Full Judgment Text
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2021
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019]
Kanchan Sharma …..Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. …..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This criminal appeal is filed by the applicant in Application
No.27662 of 2019, aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by
the High Court of Allahabad, dismissing her application filed under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).
That on 11.05.2018, an FIR bearing Case Crime No.278/2018
3.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2021.09.17
15:59:37 IST
Reason:
was registered at P.S. T.P. Nagar Police Station, District Meerut on the
complaint of Vijaydeep (complainant and brother of the deceased)
1
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019
under Sections 328, 302, IPC and 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short,
‘the Act’), alleging that his brother Vikas (deceased) was called by the
appellant – Kanchan Sharma on 04.05.2018 at her house. At that
point of time his brother was on duty at PVM Logistic Company and
on such call, he went to the house of the appellant, wherein the
appellant’s father, mother and sister met his brother and all of them
abused his brother with casteist abuses and forcefully administered
poison to him and consequently his brother became unconscious.
Complainant further stated that his brother was taken to hospital and
due to the negligence of the hospital, he died.
Initially FIR was registered for offences punishable under
4.
Sections 328, 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act against the
appellant, her brother and sister. After investigation, final report was
filed only against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC
and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. On filing such final report, cognizance
was taken against the appellant and on 21.02.2019 nonbailable
warrants were issued against the appellant. After filing of the final
report, case was registered against the appellant in Special Sessions
Trial No.23 of 2019 (State v. Kanchan Sharma) under Section 306 IPC
and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, which is pending on the file of the
2
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019
Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Meerut.
5. Appellant herein has approached the High Court for quashing
of cognizance order / NBW issued against her as well as the criminal
proceedings in Special Trial No.23 of 2019 pending on the file of the
Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by way of
application under Section 482, Cr.PC for quashing the proceedings. It
was the case of the appellant before the High Court that no offence is
made out against the appellant to proceed for trial for the alleged
offence under Section 306, IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The
High Court, by impugned order, has disposed of the petition mainly
on the ground that the disputed questions of fact cannot be
adjudicated at this stage under Section 482, Cr.PC.
6. We have heard Sri Sanchit Garga, learned counsel for the
st
appellant and Sri Aviral Saxena, learned counsel for the 1
nd
respondentState. Though the 2 respondentcomplainant is served,
there is no appearance on his behalf before this Court.
Sri Garga, learned counsel for the appellant has mainly
7.
contended that there is absolutely no basis to proceed against the
appellant for alleged offence under Section 306, IPC and Section 3(2)
3
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019
(v) of the Act. It is submitted that except that the appellant was
harassed by the deceased by following her and proposing marriage
with him there is absolutely no basis to allege that the appellant has
abetted the suicide of the deceased. It is submitted that on the day of
incident, i.e., 04.05.2018 deceased came to the house of the appellant
and started shouting that he would marry the appellant and if her
marriage was not solemnized he would consume poison. Within no
time thereafter he consumed poison from a small bottle which he was
holding in his hand and fell unconscious and thereafter died in the
hospital. It is submitted that in absence of any of the ingredients of
Section 306/107, IPC, appellant cannot be subjected to trial for the
offence under Section 306, IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. It is
submitted that by considering the material as it is on record even the
offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act is not made out.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1State
8.
has submitted that the deceased was maintaining relation with the
appellant. As she has refused to marry the deceased, deceased has
committed suicide by consuming poison. In view of the relation
maintained by her, it amounts to abetment for committing the suicide
by the deceased within the meaning of Section 306 of IPC. It is
further submitted that the appellant and other members of the family
4
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019
have abused the deceased by uttering casteist words, as such,
appellant is rightly sought to be prosecuted for the offence under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.
9. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we have perused
the impugned order and other material placed on record. Except the
selfserving statements of the complainant and other witnesses stating
that deceased was in love with the appellant, there is no other
material to show that appellant was maintaining any relation with the
deceased. From the material placed on record it is clear that on the
date of incident on 04.05.2018 deceased went to the house of the
appellant and consumed poison by taking out from a small bottle
which he has carried in his pocket. Merely because he consumed
poison in front of the house of the appellant, that itself will not
indicate any relation of the appellant with the deceased. ‘Abetment’
involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding
a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be
convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC. To proceed against any
person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active act
or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no
5
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019
option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he committed suicide. There is nothing on
record to show that appellant was maintaining relation with the
deceased and further there is absolutely no material to allege that
appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within the meaning of
Section 306, IPC. Even with regard to offence alleged under Section
3(2)(v) of the Act it is to be noticed that except vague and bald
statement that the appellant and other family members abused
deceased by uttering casteist words but there is nothing on record to
show to attract any of the ingredients for the alleged offence also.
This Court in the case of v.
Chitresh Kumar Chopra State (Govt. of
1
had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment.
NCT of Delhi)
In the said case this Court has opined that there should be an
intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the
accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person’s
suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has
his own idea of selfesteem and selfrespect. In the said judgment it is
held that it is impossible to lay down any straightjacket formula
dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on
the basis of its own facts and circumstances. In the case of
1 (2009) 16 SCC 605
6
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019
2
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal in order to bring a
case within the purview of Section 306, IPC this Court has held as
under :
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section
306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced
before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and
harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no
other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be
borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there
must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled
the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section
306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section
306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission
of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act
of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission
of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged
with the said offence must be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306
IPC.”
In the judgment in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan
3
& Anr. this Court reiterated the ingredients of offence of Section 306
IPC. Paragraph 25 of the judgment reads as under :
“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive
2 (2010) 1 SCC 707
3 (2010) 12 SCC 190
7
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019
act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the
legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear
that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to
be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active
act or direct act which led 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.”
In the judgment in the case of Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal
4
Kapur this Court has considered the scope of the provision under
Section 482, Cr.PC and has laid down the steps which should be
followed by the High Court to determine the veracity of a prayer for
quashing of proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482,
Cr.PC. Paragraph 30 containing the four steps read as under :
“ 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs,
we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a
prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power
vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:
Step one : whether the material relied upon by the accused is
30.1.
sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and
impeccable quality?
30.2. Step two : whether the material relied upon by the accused
would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled
against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule
the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is
such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn
the factual basis of the accusations as false?
Step three : whether the material relied upon by the accused
30.3.
has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the
4 (2013) 3 SCC 330
8
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019
material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
30.4. Step four : whether proceeding with the trial would result in
an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of
justice?
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial
conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such
criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section
482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the
accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be
wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising
therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude
in the conviction of the accused.”
10. By applying the aforesaid ratio decided by this Court, we have
carefully scrutinized the material on record and examined the facts of
the case on hand. Except the statement that the deceased was in
relation with the appellant, there is no material at all to show that
appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased. In fact, at
earlier point of time when the deceased was stalking the appellant, the
appellant along with her father went to the police station complained
about the calls which were being made by the deceased to the
appellant. Same is evident from the statement of S.I. Manoj Kumar
recorded on 05.07.2018. In his statement recorded he has clearly
deposed that the father along with the appellant went to the police
post and complained against the deceased who was continuously
9
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019
calling the appellant and proposing that she should marry him with a
threat that he will die otherwise. Having regard to such material
placed on record and in absence of any material within the meaning of
Section 107 of IPC, there is absolutely no basis to proceed against the
appellant for the alleged offence under Section 306 IPC and Section
3(2)(v) of the Act. It would be travesty of justice to compel the
appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material
whatsoever.
11. In view of the same, we are of the view that the High Court
has committed error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant
by merely recording a finding that in view of the factual disputes same
cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482, Cr.PC.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and Order
dated 18.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in
Application No.27662 of 2019 is set aside. Consequently, the said
application stands allowed by quashing the order/NBW dated
21.02.2019 as well as proceedings of Special Trial No.23 of 2019
(State v. Kanchan Sharma) arising out of Crime No.0278 of 2018
under Section 306, IPC and 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and the
10
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending in the
court of Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC &
ST Act), Meerut.
………………………………J.
[R. Subhash Reddy]
………………………………J.
[Hrishikesh Roy]
New Delhi.
September 17, 2021.
11