Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1595 (ALL)

Kiran Singh v. State Of U. P.

2022-09-29

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of the complainant nor any adjournment slip has been moved. 2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending her arrest in FIR No. 111 of 2021, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Cantt, Lucknow East, District Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence, as alleged in the prosecution story. 4. The attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR which has been lodged on 15.07.2021, wherein the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant that on the basis of instigation of the present applicant, the victim has committed suicide. The basis of such allegation is one suicide note of the victim which was send to the social media. As per the suicide note, the victim has indicated that the responsible person for suicide of the victim is the present applicant who is mother-in-law of the victim. 5. Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Re:Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujrat and Another reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628 ; Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2020) 15 SCC 359 ; and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427 , by submitting that the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against said indictment. For the convenience, Para 10 and 14 in Re: Madan Mohan Singh (supra) are being reproduced below: "10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. 14. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages, all that we can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult for every superior officer even to work." (emphasis supplied) 6. Para 9 in of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: Rajesh (supra) is being reproduced herein-below: "9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable 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. 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. (See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal)." (emphasis supplied) 7. 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. (See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal)." (emphasis supplied) 7. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, Sri Nadeem Murtaza has submitted that in the present case, there is no overt act on the part of the present applicant and unless and until there is any overt act or positive act on the part of the applicant/accused to instigate/abete to commit suicide, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC would not be attracted. Therefore, Sri Murtaza has submitted that in the present applicant may not be implicated under Section 306 IPC. 8. He has further submitted that investigation is going on and the present applicant is willing to participate with the investigation, therefore, her liberty may be protected till completion of the investigation and filing of the chargesheet, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 9. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. 10. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Madan Mohan Singh (supra), Rajesh (supra) and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra), contents and allegation of the FIR, other material available on record and the undertaking of the applicant that she shall cooperate with the investigation, I find it appropriate that the liberty of the present applicant may be protected till completion of the investigation and filing of the chargesheet, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98. 11. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant-Kiran Singh shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number till conclusion of the trial on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- 1. that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; 3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; 4. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant; 5. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; 6. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; 7. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. 12. In view of above, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of.