Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 623 (AP)

T. Chandrika v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-07-07

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2022
JUDGMENT Subba Reddy Satti, J. - The petitioner, who is Accused in Crime No. 193 of 2022 of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupathi Urban, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking pre-arrest bail. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that A1 married the deceased 10 year back and since then she was mentally and physically harassed by the accused for additional dowry. A2 - father-in-law and A3 -mother-in-law of the deceased also harassed her for additional dowry. Deceased lodged complaint initially at Venkatagiri Police Station and on such complaint A1/husband of the deceased was sent to remand. Later the issue was pacified through elders and A1 and deceased continued their marital life by living separately from A2 and A3. Subsequently, also A1 by showing obscene videos on cell phone harassed her and also demanded additional dowry with the support of A2 and A3. Due to unbearable harassment, deceased called her mother and informed that she is not able to bear the torture of her husband and ended the call. Deceased's brother contacted neighbours of deceased's house and asked them to observe. When they went there, she hanged herself to fan. On receiving the said information they rushed to the place and then A1 informed to them that though deceased was taken to hospital, doctors said she was brought dead. On a compliant given by the mother of the deceased, Police registered Crime No. 193 of 2022 of Tiruchanur Police Station for the offence under Sections 306, 498-A r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Heard Sri D. Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit marriage of the deceased with A1 took place about 10 years back and they were blessed with two children. He submits that there is no instigation or abetment on the part of the petitioner, which lead the victim to take extreme step of committing suicide. He submits that, going by the complaint, A1 harassed the deceased mentally and physically and the averments of the complaint do not indicate any instigation on abetment on the part of the petitioner. He submits that there is no instigation or abetment on the part of the petitioner, which lead the victim to take extreme step of committing suicide. He submits that, going by the complaint, A1 harassed the deceased mentally and physically and the averments of the complaint do not indicate any instigation on abetment on the part of the petitioner. He submits that mere allegation of the deceased that the petitioner abetted A1 to harass her does not constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC, unless such actions compelled the victim to commit suicide. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another. Hence, prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that there are serious accusations of abetment against the petitioner herein and prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 6. I have perused the entire record and anxious consideration is given to the material therein and to the contentions of the both the counsel. 7. A perusal of the complaint does not indicate abetment or instigation on the part of the petitioner. In view of the same this Court is inclined to consider the case of the petitioner for pre-arrest bail. In Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: '23. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased.' In the present case, going by the complaint, specific allegation was made that A1 harassed the deceased physically and mentally. In view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mere allegation of abetment to harass will not suffice to attract ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. Section 306 IPC reads as under: '306. Abetment of suicide - if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.' In Criminal Application (Apl) No. 547 of 2017 the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur held that an abetment involves mental process of instigating the person or intentionally aiding the person for doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, the said person cannot be compelled to face a trial. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Mohan v. State of Tamilnadu (2011) 3 SCC 626 while dealing with ingredients of Section 306 of IPC held as under: 'Before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 of 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 commit suicide. 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. 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 of IPC is not sustainable'. 8. Considering the facts of the case and submission of both the counsel, this court in inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with crime No. 193 of 2022 of Tiruchanur Police Station, on her executing self bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Tiruchanur Police Station; (ii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation; (iii) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or tamper the evidence; (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Tiruchanur Police Station, once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 9.00 a.m and 3.00 p.m. for period of four months or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and any infraction of the same will be viewed seriously and it also entails cancellation of bail. 9. It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law and the finding in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering the anticipatory bail in the above crime and shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.