed reliance on the judgment in the cases
of Soma Chakravarty vs. State1 and Union of India
vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal2.
9. On the other hand, in response, learned counsel
appearing for the accused-respondents submitted that
during the pendency of this appeal, the second
respondent passed away, as such appeal stands abated so
far as he is concerned. Further, it is stated that as
there is no material to frame charge against the
respondents for offence under Section 306/34 IPC, the
High Court by well-reasoned order has allowed their
application and no grounds to interfere with the same.
1 (2007) 5 SCC 403
2 (1979) 3 SCC 4.
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
7
10. Having heard learned counsel on both the sides, we
have perused the impugned order passed by the High
Court and other material placed on record.
11. From the material placed on record, it is clear
that respondents are sought to be proceeded for charge
under Section 306/34 mainly relying on the suicide
letters written by the deceased girl and the statements
recorded during the investigation. Even according to
the case of de facto complainant, respondent Nos. 2 and
3 who are parents of first respondent shouted at the
deceased girl calling her a call-girl. This happened
on 05.03.2004 and the deceased girl committed suicide
on 06.03.2004. By considering the material placed on
record, we are also of the view that the present case
does not present any picture of abetment allegedly
committed by respondents. The suicide committed by the
victim cannot be said to be the result of any action on
part of respondents nor can it be said that commission
of suicide by the victim was the only course open to
her due to action of the respondents. There was no
goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the
respondents to the victim to commit suicide. In the
case of Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Anr.
3
3 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
8
this Court while considering utterances like “to go and
die” during the quarrel between husband and wife,
uttered by husband held that utterances of such words
are not direct cause for committing suicide. In such
circumstances, in the aforesaid judgment this Court
held that Sessions Judge erred in summoning the
appellant to face the trial and quashed the
proceedings.
12. In the judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs.
State of Chhattisgarh4 this Court has considered the
scope of Section 306 and the ingredients which are
essential for abetment as set out in Section 107 IPC.
While interpreting the word “instigation”, it is held
in paragraph 20 as under:
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do “an
act”. To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that
actual words must be used to that effect or
what constitutes instigation must
necessarily and specifically be suggestive
of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. The present
one is not a case where the accused had by
his acts or omission or by a continued
course of conduct created such
circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit
suicide in which case an instigation may
have been inferred. A word uttered in the
fit of anger or emotion without intending
4 (2001) 9 SCC 618
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
9
the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation.”
13. Similarly in the judgment in the case of Sanju
Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P.5 when any
quarrel which has taken place between husband and wife
in which husband has stated to have told the deceased
”to go and die”, this Court has held that the suicide
committed two days thereafter was not proximate to the
quarrel though the deceased was named in the suicide
note and that the suicide was not the direct result of
quarrel when the appellant used abusive language and
told the deceased to go and die. Judgments referred
above support the case of respondents, except stating
that on 05.03.2004 when the deceased went to the
premises of first respondent, his parents who are
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 addressed her as a call-girl.
At the same time by applying the judgments referred
above we are of the view that such material is not
sufficient to proceed with the trial by framing charge
of offence under Section 306/34 IPC. It is also clear
from the material that there was no goading or
solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents
to the victim to commit suicide.
5 (2002) 5 SCC 371
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
10
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State
has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Soma
Chakravarty (supra), wherein this Court has held that
when there is material to show that accused might have
committed offence it can frame charge and the probative
value of the material on record cannot be gone into at
the stage, before the Trial Court.
15. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of
Union of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra), where
this Court has held that the Judge while considering
the question of framing the charges has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie
case against the accused has been made out.
16. The judgment relied on by learned counsel for the
State in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State
(NCT) of Delhi6, this Court has held that where the
accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct
creates such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit suicide, an
“instigation” may be inferred. To draw the inference
of instigation it all depends on facts and
circumstances of the case, whether the acts committed
6 (2009) 16 SCC 605
Crl.A.No.2181 of 2009
11
by the accused will constitute direct or indirect act
of incitement to the commission of suicide is a matter
which is required to be considered in facts and
circumstances of each case. As such we are of the view
that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for
the State would not assist in supporting his arguments.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any
merit in this appeal so as to interfere with the well
reasoned judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, this
appeal is dismissed.
...................J.
[Indu Malhotra]
.................J.
[R. Subhash Reddy]
New Delhi;
October 18, 2019
