S.306 IPC | Merely Rejecting To Marry Girl After Being Engaged To Her Doesn't Amount To Abetment Of Suicide: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that merely rejecting to marry a girl after getting engaged to her per se would not amount to 'abetment of suicide' as provided under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

While quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed –

“…this court feels that act of entering into the engagement with the deceased by the petitioner with reluctancy to marry her alone cannot be made a penal offence, much less under Section 306 IPC. Reluctance to give irrevocable commitment for life-time and to take responsibility cannot culminate into mens rea to commit a criminal offence.”

Factual Background

The families of the deceased girl, a Ph.D. scholar in the discipline of Electrical Engineering, and the petitioner, a medical student, were in the process of arranging their marriage in 2019. However, as the petitioner was still pursuing his medical education at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, he insisted to postpone the marriage for two years.

The family members of the deceased-girl were not prepared to wait for such a long time and decided to get the deceased married to an another man. Subsequent to such decision, the ring ceremony of the both took place but the marriage could not be solemnized due to certain discontentment.

In May 2021, the talks between the petitioner and the deceased families reconvened and they decided to arrange the marriage of the duo. Pursuant to such decision by the families, the engagement ceremony of the couple took place in that very month.

But after the engagement, the petitioner started showing reluctance to get married to the deceased as he was preparing for a fellowship. He informed about the same to both the families but they insisted him to get married to the deceased at the earliest.

In the intervening night of 12/13.09.2021, there was a discussion between the petitioner and the sister of the deceased, who tried to convince him for the marriage. After hanging up the call, the deceased called him up and had a long telephonic conversation.

In the morning of 13.09.2021, the deceased informed her mother about the conversation she had with the petitioner and said that she went to bed with a 'heavy heart' after talking to the petitioner. She apparently informed her mother that the petitioner does not want to marry her and harshly rejected all her request for the marriage.

At about 08:00 AM the complainant (mother of the deceased) found the room of the deceased locked from inside and suspecting some untoward incident, she peeped through the window of the room only to find the deceased hanging from the ceiling with a wearing garment.

She informed the matter to the police and an unnatural death case was registered as per the information provided by her. She again approached the police on 20.09.2021 and filed an FIR whereby she implicated the petitioner for the death of the deceased.

After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for abetment of suicide under Section 306, IPC and the Magistrate took cognizance against him. Being aggrieved by the same, he knocked the portals of the High Court seeking to quash the order of cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceeding.

Court's Observations

After hearing the counsel for both the sides and perusing a plethora of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, the Court posed a question to itself as to whether the deceased could have been saved, had the sequence of events been different or the petitioner deliberately created circumstances which pushed the deceased to take such drastic step.

Justice Mishra discussed the entire factual gamut which culminated in the suicidal death of the deceased. The Bench also went through the statements of the complainant as well as the sister of the deceased recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.

Upon perusing such statements, the Court opined that the witnesses did not disclose as to what exactly transpired between the deceased and petitioner in that telephonic conversation.

“…I find that in the absence of exact conversations that had taken place between the deceased and the petitioner on that fateful night, crucial element of offence punishable U/s.306 IPC i.e. mens rea to commit offence of abatement of suicide on the part of the accused, which requires commission of direct or active act by the accused which led deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and such act must be intended to push the victim to a point of no return and she commits suicide are clearly missing in the facts of present case,” it held.

The Court further took note of observations made in the charge-sheet that the deceased was sad and ashamed that her marriage could not be solemnized for the second time in a row after successful holding of ring ceremonies.

“Therefore, in view of the fact that it is admitted case of the prosecution that breaking of the engagement with the boy from Nagpur also contributed to the mental stress and agony of the deceased for which the petitioner cannot be blamed for,” it added.

The Bench, however, opined that the petitioner was expected to be clear of his stand in the marriage and if he was not interested to get married to the deceased, he should have conveyed the same to her from the very beginning. But it discarded the argument that such conduct of the petitioner amounts to 'abetment of suicide'.

“At the same time, it is to be considered, that every relationship carries very heavy emotional burden and feelings and hence, those are matter of emotions where rationality and objectivity takes a backseat,” it further said.

Accordingly, the order taking cognizance against the petitioner along with the entire criminal proceedings were quashed.

Case Title: Dr. Priyank Tapuria v. State of Orissa & Anr.

Case No: CRLMC No. 385 of 2023

Date of Judgment: June 20, 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Maharaj, Addl. Standing Counsel for the State; Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra, Advocate for the complainant

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 50

Click Here To Read/Download Order