Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1185 (MP)

Sunita v. State Of M. P.

2020-11-04

VIVEK RUSIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Vivek Rusia, J. - This is first application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by applicant Smt. Sunita W/o. Rajendrasingh Panwar, who is apprehending her arrest by Police in connection with Crime No.390/2020 registered at Police Station Pithampur, Sector-3, District Dhar, concerning offence u/s. 306 of the IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary through Video Conferencing. 3. As per prosecution story, deceased Mahesh lodged the complaint in Police Station about assaulting him by the present applicant, her husband Rajendrasingh and one Arjunsingh. A 'Merg' was registered at No.201/2020 in Police Station Pithampur for the offences punishable u/s. 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC. Thereafter, on the next day of lodging the aforesaid complaint, he committed suicide. The mother of the deceased lodged the report against the present applicant and two others alleging that they used to harass the deceased which instigated him to commit suicide. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially after commission of suicide by deceased Mahesh, a 'Merg' was registered, later on, on a complaint made by his mother, present FIR has been registered against the applicant and two others. Local news was widely punished in the newspapers that the deceased committed the suicide as the police was not taking any action against the accused. The allegations levelled against all the accused are general in nature. Applicant's husband has been arrested by the police. He further submits that the law in respect of Section 306 of IPC is well settled. On mere allegations of harassment, the FIR ought not to have been registered. Hence, the applicant is entitled for protection from his arrest. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Advocate opposes the prayer and prayed for dismissal of this application. 6. I have perused the case-diary. The law with regard to Section 306 of IPC is well settled. In the case of Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh & Others, (2007) 11 SCC 205 , the Supreme Court has held that mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, if the wife commits suicide. The law with regard to Section 306 of IPC is well settled. In the case of Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh & Others, (2007) 11 SCC 205 , the Supreme Court has held that mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, if the wife commits suicide. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife is often harassed by the husband or her in-laws, this, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC. In the case of K.V. Prakash Babu V/s. State of Karnataka, (2016) AIR SC 5430 , the Apex Court has held that the concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and the strata from which the persons come from and definitely has an individualistic perception regard being had to one's endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalize but certainly it can be appreciated in a set of established facts. Recently, the apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.40/2011 (Gurcharan Singh V/s. State of Punjab) decided on 1st October, 2020 has again summarised the law in respect of the applicability of Section 306 of IPC and has held as under :- "19. Proceeding with the above understanding of the law and applying the ratios to the facts in the present case, what is apparent is that no overt act or illegal omission is seen from the appellant's side, in taking due care of his deceased wife. The evidence also does not indicate that the deceased faced persistent harassment from her husband. Nothing to this effect is testified by the parents or any of the other prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court and the High Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any evidence concluded only through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife. 20. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in declaring that the Trial Court and the High Court erred in concluding that the deceased was driven to commit suicide, by the circumstances or atmosphere in the matrimonial home. This is nothing more than an inference, without any material support. Therefore, the Page 16 of 17 same cannot be the basis for sustaining conviction of the appellant, under section 306 of the IPC. 21. This is nothing more than an inference, without any material support. Therefore, the Page 16 of 17 same cannot be the basis for sustaining conviction of the appellant, under section 306 of the IPC. 21. In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded to conclude that the decisions under challenge cannot be legally sustained. Consequently, interfering with the impugned judgment of the High Court and the Trial Court, the appellant's conviction under Section 306 IPC is set aside and quashed. The appeal is accordingly, allowed." The husband of the applicant is already behind the bars. The allegations levelled against the applicant and others are general in nature. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that this application deserves to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, she shall be released on bail upon her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant shall also co-operate with the investigation. 8. With the aforesaid, this M.Cr.C. stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.